2026-10-05 - Business and Economic Development Committee

00:17I'm ready to go to the election.

00:22>> Great. Well, we are live.

00:25It's Monday, October 5th, 2026 at 5:52

00:30p.m. This is the regularly scheduled

00:33business and economic development

00:34committee meeting. This committee will

00:36meet first start by electing a temporary

00:40chairs.

00:42Have a motion.

00:43>> I uh

00:45make a motion that uh

00:48new Council Carson chair this committee

00:50meeting.

00:50>> So, we do have a motion.

00:52>> Second.

00:53>> Second.

00:54Is there any objection?

00:57All right.

00:59So, again, welcome to the business and

01:01economic development committee meeting.

01:03I am joined around the table by fellow

01:04committee members Council of Fish,

01:06Council of Balloon, Council of Mower. I

01:08am Council Carson and temporarily

01:10chairing. We don't have enough people.

01:12Council of Beck, will you join us in a

01:14minute? Okay, great. Um we're also

01:17joined at the table by Council of

01:18Walker.

01:19Business and economic developer

01:21Greg.

01:23Uh planning officer Anya Collette.

01:26Um and

01:28there's uh Council of Dean.

01:31Nice to be here. Didn't mean to forget

01:33you.

01:34We have three agenda items this evening.

01:35The first is floor area ratio removal

01:37from the downtown development district.

01:41I believe that's you.

01:42>> Yes, it is.

01:42>> Wonderful.

01:44>> So, um

01:45the floor area ratio um

01:48for those of you who don't know what

01:48that is, is basically the floor area of

01:51a building

01:53as in the entire building um from bottom

01:56to top,

01:57divided by the horizontal area of a lot.

02:01Um, so, for example, if you have a

02:03building with 40,000 sq ft of floor area

02:06overall, and you have a 10,000 sq ft

02:08lot, that gives you floor area ratio of

02:104.0. For reference, the building across

02:13the street where Redmond Wichelmann is

02:14has a floor area ratio of 4.3. And the

02:17one, um,

02:18on 6th State Street, um, has a floor

02:22area ratio of, um, 5.3.

02:25And all that's where the credit union

02:27and, um, Goldman's offices are.

02:29So, um,

02:31when in this proposal to, go back, this

02:34proposal would be to get rid of that

02:35dimensional control from the downtown

02:37development district, um, and that is

02:40what is going to be proposed in the new

02:42land development code, um,

02:45at the, um, across the city in any zone,

02:49because it's pretty outdated dimensional

02:50control overall, um, and it doesn't

02:52really get at, um, the form of the

02:55building and, and the scale of the

02:57building and the things that we're

02:58trying to control for.

03:01Um,

03:02and instead the new code will propose

03:04things like design standards, um,

03:07and controlling, you know, setbacks from

03:09the street once it reaches a certain

03:10height, things like that, and then

03:11transitions to residential zones, um,

03:14softening those up.

03:16But, for the purposes of this proposal,

03:17this is just a very this one small tweak

03:20to this particular zone, um, because

03:23there is an interested developer who

03:25wants to add stories to a building

03:26downtown for residential, um, and that's

03:30the type of development we want to see,

03:31that's what the comprehensive plan is

03:34trying to push forward and is promoting

03:36infill development, especially in our

03:37downtown and our urban core.

03:40Um,

03:41and originally when floor area ratios

03:43were proposed, um, the purpose of those

03:46was to try to control development

03:47intensity and manage building scale and

03:50things like that, but, um,

03:53you know, downtown is supposed to be our

03:54most intense district in the city.

03:58Um and then also as far as building

04:00scale, there's better ways to control

04:02for that than using this this um tool.

04:05It's a very

04:08I don't know what the right word is, but

04:09it's very

04:10broad. It's not very precise in managing

04:13that scale.

04:14Um it's also difficult to understand

04:17other things like maximum height, you

04:19know, or parking here for people to

04:21understand.

04:22Um

04:24and

04:25so I think that pretty much covers it.

04:28Again, I just want to go back to the

04:29comprehensive plan um

04:31policies one and seven really promoted

04:33and encouraging development in the

04:34growth boundary and promoting

04:37um increase in the housing supply

04:38downtown by revising zoning regulations,

04:40so we see this as aligning with with

04:43those policies.

04:45Are there any questions?

04:47>> Those are good questions.

04:48>> Thank you.

04:48>> Um

04:50if this was in here, I missed it, but do

04:52we have a maximum height?

