Bangor committee advances Yellen Pines TIF deal, weighs chicken rules and VA hospital rezoning

[3:32] Speaker A (unidentified): You are live. So must be. [3:38] Joseph Leonard: Oh, good. Yeah, everybody. Welcome to another really scheduled meeting of the business economic development committee. I'm chair counselor Leonard. Around the table, committee members, we have council Carson. We have counselor Saloon. We have also a Fish, and we have counselor Mallor. Also around the table, we have counselors Back Dean, council chair Haas central. With us, and then we have community economic director and reading. So first item on the agenda, memory circle correctly. Oh, thank you. So we're gonna do a public hearing on the community development block program for the annual report. Yeah, and Robin Stanicki will be joining us. Good. [4:33] Robin Stankey: evening i'm robin stankey the community development officer and i have completed the projects and accomplishments report for the cddg program i've attached it to your memo this evening we had a moderate amount of activity this year and largely in part because we developed the consolidated plan which took up a lot of our energy but though we did that we've had a lot of accomplishments and activities this year and in large part due to our really successful bangor community action team and some of our programs that are ongoing, such as our home ownership programs and our residential rehabilitation programs that we're running this year. Our report is going to be going to HUD after a public comment period, which will end at the end of the month, and so we'd like to offer this as an opportunity to get feedback from the public and from you all on some of the details in the report and be able to answer questions. [5:43] Joseph Leonard: Okay, before I open it up to people, I guess I'll just ask staff really quick, do you think we should do public comment first, or do you want to have a discussion before we open it up to the [5:54] Robin Stankey: public comment? Well, typically I will present the memo with the different elements to it, and in the past we really haven't gotten a lot of public comment in the public hearing setting, so I'm interested to do it however you feel, chair. Okay, how about we just open it up to [6:16] Joseph Leonard: the committee very quickly, and then if then we'll open up the public afterwards. So the floor is anyone's if they would like to speak. Oh, council Fish, thank you for this report. [6:32] Speaker A (unidentified): Incredible feeling to see how much we've done in a year, and I think I have a couple of questions with BCAT, with what are considered, like you said, 400 individuals who are new to the program. What does the new person do? What's in the situation that you know describe a [6:55] Robin Stankey: Person new to the program so the new faces are those who the program they have not interfaced with before that doesn't include the prior year so if you're an individual that has been working with BCAT you're a unique face you would be counted as one individual but then you can also be counted as an individual in the second year so they don't bleed over from year to year so 462 I believe was the number unique individuals were engaged by BCAT in the year And then the remaining amount of individuals, they may have been a second encounter of that same person or another person that was known to them. [7:45] Speaker A (unidentified): There was an explanation about a budget on, I think the state of Maine retirement was a figure on there of kind of catching up on these, I can't put my finger on it right but I know we had reserve money for this year and then I think there was 180 000 that said that included some cash due amounts yeah would you break that out for me please sure so in a [8:18] Robin Stankey: prior year before the city went to its current retirement structure the employees that worked for under the CDBG program contributed to Maine first. And when there was a shift several years ago, there created an indebtedness that the city bifurcated the indebtedness that was attributed to those employees that worked under my program versus the employees in other departments. So this is extinguishing our indebtedness related to those employees. And we've been picking away at it over the last couple of years. So that's the final payment to get that extinguished. Okay. [8:59] Speaker A (unidentified): And out of the 180, I know there was a new amount, I should put my finger right on that. It was 30 something, was it? Okay, here we go. It was almost 40 for the prior year. And then it said out of the 180,423, it said part of that figure included PASS. Am I reading that right or does that not include PASS amounts as well? [9:23] Robin Stankey: No, it's been separated. we took that out so that you could see what the true administrative expense was and this is that 39,000 is really just sort of a one-off so it shouldn't be considered as something that would be recurring because it did inflate the administrative budget okay thank you any [9:44] Joseph Leonard: other follow-up questions yes [9:47] Michael Beck: Counselor back, so I had a question about the residential rehabilitation energy efficiency. Just reading the paragraph, it looks like you were talking about in somewhere or another that $300,000 touched 19 different units and some of them condemned and now are housing again. And I'm just, I'm impressed because that's great for $300,000 to be able to get 19 units out of that. That's squeezing six pennies out of a nickel. So I'm just wondering, is there more work like this coming in the future, in this coming year? [10:24] Robin Stankey: Yes, actually our budget that you approved at the end of last year, we anticipate that we will be able to have a 10 increase in our investment capacity for that program year over year, so we're really hoping that we'll probably do around 300 000 worth of rehab work and energy efficiency projects over the next year. Sure, and this isn't a topic for today, this is [10:50] Michael Beck: about this particular report, but I am still interested in going back and revisiting how we can look into that section 108 housing, so I'm definitely interested in having that come to the table at some point in the future, but yeah, appreciate this report, thank you. Yes, counselor. [11:06] Carolyn Fish: Thank you. Back on the bcat, so you talk about in this report about how the this information helps us better understand patterns and distinguish between Bangor residents and individuals arriving from other communities. Do you have any numbers that you can share showing like how many of those contacts were from Bangor residents and how many were from outside Bangor? [11:37] Robin Stankey: The David Bushy, the deputy chief of police, he submitted all of that data to the advisory committee on homelessness. So I believe that information could be available in one of those packets you might have, or I can also follow up and get that for you specifically. Okay, all right, awesome, thank you. Any [12:00] Joseph Leonard: other comments? I guess this might be a, unless staff you have anything, might be a good time to open it up to public comment. Unless there's objections, I will open up to the public for public comment. I guess seeing no one approach, I guess we'll close the public comment on that one. I guess I'll just be suffice and say thank you so much for bringing this all together. It was the brevity of it was probably the most impressive part. It's, I always appreciate being able to summarize what the city is doing. In as a few documents as possible. It makes our jobs easier, but it also just makes everyone's lives easier than our citizens of the city of Bangor just understanding what we are doing with our funds. Councillor Beck, do you have your hand up? Councillor Beck, you had a