Mahoney committee backs Developers Collaborative as redevelopment partner

[0:01] Chair (Josh): 22nd the Mahoney City Center committee. First item on the agenda is the roll call. Sharon Ames. Here. Tracy Bessonette. Mary Ann Brown. Here. Aaron Collinson is not here. Mike Halsey is here. Casey Oakes here. Chris Rosner here. Michelle Sullivan. Here. Here. Councillor Walker. Here. Chara Dee. Here. Scott Morelle. Here. Josh Rainey. Here. Ellen Sanborn. Here. Craig Piper. Here. Kevin Davis. Don Hopkins. Richard Matthews. Councillor Matthews. Yes, sir. Julie Rosenbach. And Anthony Deluzio. Adam Tordell. Here. I think I got that right. And Adam Yoder. So close. All right, the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the June 23rd, 2026 meeting. Is there a motion for approval? I move. Second. Moved by Sharon, second by Brian. Any discussion on the minutes? That was quite a while ago. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Any abstain? Unanimous. And the next item of the agenda is public comment. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak at this time? You can go up to the podium. Your name and your address, please. How much time do we give them? Two or three? Three. Thank you, Sharon. [1:37] Don Ladd (public commenter): Good evening. Don Ladd, Highland Ave, South Portland. I recognize and commend the amount of work that has been done on the Mahoney School project. I would like to note that I was on the original facilities committee, which I certainly understand the amount of work that's involved. In order to minimize the cost of taxpayers, I would like to throw out a few ideas, which may have already been explored by the committee, I'm not sure. The first one is consider selling the Mahoney building to a developer that would repurpose the building in whatever zoning allows and based on what the market is looking for. The city has had good experience with this, but the Roosevelt School and the Henley School years ago. I would like to note that the town of Brunswick is selling a school building for $925,000 that would accommodate 18 affordable housing units, a child care center, and other non-residential purposes. By selling Mahoney to a private developer, it could provide a much-needed boost to tax revenues. In terms of the Mahoney School Auditorium, I know some people are very interested in preserving that, taxpayers are already paying for operating costs for the high school auditorium. Which has not used its full potential. According to the school's website, the handicapped accessible air-conditioned facility features a 790 seat theater, two dressing rooms, box office, large lobby area, and ample free parking. I would propose moving all city departments with the exception of police, fire, and library, the vacated Kaler school, which is approximately 30,000 square feet. This building was built in 2003, and assuming it is well maintained, it would involve some updating. I'm not quite sure what the square footage is required for the aforementioned apartments, but many companies are opting for cubicles with limited private offices, making smaller conference rooms available. It has a gym which could function as city meetings. With other infrastructure needs of the city and at the time that the city has become unaffordable, I DO HOPE THAT THESE SUGGESTIONS WILL DESERVE SOME CONSIDERATION. SORRY FOR THE FAST TALKING, BUT I WANTED TO COVER EVERYTHING. IT DID WELL. TWO MINUTES. [3:51] Chair (Josh): ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO GET UP TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO UPDATES AND PRESENTATIONS. I'LL ASK, BUT I'M ASSUMING WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM THE OWNER'S REP OR DESIGN TEAM. ALL RIGHT. NOTHING FROM THE COMMUNICATION SUBCOMMITTEE. SHARA? IT'S BEEN QUIET. I KNOW. From the funding plan committee, I can speak to that, but I know we don't. All right, an update from the public private partnership subcommittee, which we do have an update for, and it's the major item on this agenda today. And just to refresh everybody's memory, this committee committed us, consisted of Brian Clark, Sharon Ames, Casey, my last name, but oh yeah, thank you, I was there, and we had counselor West and counselor Scott also serving on the committee, and then myself. And at this time I'd like to ask Josh to kind of give a brief overview of the process and comments he'd like to make. You did see the memo in the in the packet though, and that kind of [4:55] Josh (committee staff/chair): described everything. Just to clarify, we moved on now to the first item under action old. Oh, did I [5:00] Speaker D (unidentified): Did I miss something? Yeah. Just report and then the action item. Okay. [5:06] Speaker E (unidentified): You're going to combine. Yeah. All right. [5:09] Josh (committee staff/chair): Yeah. So we included the memo in the packet. And so I have some prepared remarks that I'm actually going to read because I just don't want to forget anything. So as was mentioned when we passed the minutes, the M3C last met on June 23rd. At that meeting, if you all recall, we voted to recommend to the City Council that we pursue a public-private partnership approach for redevelopment of the Mahoney City Center. And subsequent to that, in early July, the City Council heard the recommendation and agreed that we should move forward with that approach. So around the middle of July, we released a request for proposals to solicit interest and proposals back for a public-private partnership. We sent it out to all the firms that had previously expressed interest, known firms that do this type of adaptive reuse for municipal purposes. Purposes, we put notice in the Portland Press Herald and we put it up on the city's website, so it was put out there as best we could. We