04:54>> Not downtown.

04:55>> Yeah.

04:56>> Not in the downtown district.

04:57>> Not in the

04:59>> And so you said that there's a developer

05:02who wants to add stories, and I'm just

05:05wondering if having a maximum height

05:09if we remove this, if having a maximum

05:11height might be a good idea because

05:14I mean I mean it's probably not likely

05:16we're going to have skyscrapers in

05:17downtown Bangor. However, I mean they

05:19could get pretty tall, and is that

05:21something that we're going to want? Is

05:22there you know, is that going to impact

05:25other businesses or you know, views and

05:27that kind of thing?

05:29>> Um

05:30I think

05:31that's a good policy discussion to have.

05:34Um

05:35I will say number one

05:37most of the buildings downtown are

05:39historic. Um

05:41and so any change to an existing

05:44building is going to have to go to the

05:44Historic Preservation Commission

05:46um to make sure that it um, fits in with

05:49that district. And so, um,

05:52I don't imagine a skyscraper

05:55>> [laughter]

05:55>> downtown is going to fit well with that.

05:58Um, I mean, we do have newer areas of

06:00downtown where, you know, maybe

06:02something like that could go. Um,

06:05I will say what our consultants are

06:07proposing with the new code is still to

06:09not have that maximum height except when

06:12it's a certain distance away from a

06:14residential. So, say it's within 30 ft

06:17of a residential district, it would have

06:18a maximum height of 60 ft.

06:20Um, and then also would have some higher

06:23setbacks if it's close to residential

06:25districts. Um,

06:27and then again, we would have design

06:28standards that would control like if you

06:30are going to have building that's taller

06:32than six stories, it would need to be

06:34kind of set back further from the road

06:35so it doesn't feel like you're being

06:37you're closed in on, um,

06:39among other things, among other design

06:41standards. So,

06:44I mean, that's the proposal if

06:47council would like to talk about having

06:48an overall maximum height for downtown.

06:51We're happy to discuss that.

06:54>> Councilor Dean.

06:55>> Uh, yes, that was actually my question,

06:56but if I could follow up with that.

06:59What is our tallest building currently

07:00downtown? Just for a point of reference.

07:03>> I believe it would be, um, the Camden

07:05National Bank.

07:06>> Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of.

07:08Yeah.

07:08>> And that would be how many stories?

07:10>> seven.

07:11>> Seven, seven.

07:12>> Seven or eight.

07:15Yeah, including the garage underneath.

07:17>> And so, our restrictions are for six in

07:20other areas. Six stories, 60 ft.

07:22>> In other zones?

07:24>> Yes.

07:24>> No, I think,

07:26um,

07:28the zone with the highest building

07:29height limitation would be our

07:30institutional zone. That height is

07:33I don't know if it has a maximum height,

07:34but it might be 80 ft. It's either 80 ft

07:37or there's no maximum height in the

07:38institutional zone. Other zones like

07:40residential vary from 35 feet to 60 feet

07:44in certain cases and then

07:46our main commercial zones like over by

07:49the mall and those areas face some

07:50maximum height of 60 feet most of the

07:52time.

07:53That's about five stories.

07:54>> Okay. Thank you.

07:56>> Yeah.

07:57>> That's all I got.

07:58>> I think this is a great idea. I do have

08:00a question just because the way the

08:02wording so that I understand it

08:03correctly. I think some of the wording

08:06[clears throat] referred to this

08:08to encourage development and housing.

08:11And

08:12so with this um

08:14um

08:16new ordinance

08:18be applied to both development and

08:20housing or is it is it intended for the

08:23expansion of development

08:25by housing? I mean does it apply to both

08:27categories development and housing?

08:29>> Any type of development.

08:30>> Okay.

08:31>> Yeah.

08:31>> Okay. Thank you. Just the way it was

08:32worded it was it was clarified. Thank

08:34you.

08:37>> Questions?

08:39>> Council

08:40>> We're back.

08:40>> Yeah. So if council decided to do this

08:43it sounds like there's enough other

08:45processes in place regarding the height

08:48limit and your planning board with you

08:50know retro coordination and then that

08:52we're not having to worry about some

08:53developer suddenly saying, "Hey, here's

08:55a window of opportunity to come in there

08:57and get my skyscraper."