good question. [12:59] Michael Beck: So the public comment period is still open for a little bit longer. What are the ways public can reach out to you to get that comment in? [13:07] Robin Stankey: Several ways. So they can give me a call, they can give me the comment verbally, we can talk about it. They can also send me an email. Now, there isn't a way to sort of like fill out a form on the city website. But really, those are the two quickest ways. And they can also come in and talk to us. Great. [13:26] Joseph Leonard: Thanks for the clarification concert back unless there's anything else on the batter and unless stuff you have anything further you'd like to add to the report. Nice work. Up next we're going to be doing a review of the development agreement for young pikes [13:47] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: Our economic development officer Bagheeda Hernandez Smith this year to review it we also have zooming in our we call him our tiff attorney Phil Saucier from Bernstein [14:01] Speaker A (unidentified): Insurer in Portland great to have you both here hi so as we move forward with submitting the tiff [14:10] Speaker G (unidentified): Application to Maine Housing to state and accompanied with the CDA agreement part of that process is having those documents those finalized documents in front of you being able to review them and approving them so that we can submit to Maine Housing I want to, I invited Phil, who I've been working closely with, to create these documents. And one of the most important documents, as we can agree, is the CEA document that has the conditions in it. So I think that probably next step would be to discuss if anybody has questions regarding the TIP application and the CEA agreement and the development plan within that. And Phil is here to answer that very specifically [15:01] Joseph Leonard: We'll bend up to the committee if there was any questions yes Councilor Malik thank you I have [15:09] Speaker H (unidentified): Two questions it's kind of someone asked me the question I couldn't answer so I'm going to ask you they want to know if the land involved is FAA land and if we got a release from the FAA [15:22] Speaker G (unidentified): The land is not FAA land or land regulated by the FAA. [15:33] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: We did a very deep dive with our legal office going through deeds to find out. [15:41] Speaker H (unidentified): This person happens to be from Texas, was asking me about it, and I said I know nothing on that. Now, was HUD involved in the project, and a was a National Environmental Policy Act used for the to clean up what was done and what is being done? Are we responsible, or is the user of the property the one responsible? Yeah, our community development officer Robin is [16:09] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: still here, but she had done the environmental review. Anytime any federal dollars touches is a project, and in this case the federal dollars come later, so this is sort of unusual because they're not part of development, they're going to be part of the operations. You have to do a NEPA review, and we do that in-house with our community development officer [16:34] Speaker H (unidentified): and it has been done. Yes, but who's responsible for the cleanup if there is a cleanup? There is [16:42] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: is some cleanup that has to be done, and Maine Housing Authority. I mean that Maine Housing Authority, sorry, Bangor Housing Authority is responsible for that. That's part of their construction. If you remember in their original pro forma, they had, I think it was close to $500,000 just in remediation, soil remediation. [17:04] Speaker H (unidentified): That's the estimate for what it's going to cost. That's correct. So if it's less than that, they can use that money for something else i [17:16] Joseph Leonard: guess that's all i have for right now. Counselor Dean, I had a question regarding the [17:21] Speaker A (unidentified): possible assessed value once it's built. We know approximately what it will cost to build, it's a little bit of a different build. Once it is fully built and it is assessed, we have an idea of what we think that amount would be across. That's why that's why you're capping it at the three million, so if it's above that we will get 100 of taxes, anything over three million. Anything over three million, yes. So depending on where we stand in a year or so when it's built, we don't really know at this point going up or down. That's correct. Okay, I thought you would give [17:58] Joseph Leonard: me that figure, but I didn't see it here. Thank you. No any other follow-up questions or any comments? [18:10] Michael Beck: Yes, Counselor Beckman. Just a question, and I'm not a lawyer, so I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Section 2.2 under a lien that says that the city shall not create any liens, encumbrances, or any interests of nature whatsoever. If the developer doesn't pay their taxes, are we not able to put a lien on that property now under that? [18:33] Speaker G (unidentified): And here is where I invite Phil. Did you hear that question, Phil? I did. [18:37] David Szewczyk: Yeah, so no, that does not prohibit the city from tax liens. If you go on to read the next clause in 2.2, however, nothing herein shall prohibit the creation of property tax liens on property in the district in accordance and entitled to pursuit of Maine law. So this is really getting at, this is a standard provision and this is getting to non-property tax liens that may be, sometimes there's joint development agreements or some other kinds of matters. But this is, this is in every standard credit enhancement agreement that I've worked with. [19:13] Michael Beck: Okay, appreciate it, thank you. Yep, any [19:18] Joseph Leonard: other thoughts, comments, questions? [19:24] Speaker J (unidentified): Would it be helpful, I have asked Phil to, yes, oh, did you want to go? I just have a quick comment, which is I really appreciate we had that session where we set a lot of our parameters and I appreciate seeing those, right, and I realize that's a lot of, there was a lot of effort and work that went into that, so thank you for that. You're welcome. [19:50] Speaker G (unidentified): Would it be helpful if Phil went through the conditions with us again, just to make sure we're all on the same page? We approve. [19:58] Joseph Leonard: I would appreciate that. So why don't we do that if that's okay? Okay. [20:02] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay. And again, Bill, I'm handing it over to you. If you can go through each condition that [20:07] Speaker J (unidentified): we discussed on the CEA agreement. Yeah, sure. And so you'll find the [20:12] David Szewczyk: conditions within the credit enhancement agreement. And I just sort of, you start where we would sort of just left off, which is section 2.3. And that's really, it's really the heart of the credit enhancement agreement. So obviously one of the conditions were the reimbursement agreement so this is this provides for a 75 percent reimbursement of the taxes paid on the increased assessed value so that's how that's how a tiff program works and but up to a maximum increase assessed value used to calculate that reimbursement of three million dollars so you'll see that rate in section 2.3b it's also carried forward in our projections there's a projection sheet that's a required element of the main housing tiff application. So you'll see that the city then retains 25% of those TIF revenues. We call them TIF revenues at that point. The tax is paid on the increased success value for its own purposes. Now, it's important to note that its purposes are limited by statute. And so we have our project costs that the city