2026-09-21 - Business and Economic Development Committee

03:32You are live.

03:33>> Sure.

03:34>> So is B.

03:39>> Oh, good evening everybody. Welcome to

03:40another really scheduled meeting of the

03:42business economic development committee.

03:44I am chair councelor Leonard around the

03:46table. Committee members we have

03:48councelor Carson. We have councelor

03:50Fuoon, we have councelor fish, and we

03:52have councelor Mor. Also around the

03:54table, we have councilors Beck Dean,

03:56council chair Haw

03:59um

04:02with us. And then we have community

04:03economic director and greed. Um so first

04:07item on the agenda,

04:10memory serves correctly. Oh, thank you.

04:12Uh so we're going to do a public hearing

04:13on the community development block

04:15program for their annual report. Um

04:18>> and uh Robin Sticki will be joined at

04:21the table

04:22officers

04:24required public hearing for the annual

04:26report.

04:33>> Good evening.

04:35I'm Robin Stani, the community

04:37development officer, and I have

04:40completed uh the uh the projects and

04:44accomplishments report for the CDBG

04:46program. I've attached it um to your

04:49memo this evening. Um we had a moderate

04:52amount of activity this year and largely

04:54in part um because we developed the

04:58consolidated plan which took up a lot of

05:00our energy. Um but uh though we did

05:04that, we've had a lot of um

05:06accomplishments and activities this year

05:08and in large part due to our really

05:10successful um Bangor community action

05:13team and some of our programs that are

05:16ongoing such as our home ownership

05:19programs and our residential

05:20rehabilitation programs that we're

05:22running this year. Our

05:25report is going to be going to HUD um

05:28after a public comment period which will

05:30end at the end of the month. And so we'd

05:33like to offer this as an opportunity to

05:35get feedback from the public and from

05:37you all on um some of the details in the

05:40report and be able to enter questions.

05:43>> Okay. Before I open it up to people, I

05:46guess I'll just uh ask staff staff

05:48really quick. Do you think we should do

05:50public comment first or do you want to

05:52have a discussion before we open it up

05:54to public comment?

05:56>> Well, typically um I will present the

05:59memo with the different um elements to

06:02it and um in the past we really haven't

06:05gotten a lot of public comment in the

06:07public uh hearing setting. So, I'm

06:11interested to do it however you feel.

06:13Chair.

06:14>> Okay. How about we just open it up to uh

06:16the committee very quickly and then um

06:19if uh if then we'll open up the public

06:23afterwards. So um the floor is anyone's

06:26if they would like to speak.

06:29Oh, council fish.

06:31>> Um thank you for this report. It was

06:33incredible to see how much we've done in

06:36eight years. And uh I think I have a

06:38couple questions um with um BCAT with

06:43what what are considered like you said

06:46um 400 individuals who are new to the

06:48program what what is the new person to

06:53what's in the situation that describe a

06:56person new to the program?

06:57>> So the new faces are those who the

07:01program may have not interfaced with

07:04before. um that doesn't include the

07:07prior year. So if you're an individual

07:09that has been working with BCAT, you're

07:12a unique face, you would be counted as

07:15one individual, but then you can also be

07:17counted as an individual in the second

07:20year. So they don't bleed over from year

07:22to year. So 462 I believe was the number

07:26um unique individuals were um engaged by

07:30BCAT in the year and then the remaining

07:32amount of individuals they may have been

07:36a second encounter of that same person

07:39or another person that was known to

07:41them. Very good.

07:45Then there was an explanation about the

07:49budget on um

07:52um I think the state of May retirement

07:55was a a figure on there of uh kind of

07:58catching up money. So I can't put my

08:00finger on it right now. I should have

08:01highlighted it. But I know we had

08:03reserve money for this year and then I

08:06think there was $180,000

08:08that said that included some past due

08:11amounts. Um can can you break that out

08:15um for me please?

08:17>> Sure. So in a prior year before um the

08:21city went to its current retirement

08:24structure, the employees that worked for

08:27under the CDBG program contributed to

08:30mains. And when there was a shift

08:34several years ago, there created an

08:35indebtedness that the city um bifurcated

08:39the indebtedness that was attributed to

08:42those employees that worked under my

08:44program versus the employees in other

08:47departments. So this is extinguishing

08:50our indebtedness related to those

08:52employees and we've been picking away at

08:54it over the last couple of years. So

08:56that's the final payment to get that

08:58extinguished.

08:58>> Okay. And out of the 180, I know there

09:01was a new amount. I should put my finger

09:03right on that. There was uh 30

09:06something, was it? Okay, here we go.

09:08There was almost 40 for the prior year.

09:11>> And then it said um out of the 180,423,

09:16it said part of that figure included

09:19past. Am I reading that right or does

09:21that not include past months as well?

09:23>> No, it's been se it's been separated. We

09:25took that out so that you could see what

09:27the true administrative expense was. And

09:30this is that 39,000 is really just sort

09:32of a one-off. So it it shouldn't be

09:34considered as something that would be

09:36recurring because it did inflate the

09:38administrative budget.

09:40>> Okay.

09:41>> Thank you.

09:44>> Any other follow-up questions?

09:47>> Yes, councelor back.

09:48>> So I had a question about the

09:50residential rehabilitation energy

09:52efficiency. Um, just reading through the

09:54paragraph, it looks like, you know,

09:55we're talking about in some way or

09:57another that $300,000 touched 19

10:00different units and some of them

10:03condemned and now we're in housing

10:04again. And I'm just I'm impressed

10:08because I mean that's that's great for

10:10for 300,000 to to be able to get 19

10:12units out of that. You know, that's

10:15squeezing, you know, six pennies out of

10:16a nickel. Um, so I'm just wondering, is

10:19there more work like this coming in the

10:22future in this coming year?

10:24>> Yes, actually our budget that you

10:27approved um at the end of last year um

10:30we anticipate that we will be able to

10:32have a 10% increase in our investment

10:35capacity for that program

10:36year-over-year. So, we're really um

10:38hoping that we'll probably do around

10:40$300,000 worth of of rehab work and

10:44energy efficiency projects over the next

10:46year. Sure. And and this isn't a a topic

10:49for today because this is about this

10:50particular report, but I am still

10:52interested in going back and revisiting

10:54how we can look into that section 108

10:56housing.

10:57So I'm definitely interested in having

10:59that come to the table at some point in

11:00the future. But yeah, appreciate this

11:03report. Thank you.

11:05>> Yes, councelor.

11:06>> Thank you. Um, back on the the BCAT. Um,

11:11so

11:13you talk about in this report about how

11:16the this information helps us better

11:19understand patterns and distinguish

11:20between Bangore residents and

11:22individuals arriving from other

11:24communities. Do you have any numbers

11:26that you can share showing like how many

11:30of those contacts were from Bangor

11:34residents and

11:35>> how many were from outside Bangor?

11:37>> The um David Bushy, the um deputy uh

11:42chief of police, he submitted all of

11:44that data to the advisory committee on

11:46homelessness. So, I believe that that

11:48information could be available in one of

11:50those packets you might have. Okay.

11:52>> Or I can also follow up and and get that

11:54for you specifically.

11:55>> Okay. All right. Awesome. Thank you.

12:00>> Any other comments?

12:02I guess this might be a uh unless staff

12:05you have anything might be a good time

12:06to open it up to public comment if

12:08there's any

12:11unless there's objections. Uh I will

12:13open it up to the public for public

12:15comment.

12:20I guess seeing no one approach, I guess

12:21we'll close the public comment at that

12:23point. Um

12:26I I guess I'll just uh be suffice and

12:28say uh the thank you so much for

12:30bringing this uh all together. It was um

12:34the the brevity of it was um probably

12:37the most impressive part. It's I always

12:39appreciate um being able to summarize

12:42what the city is doing in as few

12:45documents as possible. It makes our jobs

12:48easier, but it also just makes

12:49everyone's lives easier that are

12:51citizens of the uh uh city of Bangor

12:54just understanding what we are doing

12:56with our funds. Council back, do you

12:58have your hand up?