08:59>> Um

09:01I mean if they're impacting existing

09:03Well, actually, I mean we do have

09:05historic districts covering most all of

09:07downtown although most of all of that is

09:09already developed. So yes, most of the

09:12time a development downtown's going to

09:13have to go to the historic preservation

09:15commission. Um if it's outside of the

09:17historic district

09:19and the project meets the code otherwise

09:22then theoretically yes. I mean somebody

09:24could propose a skyscraper for

09:27down on Exchange Street if there was a

09:29vacant lot there um

09:31because if it met all of the code

09:33requirements if we didn't have a height

09:35limit.

09:36So I mean, that is a consideration.

09:39>> [clears throat]

09:42>> We're not seeing demand for sky rises.

09:45>> [laughter]

09:47>> It's also extremely

09:49extremely expensive to construct

09:50anything right now, and the size papers

09:52are costing a lot of money.

09:56>> You know, to follow up on that. Yeah,

09:57I'm I'm in favor of eventually having a

09:59conversation about a potential height

10:01limit, but I will say in all of the

10:03different affordable housing towns that

10:05I've been to, you know, they talk about

10:06how height limits can be the enemy of

10:08building more units.

10:10>> [clears throat]

10:10>> So, I'm, you know, I'm glad to see the

10:12steps that

10:13you know, in this city we're going to

10:14have another residential, you know,

10:16plenty of units coming in, so that's

10:17great.

10:19So, thanks for bringing this forward,

10:20and yeah, I would like to have that

10:21conversation about, you know, potential

10:23height limit, and what would make sense

10:25for Bangor.

10:26>> Thank you. Actually, Counselor Mallard.

10:28>> When are we looking for completion of

10:30the comprehensive plan?

10:31>> The

10:33the new one.

10:34>> Well, the um land development code or

10:35whatever.

10:37>> Um probably late next year.

10:39>> So,

10:40would we be benefit more beneficial to

10:43wait till then to do this and include

10:45it? Because you said there was going to

10:46be a discussion in that. I mean, I don't

10:49want to see you do it twice.

10:51>> We do have a potential project um

10:55downtown

10:56um

10:57that is on hold waiting for this change

11:00to take the FAR.

11:05If there is a concern about height, we

11:07can certainly have that conversation in

11:10our next meeting. I mean, if that is a

11:12concern that you don't want to wait.

11:14Um

11:16>> I mean, it might be worthwhile. I mean,

11:17we could have it now, I guess, if you

11:19all want to, because we're

11:21we can change the ordinance ordinance

11:23tomorrow.

11:26>> And if we wanted to put a height limit,

11:29you know, I don't not sure what would

11:30make sense.

11:32100 ft. or something like that.

11:34>> That's what I was thinking.

11:35>> Councilor Brack,

11:36>> We put a height limit because we don't

11:38know what the future's going to be and

11:39we don't want to shoot ourselves in the

11:41foot and saying, you know, now we have

11:44an ordinance with a height limit, but it

11:46goes in the right location

11:48and and the height that they're asking

11:50may be a little bit higher. If we do

11:53have a height limitation, could we have

11:55some verbage on there that says

11:58um something about unless otherwise

12:00approved by, you know, review. Just so

12:03that we're not, you know, we don't know

12:05what the future's going to bring and I

12:06would just hate to see us

12:07>> You can create a special permit process

12:09where there's sort of an allowed height

12:11and then to go x amount of feet above

12:14that, we require like a conditional use

12:16permit.

12:17>> Yeah.

12:17>> So then we're not

12:19just

12:19>> Then we're not just saying it in black

12:21and white and

12:22then something in the future comes along

12:24that we're, you know, regretting

12:26and we discourage somebody from doing

12:27something because we just didn't leave

12:29that broader interpretation.

12:32>> I think we actually do that in the North

12:33End Development Districts. Um taller

12:35buildings do require conditions.

12:37>> That's exactly where

12:38actually.

12:39>> Yeah.

12:41>> All right. Any other

12:43Councilor Brack?

12:44>> Yep. Um when that conversation does

12:45happen, I would be curious just to hear

12:47from the fire department to see if they

12:48have any concerns about, you know,

12:50equipment needs for bigger buildings,

12:52you know, versus where we are now. Just

12:54just to get their the thoughts on that

12:56so we're prepared.

13:00>> Um

13:01Well, so just to get some guidance, um I

13:04was just wondering if you all want us to

13:06incorporate a height limit now with this

13:09ordinance change.

13:11Um

13:12>> I'm going to call it myself real quick.