has developed, approved project costs. And this will obviously still be reviewed once the council approves this application. It would still be reviewed by main housing and I work with main housing as part of that process to ensure if there are any project costs they often will have questions about the specific project costs to make sure they follow within the approved projects and bagida I don't know if it's it'd be helpful for me to actually use the actual sheet you provided me one by one do you have it can you hear it I'm just gonna pull that up or if I could just go through the credit enhancement agreement but You'll next go down I guess I'll take you to the next part of the credit enhancement agreement which is at towards the end so section nine are some conditions and so this is where we've also incorporated various conditions the council had directed staff to include so the project has to obviously comply and this would have been a condition anyway with main housing but comply with the home for good program requirements associate administered which is that program is administered actually both by Dhhs and main housing including the provision of required wraparound supportive services on-site case management 24-hour staffing were required by the program this is the next one was a separate condition the developer must also notify the city of any significant or unresolved finding by Maine housing involving affordability home for good compliance or required supportive services and then main housing will also provide direct notification to the city of Bangor field pines is determined to be Out of compliance you know it's up to Maine housing actually to do that but we've put that in here in this draft and I'll work with main housing's attorneys on that on how that notification would occur an annual reporting requirement we put that in obviously so that the city would have some visibility into to ensure that there's compliance into occupancy affordability supportive services program compliance and other information that the city may want to require and then there's obviously a Failure to meet clause so failure to meet more than one year the city shall have no deposit or payment obligations to the developer under this agreement unless and until the developer subsequently meets those agreements and we could still seek to terminate the agreement under the under the existing termination provisions so those are those are the main conditions there's also another condition which we included in the application itself and it wasn't in this and in the reason why because There's some question about the council did want to have at least some language about meeting the needs of Bangor residents, and I did discuss that with Main Housing. It's not clear we can make that a requirement. Okay, it's because it's a constitutional issue, but we did include language in the development program that says that BHDC will work towards providing the services to Bangor residents in compliance with law. So it's sort of a, you know, if they can do it they will, but we did put that clause. In theirs to ensure that it would be fail safe in the event that it was found not to be enforceable. So that's something I have talked to Main Housing's attorney about. I'll continue to talk to him about part of this, but it is in the application, and I don't know if I did, I miss anything to get to in terms of the conditions. [24:34] Joseph Leonard: Excuse me, Mr. Saucer, we do have a question from Councillor Fish. Was there a provision. [24:39] Speaker A (unidentified): Condition as well that should the property come for sale that the City of Bangor would have a shorter refusal? Did we discuss that? Is that something we discussed? Yes. [24:54] Speaker J (unidentified): I believe you did put that in there, Phil. I'll double check obviously before it's finalized. [25:00] David Szewczyk: For the council, but you're right, that is in there. It's either in there or it will be in there. I'll put it to you that way for the next condition. So essentially you want the option, you want a that, and that's something you can also take care of as part of the, which I have not been part of, which is part of the sale of the property. So you can have a writer first refusal, for example, on the event of any sale. We could, we can put some language in this tiff as well, but that's, I would, that's sort of a I. Would, I would recommend that's a better place to put it in whatever deed you have too, but I will make sure that it's in here in some form. Okay. [25:37] Joseph Leonard: Unless there's any other questions, do you want to go, do you have a question? I have one question. I thought we discussed. [25:42] Speaker H (unidentified): The distribution of illegal drugs for the people in the facility. We didn't, you know, I have a real issue with paying or furnishing money to allow people to use illegal drugs. I thought we were going to use that. I realized coming in we don't have, it's a low barrier, but once they're there, the impression I got from reading the newspaper article was that if they've created a disturbance because of using illegal drugs they'd be asked to leave, but there's no indication that they're not allowed to use. Them, so I'm assuming that you're allowing free reign of illegal drugs. [26:24] Speaker G (unidentified): So I am going to answer this how I remembered Banker housing quoting it in our last meeting. So illegal drugs are in fact illegal. So if residents are caught with illegal drugs, then they would be, they would have to go through the procedures of the police being called and so on. So that's what I understand. I do remember that those substances are not illegal, we able housing, the program could not enforce them to not use them. So things like alcohol, all substances can be used on the premises because there's, there could be no real force around that. But illegal drugs are illegal and that's a legal activity and that can be reported. [27:14] Joseph Leonard: my guess is that there's also a no smoking policy in these residences right just in general i am not aware i 'd be shocked that's pretty standard anyway but i do hear your point on the use of alcohol, if I do remember those conversations correctly, they are supposed to discourage that usage, but it is also a legal thing for anyone to purchase and it's going to be really difficult for people to like. [27:49] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm not so concerned about the alcohol as I am illegal drugs because the impression I got before was we had no control over what went on in the apartments if they were using illegal drugs and I have real issues with spending city or federal or state money on a project where we're allowing people to consume illegal substances. [28:15] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, I appreciate Councillor Meller's concern. In my recollection is that in addition to, you know, illegal drugs being illegal and that would be something that was reportable, that would also be a violation of the lease agreement between Bangor housing and tenants. And of course, I don't like to have something like that in front of me. But maybe other people remember that conversation better than I do. But that's what I do remember. [28:40] Joseph Leonard: And maybe I could check that out myself. [28:43] Speaker G (unidentified): And it would endanger the lease if it in fact be evicted. [28:46] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, that's a conversation I remember. [28:49] Speaker H (unidentified): And the first impression I got was from the interview that he did in the Bangor ideally that the only time they would not be allowed to use illegal drugs is if they created a disturbance and that's not my intention. I think we need to be very specific in that we don't want illegal