12:58>> Here's a quick question. Um so the

13:00public comment period is still open for

13:02a little bit longer. What are the ways a

13:04public can reach out to you to get that

13:06comment in? several ways. So, they can

13:09give me a call, they can give me the

13:10comment verbally, we can talk about it.

13:13Um, they can also send me an email. Um,

13:15there isn't a way to sort of like fill

13:17out a form on the city website. Um, but

13:20really those are the two quickest ways

13:21and they could also come in and talk to

13:24us as well.

13:25>> Great.

13:26>> Thanks for that clarification, Councelor

13:28Beck. Unless there's anything else on

13:31the matter and unless staff, you have

13:33anything further you'd like to add to

13:35the report. Oh, nice work.

13:38>> Thank you so much. Appreciate you. Up

13:41next, we're going to be doing a review

13:43of the development agreement for Young

13:45Pikes.

13:47>> Our economic development officer

13:49Hernandez Smith is here to review it. We

13:52also have um uh zooming in our um we

13:57call him our tiff attorney uh Phil

13:59Sassier from uh Bernstein Shore in

14:02Portland.

14:03>> Great to have you both here.

14:06Hi. So, as we move forward with

14:09submitting the TIFF application to main

14:12housing to state and accompanied with

14:15the CDA agreement, um part of that

14:18process is having those documents, those

14:20finalized documents in front of you,

14:23being able to review them and um

14:25approving them so that we can submit to

14:28main housing. I want to um I invited

14:32Phil who I've been working closely with

14:35to create these documents and one of the

14:37most important documents as we can agree

14:39is the CA document that has the

14:42conditions in it. So, um I think that

14:45probably next step would be to discuss

14:47if anybody had questions regarding the

14:49tip application um and the CA agreement

14:54and the development plan within that and

14:57Phil is here to answer that very

14:59specifically.

15:01>> Open it up to the committee if there's

15:03any questions.

15:06>> Yes, councelor Malik.

15:08>> Thank you. I have two questions. It's

15:11kind someone asked me the question. I

15:12couldn't answer, so I'm going to ask

15:14you. They want to know if the land

15:16involved is FAA land and if we got a

15:19release from the FAA.

15:22>> Um, the the land is not FAA land or land

15:28regulated by the FAA.

15:31>> Okay.

15:34A very deep dive with our legal office

15:37going through deeds to find out. Yeah.

15:42Well, this person happens to be from

15:44Texas was asking me about it and I said,

15:46I know nothing on that. Now, was HUD

15:48involved in the project

15:51>> and a was a national environmental

15:54policy act used for the to clean up

15:59>> what was and what is being done? Are we

16:01responsible or is the user of the

16:04property the one responsible? Yeah, our

16:07community development office Robin is

16:09still here, but um she had um the

16:11environmental review anytime uh any

16:14federal dollars touches a project and in

16:17this case the federal dollars come

16:19later. Um so this is sort of unusual

16:22because they're not part of the

16:23development, they're going to be part of

16:25the operations. um you have to do uh a

16:28NEPA review and uh we do that inhouse

16:32with our community development officer

16:35>> and it has been done.

16:36>> Yes.

16:37>> But who's responsible for the cleanup if

16:39there is a clean?

16:41>> Um there is some uh cleanup that has to

16:43be done and main housing authority uh I

16:47mean not main housing authority sorry

16:48Bangor housing authority is responsible

16:50for that. That's part of their um

16:53construction. If you remember in their

16:55uh original proforma they had I think it

16:58was close to $500,000 just in

17:01remediation soil remediation

17:04>> and that's the estimate for what it's

17:06going to cost.

17:07>> That's correct.

17:08>> So if it's less than that they can use

17:10that money for something else.

17:17>> Guess that's all I have for right now.

17:18>> Sure thing. Councelor Dean,

17:19>> I had a question regarding the possible

17:22assessed value once it's built. We know

17:24approximately what it will cost to

17:26build. It's a little bit of a different

17:28build. Once it is fully built and it is

17:31assessed, we have an idea of what we

17:33think that amount would be.

17:35>> Approximately 3 million.

17:38>> That's why you were capping it at the 3

17:40million.

17:41>> So if it's above that, we will get 100%

17:44of taxes. Anything over three million.

17:47>> Anything over three million. Yes.

17:48>> So depending on

17:51where we stand in a year or so when it's

17:52built, we don't really know at this

17:54point going up or down.

17:56>> That's what I ask.

17:57>> Okay.

17:57>> I thought you would give me that figure,

17:59but I didn't see it here.

18:01>> Thank you. You're welcome.

18:05>> Any other uh follow-up questions or any

18:08comments?

18:10Yes, council back.

18:11>> Just questions and I'm not a lawyer, so

18:13this I just want to make sure I'm

18:15understanding this correctly. Section

18:162.2 200 lean that says that the city

18:19shall not create any leans incumbrances

18:21or any interest of nature whatsoever. Uh

18:25if the the developer doesn't pay their

18:27taxes, are we not able to put a lean on

18:30that property now under that?

18:33>> And here is where I invite Phil. Did you

18:36hear that question, Phil?

18:37>> I did. Yeah. So, no, that does not

18:39prohibit the city from from taxing. If

18:42you if you go on to read the next clause

18:45in 2.2, to however nothing herein shall

18:48prohibit the creation of property tax

18:49leans on property in the district in

18:51accords entitled pursuit to main law. So

18:54this is really getting at this is a

18:56standard provision and this is getting

18:57to um non

19:01uh property tax leans that may be

19:03sometimes there's joint development

19:04agreements or some other kinds of

19:07matters um but this is this isn't every

19:10standard credit enhancement agreement

19:12that I've worked with.

19:13>> Okay, appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah.

19:18>> Any other thoughts, comments, questions?

19:24>> Would it be helpful? I have asked Phil

19:26to Yes.

19:28>> Oh, did you want to go?

19:29>> I just have a a quick comment which is I

19:31really appreciate we had that session

19:33where we set a lot of our parameters and

19:36I appreciate seeing those

19:40in that. I realize that's a lot of there

19:43was a lot of effort and work that went

19:45into that. So, I just want to thank you.

19:48>> You're welcome. Would it be helpful if

19:51Phil went through the conditions um with

19:54us again just to make sure we're all on

19:56the same page? We approve.

19:58>> I would appreciate that. Uh so, why

20:00don't we do that if that's okay?

20:02>> Okay. And again, Bill, I'm handing it

20:05over to you if you can go through the

20:06each condition that we discussed on the

20:08CA agreement.

20:10>> Yeah, sure. Um, and so you'll find the

20:13conditions within the credit enhancement

20:15agreement. Um, and I just sort of you

20:18start where we sort of just left off,

20:20which is section 2.3. And that's really

20:22it's really the heart of the credit

20:23enhancement agreement. So obviously one

20:25of the conditions um were the

20:27reimbursement agreement. So this is this

20:29provides for a 75%

20:31reimbursement of the taxes paid on the

20:33increased assessed value. So that's how

20:35the that's how a tiff program works and

20:38but up to a maximum increase assessed

20:41value used to calculate that

20:42reimbursement of $3 million. So you'll

20:44see that rate in section 2.3b.

20:47It's also carried forward in our

20:48projections. Um there's a projection

20:50sheet that's a required element of the

20:52main housing uh tiff application.

20:55So so you'll see that the city then

20:57retains 25% of those tiff revenues. We

20:59call them tiff revenues at that point.

21:01The tax is paid on the increased

21:02assessed value for its own purposes.

21:05Now, it's important to note that those

21:06that its purposes um are limited by

21:09statute. And so, we have our project

21:10costs that the that the um city has

21:12developed uh approved project costs and

21:14this will obviously still be reviewed

21:16once the council approves this

21:18application. It would still be reviewed

21:19by main housing and I work with maining

21:21as part of that process um to ensure if

21:24there are any project costs. They they

21:26often will have questions about the

21:27specific project costs to make sure they

21:29fall within the approved projects.