13:14Um I am not [clears throat] necessarily

13:16in favor of adding. I'm happy to have

13:19the conversation. I'd like to see if

13:20there's data available. Councilor Brack

13:23I Brack I think brings up a great point

13:25in involving the fire department. So

13:28similarly, I would like to hear from the

13:30airport. You know, I mean like

13:32flight things like that. Just I don't I

13:34don't know if there's any issues with

13:36how tall something could be so close to

13:40um air transportation.

13:42But I think I would like to hear more

13:44about the like what our consultants have

13:46discussed, why they think that it's not

13:48appropriate for us to have those height

13:50requirements.

13:51Um and I'm sort of where Counselor

13:53Fishes that thinking about being I don't

13:55want to like shoot ourselves in the foot

13:57going forward, particularly if there's

13:59not um

14:02there's not a pressure a demand pressure

14:05that we're facing at this time to answer

14:07such a such a question. We you know like

14:09we're with data centers we're sort of

14:11under that pressure to think through

14:13that quickly, but

14:15happy to have that. Um I do want to

14:17direct us back to cuz it doesn't sound

14:19like we're ready to have that full

14:20conversation tonight, but so back to

14:22this floor area ratio removal.

14:25Um

14:26and I think the intended action here is

14:28if the committee is interested to

14:30forward this to the cool council. Is

14:33that

14:34>> Yes.

14:34>> what we're looking for? Sorry,

14:35[clears throat] are there any other

14:36questions

14:38or comments

14:40or [snorts] side remarks?

14:43I will look for a motion if anybody's

14:45interested. Counselor Fallon.

14:47>> I move

14:49staff recommendations to approve this.

14:51>> Right.

14:52>> Second.

14:52>> We have a motion and a second. Is there

14:54any

14:55doubts?

14:57The votes launch. Okay, that'll move on.

15:00We have

15:01for number two to discuss a proposed new

15:04planning fees.

15:05>> Yes. So,

15:07um we're proposing two new fees to cover

15:10costs that we're currently incurring for

15:12development. So, um

15:14for pretty much all land development and

15:16zone changes and historic preservation

15:18applications, we have to send mailed

15:20notices to budding property owners.

15:22Um, often times it's 100 ft out, but

15:25sometimes it can be 500 ft out and

15:26sometimes even larger than that. So,

15:29what we are suggesting is that we just

15:31charge a fee for that mailing both to

15:34cover the cost for us to print those

15:36letters and um

15:38and put those together and then also the

15:39postage. And based on our um the current

15:43cost of that, we're recommending a $1.22

15:46per letter. Um, it would be a pretty

15:48nominal cost for a small development,

15:50but if we did have something with a

15:51large mailing, would help us cover that

15:54um

15:54larger cost. And currently, it's being

15:57paid for by taxpayers, and this would

15:59put more of the burden on the developer.

16:01We do that similarly for advertisements

16:03and things like that.

16:05And then another fee um

16:07is to cover our cost for storm water

16:09permitting review. This only applies to

16:12certain types of development that are

16:13typically larger in scale. They need

16:16extra storm water permitting um

16:18and

16:20before the state was doing all of that

16:22review, which added a lot of time for

16:24these developments. But then we were

16:26recently given delegated authority to do

16:28that, so now it's on us to review and

16:30inspect, but then it's also on us um

16:33you know, to cover the cost of that

16:34unless the developer pays for it. Um the

16:37state does charge developers to do that

16:40permitting, so we're suggesting charging

16:42the same as what the state does. Um and

16:44that money would go into the storm water

16:47utility fund um since our storm water

16:49manager is the one who

16:51reviews those projects.

16:53So.

16:54Are there any questions on either of

16:55those?

17:10>> Question.

17:11Comment.

17:14I think this is another one where we're

17:15looking to forward to the full council.

17:19No questions or comments?

17:21Equivalence?

17:24Councilor Flynn?

17:24>> I move um staff recommendation on the

17:28proposed new fees to the council.

17:30>> Second.

17:31>> I motion and second.

17:34Any discussion?

17:35No?

17:38All those in

17:39>> [clears throat]

17:42>> So the final thing we have here is

17:45a discussion on our proposed climate

17:47rebate program for residents and we're

17:49looking for feedback, I think, right?

17:52>> Yes, and approval to move forward with

17:54it.

17:54>> Great, so.