drugs used, whether it's, I mean it's illegal so we shouldn't be using them anyway, but I think we need to confirm that because the impression I get from, you know, one you can do it once and get away with it, the second time it's you're out as far as I'm concerned, the first time. [29:24] Joseph Leonard: You're out. I'd like to have some clarification on that. So if I remember correctly, the conversation that was had, it would be like if there were violations of that by case for who, like what the violation was, depending on the circumstance. Now I don't want to speak for him, but at the end of the day, we do know that we have to get these people off the streets. Just because it's expensive to have them if they're being, for from what I understand, if they are completely just abusing the entire process. They will, if it's someone who is struggling with addiction and is in the throes of trying to get off of it, you're gonna have people falling off the wagon, and I think that's where the discrepancy comes into place, where if someone is actively making the effort to get sober, we're gonna, I would want our staff to work with that individual to helping them get sober if they're actually actively making a good effort on that. But this episode of Cue Point Podcast is pre-record. I don't want to speak for. Him too much though, know, but that was my analysis of the conversation at the end of the day. [30:48] Speaker A (unidentified): I was trying to find this quote. [30:54] Joseph Leonard: Accidents happen. Did you have any ones? [30:58] Speaker H (unidentified): I find that gives them a lot of leeway, which I'm not sure I want to give them that leeway. As far as I said before, as far as I'm concerned, when city money is involved in state money and federal money, we're allowing drugs to be consumed some illegal drugs and are aware of it, then we need to put a stop to it. I mean, it's just that simple. I don't think that taxpayer money shouldn't be used to buy drugs, period. [31:26] Joseph Leonard: As far as I'm aware, I don't think that there's any plans for this project to purchase drugs for anyone. [31:36] Speaker H (unidentified): That's not the point, but if we're using,, if they're in there on our nickel, and instead of paying rent when they could, if they're using that money to buy illegal drugs and maintain their subsidy from the federal, state, or local government, I have take offense to that. [31:56] Joseph Leonard: And that's absolutely valid to have, Councilor Malheur. I guess what I'm trying to reiterate, though, is if someone's clearly abusing the system, them they are just going to be evicted if they're not making a conscious effort to actually get sober and they're just abusing the housing rights then they shouldn't be in that facility if someone is actively in the effort to actually approach sobriety i think it's within our best interest to work with that individual to a point like there is a point where you can only give someone so many chances and i 'm gonna have to trust, thank you, yeah, I'm gonna have to trust them to figure out what those dynamics are, case to case, individual to individual, because not everything is going to be exactly black and white, by the book. I'm going to go to Counselor Carson really quick, just because you've been waiting for a bit. Yeah, I just actually wanted [33:01] Speaker J (unidentified): wanted to comment on, of course, the website keeps reloading over and over and over, but I wanted to actually make a comment about that article, which was what made the man behind Bangor's most controversial housing development, that was published September 8th in the BDN. Annie Rupertus was the reporter. In that article, he mentioned that all residents will have a lease and a set of rules to follow. And that's my head. If a resident breaks the rules, causes disruptions, or uses illegal drugs, staff will intervene. If the behavior continues, the resident will be evicted, he said. And at the end of that article, he sort of reiterates, he really wants people to know that this will be managed professionally, tenants will have accountability. And if they're not following the rules or taking things responsibly, then they will lose their opportunity to be there. So those are just, I think, two pieces that you can make sure. [34:07] Michael Beck: ELLIOTT WILSON 1.2, we were talking about this with the table. As we mentioned, there's going to be regular infections in the living quarters, so no one's going to be able to hide that use or the activities, so there is that as well. [34:25] Speaker H (unidentified): Okay. One more question, a different area. Area. It was my impression that we were not going to, or that the operator, the 24 hour, 24-7, is not going to encourage people that are there to seek employment now. And we suggest that they assist them in seeking employment, because that doesn't even make sense, that we don't want them to get a job. We don't want them to improve themselves. That's not, I understand under main housing we can't require them to take a job, which I find kind of strange. [35:07] Speaker J (unidentified): I mean, I think, is there something, I think that this is an ecosystem, right? So we have [35:17] Speaker G (unidentified): Bangor Housing, who's going to be the owner, we have Purple Street, who's going to be the operator with the wraparound services, and then we have the greater community. And so as that program is being built, we can make sure that there's collaborations in place, because as a community, we want to make sure that our citizens are actually contributing and being productive citizens. So that being connecting them to our Workforce Solutions arm to Economic Development, they wanted to become entrepreneurs, so I think, you know, once you get that stability within the building, then we have the greater community, the greater ecosystem that can support these individuals, just like we support all of our individuals. [35:57] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: And also remember that supportive housing is not the same as transitional housing. Transitional housing is, you know, people that are trying to transition, if you will, from being unhoused to actually being on their own. With supportive housing, we created that as for people who may, you know, need supportive care for the rest of their life, you know, they may be, you know, like Maya indicated, there are people that may go in there and may not transition out. So it's distinctly different from transitional housing. [36:36] Speaker G (unidentified): But I think there's opportunity, right? So like if there's a counselor working with an individual, that individual has become clean and expressed the fact that they wanna be contributing members of society. I don't think that, I mean, none of us, right, would say you need to stay in this building, you can't work, and you can't get your education, but the foundation to make these people prosperous is to be able to give them housing and the support [37:03] Joseph Leonard: that they need. Thank you for that clarification, because it's, I think we do need to reiterate that this is not transitional housing. At the end of the day, these are more compoundedly impacted individuals from homelessness that have a set of unique circumstances in health. It doesn't make them necessarily ready to, if they're at some point capable in their lives to actually acquire a job, it's going to take them like six months to a year to potentially get in there. You can't go from being on house to having a job. However, staff wants to go forward with that and how to go on case-by-case basis with the people that are living in Yellen Pines, they're going to be the subject matter experts to determine what is capable for one person and what is not capable for another. other. For me, at the end of