21:32Um, and Mikita, I don't know if it's

21:35it'd be helpful for me to actually use

21:36the actual sheet you provided me one by

21:38one. Um,

21:41>> do you do you have it? Can you share it?

21:44>> I'm just going to pull that up or if I

21:46could just go through the credit

21:47enhancement agreement. But, um,

21:50you'll next go down. I I guess I'll take

21:52you to the next part of the credit

21:53enhancement agreement, which is at

21:55towards the end. So, section nine

21:59are some conditions. And so this is

22:02where we've also incorporated various

22:03conditions that the council had directed

22:05staff to include. So the project has to

22:08obviously comply and this would have

22:09been a condition anyway with with main

22:11housing but comply with the home for

22:12good program requirements associate uh

22:15administered which is that program is

22:16administered actually both by DHS and

22:18main housing including the provision of

22:21required wrap room uh supportive

22:23services on-site case management and

22:2424-hour staffing were required by the

22:26program.

22:28This is uh the next one was a separate

22:30condition. The developer must also

22:31notify the city of any significant or

22:33unresolved finding by main housing

22:35involving affordability home for good

22:36compliance or required support of

22:38services. And then main housing will

22:40also provide direct notification to the

22:42city of Bangor if fields is determined

22:44to be out of compliance. Um I you know

22:47it's up to main housing actually to do

22:48that but we've put that in here in this

22:50draft and and um I'll work with main

22:51housing's attorneys on that on how that

22:53notification would occur.

22:56Um an annual reporting requirement. We

22:58put that in obviously so that the city

22:59would have some um visibility into uh to

23:03ensure that there's compliance into

23:05occupancy affordability, supportive

23:07services, program compliance, and other

23:08information that the city may want to

23:10require. Um and then there's obviously a

23:13a failure to meet clause. So failure to

23:15meet more than one year, the city shall

23:18have no deposit or payment obligations

23:19to the developer under this agreement

23:21unless and until the developer

23:22subsequently meets those um agreements.

23:25um and we could still seek to terminate

23:27the agreement under the under the

23:28existing termination provisions.

23:31So those are those are the main

23:32conditions. There's also another

23:34condition which we included in the

23:35application itself and um it wasn't in

23:37this and and the reason why because

23:39there's some question about the council

23:41did want to have um at least some

23:44language about meeting the needs of

23:46Bangor residents and I did discuss that

23:48with main housing. It's not clear we can

23:50make that a requirement.

23:52It's a constitutional issue. Um um but

23:55we did include language in the

23:57development program that that says that

24:00uh BHDC will uh work towards providing

24:03the services to Bangor residents um in

24:06compliance with law. So it's sort of a

24:09you know if they can do it they will um

24:11but but we did put that clause in theirs

24:14uh to ensure that it would be um uh fail

24:18safe in in the event that it was found

24:19not to be enforceable. So, that's

24:21something I I have talked to main

24:23housing's attorney about. I'll continue

24:24to talk to him about part of this, but

24:25it is in the application

24:28and I don't know that if I did I miss

24:30anything but

24:32in terms of the conditions.

24:34>> Um, excuse me, Mr. Sier. We do have a

24:36question from councelor fish.

24:38>> Um,

24:39>> was there a provision as well that uh

24:41should the property become for sale that

24:44uh the city of Bangor would have a short

24:46of refusal? Did we discuss that? Is that

24:50something you discussed?

24:51>> I thought that was

24:55>> I believe you did put that in there,

24:57Phil. When we discuss I'll double check

24:59obviously before it's finalized for the

25:01council, but you're right. That is in

25:02there. It's either in there or it will

25:04be in there. I'll put it to you that way

25:05before the next condition. So,

25:06essentially, you want the option you you

25:08want a um and that and that's something

25:10you can also take care of as part of the

25:13which I have not been part of which is

25:15part of the sale of the property. So you

25:17can have a right of first refusal for

25:19example on the event of any sale. We

25:21could we can put some language in this

25:22TIFF as well, but that's I would that's

25:24sort of a I would I would recommend

25:26that's a better place to put it in

25:27whatever deed you have too, but I I will

25:30make sure that it's in here in some

25:31form.

25:37>> Unless there's any other questions. Do

25:39you want Oh, do you have a question?

25:40Councelor M.

25:41>> I have one question. I thought we

25:42discussed the

25:44uh distribution of illegal drugs for the

25:48people in the facility. We didn't, you

25:51know, I have a real issue with Bangor

25:54furnishing money to to allow people to

25:56use illegal drugs. I thought we were

25:58going to use that. I realized coming in

25:59we don't have it's a low barrier but

26:02once they're there the impression I got

26:04from reading the newspaper article was

26:06that if they created a disturbance

26:09because of using illegal drugs they'd be

26:11asked to leave but there's no indication

26:13that they're not allowed to use them. So

26:15I'm assuming that you're allowing uh

26:20free reign of illegal drugs.

26:24So I am going to answer this how I

26:27remembered um bankar housing quoting it

26:30in our last meeting. So illegal drugs

26:33are in fact illegal. So if um residents

26:36are caught with illegal drugs then they

26:38would be they would have to go through

26:40the procedures of um the police being

26:42called and so on. So that's what I

26:45understand. I I do remember that um

26:48those substances that are not illegal um

26:52we we housing um the program could not

26:57enforce them to to not use them. So

27:00things like alcohol substances can be

27:02used on the premises um because there's

27:05there could be no real force around

27:07that. But illegal drugs are illegal and

27:10that's illegal activity and that can be

27:12reported.

27:14My guess is that there's also a no

27:16smoking policy in these uh residences,

27:19right? Just in general.

27:21>> I am not aware.

27:22>> I I'd be shocked if they did that. So,

27:27>> that's pretty standard anyway. Um but I

27:29do hear your point on the uh uh use of

27:32alcohol. If I do remember those

27:34conversations uh correctly, um

27:38they are supposed to discourage that

27:41usage, but it is also a legal thing for

27:44anyone to purchase and it's going to be

27:47really difficult for people to like

27:50>> I'm not so concerned about the alcohol

27:51as I am illegal drugs because the

27:53impression I got before was we had no

27:56control over what went on in the

27:58apartments if they were using illegal

27:59drugs in them.

28:01And I have real issues with spending

28:04city or federal or state money on a

28:06project where we're allowing people to

28:08consume illegal substances.

28:14>> Uh councelor Carson, you had your hand

28:16up. Yeah, I I appreciate councelor

28:17Miller's concern and my recollection is

28:20that in addition to, you know, illegal

28:22drugs being illegal and that would be

28:24something that was reportable that that

28:26would also be a violation of the lease

28:28agreement between Bangor Housing and

28:31tenants. And of course, I don't like

28:32have something like that in front of me,

28:34but maybe other people remember that

28:36conversation better than I do, but

28:38that's what I do remember.

28:40>> And maybe I could check that on myself.

28:43>> And it would end in danger. they could

28:45in fact be evicted. Yeah, that's a

28:47conversation I remember.

28:49>> The impression

28:51>> Yes.

28:51>> the impression I got was from the

28:54interview that he did in the Vanguard

28:55Daily that the only time they would not

28:58be allowed to use illegal drugs is if

29:00they created a disturbance and that's

29:03not my intention. I think we need to be

29:07very specific in that we don't want

29:10illegal drugs used whether it's I mean

29:12it's illegal so we shouldn't be using

29:14them anyway but I think we need to

29:15confirm that because the impression I

29:17get from you know one you can do it once

29:20and get away with it the second time

29:21it's you're out as far as I'm concerned

29:24the first time you're out.

29:26I'd like to have some clarification on

29:28that.