17:56>> Um so this is a proposed new program

17:58that we're suggesting to be paid for out

18:00of the climate plan climate action plan

18:02funds. Um those funds are meant to be

18:04used to implement the Penobscot climate

18:06action plan. And in that plan, um we

18:09have 10 toolkits and the second toolkit

18:11in there was to help residents retrofit

18:14their homes. That was going to be the

18:16one of the highest impact toolkits we

18:18had because of the um cuz buildings make

18:21up the largest contributor of um

18:24greenhouse gas emissions in the city. Um

18:26it also has a very high potential to

18:28help residents be more resilient, power

18:30outages and things like that, um and

18:32also high fuel costs.

18:34Um so what we're proposing is to use

18:36$50,000 from this fund to provide

18:39rebates for things like weatherization,

18:40heat pumps, and possibly solar. And this

18:43would work in concert with existing

18:45rebates from Efficiency Maine and

18:47through CDBG so that we can provide sort

18:50of gap financing if there's any um cost

18:53left over after those programs, we would

18:54help cover that cost. Um we're thinking

18:57and the details haven't been worked out

18:59yet, we've just hired two interns, they

19:01would help us figure out the details

19:02over the next month or so. Um but

19:05possibly it would be something like

19:06$2,000 per household, um depending on

19:10you know, that gap that's left over.

19:13Um

19:14and the added benefit of course to this

19:16is that these would help people save

19:18money on their energy bills. As we all

19:20know, it's very um expensive looking to

19:22be very expensive heating season.

19:24Um

19:25weatherization obviously that would help

19:27anybody save money. Heat pumps would

19:29typically help people on oil save money.

19:32Typically cost

19:33over half the cost to heat with a heat

19:36pump versus oil.

19:37Um and then also solar if somebody's

19:40mainly heating with electricity that can

19:41help them in that way.

19:43Um we did do some very initial like soft

19:46public outreach at the farmers market

19:48about up central rebate program. We

19:50said, you know, if we offered money for

19:54um solar [clears throat] or bikes or

19:55weatherization or different thing, you

19:57know, what what would help your

19:59household most? And people were pretty

20:01evenly split between these different

20:03categories. So, we're proposing, you

20:05know, for people to choose the rebate

20:08based on what would help their household

20:09the most. Um

20:12and we would also recommend that

20:15if we were to move forward with this

20:16that um

20:17if we do offer a rebate for heat pump

20:20that it be limited to households that

20:21use oil just because it's going to be a

20:23lot more efficient than that oil heating

20:25system and save them the most money.

20:27Um

20:28and then also we would propose to

20:30hearing the rebate so people that are in

20:32lower income households would get more

20:34money than um somebody who's not. Um

20:37similar to what efficiency Maine does.

20:39And then also um

20:42I had written in here, you know, maybe

20:44we look at funding an energy audit for a

20:47household before they do get a heat pump

20:48or something like that.

20:50Um

20:52when we were looking at doing a program

20:54like this initially we were thinking and

20:56also the toolkit and the financial piece

20:58of all this too, you know, potentially

21:00requiring somebody to get an energy

21:02audit first just because, you know,

21:04somebody might need to do a a of

21:05weatherization before they get a heat

21:07pump, in order to make it um

21:09the most bang for the buck for them,

21:12basically. You know, if they have a

21:13drafty house and they're trying to get a

21:15heat pump, you know, they might get

21:16higher electricity bills.

21:18However, um

21:20even if they have a drafty house, I

21:21think and they're getting a heat pump,

21:23it's still probably going to save them

21:24money compared to the heating with oil

21:26right now. So, what we are proposing is

21:30maybe we would just recommend that

21:32people get that energy audit first and

21:33we could fund that, but maybe not make

21:36it a requirement of the program. Um

21:38and then we could also talk to them

21:39about like, "Hey, if you're going to get

21:40a heat pump, you know, there's also

21:43rebates for efficiency and for

21:44insulation and things like that." And

21:46you know, recommend strongly that they

21:48do that.

21:50So, um

21:54>> Councilor Fish.

21:55>> Um

21:57Uh

21:57I think this is breeding I would like to

22:00see um for instance, you know, when I

22:02see solar panels, I know they can be

22:04expensive and with just $50,000

22:08uh so, if it was limited, if we had

22:09information on to, you know, what we're

22:12proposing and it could be income-based,

22:14but

22:15um someone doing solar, it could take a

22:17pretty big chunk of that just for one

22:19solar program.