the day, this is a project that I understand that people have a lot of strong feelings with this, but it just comes down to dollar signs for me at the end of the day, this is in the long run, and in the short run, just cheaper for the city to invest in rather than countless 911 calls and whatnot. Any other thoughts, questions, comments? I know we cut off mr saucier at some point do we want to continue with that or what was that the summation [38:42] David Szewczyk: i actually yeah i actually have i did find magida i'd like to have one more thing and that was on this issue of sale of property and you had mentioned it was in there so that is the last piece i wanted so one of the conditions was that the properties will be owned by bhdc home for good one lp and the condition that the council wanted with the ceo would not automatically transfer if the property is sold instead it would require city council approval and any new owner would be required to accept all cea conditions so that is in there that's in section 7.2 and so seven article seven is a standard provision as well so 7.1 just so you understand what this is saying is it does say that the developer can assign the cea for financing purposes. So that's a very standard thing. I've looked at just one of those today. In fact, that's because CEAs obviously are part of a financing package. So oftentimes if someone needs to get a loan or that sort of thing, main housing sometimes actually asks for an assignment, but the owner is still the owner of that property and they're still the party underneath the CEA. 7.2 is a different kind of assignment. That's an assignment if for someone, just someone sells their project, you know, just think of it in the commercial context, they sell their project and want to just also assign the cea over that new developer what 7.2 says here is that the developer cannot do that without city council approval so this is again something standard i like to get this is sometimes negotiated so i have worked on ceas where a city or town does agree to allow them to be signed but this is not but this is would require additional approval in the event that this developer ever tries to sell this project. I mean, this is a little bit a different project, so but it would require additional approval. So that's where it was, Bikita. You're absolutely right, it was in there. You [40:34] Joseph Leonard: do have a question from Counselor Carson. Yeah. [40:37] Speaker J (unidentified): And just to the, to the section you were just talking about, how would that apply, or is it possible for that to apply in a case where the developer sells the project, is in the building and the operations within it, but retains the land? How would that apply to our decision-making? [40:58] David Szewczyk: So it would still, so this would apply anytime the developer would seek to assign the credit enhancement agreement to another developer. So regardless of whether they're owning the land or the buildings. So that obviously happens. So if you're a new developer, if you're the new operator, you would probably want to receive some of the benefits of the CEA. So they may seek to have it assigned, but this says you can't do that unless the council agrees to that. So if that opportunity ever came in the future, say some other service provider takes on the responsibility for this project, you would then go through the analysis of just seeing if this, if this, you know, entity has the financial capacity, the technical capacity, you know, all those kinds of things, and then you'd have to vote to approve to assign it or not. [41:37] Speaker J (unidentified): Thank you. 're welcome. And this piece may actually be for one of you two, because is the land, the deed, is that being transferred like to Bangor Housing, or who's, who will own the land, and then so is that, do we have a right of first refusal in that? Need I didn't work directly [41:57] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: yeah that's that's assumed that 's going in there yeah okay all right so actually then [42:03] Speaker J (unidentified): all the pieces are covered. Thank you. 're welcome. I was supposed to do your hand up. [42:09] Speaker A (unidentified): And I just wanted to reiterate what Counselor Carson just said, that I would like, you know, we all intend and hope and assume it's in there, but I think it's very important for the future that we confirm that is going to be any [42:36] Joseph Leonard: other thoughts, comments, questions on this, and Mr. Saucer, if you have any final comments [42:44] David Szewczyk: or anything else to add. No, happy to work with you guys, and we'll put it together. The last thing I'll say is I don't think there's many edits, or any, but there'll be a final version of this for your packet at your next meeting for the public hearing. [42:57] Joseph Leonard: Unless staff has anything more that you'd like to add? If the committee has any questions for this upcoming final draft, I mean, obviously, please email your questions to staff so that they can get that into their reservoir of other questions that they, I'm sure, have to also respond to. But thank you so much. And unless there's anything else? Oh yes, Councillor Mallar, you had a question. I just want to ask one more question. [43:34] Speaker H (unidentified): Would it be possible to tell us what the potential cost to the city would be in future years if assuming all of the residents are Banglases as far as GDA is concerned on the vouchers or everything? And I'd like to have some wild guess at what it might cost us. [44:02] Speaker J (unidentified): Yes, thank you. Do we need [44:05] Speaker G (unidentified): an action on this? Yes, I just want to clarify with Phil. In order to abide by Main Housing regulations in this process, this committee needs to approve these documents, is that correct? [44:19] David Szewczyk: The council does, yeah, the full council. I don't want to get into the council, please. Right, so you've set this up for a public hearing the 28th, yeah, so you'd move it to the council and then [44:30] Joseph Leonard: you'll have a public hearing and vote. Okay, unless there's anything else, I guess I would look for a motion. Move that we forward this to the council. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? The roll call vote. Councillor Carson, yes. Councillor Fish. Councillor Mallar, no. Councillor, yes. I'll be yes. It'll be three to two. Move on to council. So much, yes. Great, thank you very much. Okay, next up we have land development code amendments, and should I let you do the [45:15] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: introduction or should we get right into it with our planning officer on Eucalypt? [45:21] Speaker G (unidentified): Thank you. So I did bring some follow-up responses to some of your questions last time about, because, you know, chickens, we did also have Trish from Animal Control and Jeff from Code, of course, I'm here to answer questions too that they might know better about. You did have a question about the care of chickens in case they were abused or neglected, collected. If somebody did complain about that happening, you know, control could inspect and rehome them if that is the case. As far as having regular inspections of chicken coops, that would require licensing or registration of some sort. We don't really have the staff capacity for that at this point in time. However, if someone, you know, probably be a neighbor, if they complain about a problem, code enforcement could go on that neighbor's property to look, and if the chicken coop is visible from the neighbor's property, they could see at that point in time if there is an issue. Unfortunately, they can't go on the person's property who has the chicken coop to investigate that problem, so it's limited in that way. But