received three proposals. The firms included Developers Collaborative, FD Stonewater, and Great Falls Construction. So at that point we decided that we were going to interview all three and we scheduled interviews reviews with them. The committee judged that all three of them were well qualified. They demonstrated various experience working with comparable projects. The scoring criteria was heavily weighted toward experience of not only the firm itself, but also the team that was put together and the individual members, particularly as it relates to adaptive reuse and historic preservation of institutional buildings, which is what Mahoney is, as well as past collaborations with municipal government on redevelopment projects and creating creative financing plans for that and that flexibility. And so that's that's where the criteria was heavily weighted in that direction. The crime scoring criteria also included demonstration of financial capacity, compensation structure, and public engagement plan in collaboration with the city. Developers Collaborative received the highest score from the committee, not only in the aggregate, but each individual member of the group scored them as their number one choice as well. We believe that they demonstrated the experience that's most relevant and comparable to what our needs are here with the Mahoney project. They also demonstrated flexibility with financing approaches on several of their projects. They have municipal experience specifically. They outlined a collaborative planning process and public engagement, and they were very open about their compensation structure, their desired ROI, return on investment, and what their gross and net development fee would be. And with related to that, a willingness to share with the city not only the financial risks at all, also the financial benefits as it relates to the value of the tax credits and a range of things. So that it's an open book process, and you know, we would be hand-in-hand throughout the process. So with all that said, the subcommittee is recommending selecting Developers Collaborative and proceeding initially under perhaps a memorandum of understanding or something, understanding that in the first several months, we still need to vet this project. They need the opportunity to really vet this project. And so it will involve reviewing and refining the development concept plan, doing some additional engagement with the public, undertaking all the due diligence that's required before entering into a firm contract. And then obviously negotiating the terms of that development agreement, various conditions, responsibilities, the commitments being made by both parties, et cetera. And so there's still a lot more work to do, but at this point, where we're at in the process is comfortable recommending that Developers Collaborative be the exclusive partner at this point with the City of South Portland. [9:36] Chair (Josh): And that's very well said, Josh, and appreciate all Josh's work on this. He took the lead on drafting all the RFPs and communicating with the respondents and was a big help. At this time I'd like to ask if any of the committee members like to make any comments, of Brian or Sharon or Casey, you'll start with you Brian if you want to add anything. Sure, I agree Josh, thanks for that really [9:58] Brian (committee member): helpful summary. One of the things that really struck me about Developers Collaborative and the team that they brought into the interview was really what I would say a sort of deep understanding and mission alignment with what we're trying to accomplish with this, and Josh referenced a little bit of the sharing of the upside, you know, as we get through a deal on this, and that comes from an open book approach, it comes from this is what they do, and that their business model is really about getting buildings done that 's That's actually how they make their money. That's actually a really important point in all of this, just the pause, because we actually want to get a building done. I've talked about the best building being a done building. And that will manifest, I think, in a bunch of different ways. But the other part that I would say that was really encouraging is to get a building done really requires deep public engagement. And they talked a lot about what that process would look like. Drew is here. It sounds like you've been painting political signs in the past to try to get things going. Maybe we put you and your kid to work again. I don't know. But what it told me was that there's a real understanding about how do you actually do this work in Maine? How do you actually do this work in a community like South Portland? And to me, it felt like there was just great alignment in terms of mission process, goals, and that piece of it. So that's what I would add. [11:21] Sharon Ames: Shannon? Yeah, thank you, Josh. And Brian, I agree with everything. I think I know that, you know, some concerns we hear are, you know, like, is this a done deal? At this point in time, I would say, you know, I feel like we're still kind of taking some small steps. So we don't know the outcome, what the cost is, what the out, you know, like who is who the planning of Mahoney, you know, who's going to fit in every nook and cranny in Mahoney. There's still a lot to explore under this kind of process. But I, but we all know that we needed to figure out a way, how is it paid for, and I think that was what I felt the Developers Collaborative came right ahead and said, you know, that's what we need to figure out first, and there are a multitude of ways to get there. We need to do the study first, and it's going to take a few months, and then, again, we'll know are we in good shape or are we back to the drawing board. So that's, I still