22:20And um the energy audit would be good

22:23also because um I know for my house for

22:25instance, when I looked into getting a

22:26heat pump, my panel box wasn't the right

22:30size and then before I knew it, I had to

22:32look at an electrician and and

22:34potentially $5,000 in electrical work to

22:37get the heat pump. So, you know, so

22:39those kinds of things uh it would be

22:41nice to see that energy audit. And also,

22:43when I see bikes on here, I just think,

22:46you know, I don't know that bikes to me

22:48really fit in this category cuz we have

22:50a lot of elderly that really need um

22:53uh energy efficiency in different

22:55avenues and um you know, the bikes would

22:57be more or less, you know, for an

22:59elderly to use bike. I'm not saying they

23:01couldn't, but I just don't see um

23:04the balance and therefore um money going

23:07toward a bike or someone elderly may

23:09need really need more

23:11use of this money to just stay warm over

23:13the winter. So,

23:16uh otherwise I think that um

23:18everything in this is a a really good

23:20idea. Those are just two my two my

23:22concerns.

23:22>> Yeah, I think um the bikes I just wanted

23:25to say like that was just initial

23:27outreach we did. For this program we

23:29would be limiting it to um

23:31home heating upgrades and things like

23:33that. Bikes maybe we could do a

23:35potential future program with that. Um

23:38and yes, for solar you're right. Um

23:41one thing that we were going to explore

23:42more is doing rebates for plug-in solar.

23:46So, I don't know if you're familiar with

23:47that, but that could be less than a

23:50thousand dollars potentially and it

23:51could also be helpful for renters. Um

23:54the only thing I'm not sure of is how

23:55widely available the systems are that

23:58fit with state law right now. Um so,

24:01that's something we would explore more,

24:02but I was thinking if we um

24:04maybe that could be a just a potential

24:06offshoot for rebates, so.

24:09>> I'll unmute myself. Um I'm glad that you

24:12brought up the plug-in solar. That was

24:13one of my two questions. The second

24:15would be

24:16is there any thought about a portion of

24:20this

24:22um

24:23that could be used in a way that's not

24:26used to rebates. Obviously people have

24:27to spend money and then we rebate them.

24:30But I think about the elderly

24:31population. I'm thinking about a couple

24:33of my neighbors right now who really

24:34could benefit from something like this,

24:37but whose fixed incomes if I said the

24:39numbers out loud would make all of you

24:40puke.

24:41Um

24:43they would not be able to afford to

24:45spend money to obtain this kind of a

24:47rebate. So, is there any thought about a

24:50portion of this that could be used in a

24:52way where we actually help people

24:54to obtain the thing that we would be

24:56rebating.

24:57>> Yes. Um

24:58I believe the way it works with

25:00efficiency Maine rebates right now,

25:02they have some kind of agreement worked

25:04out with contractors where when you get

25:06a contractor

25:07um on board,

25:09the contractor takes that rebate into

25:11account right off that and then they

25:13submit paperwork to the state to be

25:15reimbursed. So, the homeowner's not

25:17fronting that cost. It's taken off at

25:19the beginning. Um so, we would

25:22definitely want to work with um

25:24efficiency Maine and the contractors to

25:26figure out how we can make that happen.

25:29See where it comes from.

25:33>> Any questions?

25:36Comments?

25:41>> You're looking for two things here,

25:43which is feedback and approval to

25:45continue on.

25:47So, any additional feedback at this

25:50time?

25:55>> Councilor Malloy.

25:56>> Just out of curiosity, how much money is

25:57in the climate action plan?

26:01>> Um it's pending some Actually, no, we

26:03did just We got our reimbursement from

26:04the feds for different grants. So,

26:07um it should be a little over 200,000

26:09right now.

26:15>> There.

26:16Sense, comments, feedback?

26:19>> [clears throat]

26:21>> Somebody feel moved

26:23to move this?

26:25>> Councilor Foley.

26:26>> I move staff recommendation for the

26:29proposed climate rebate program for

26:31residents.

26:32>> We have a motion.

26:34>> Second.

26:34>> [clears throat]

26:35>> We have a second.

26:37Any

26:38further discussion?

26:40No. Put to vote.

26:43We'll send that on.

26:45Is there any other business before this

26:47committee?

26:48>> No more business. Thank you so much.

26:50>> With that, it is 6:18 p.m. We are

26:52adjourned. Stay tuned for

```*