29:30So, if I remember correctly, the

29:32conversation that was had um it would be

29:35like if there were violations of that

29:40by case for who like what the violation

29:43was depending on the circumstance. Now,

29:46I don't want to speak um uh uh for him,

29:50but at the end of the day, we do know

29:53that we have to get these people off the

29:55streets just because it's expensive to

29:57have them on the streets. If they're

29:59being from from what I understand, if

30:01they are completely just abusing the

30:04entire process, they will be evicted. If

30:07it's someone who is struggling with

30:10addiction and is in the throws of trying

30:12to get off of it, you're going to have

30:14people falling off the wagon. And I

30:16think that's where the discrepancy comes

30:18into place where if someone is actively

30:22making the effort to get sober. Um,

30:26we're g I would want our staff to work

30:30with that individual to helping them get

30:32sober if they're actually actively

30:34making a good effort on that. But

30:37>> this episode of qoint podcast is

30:39pre-record.

30:40>> I I don't want to uh uh speak for him

30:43too much though. But uh that that that

30:45was my analysis of the conversation at

30:47the end of the day.

30:50>> Excuse me. I was trying to find his

30:51quote. I think my

30:54>> accident

30:56did you have you want to say something?

30:58>> I find that that gives them a lot of

31:00leeway which I'm not sure I want to give

31:02them that leeway. As far as I said

31:03before, as far as I'm concerned, when

31:06city money is involved and state money

31:07and federal money and we're allowing

31:09drugs to be consumed, illegal drugs, and

31:11are aware of it,

31:14then we need to put a stop to it. I

31:17mean, it's just that simple. I don't

31:19think that taxpayer money shouldn't be

31:22used to buy drugs, period.

31:26As far as I'm aware, I don't think that

31:29there's any uh plans for this project to

31:34purchase drugs for anyone.

31:36>> That's not the point. But if we're using

31:38if they're in there on on our nickel and

31:41they're you instead of paying rent when

31:43they could, if they're using that money

31:45to buy illegal drugs and maintain their

31:50uh subsidy from the federal, state, or a

31:53local government I have take offense to

31:55that

31:57>> and and that's absolutely valid to have

31:59to council Malor. Right. I I I guess

32:01what I'm trying to reiterate though is

32:03if someone's clearly abusing the system,

32:06uh they they are just going to be

32:08evicted. If they're not making a

32:10conscious effort to actually get sober

32:12and they're just abusing the housing

32:15rights, then they they shouldn't be in

32:18that facility. Um, if someone is

32:20actively in the effort to uh actually

32:24approach sobriety, I think it's within

32:27our best interest to work with that

32:30individual to a point like that there is

32:33a point where you can only give someone

32:37so many chances. And I I'm going to have

32:40to trust u u

32:44Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to have to

32:46trust them to figure out what those

32:48dynamics are case to case, individual to

32:51individual because not everything's

32:53going to be exactly black and white by

32:56the book. Uh I'm going to go to

32:58councelor Carson really quick just

32:59because you've been waiting for a bit.

33:00Yeah, I just actually wanted to comment

33:02on um of course the website keeps

33:06reloading over and over and over, but I

33:08wanted to actually make a comment about

33:11that article.

33:13um which was what made the man behind

33:16Bangor's most controversial housing

33:18development that was published September

33:198th in the BDN. Annie Rupertis was the

33:23reporter. Um in that article

33:28um

33:30he mentions that all residents will have

33:32a lease and a set of rules to follow.

33:35That's my it um if a resident breaks the

33:37rules, causes disruptions, or uses

33:39illegal drugs, staff will intervene. If

33:41the behavior continues, the resident

33:43will be evicted, he said. Um and at the

33:47end of that article, he sort of

33:48reiterates he really wants people to

33:50know that this will be managed

33:51professionally. Tenants will have

33:53accountability and if they're not

33:54following the rules or taking things

33:56responsibly, then they will lose their

33:58opportunity to be there. Um,

34:01so those are just I two pieces that you

34:05>> make sure

34:08there's one point too when we're talking

34:09about this with Mike Met

34:12mentioned that there's be regular

34:14inspections in the living quarters. So

34:16no one's going to be able to hide that

34:17use or activities. So

34:21there is that as well.

34:25>> Okay. U

34:28>> question. Sure. a different area.

34:31It was my impression that we were not

34:33going to or that the operator of the

34:3624hour 247 is not going to encourage

34:40people that are there to seek

34:42employment. Now, and we uh suggest that

34:47they assist them in seeking employment

34:49because that doesn't even make sense

34:51that we don't want them to get a job. We

34:54don't want them to improve themselves.

34:57That's not I understand under main

34:59housing we can't require them to take a

35:01job which I find kind of strange.

35:07I mean I

35:11is there

35:11>> so I I think that um this is an

35:14ecosystem right so we have anar housing

35:18who's going to be the owner we have

35:19purple street who's going to be the

35:20operator with the wraparound services

35:22and then we have the greater community

35:24and so as that program is being built we

35:27can make sure that there's

35:29collaborations in place because as a

35:31community we want to make sure that our

35:33citizen are actually contributing and

35:36being productive citizens. So that being

35:38connecting them to our workforce

35:40solutions arm to economic development if

35:43they wanted to become entrepreneurs. So

35:45I think you know once you get that

35:47stability within the building then we

35:49have the greater community the greater

35:50ecosystem that can support these

35:52individuals just like we support all of

35:55our individuals.

35:57And also remember that supportive

35:59housing is not the same as transitional

36:01housing. Um, transitional housing is,

36:04you know, people that are trying to

36:07transition, if you will, from being

36:09unhoused to actually being on their own.

36:12Where supportive housing, we created

36:14that as um for people who may, you know,

36:18need supportive care for the rest of

36:21their life. You know, they may be, you

36:23know, Mike Matt indicated, there are

36:26people that may go in there and may not

36:28transition out. Um so it's it it's

36:31distinctly different from uh

36:34transitional housing

36:36>> but I think there's opportunity right so

36:38like if there's a counselor working with

36:40an individual that individual has become

36:42clean and express the fact that they

36:44want to be contributing members of

36:46society I don't think that I mean none

36:49of us right would say you need to stay

36:52in this building and you can't work and

36:54you can't get your education but the

36:57foundation to make these people prosper

36:59for us is to be able to give them

37:02housing and the support that they need.

37:05Thanks for that clarification because

37:06it's that I think we do need to

37:09reiterate that this is not transitional

37:11housing at the end of the day that these

37:13are more

37:16compoundedly impacted individuals from

37:19homelessness that have a set of unique

37:21circumstances and health problems issues

37:24that doesn't make them necessarily ready

37:27to

37:28if they're at some point capable in

37:31their lives to actually acquire a job,

37:33it's going to take them like six months

37:34to a year to potentially get in there.

37:36You can't go from being unhoused to

37:38having the job. So, um and however, uh

37:45staff wants to go forward with that uh

37:48and how to go on case byase basis with

37:51the people that are living in Yelen

37:53Pines. I mean, they're going to be the

37:56subject matter experts to determine what

37:58is capable for one person and what is

38:01not capable for another. Um,

38:04for for me at the end of the day, this

38:05is a project that I understand that

38:10people have a lot of uh strong feelings

38:12with this, but uh it it just comes down

38:15to dollar signs for me at the end of the

38:18day. This is in the long run and in the

38:20short run just cheaper for the city to

38:22invest in rather than countless 911

38:25calls and whatnot.

38:28Any

38:31other thoughts, questions, comments? Um

38:34I know we cut off uh Mr. Sauier at some

38:36point. Do we want to continue with that

38:38or what was that uh the summation?

38:42>> I actually yeah I actually have I I did

38:45find I'd like to have one more thing. Um

38:48and that was on this issue of uh sale of

38:50property and you had mentioned it was in

38:52there. So that is the last piece I

38:54wanted. So, one of the conditions was

38:57that the properties will be owned by a

38:58BHDC home for good 1LP. And the

39:02condition that this the council wanted

39:03with the CEO would not automatically

39:05transfer if the property is sold.