you know, if there is an odor at the property line, they can detect that and things of that nature. As far as rats, we did add some potential language on to the regulations from before about getting rid of food that's on the ground as soon as possible, keeping or dispensing food as it's needed. Those are kind of, they're more guidelines because they can't really be proactively enforced. There's something that code can tell people up front, but it's really going to come down to a complaint being made and enforcement that way. And then we did add language to clarify the animals of any kind should be contained in their enclosures so that they don't trespass on the neighboring. Are there any additional questions on that or the regulations from? [47:23] Joseph Leonard: I do have one question and it's a funky one. I don't know if you've had time to research this. It was actually brought up by Councilor Beck last time regarding deputizing citizens for a chicken watch basically. I, the general question is actually, I think a really important point to answer though, regarding like, does the city actually have that capability to deputize citizens for any type of task? And if you don't know the [47:54] Speaker A (unidentified): answer to that, but that's totally fine, legal indicated that wouldn't really be recommended [48:02] Speaker G (unidentified): As far as a specific answer to that question, I would have to bring that back later, but they didn't indicate that was really a feasible scenario. So. [48:13] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: Okay. Yeah, no, that's all I heard from Grace as well. Okay. [48:19] Joseph Leonard: Okay. Yeah. And I have some other questions, but I'll just talk to you about that offline. Okay. Yes. [48:26] Carolyn Fish: Counselor Flynn. Do you have any sort of estimates like, or is there a lot of interest in general from, you know, citywide of people wanting chickens like [48:38] Speaker G (unidentified): I think so, there is quite a bit, but I also, it seems like on the other hand, there are also people who are concerned about chickens because people are complaining about chickens on their neighbor's property. So I think it could be 50. It's really hard to know [48:55] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: I think code gets solved on it every once in a while as well. Yeah [49:01] Joseph Leonard: Any other thoughts or questions for staff? Yes, Council Carson, and my question would be [49:09] Speaker J (unidentified): actually to code, because it looks like this puts some of the responsibility on investigating complaints. I'm just wondering about taking on, because I think we don't know, right? As you just said, it's like 50-50 people interested, people not. If there's like suddenly an explosion of people interested in having backyard chickens, what does your capacity look like to enforce a suddenly large population in my imagination scenario? And if you could come [49:42] Joseph Leonard: forward to the table, that'd be great. [49:46] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, currently we don't have the capacity to, if we had an explosion of which we may, but yeah, we just don't know at this point. [50:00] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, have a follow-up question then related to that. So it sounds like maybe we would need some sort of a ramp up period to be able to build in some capacity, but I'm wondering, because this is related to changes in the state, right? So I'm wondering what our timing is to have where we need to comply with this, or to have this actually completed and [50:22] Speaker G (unidentified): passed and effective. I don't think they actually put a deadline in the state statute, but we're wrapping this into the land development code update, so that would be anticipated [50:32] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: to be completed next year, and that's kind of the trigger of it, because the statute, it says that you're not going to create a code that prohibits people from keeping chickens. So what we have on the books right now is what stays, and then we wanted to come to you early because of the statute being so new, so that might bring the new code in that [51:00] Speaker A (unidentified): already have been debated. Any [51:05] Joseph Leonard: other questions yes counselor back do you see statue of prevent [51:12] Michael Beck: the city from implementing any kind of a licensure, because there's gonna be an additional cost for inspection and the else, you know, I don't think it's unreasonable, just like dog license, everything else, say hey, if you're gonna do this, they also mean you license, is that possible? It's possible. [51:29] Speaker G (unidentified): The process we're proposing though would be a certificate of occupancy for a chicken coop, so they would just need one inspection and then that would be it unless somebody complains, [51:38] Speaker K (unidentified): is that right? Right. That would be with code and animal control. Currently it's a $31 fee for the application, the certificate of occupancy application itself. [51:52] Speaker G (unidentified): Were you envisioning more frequent inspections, is that what you're asking? [51:56] Michael Beck: Well, just because again, if it's going to be a cost and we don't have the capacity to inspect it based on demand, you know, and also, too, it just kind of helps us keep tabs. If they've got a license, these individual animals, you know, they get another hand, that's another license. And then again, are we creating another regulatory nightmare? Just spitballing, I just want to make sure that, you know, because there was concern about keep up with the animals and everything. If it's just a one and done and then it just kind of doesn't get thought about again, you know, does that lead to a different kind of problem? [52:33] Speaker J (unidentified): That's Carson, I appreciate that you brought that up and thinking about maybe some sort of an application fee that would help, but then I'm also thinking in that conversation I'm wondering if having like a per animal registration might almost be self, like defeating to people who want to have backyard chickens because they'd like to produce food or have access to that, you know, so somebody is in poverty and needs some chickens, then we're charging a licensing fee for chicken that way. [53:06] Speaker G (unidentified): I imagine it would add more work. [53:09] Speaker J (unidentified): Code to have a licensing and registration system, the more annual inspections, yeah, okay. [53:19] Joseph Leonard: okay so where do we stand right now on this i mean i 'm feeling pretty good personally about the direction that we're going in obviously we don't have all the answers before us but we do know that we have to go forward with something that actually grants citizens the right to keep chickens if they want. Does anyone at the table have any outstanding concerns, questions or issues on this topic or any hesitation on the direction that we're going? Staff, do you have anything that you'd like to follow up on? I think we'll open you as well, sir. [54:07] Speaker J (unidentified): Okay. Well, oh, yes. I'm sorry, but it's the capacity question. So I realize that we'll have a ramp up timing if I need to think about this, but is there anything that we can as a council do to assist and [54:24] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: Then I think we'll see what the response is, you know, it's not going to be helpful for another year, yeah, so and maybe we have to pivot after that point, yeah. [54:40] Michael Beck: Whatever it ends up being every weekend, I'm sure it'll be a poultry amount. [54:50] Joseph Leonard: All right, so with that, thank you so much, I appreciate you, we'll move on to the proposed modification to the growth