feel like there's flexibility, but we need to know how to get there. We, I think I feel like that Developers Collaborative is going to help us put together that roadmap in the end. Excellent. Little steps, Casey, like to [13:05] Speaker H (unidentified): add anything? I'm sure I agree with everything that's been said. I think the biggest point that I've heard so far was just on mission alignment, and that this was really very much, it wasn't about finding the most profitable route, but the most mission oriented and curating different businesses and organizations to use the space. And I think they also have done a project very similar that kind of hit the nail on the head, which was the Stephen Square Project, which was the Macaulay School, or I don't remember what it was called at the end. But you know, if you want to talk about a space that was a school that had a gym, that has a theater, and that really took the time to again curate the space so that it could grow and self sustain, I think they did an excellent job with that project. To take a look at it and to me they [13:56] Chair (Josh): were the clear choice. And I'll repeat what everybody else said as I agree with everybody else who spoke before me, you know. And I'm a bottom line guy and a numbers guy, and what I like is their success and getting these projects done. I think they put 12 schools in their proposal, and they said that they only did 12 because you know four by three from fit in a nice box, but I think it was between 15 and 20 schools they've done. And the numbers are important, and you know the idea of using historic tax credits, I think the original cost that we got back was like a hundred and four million eight hundred dollars a square foot, you know. I'm hoping that you know with their experience they can get that square. We have footage numbered down to a much smaller number. And then you bring in 30% historic tax credits. We might be looking at a much less number than $104 million. And, of course, the idea of creative financing and all that great stuff. So I was very excited with all three respondents, but particularly with Deloitte's cooperative. So now at this time, Drew is here. And I don't know if he'd like to get up and speak or if the committee has questions before we ask if Drew would like to speak. Because anybody like to ask questions before we'd like to hear Drew say a few if you'd like to [15:08] Speaker E (unidentified): Sure, I just got a quick question. So first of all, thank you for to the committee for giving us a direction, so I think that was an important step. Just where is Collaborator based out of? [15:21] Chair (Josh): Portland. There's Portland, thank you. They're over on Stevens Avenue. Okay, yeah, thank you. [15:31] Drew Sigfordson (Developers Collaborative): Thank you everybody. Drew Sigfordson, I'm a partner with Developers Collaborative and Kevin Bunker and I have done several projects together over the years and you know we have no preconceived notion of exactly how this is going to play out. So to Brian's point, to Sharon's point, we aren't coming in here and know and feeling as if there's a there's a fully baked plan that we're just going to go and execute. We recognize that there was a lot of work that's already been done with SMRT by this committee, by the city, by the community and there's still a lot more work to do and there isn't complete buy-in as to what needs to be done, what is the best use of this site, what is the best use of taxpayer dollars, how are we going to put these dollars to work and what we are hoping to do is come in as a convener and to really listen to the community, to listen to the city council, to listen to the committee, to understand what is it that the community really wants to see for this amazing property that's right in the city center and work to figure out the best possible structure of obtaining tax credits and obtaining subsidy and getting it done for as low a cost as possible but by providing the highest potential benefit. So that's really that's really the goal and that's what we're working to try to bring to fruition. So hopefully thank you for the [17:12] Chair (Josh): opportunity. Thank you. Since you're here I'm sure if any of the committee members have any questions you'd be happy to come back up to the podium. Sure you can wait till we so I think we do we do a motion first and then discussion. So I think we do need a motion and I see a recommendation on here but I think what we're doing is correct me from wrong Joshua recommending to the city council [17:31] Josh (committee staff/chair): correct. Yeah that's right this body the M3C as a whole because right now the subcommittee is making its recommendation to this group. Yeah this group now can deliberate and act to make a recommendation to city council and ultimately it's the city council that will decide whether we go in [17:49] Chair (Josh): this direction and if we do pass this along to the city council THEY WOULD BE MEETING IN OCTOBER 13th. SO I'LL READ A RESOLUTION AND SOMEONE CAN SAY I'LL MAKE THAT SO WE HAVE CLARITY HERE IF YOU DON'T MIND. So the committee recommends the City Council select Developers Collaborative and proceeding under initial Memorandum of Understanding, where the next stage of the process will involve reviewing and refunding the redevelopment concept plan, undertaking all due diligence required before committing to a project, and negotiating a development agreement that details all the terms, conditions, responsibilities, and commitments of both parties. Is that a motion somebody would like to make? I'll make that motion. Casey? I'll second it. [18:33] Speaker D (unidentified): Seconded by Brian. Can I just ask a question [Drew Sigfordson (Developers Collaborative): maybe for Josh?] If all the