39:07Instead, it would require city council

39:09approval and any new owner would be

39:11required to accept all CA conditions.

39:13So, that is in there. That's in section

39:157.2.

39:17And uh so 7 article 7 is a standard

39:21provision as well. So 7.1 just so you

39:24understand what this is saying is it

39:25does say that the developer can assign

39:27the CA for financing purposes. So that's

39:31a very standard thing. I've looked at

39:32just one of those today. In fact, um

39:34that's because CAS obviously are part of

39:36a financing package. So oftent times if

39:38someone needs to get a loan or that sort

39:40of thing. Um main housing sometimes

39:42actually asks for an assignment but the

39:44the the owner is still the owner of that

39:46property and they're still the the uh

39:48party underneath the CA. 7.2 two is a

39:52different kind of assignment. That's an

39:53assignment if for someone just someone

39:55sells their project. You know, just

39:56think about it in the commercial

39:57context. They sell their project and

39:58they want to just also assign the CA

40:00over that new developer. What 7.2 says

40:03here is that the developer cannot do

40:05that without without city council

40:06approval. Um so this is again something

40:09a standard I like to get. This is

40:10sometimes negotiated. So I have worked

40:12on CAS where a city or town does agree

40:15to allow them to be signed. this is not

40:17that this is would require additional

40:19approval if in the event that this

40:21developer ever uh tries to sell this

40:24project. I mean this is a little bit

40:25different of a project. So but but it

40:27would require additional approval.

40:30So that's where it was big. You're

40:31absolutely right. It was in there.

40:34>> We do have a question from councelor

40:36Carson.

40:37>> Yeah. Um, and just to the to the section

40:39you were just talking about, um, how

40:43would that apply or is it possible for

40:46that to apply in a case where the

40:47developer sells the project is in the

40:49building and the operations within it

40:51but retains the land?

40:53How would that apply to our decision-

40:57making?

40:58>> So, it would still So, this would apply

41:00anytime the developer would seek to

41:02assign the credit enhancement agreement

41:04to another developer. So regardless of

41:05whether they're owning the land or the

41:07buildings. So that obviously happens. So

41:09if you're a new developer, if you're the

41:11new operator, you would probably want to

41:12receive some of the benefits of the CA.

41:14So they may seek to have it assigned,

41:16but this says you can't do that unless

41:18the council agrees to that. So if that

41:20opportunity ever came in the future, say

41:22some other service provider takes on the

41:23responsibility for this project, you

41:25would then go through the analysis of

41:27just seeing if this if this, you know,

41:28entity um has the financial capacity,

41:31the technical capacity, you know, all

41:33those kinds of things. And then you'd

41:34have to vote to approve to assign it or

41:36not.

41:38>> Thank you.

41:38>> You're welcome.

41:39>> And then this piece may actually be for

41:41one of you to because is the the land

41:45the deed is that being transferred like

41:47to Bangor Housing or who's who will own

41:50the land?

41:51>> Bangor Housing

41:52>> and then so is that do we have a right

41:54of first refusal in that deed?

41:56>> I didn't work directly on that.

41:58>> Yeah, that's that's assumed that that's

42:00going in there. Yeah.

42:02>> All right. So actually then all the

42:03pieces are covered, right? All of them.

42:06Thank you.

42:06>> You're welcome.

42:08>> Counc

42:10and I just wanted to uh reiterate what

42:12um councelor um Carson just said that um

42:16I would like you know um we all intend

42:20and hope and assume it's in there but I

42:22think it's very important for the future

42:24city

42:26that we confirm that that is going to be

42:29in discussion.

42:32Thank you.

42:35>> Okay. Any other uh thoughts, comments,

42:38questions on this? Uh and Mr. Sauer, if

42:42you have any final comments or

42:44>> I have nothing else to add. No, happy to

42:46work with you guys. And um we'll we'll

42:48put it together. The last thing I'll say

42:49is I don't think there's many edits or

42:51any, but there'll be a final version of

42:53this for your packet at your next

42:55meeting for the public hearing.

42:58Um, unless staff has anything more

43:00they'd like to add. Um,

43:03if uh the committee has any questions

43:05for uh this uh upcoming final draft, I

43:09mean obviously please email your

43:11questions to uh staff so that they can

43:14uh get that into their reservoir of

43:17other questions that they I'm sure have

43:19to also respond to. Um but thank you so

43:23much and um unless there's anything

43:27else. Uh yes, councelor Morer, you had a

43:30question.

43:31>> I just want to ask one more question.

43:34Would it be possible to tell us what the

43:38potential cost to the city would be in

43:41future years if assuming all of the

43:45residents are Bangor citizens as far as

43:48GA is concerned or the vouchers or

43:51everything and I'd like to have some

43:53wild guess at what it might cost.

44:03Yes. Yes. Thank you. Do we need an

44:06action on this?

44:08>> Yes. I just want to clarify with Phil.

44:11Phil, in order to abide by main housing

44:13regulations in this process, this

44:16committee needs to approve these

44:17documents. Is that correct?

44:19>> The council does. Yeah, the full

44:21council.

44:22>> In order to get it to the full council,

44:24we need to

44:24>> Right. So, you've set this up for a

44:26public hearing, I believe, on the 28th.

44:28Yeah. So, you'd move it to the council

44:29and then you'll have a public hearing

44:30and vote.

44:32>> Okay. Unless there's uh anything else, I

44:35guess I would look for a motion.

44:39>> Move that we forward this to the

44:40council.

44:41>> Second.

44:42>> Moved and seconded. Uh any discussion.

44:48Okay, we'll do a roll call vote.

44:49Councelor Carson,

44:50>> yes.

44:51>> Councelor Fish,

44:52>> no.

44:52>> Councelor Morer,

44:53>> no.

44:54>> Councelor Foon,

44:55>> yes.

44:55>> I will be yes. It'll be 3 to two. move

44:58on to council.

45:01>> So much for Yes.

45:03>> Great. Thank you very much.

45:04>> Thank you, Phil.

45:05>> Thank you.

45:07>> Okay, next up we have land development

45:11code amendments and uh should I let you

45:15do the introduction or should we get

45:17right into

45:19it with our planning officer on your

45:21collab?

45:23Um, so I did bring some followup

45:26responses to some of the questions last

45:29time about um chickens. We did also have

45:33um Trish from animal control and Jeff

45:35from code abortion here to answer

45:37questions too um that they might know

45:39better about. Um you did have a question

45:42about the care of chickens in case they

45:44were abused or neglected. um if somebody

45:48did complain about that happening,

45:50animal control could inspect and rehome

45:52them if that is the case. Um as far as

45:55having regular inspections of chicken

45:58coops. Um that would require licensing

46:01or registration of some sort. We don't

46:03really have the staff capacity for that

46:04at this point in time. However, um if

46:07someone, you know, probably be a

46:10neighbor, if they complain about a

46:12problem, code enforcement could go on

46:13that neighbor's property to look and if

46:16the chicken coop is visible from a

46:17neighbor's property, they could see at

46:19that point in time if there is an issue.

46:20Unfortunately, um they can't go on the

46:23person's property who has the chicken

46:25coop to um to investigate that problem.

46:28So, it's limited in that way, but um you

46:31know, if there is an odor at the

46:33property line, they can detect that um

46:36and things of that nature. As far as

46:38rats, um we did add some potential

46:42language onto the regulations from

46:44before about um getting rid of food

46:47that's on the ground as soon as

46:49possible, keeping um or dispensing food

46:52as it's needed. those those are kind of

46:55um they're more guidelines because they

46:58can't really be proactively enforced. Um

47:00there's something that code can tell

47:02people upfront. Um but it's really going

47:05to come down to a complaint being made

47:07and and enforcement that way. Um and

47:10then we did add language to clarify that

47:12animals of any kind should be contained

47:15in their enclosure so that they don't

47:17trespass on the neighboring.