boundary and I'm assuming you'll be taking this as well. [55:24] Speaker G (unidentified): So the VA is interested in a few parcels out at the intersection of Stillwater and Pitchford Road for a new VA hospital. One of those parcels is outside the growth boundary, which doesn't allow for a hospital. And typically it's not really recommended to do a zone change to a more intensive zone that is outside of the growth boundary and is shown as being rural. And planning board had made a recommendation in the past, you know, proposing that, and council went with that recommendation. So what we're proposing is a modification to the growth boundary. And then it would make a zone change there more straightforward. Typically a change to the growth boundary is looked at as a change to the comprehensive plan. So it would have to go through the same public notification process as that, which would be a 30-day notice or a notice in the newspaper which has to be at least 30 days before the public hearing we would also send out notices to abutters within 500 feet of property what we're really looking for from council is direction on whether this is desirable this parcel is adjacent to a parcel with sewer access so if they get into the hospital there they could access public water sewer and that's that was generally the standard we used when we drew the growth boundaries, like that, and also where existing development was. So is there [57:07] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: anything you want to add no it's just you know it's one of those the growth boundary it you know i always say it's not really the berlin wall but it's a but it is sort of you know the edge of where you know you want to see growth and want to push growth towards but we always anticipated that there might be some adjustments as we went along it just is a process that you [57:33] Joseph Leonard: have to go through to make those adjustments. Council, fish where to go, weren't they [57:42] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: interested in another potential site? Yeah, they were interested in a city property by the, by the airport, and then they decided on this particular one. There were, I think there were four different sites that they were looking at in Bangor, and the VA chose, felt like this was the top choice [58:12] Speaker H (unidentified): out of curiosity. Do we have sewer capacity out there for a hospital? They are, this project [58:19] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: has been working with our sewer department on, you know, being part of some of those improvements that are happening there. So this project is one of the anticipated possible projects for that expansion? You know, that improvement project that [58:37] Speaker H (unidentified): was, what we're planning, be enough? Are we going to have to upgrade the project? [58:43] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: I don't believe so, because I know they've been meeting. I'm looking all right, because I know they've been meeting with Amanda on the project. [58:58] Joseph Leonard: I mean, I'll just give my two cents. Since at the four, I can't really see a reason to not grant it at this point. We need as much health care, especially for our vets in this area, as much as possible. I am not the biggest fan of modifying the growth boundary, but this is, I think, one of the clearest examples of why you can do it. Personally speaking, I'm a little bit biased, but I guess I should say I am a veteran, so does Counselor Haas, so we might have conflict, conflicts of interest in this. I don't know if anyone wants to take that out. [59:42] Speaker J (unidentified): yes councillor carson i also would not be against doing this and as i'm looking at that it doesn't really look like that would fundamentally change the landscape around you know it really looks like it would be an expected right there with everything else [1:00:01] Joseph Leonard: so it would be helpful. [1:00:05] Carolyn Fish: Thank you. Do we know how many like residential properties would be impacted in that area? I'm looking at the map, but I just, I wasn't sure. Do you mean that are abutting the property? Yeah, and like when you do the notification, is it to businesses and residential? [1:00:25] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, any property owner in that area. Yeah, so I mean, mainly it would be those couple of parcels across the road, those are residential, and then one neighboring parcel next to it, there's a house there. Those are all in the immediate setting, maybe like 10 properties, but since we would be going 500 feet out, you know, we would be notifying people up country roads, so those would be some [1:00:45] Carolyn Fish: more references. Thank you. Can I just follow up? Yes, I guess I'm just thinking like, you know, [Speaker G (unidentified): what are potential] downsides to this? Like, I guess, you know, increased traffic. I'm just trying to think through, because when we discussed the changing of the minor to major arterials, like people showed up and they were just things that we hadn't thought of. And so I'm just trying to think of what are the things that we haven't thought of here that are going to be the hot button items and doing this, and do we know how like how big this facility is and like about how many like [1:01:21] Speaker G (unidentified): Patients it will accommodate, and that's perfect. As far as public pushback, I, you know, we're not, we haven't heard from a lot of people in this area. I can just imagine we might get some of the same arguments that we got from people down the road near Chase Road. A lot of these areas, they're on, you know, the very boundary of development and then very rural, and they may be, you know, opposed to changing it to a more intensive zone here because this area really kind of is a transition to a rural zone and a rural area that's just some of the pushback I imagine but it is tough because it is a transition you know and I don't know I 'm not sure about the statistics [1:02:09] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: on the hospital how many beds they have I don't know the number of beds but it's not a typical hospital it's more of a clinic so you know the trips per day the peak is different than a retail Peak so you're not going to have that same Peak traffic that's like all of the retail that's out there right now you know that was one perspective that you know I had looked at when we looked at this that you know it 's not going to have the as much of a negative effect act as it would if it was you know another retail outlet. So, but I don't know how many beds it is, but it won't have the intense use that a hospital has. It's more of a clinic where you have an appointment to come in, so you're not going to see a steady stream of ambulance traffic out there. [1:03:06] Speaker A (unidentified): I think you go back to when they came to the table before with interest. Is this a different plan? Before, was it more of a hospital you're thinking about doing? A miracle was the same [1:03:18] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: type of facility. It's the same type of facility, but they're not, but there's not going to have the emergency services. It's more of a of a clinic rehab type new problem in the land [1:03:32] Speaker A (unidentified): that they were looking at before, which I believe would have been sewn for them to be able to not have to come in and try to get a reason. Do you know what it was that made this so attractive that they wanted to go through a rezone compared to the one that they were interested? What [1:03:49] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: were the reasons they passed? One of the reasons they indicated to me that they didn't choose the other site was that it was