properties for city [18:43] Josh (committee staff/chair): services are today get into [18:45] Speaker D (unidentified): Mahoney, the charge of [18:47] Casey Oakes: developer supplier is just [18:49] Drew Sigfordson (Developers Collaborative): Mahoney versus the [18:51] Speaker D (unidentified): the next step of other properties I just want to clarify this task is for it's very specific [18:57] Josh (committee staff/chair): to the Mahoney property yeah okay thank you and that's really a city council decision [19:03] Chair (Josh): so I'm just curious yeah so there's a motion moved and seconded this is time for discussion is there any questions or discussion questions for the committee any members or even for Drew since he's here if not we're gonna have a real short meeting tonight [19:22] Speaker E (unidentified): I guess similar to Craig is the are we talking about developing the entire site or are we just [19:30] Chair (Josh): talking about just the building well are we this is just the building just the building and again that would be after the city council if they wanted to say but our charge was just the building and that's what that's the what we're looking the council into MOU would I think it's [19:43] Josh (committee staff/chair): worth elaborating on that though we asked everybody to come to us and one of the questions we had was looking at only the building can we make this project work okay and so that's the that's sort of the fundamentally that 's what this is however we cannot ignore the site and so there's going to be parking considerations there's going to be you know landscaping considerations is going to be recreational amenity considerations there may end up being becoming discussions about adjacent development so it's not that we're not saying right now that 's forbidden sure but that wasn't a prerequisite that was not a requirement right you know right now we're we're talking about the building itself but as we in the coming months as we get into further discussions with them and we're refining the development plan they're likely you're going to be conversations about the site as a whole [20:38] Chair (Josh): you know in the placement of the library it might be something that gets discussed [20:41] Brian (committee member): Yeah, and to Casey's point about the Stevens project, that was really a campus approach to right where it was, the renovation and adaption of these historic buildings, these beautiful buildings, but it's really about how they also all interact together, which we thought was a really important precedent, you know, as we think about the site and campus opportunity that we have as well. [21:04] Casey Oakes: Just kind of along the same line, yeah, we've obviously talked about cost a lot over the past almost two years of all these projects, and you know, in the interest of the citizens in the city potentially developing more on the property to, for the express purpose in my mind of lowering the cost to the city and the taxpayer of you get the city hall and then maybe there's other things on that site, but that is just driving the cost down, you know, there's certainly I think some potential for that to add some options there that you know may make it even more beneficial in the long run. [21:40] Speaker E (unidentified): Go ahead, just so, just I guess I got a question for Drew, so hypothetically let's just say the city council says this, go ahead and move forward, what are the next steps to move forward from the direction that we're giving to the city council? I just kind of want to know where we're at. I don't want to, I really don't want to send something to the city council that this committee doesn't have an idea of what happens next. Sure, and Drew can't answer that. [22:09] Chair (Josh): Maybe even Josh could follow up, and I'd just like to introduce Kevin A. Bunker, who just walked in. [22:12] Drew Sigfordson (Developers Collaborative): Also would develop his car with, he was at a volleyball game for his daughter, but he's here, so what we proposed in the RFP is essentially working under a memorandum of understanding for a six-month period of time as the essentially phase one to really figure out the feasibility of the project, and through that period of time it's community engagement, it's understanding what the community wants in the building on the site, what considerations are going into that, what can the city afford, you know, what is, what is a realistic expectation as to, as to how much, how much this project can justify in cost on an annualized basis, and then figure out okay, based on the community engagement and how much we can afford, now what components of this can be built and can be renovated? And so really in that six-month period of time, it's figuring out those elements and then figuring out a tax structure and a legal structure and a development agreement to execute that. [23:31] Speaker E (unidentified): All right, so can I keep going? Keep going. All right, so I probably won't be able to ask these questions at another meeting, but I'm just real quick. Okay, no falls. You take your time. [23:43] Don Ladd (public commenter): Take your time. We want you comfortable. So here's the thing is, so [23:47] Speaker E (unidentified): and not with any disrespect, but a lot of that work's already been done. Obviously, we've had a lot of building crawls, we've had a lot of community input already. SMRT has really given us a good scope of, you know, if we did this, if we did that, and everything, so I guess what, through your company's eyes, what will be different, I guess, and also how do you approach it differently with the public to make it seem like your ideas are fresh compared to what we've already spoken about, I guess. Does that make sense? Yeah. Makes sense, and I just