47:19Are there any additional questions on

47:22that or the regulations from

47:24>> I do have uh one question and it's uh

47:27it's kind of a funky one and I I I don't

47:30know if uh you had time to research

47:32this. It was actually brought up by

47:33counselor Beck last time regarding uh

47:35deputizing uh citizens for um a chicken

47:40watch basically. I the the general

47:42question is actually I think a really

47:45important one to answer though regarding

47:47like does the city actually have that

47:49capability to deputize citizens for any

47:52type of task and and if you don't know

47:54the answer to that that that's totally

47:55fine.

47:56>> Um legal indicated that wouldn't really

47:59be recommended. Um, as far as a specific

48:03answer to that question, um, I would

48:06have to bring that back later, but they

48:08didn't indicate that was really a

48:10feasible scenario.

48:12So,

48:14>> okay.

48:15>> Yeah. No, that's that's all I heard from

48:17Grace as well.

48:19>> Okay. Yeah. And I I have some other

48:23questions, but I'll just talk to you

48:24about that offline. Okay. Um, yes,

48:26Councelor Flynn.

48:27>> Thank you. Do you have any sort of

48:29estimates like or is there a lot of

48:32interest in general from you know

48:34citywide of people wanting chickens like

48:39>> um I think so

48:40>> there is quite a bit but I also it seems

48:44like on the other hand there are also

48:46people who are scared about chickens

48:48because people are complaining about

48:49chickens on their neighbors properties

48:51so I think it could be 5050 it's really

48:54hard to know

48:56>> I think get files on it every once in a

48:58while as well. Yeah.

49:01>> Yes.

49:04>> Any other thoughts or questions for

49:06staff?

49:07>> Yes, council Carson.

49:08>> Um my question would be actually to code

49:12because it looks like this puts some of

49:14the responsibility on investigating

49:17complaints and I'm just wondering about

49:20taking on because I think we don't know,

49:21right? As you just said, there's like

49:2350/50 people interested, people not. If

49:26there's like suddenly an explosion of

49:28people interested in having backyard

49:31chickens, what does uh your capacity

49:34look like to to enforce a suddenly large

49:38population in my imagination scenario?

49:42And if you could come forward to the

49:44table, that'd be great.

49:49>> Yeah. Currently we don't have the

49:51capacity to uh if we had an explosion of

49:54which we may um but yeah we just don't

49:58know at this point. So

50:00>> yeah followup question then related to

50:03that. Um, so it sounds like maybe we

50:06would need some sort of a ramp up period

50:08to be able to build in some capacity,

50:10but I'm wondering because this is

50:12related to changes in the state, right?

50:15And so I'm wondering what our timing is

50:18to have where we where we need to comply

50:20with this or to have this actually

50:22completed and passed and

50:24>> effective.

50:25>> I don't think they actually put a

50:26deadline in the state statute. Um, but

50:29we're wrapping this into the land

50:30development code update. So that would

50:32be anticipated to be complete by the end

50:33of next year

50:35>> and that's kind of the trigger of it

50:36because the statute says that you're not

50:38going to create

50:40>> um a code that prohibits people from

50:42keeping chickens. So, um what we have on

50:46the books right now is what stays and

50:48then um we wanted to come to you early

50:53um because of the the statute being so

50:55new so that when we bring the new code

50:58in that part already have been debated.

51:05>> Any other questions? Yes, councelor

51:08Beck. Did the state um statute prevent

51:12the city from implementing any kind of a

51:14lensure for this? Because there's going

51:16to be an additional cost for inspection

51:18everything else. You know, I don't think

51:20it's unreasonable just like dog license

51:22everything else to say, hey, if you're

51:24going to do this, they also need to be

51:25licensed. Is that possible?

51:28>> It's possible. Um the process we're

51:31proposing though would be a certificate

51:33of occupancy for a chicken coupe. So,

51:35they would just need one inspection and

51:37then that would be it unless somebody

51:38complains. Is that right?

51:39>> Right. That would be with code and and

51:41animal control. Uh it's like a right

51:43currently it's a $31

51:46fee for uh the application the spacy

51:50application.

51:53Were you envisioning more frequent

51:55inspections selling?

51:57>> Well, just because again, if it's going

51:59to be a cost and we don't have the

52:00capacity to to inspect

52:04based on demand, you know, and also too,

52:06it just kind of helps us keep tabs. If

52:08they've got to license these individual

52:10animals, you know, they get another hen,

52:12that's another license. But then again,

52:14are we creating another regulatory

52:16nightmare? um just spitballing because I

52:19just want to make sure that you know

52:22because there was a concern about keep

52:23up with the animals and everything and

52:24if it's just a one and done and then it

52:26just kind of doesn't get thought about

52:29again you know does that lead to a

52:31different kind of problem

52:35>> I appreciate that you brought that up

52:37and thinking about um maybe some sort of

52:40an application fee that would help but

52:42then I'm also think in that conversation

52:44I'm wondering if having like a per

52:47animal regist ration might almost be

52:48self like defeating to people who want

52:51to have backyard chickens because they'd

52:54like to produce food or have access to

52:56that, you know. So, if somebody is in

52:58poverty and needs some chickens, then

53:01we're charging a licensing fee for

53:03chicken. That might be difficult.

53:06>> I imagine it would add more work code to

53:10have a licensing and registration

53:12system,

53:13>> more annual inspections and Yeah.

53:19Okay.

53:23Um,

53:25so where where do we stand right now uh

53:28on this? I mean, I I'm feeling pretty

53:32good personally about the direction that

53:33we're going in. Obviously, we don't have

53:35all the answers before us, but

53:38we do know that we have to go forward

53:40with something that actually grants

53:42citizens the right to uh keep chickens

53:44if they want. Does anyone at the table

53:47have any outstanding uh concerns,

53:51questions, or issues on this topic or

53:54any hesitation on the direction that

53:56we're going?

53:59Staff, do you have anything that you'd

54:01like to follow up on? And I'll open you

54:02as well, sir.

54:07Okay. Well,

54:08>> oh yes, sorry

54:12capacity question. So, I realize that

54:14we'll have a ramp up time and plenty to

54:16think about this, but is there anything

54:18that we can as a council do to assist?

54:24>> I mean, I think we'll see what the

54:26response is. You know, it's not going to

54:28be for another, you know, year. So,

54:32>> and maybe we have to pivot after that

54:34point.

54:35>> Yes.

54:39>> Go ahead.

54:40>> Say whatever it ends up being, however

54:42many we get, I'm sure it'll be a poultry

54:43amount.

54:52>> All right. So, with that, thank you so

54:55much. I appreciate you. Um, we'll move

54:58on to the proposed modification to the

55:01growth boundary and I'm assuming you'll

55:04be taking this as well.

55:06>> So, um, the VA

55:10>> want to go back to the comments.

55:12>> Glad we finished it up so we weren't

55:13putting all of our eggs in one basket.

55:22>> Um,

55:23>> you're ready.

55:23>> Okay.

55:25The VA is interested in um two parcels

55:28out at the intersection of Still Water

55:30and Cage Road for a new VA hospital. Um

55:34one of those parcels is outside of the

55:36growth boundary in its own residence and

55:38agricultural which doesn't allow for a

55:40hospital. Um and typically um it's not

55:45really recommended to do a zone change

55:48to a more intensive zone that is outside

55:51of the growth boundary and is shown as

55:53being rural. um and

55:57planning board had made a recommendation

55:58in the past um you know opposing that

56:01and council had went with that um

56:04recommendation.

56:06So what we're proposing is a

56:08modification to the growth boundary um

56:12and then it would make a zone change

56:15there more straightforward. Um typically

56:18a change to the growth boundary is

56:20looked at as a change to the

56:21comprehensive plan. So, it would have to

56:24go through the same public notification

56:25process as that, which would be a 30-day

56:27notice or a notice in the newspaper,

56:29which um has to be at least 30 days

56:31before the public hearing. Uh we would

56:34also send out notices to buyers within

56:36500 ft of the property. Um what we're

56:40really looking for from council is

56:43direction on whether this is desirable.