too close to the airport. I thought they didn't want the clinic that close to a runway, right? Yeah, thank you. Okay, [1:04:13] Joseph Leonard: any thought, I guess I should say, does anyone have an issue with this on this committee? Because I'm not seeing any. I [1:04:23] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: Know you don't really need anything besides feet. No, because you're gonna have a full process with notice to butters, and there'll be a public hearing at planning board, so we'll know more. We just wanted to kind of get an early before we pursued it further with them if you had early [1:04:40] Joseph Leonard: thoughts or concerns. I think Councilor Faloon brought up really the only potential concern that I thought of, but I mean, if it comes to that, we'll just have to have the conversation station with citizens at that point. Yes, council cars. Well, to Counselor Fluent's point, is it [1:04:59] Speaker J (unidentified): possible for us to just have some anything that we can gather where we would know sort of what their plans are for that, because I think the public will have concerns when they start thinking about a reason. But if we have too much that's left up to the imagination rather than knowing what that might look like when it's actually put on land and where it might be on that land, might help people to more make, you know, better to think about that for themselves better than trying to [1:05:29] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: imagine what a clinic might look like. And we can also work with the VA hospital if you were to increase this growth boundary to do a contract zone for that other lot, so you know, to have the setbacks be different, you know, other dimensional requirements that might reduce some of the concerns people have, you know, x access points. Those are the types of things you can put a [1:05:57] Joseph Leonard: contract zone. Yeah, would that be a process though? We would have to, it's a zoning process, so yeah. [1:06:04] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: And they're going to need that anyway. They're going to need a zone change, so yeah. Two [1:06:11] Speaker G (unidentified): thoughts. One, you know, we could have a kind of a pre-public hearing workshop with neighbors to talk about this and give them some details, but I do just want to bring up, you know, we always give this caveat to the planning board too before they do a zone change, but even though the VA is interested in this particular parcel, you know, once the growth boundaries change and the zoning has changed, the VA could always change their mind, and that still leaves open the possibility for somebody else to come and develop there. So it could always end up not being a hospital. It would be, it could be retail, restaurants, or whatever. This is just the current proposal, so I just want [1:06:50] Bagheeda Hernandez Smith: To do that right, well, that's where the contract zone might be helpful, because then no matter what went in there, if there's some dimensional requirements that reduce some of the impacts to Kitridge, you know, that might help with some of the concerns that may be there. [1:07:10] Joseph Leonard: Unless there's any more thoughts on this, thank you so much for all your diligent work. I look forward to it at planning board, I guess. Last items that we have to do with the airport update and requests alongside some agreements. And I'll let Jose take it away when he gets up here. Pedro is approaching the table. He is sitting down, he's smiling. [1:07:46] Speaker J (unidentified): Hello, Larry. Francisco Civeira, airport director. Today's report is rather quick and simple. We are bringing renewal of both the Uber and Lyft agreements that we've had in place for quite some time. We're making minor adjustments to the rates that the airport gets from every right that originates or ends at the airport from $1 to $1.25, which is a minor increase, but it's pretty similar to what industry standards have for an airport size. So those would be separate council orders if approved and would go to full council next week. [1:08:38] Joseph Leonard: Just really quick, when we eventually vote to forward these to council, can we put both Lyft and Uber like motion up together, or should we do it separately? We will, I think we probably [1:08:53] Speaker J (unidentified): should put them separately, just because of their independent agreements with [1:08:59] Joseph Leonard: of all the companies always like yeah, any questions for directors of ager at the moment [1:09:06] Carolyn Fish: Counselor, thank you. Do taxis pay these fees like this too? So taxes have a different [1:09:13] Speaker J (unidentified): operating permit that they pay at the airport, yes. And these are only fees that get assessed on Uber or Lyft rights that either originate at the airport or get to the airport. If it's in town, if that does not get any [1:09:33] Joseph Leonard: other thoughts or questions, if not, I would be looking for, oh yes, a council Carson, and then council back. Actually just out of [1:09:42] Michael Beck: curiosity, I mean, how many rides roughly do start and end at the airport is the these agreements I [1:09:51] Speaker J (unidentified): do not have that number right off the top of my head, we [1:09:57] Michael Beck: have no big deal, it doesn't affect my decision, curiosity. Well, I do have a [1:10:01] Speaker J (unidentified): friend back there that might know the numbers, so, but we can get that information and send an update after the follow-up. Yeah, that's the part that you had a question. No, I was asked to not be moved. Well, that recommendation for the lift agreement second [1:10:19] Joseph Leonard: moved and seconded, unless doubted that will have passage. Yes, council Carson [1:10:27] Speaker J (unidentified): I'd like to move that we move staff recommendation on the three-year agreement with Riser LLC. Doing this, Cooper seconded. Unless doubted, that will have passage. Okay, oh go ahead. Yeah, and the last item that we had for the report is staff recommendation to accept and appropriate an FA grant. This is the second portion of the plan, and then we're waiting to hear back from the FAA. So we were able to get all of the remaining of the project covered it under a second print, and so that would be a grant for 7.3 million from the FAA, 192,000 from a Main DOT, 1.5 million from the major National Guard, and then a local share of about a little [1:11:22] Speaker A (unidentified): under 200,000. Any questions? Yes, Council Fish. I was just going to move this, move to recommend that we accept and appropriate, and I just say these numbers, I'm so excited. The total amount of $7,330,747 from the federal FFA Administration, and $192,914.40 from the Main Department Transportation and one million five hundred forty one hundred five one million five hundred twenty five hundred four hundred fifty six if I so excited can see the Air National Guard of which the city's matching amount would be 192 thousand nine hundred fourteen give [1:12:16] Joseph Leonard: a motion we have a second unless doubted that will have passage. All right. Anything else you want to leave us with, Director Saavedra? [1:12:28] Speaker J (unidentified): Well, before coming to the City Hall, I stopped by the runway to see the construction work that's happening right now. As you all might be aware, the runway is closed for 3.5 days and it is busy. There's a lot of work happening and I'm just excited to see that work move along. So it's lots of planning that went into that so [1:12:56] Joseph Leonard: Thank you for the update, I appreciate you. And do you have anything else for us at the end? Okay, well if that is it then it is 624 p.m. We are adjourned to the business not development committee, but stay tuned. We have finance up next