want to say [24:27] Chair (Josh): if Kevin wants to speak, you're fine, Drew, but if Kevin, you want to get him to speak, feel free to also. [24:31] Drew Sigfordson (Developers Collaborative): I would say that our idea, we aren't looking to bring fresh ideas necessarily to the table. What we're looking for is to confirm what the community wants and what they've said in the past is still currently what they want. We're not going to have a project that's $104 million. When the community said what they wanted and it kind of went in that direction, all of a sudden it ballooned in price and it was not feasible, so the city as a municipal entity isn't able to tap into historic tax credits. A private developer through certain legal and tax structures is able to tap into that, which can have a benefit of 30 to 40 percent of the renovation costs actually coming back into the project and reinvested as equity. That is essentially like a subsidy and a buy-down of the project, so that's that's an element to the equation that we can bring that the city couldn't bring before. The other element of it is just the overall scope and the total costs were more than what the community can really sustain, and so coming up with a prioritized list of what are the things that we can really afford and maybe totally different structure, like you could theoretically condominium eyes the building, so not like a residential condominium but a commercial condominium, which a lot of our developments end up having different condominium structures where you parcel out different entities, and as an example, the auditorium could be a totally separate entity. It could have a fundraising campaign and dollars that come in to renovate that component as a totally stand-alone entity in comparison to the third floor, which is its own entity. The first floor may be a library, and maybe that's a different entity. And so, there are ways to really... How do you, how do you bite and, you know, how do you eat an elephant one bite at a time? That's the type of thing that I think is really gonna have to have to happen in a project like this. And I think that's some elements of, yeah. [27:00] Speaker E (unidentified): No, and that's great. And I think one of the most important pieces that you just said for the public to know and we did to drive that home is that a developer has the capabilities of gaining access to financial gains that the city doesn't, so straight, and I did, and I think that's gonna be something that we, you know, that it's going to be important for the public to really retain and know and watch you do your work. So, toodles to you, and I will get you off the hot seat. Okay. [27:33] Chair (Josh): There must be more questions. All right? All right. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Opposed? Abstain? Motion passes. And where are we now? Public comment number two, before adjournment. Any members from the public and wait to speak at this time? Well, you are the public, sorry, don't, all right, with that said, I will, when's the next meeting though? Let's just, I just wanted to get that out before we actually adjourn because I'm wondering if we're gonna, it's [28:20] Speaker D (unidentified): october 20th i believe josh and i won't be here so and then at that meeting we're gonna have to vote on what our schedule is after that because originally when we set this up there was a november the it was anticipated there'd be a november bond for mahoney that's not happening so we're gonna have to update the schedule i assume when we bring that forward we'll continue with the same tuesday night model generally like the fourth tuesday of the month when the council 's not meeting. Correct. And we'll do that through next October. [28:51] Chair (Josh): And you and Josh aren't here that day, and I know I'm flying back from Denver that day. I don't know. So do we want to kick that to November, or do we not have a meeting yet? [28:59] Speaker D (unidentified): We could, yeah. I mean, if there's no need to meet in October. Josh? [29:07] Josh (committee staff/chair): I haven't really had a chance to talk to Kevin and Drew yet, but I think it goes back to the question Councilor Matthews had asked about sort of what the expectations are in the coming months. We're gonna have to talk about a road map of sorts because there's gonna be things that need to get done in the next six months and we probably need to get our heads together and talk about, you know, what are the engagement points, the touch points with this committee and so on, so that might drive some of this timeline and when we're having committee meetings. Anyway, I just want to mention that we should, I think we should generally have an expectation that we're gonna be meeting on a regular basis getting updates on, I think, so, you know, the work that's being done and whatnot. Yeah. [29:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Council's meeting that night because they have a, they have kind of a weird meeting schedule [29:58] Chair (Josh): that month. Okay, all right, so we, you and John, we could leave the meeting for that night, but you [30:04] Speaker D (unidentified): and Joshua, we can leave it and then we'll see the week before if there's no need we can always cancel it and then we'll just, we'll assume that we're going to meet that third, fourth, sorry, fourth, 4th, Tuesday, and November, which will probably be Thanksgiving week. I'm sure it will be. Yeah. Oh, yeah, it is. Bring some turkey and stuffing, I guess. I did. Hi. [30:23] Chair (Josh): Yeah. Well, I guess we'll say stay tuned. And I heard a motion to adjourn. It still stands. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Alan. All those in favor? Let's pop our motion. Composed? Same. Thank you, everybody. Meeting adjourned.