56:46Um this parcel is adjacent to a parcel

56:49with sewer access. So if the agents were

56:51the hospital there um they could access

56:53public water and sewer and that's that

56:55was generally the um standard we used

56:58when we drew the growth boundaries

57:01the utilities like that um and also

57:03where existing development was. So um is

57:07there anything you want to add to that?

57:10>> No. Um it's just you know it's one of

57:13those um the growth boundary it you know

57:16I always say it's not really the Berlin

57:18wall but it's but it is sort of you know

57:21the edge of where you know you want to

57:23see growth and want to push growth

57:25towards but we always anticipated that

57:28there might be some adjustments as we

57:30went along. Um it just is a process that

57:33you have to go through to make those

57:35adjustments.

57:37Uh, Council Fish,

57:40>> a year or two ago, weren't they

57:42interested in another potential site?

57:45>> Yeah, they were interested in in a city

57:47property by the by the airport and then

57:49they decided on this particular one.

57:52There were I think there were four

57:54different sites that they were looking

57:55at um in Bangor and uh the VA

58:01um chose felt like this was the the top

58:04choice.

58:12Yes, council member.

58:13>> Out of curiosity, do we have sewer

58:15capacity out there for a hospital?

58:18>> They are. This project um has been

58:20working with um our sewer department on

58:25you know being part of some of those

58:26improvements that are happening there.

58:28So, this project is one of the

58:31anticipated possible projects for that

58:34expansion,

58:35you know, that improvement project that

58:38>> will what we're planning be enough. Are

58:41we going to have to upgrade the project?

58:43>> I don't believe so because I know

58:44they've been meeting I'm looking all

58:46right. Um because I know they've been

58:49meeting with Amanda um on the project.

58:52So,

58:56>> Okay. Um,

58:59I mean, I'll just give my two cents

59:01since uh uh at the floor. I can't really

59:05see a reason to not grant it at this

59:07point. We need as much health care,

59:10especially for our vets uh in this area,

59:12as much as possible. I am not the

59:16biggest fan of um uh modifying the

59:20growth boundary, but uh this is I think

59:23one of the clearest examples of why you

59:24could do it. Personally speaking, I know

59:26I'm a little bit biased, but uh

59:32I guess I should say I am a veteran. So

59:34is councelor Haw. So we might have

59:36conflict conflicts of interest in this.

59:37I don't know if anyone wants to take

59:39that up.

59:41Um yeah, it's councelor Carson. Um, I I

59:45also would not be against doing this.

59:47And as I'm looking at that, it doesn't

59:49really look like that would

59:50fundamentally change the landscape

59:53around, you know, it really looks like

59:56would be an expected

59:59right there with everything else. So, it

1:00:02would be

1:00:06>> Thank you. Um, do we know how many like

1:00:09residential properties would be like

1:00:12impacted in that area? I'm looking at

1:00:15the map, but I just I wasn't

1:00:17>> sure.

1:00:18>> Do you mean that or are abing the

1:00:19property?

1:00:21>> Yeah. And like when you do the

1:00:22notification, is it two businesses and

1:00:25residential?

1:00:26>> Yeah. Any any property owner in that

1:00:28area?

1:00:28>> Yeah.

1:00:28>> So, I mean mainly would be those couple

1:00:30of parcels across the road. those are

1:00:32residential and then one neighboring

1:00:34parcel next to it that there's a house

1:00:36there. Um those are all in the immediate

1:00:38setting maybe like 10 properties but

1:00:40since we would be going 500 feet out you

1:00:43know we would be notifying people up

1:00:44Kridge Road. So those would be some more

1:00:46businesses.

1:00:47>> Thank you. Can I just follow up? Yes.

1:00:49>> I guess I'm just thinking like you know

1:00:52>> what are

1:00:54potential downsides to this like I guess

1:00:57you know increased traffic. I'm just

1:00:59trying to think through because when we

1:01:00discussed the changing of the minor to

1:01:04major arterials like people showed up

1:01:07and they were just things that we hadn't

1:01:08thought of and so I'm just trying to

1:01:10think of what are the things that we

1:01:11haven't thought of here that are going

1:01:13to be the the the hot button items in

1:01:16doing this and do we know how like how

1:01:18big this facility is and like about how

1:01:21many like patients it will accommodate

1:01:23and that sort of thing. Um, as far as

1:01:25public push back, I, you know,

1:01:29we're not, we haven't heard from a lot

1:01:31of people in this area. I can just

1:01:32imagine we might get some of the same

1:01:34arguments that we got from people down

1:01:35the road, um, near Chase Road. A lot of

1:01:38these areas, they're on, you know, the

1:01:41very boundary of development and then

1:01:43very rural and they may be, you know,

1:01:48opposed to changing it um to a more

1:01:51intensive zone here because this area

1:01:53really kind of is a transition to a

1:01:55rural zone and a rural area. Um that's

1:01:58just some of the push back I imagine. Um

1:02:01but it's it is tough because it is a

1:02:03transition, you know, and um

1:02:06I I don't know. I I'm not sure about the

1:02:08statistics on the hospital, how many

1:02:10beds they have.

1:02:11>> Um I don't know the number of beds, but

1:02:15it's not a typical hospital. It's more

1:02:18of a clinic. So, um you know, the trips

1:02:21per day um the peak is different than a

1:02:24retail peak. So, you're not going to

1:02:26have that same um peak traffic. Um

1:02:30that's like all of the retail that's out

1:02:33there right now. Um, you know, that was

1:02:36one perspective that, you know, I had

1:02:38looked at when we looked at this that,

1:02:40you know, it it's not going to have the

1:02:42as much of a negative effect as it would

1:02:45if it was um, you know, another retail

1:02:50outlet. So, but I don't know how many

1:02:52beds it is, but it it won't have the

1:02:54intense use that a hospital has. It's

1:02:56more of a clinic where you have an

1:02:58appointment to come in. So, you're not

1:03:00going to see a steady stream of

1:03:02ambulance traffic out there. counc

1:03:08go back to uh when they came to the

1:03:10table before with interest. Is this a

1:03:13different plan before? Was it more of a

1:03:15hospital you were thinking about doing a

1:03:17year or two ago? Was it the same type of

1:03:18facility?

1:03:19>> It's the same type of facility, but

1:03:21they're not but there's not going to

1:03:23have the emergency services. It's more

1:03:25of a of a a clinic rehab type.

1:03:31Um, and the land that they were looking

1:03:33at before, which I believe would have

1:03:36been zoned, uh, for them to be able to

1:03:39not have to come in and try to get it

1:03:41resoneed. Do you know what it was that

1:03:43made this so attractive that they want

1:03:45to try to go through a resone compared

1:03:47to um, the one that they were

1:03:48interested? What What were the reasons

1:03:50they packed together?

1:03:52>> Um, one of the reasons they indicated to

1:03:54me that they didn't choose the other

1:03:56site was that it was too close to the

1:03:58airport. They felt that they didn't want

1:04:02um the clinic that close to a runway.

1:04:07>> Yeah.

1:04:08>> Yeah.

1:04:13>> Okay. Any uh thought I guess I should

1:04:16say does anyone have an issue with this

1:04:19on on this committee?

1:04:22>> I'm not seeing any. I I know you don't

1:04:24really need anything besides feedback.

1:04:26No, because you're going to have a full

1:04:27process with um notice to Butters and

1:04:30there'll be a public hearing at planning

1:04:32board. So, we'll know more. We just

1:04:35wanted to kind of get an early before we

1:04:37pursued it further with them if you had

1:04:40early thoughts or concerns.

1:04:42I think councelor Foon brought up really

1:04:45the only potential concern um that that

1:04:48that I thought of but uh I mean it if it

1:04:53comes to that we'll just have to have

1:04:54the conversation with citizens at that

1:04:56point.

1:04:56>> Yes, councelor Carson. Well, to

1:04:58councelor Fluence's point, is it

1:04:59possible for us to just have anything

1:05:03that we can gather where we would know

1:05:05sort of what their plans are for that?

1:05:07because I think

1:05:09the public will have concerns when they

1:05:11start thinking about a reszone. But if

1:05:13we have too much that's left up to the

1:05:15imagination rather than knowing what

1:05:18that might look like when it's actually

1:05:19put on land and where it might be on

1:05:21that land might help people to more

1:05:23make, you know, better think about that

1:05:27for themselves better,

1:05:28>> right?

1:05:28>> And trying to imagine what a clinic

1:05:30might look like. And we can also work

1:05:32with the VA hospital um if you were to

1:05:36increase this um growth boundary to do a

1:05:40contract zone for that other lot.

1:05:43So you know to have the setbacks be

1:05:45different you know other dimensional

1:05:47requirements that might reduce some of

1:05:50the concerns people have

1:05:53you know X access points on those are

1:05:56the types of things you can put a

1:05:57contracts on. Would that be a process

1:06:01that we would have to

1:06:02>> It's a zoning process. So, yeah. And

1:06:05they're going to need that anyway.

1:06:06They're going to need a zone change. So,

1:06:09um

1:06:10>> yeah.

1:06:10>> Um two thoughts. One, you know, we could

1:06:14have a kind of a pre-public hearing

1:06:17workshop with neighbors to talk about

1:06:19this and give them some details.

1:06:22Um, but I do would just want to bring

1:06:24up, you know, we always give this caveat

1:06:26to the planning board too before they do

1:06:27a zone change, but even though the VA is

1:06:31interested in this particular parcel,

1:06:32you know, once the growth boundary has

1:06:34changed and the zoning has changed, the

1:06:35VA could always change their mind and

1:06:37that still leaves open the possibility

1:06:39for somebody else to come in and develop

1:06:40there. So, it could always end up not

1:06:42being a hospital. It would be it could

1:06:44be retail, restaurants, or whatever. Um,

1:06:47this is just the current proposal. So I

1:06:50just want to

1:06:51>> right and that's where the contract zone

1:06:53might be helpful because then no matter

1:06:54what went in there if there's some

1:06:56dimensional requirements that reduce

1:06:58some of the impacts to Kitridge

1:07:01um you know that that might help with

1:07:03some of the concerns that may be there.

1:07:10>> Unless there's any more thoughts on this

1:07:13uh thank you so much for all your

1:07:15diligent work. Uh, I look forward to it

1:07:18at planning board, I guess.

1:07:22>> Um, last items that we have have to do

1:07:25with the airport update and requests uh

1:07:29alongside some agreements and uh well,

1:07:34I'll let Jose take it away when he gets

1:07:35up here.

1:07:39Is approaching the table. He is sitting

1:07:43down. He's smiling.

1:07:47Hello there. Uh Francisco here director.

1:07:51Uh today's report is rather quick and

1:07:54simple. Uh we are bringing uh renewal of

1:07:59the both the Uber and Lift agreement

1:08:02that we've had in place for quite some

1:08:04time. uh mijing uh we're making minor

1:08:07adjustments to the rates that the

1:08:09airport gets from every uh ride that

1:08:11originates for uh end at the airport

1:08:13from a dollar to a dollar25 which is um

1:08:18minor increase but it's pretty uh

1:08:20similar to what industry standards have

1:08:23for our sites. So, um those would be um

1:08:30separate uh council orders um if

1:08:33approved and uh would go to full counsel

1:08:36uh next week.

1:08:38>> Just really quick, when we uh uh

1:08:42eventually vote to forward these to

1:08:44council, uh can we uh put both lift and

1:08:47Uber um like motion together or should

1:08:50we do it separately?

1:08:51>> We will. Uh I think we probably should

1:08:54put them separately uh just because of

1:08:56their independent agreements uh with uh

1:08:59both the companies.

1:09:00>> Totally fine.

1:09:01>> Yeah.

1:09:02>> Um any questions for directors of a at

1:09:05the moment?

1:09:07>> Council. Thank you. Do uh do taxis pay

1:09:10these fees like this too?

1:09:12>> So taxes have a different per operating

1:09:14permit that they pay at the airport?

1:09:17>> Yes. And these are only uh fees that get

1:09:20assessed on Uber or Lyft uh rights that

1:09:24either originate at the airport or um

1:09:27get put to the airport if it's in town

1:09:30if that does not get

1:09:34any other thoughts or questions.

1:09:38If none I would be looking for oh yes a

1:09:40councelor Carson and then councelor back

1:09:42>> actually just out of curiosity I mean

1:09:43how how many rides roughly do uh start

1:09:46and end at the airport is the these

1:09:49agreements

1:09:51>> I do not have that uh number right off

1:09:54the top of my head

1:09:57no big deal it is affecting my decision

1:09:59on your curiosity

1:10:00>> well I do have a friend back there that

1:10:02might know the number so but we can get

1:10:04that information and send an update to

1:10:06follow

1:10:08You had a question?

1:10:10>> No. No. I was not

1:10:13recommend.

1:10:19>> Second.

1:10:19>> Moved and seconded. Uh unless doubted.

1:10:24That will have passage.

1:10:26Yes. Council Carson. I'd like to move

1:10:29that we uh move staff recommendation on

1:10:31the three-year uh agreement with um

1:10:34Riser LLC doing Miss Cooper.

1:10:38>> Second.

1:10:38>> Seconded unless doubted

1:10:42that will have passage.

1:10:46>> Oh, go ahead.

1:10:46>> Yeah. And the last u item that we had

1:10:49for the report is uh staff

1:10:51recommendation to accept an appropriate

1:10:53FA grant. This is the second portion of

1:10:55the funding and we're waiting to hear

1:10:57back from the FAA. So, we were able to

1:10:59get all of the remaining of the project

1:11:02covered under a second grant. And so,

1:11:05that would be a uh grant for 7.3 million

1:11:09from the FAA.

1:11:11um 192,000 from Main DOT, uh 1.5 million

1:11:17from the Mayor National Guard, and then

1:11:19a local share of about a little over

1:11:22$200,000.

1:11:26>> Any questions? Yes, Council Fish.

1:11:28>> I was just move this

1:11:31move to recommend that we accept and

1:11:33appropriate. Can I just say these

1:11:34numbers? I'm so excited

1:11:37for the grant in the amount of um set

1:11:41total amount of 7,330,747

1:11:46from the federal tax credit

1:11:48administration and $192,9140

1:11:54from the main department transportation

1:11:57and 1,54

1:12:011,500

1:12:04450

1:12:05but so exciting

1:12:07from the Air National Guard of which the

1:12:10city's matching amount would be 192,914.

1:12:17>> We have a motion. We have a second

1:12:19unless doubted.

1:12:21That will have passage.

1:12:23All right.

1:12:25>> Anything else you want to leave us with?

1:12:27Director Seedra. Um well before coming

1:12:30to uh the city hall I just stopped by

1:12:33the runway uh to see the construction

1:12:35work that's happening right now. As you

1:12:37all might be aware uh the runway was

1:12:40closed uh for 3.5 days and it is busy.

1:12:45There's a lot of work happening and just

1:12:49excited to see that work move along. So

1:12:51it's lots of uh planning that went into

1:12:53that. So

1:12:56very interesting.

1:12:57>> Well, thank you for the update. I

1:12:58appreciate you.

1:12:59>> Y

1:13:01>> um and do you have anything else for us

1:13:03at the end?

1:13:05>> Thank you.

1:13:06>> Okay. Well, if uh that is it then uh it

1:13:09is 6:24 p.m. We are adjourned to the

1:13:13business economic development committee,

1:13:14but stay tuned. We have finance up next.

```*