Portland Council approves CIP amendments, JetPort funding, and code changes

[0:00] Mark Dion: When I get to the appointments you want me to. [0:03] Anna Bullett: No, okay, glad I checked. Oh, I don't want, there'll be enough, okay, everywhere, because I can't stand. [0:12] Pious Ali: I have TMJ. [0:47] Mark Dion: Right, okay, that's what I, that's what I wanted to, yeah. Meeting of the City Council will come to order. Will you join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, [1:07] Public Commenter: and to the republic for which it stands, [1:09] Mark Dion: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Clerk will call the roll. You need to let her in as the host, staff above. While we're waiting, I just want to make a comment. Maybe they'll hear it on Zoom. This is a hybrid meeting because Councilor Fournier is out of town and still wants to participate and vote. I have never had difficulties with individuals that come to chambers to talk to us. You can be passionate, but I don't consider any of that a difficulty. I will advise our colleagues, friends, and otherwise on Zoom, I'll have the same expectation. If there's vulgarities, fighting words, peaked criticisms against a specific counselor or counselors, I'll call for a point of order, and I may rule to shut them down. I pride myself on ensuring civility and business as usual at each meeting. So I won't have any interruptions. They may have a right to speak, they think, but we all have a right to hear, I do think. So I just ask for that, and I know tonight there will be some of us that will disagree, but let's do it in a way that other people say they know how to discuss policy. So thank you. Recording stopped. that's alright you don't have to apologize councillor Fournier absent. Councillor Grant. Here. Councillor Sykes. Here. Councillor Ali. Here. Councillor Pelletier. Here. Councillor McNavage. Here. Councillor Bullett. Here. Councillor Phillips. Here. Mayor Dion. Here. [4:23] Mark Dion: Once we resolve technical difficulties, I'm sure Councillor Fournier will be with us. Chair will now entertain public comments on items not on the agenda. Stephen [4:45] Public Commenter: Sharpe of Brackett Street in Portland. I want to speak to an issue that has become very significant. There was a report yesterday that seven people had overdosed in the last, at that time, twenty hours. And I don't know if there's additional overdoses that have happened. But there have been a total of 146 overdoses this year alone, not including that seven and any others that would have happened this week. And that is not good. And that is because this council continues to support a really bad policy of giving away free needles. That is not good. And that's why people are overdosing on the streets of Portland. And we need to stop that. So I just wanted to make that notation while I could. [5:47] Mark Dion: Anyone else wishing to provide public comment on a non-agended item? Looking above, you're a little hidden by the floodlights. Seeing no one else, public comment period is now closed. The chair is going to take order 180-2025-2526 out of order. Clerk will read title. Order 180-2526, amendment to the Portland City Code Chapter 2 regarding immigration enforcement, sponsored by Councilor Pius Ali and Regina Phillips. The chair seeks a motion to postpone from the councilor. [6:36] Kate Sykes: Thank you, Mayor. Before I make the motion, I've raised my hand. You didn't see it. I have an announcement that I've been asked to make. [6:44] Mark Dion: Can it wait until after? Do you want to do it before this? [6:48] Kate Sykes: Let me do it so that I'll get it off the way. [6:50] Mark Dion: By all means. You have the floor. [6:51] Kate Sykes: Thank you. Students from Portland Public Schools are inviting the public to a nonpartisan gubernatorial candidate forum on Maine's public education. I understand that they are collaborating with other school students on May 4th at Rowe Elementary School from 5.30 p.m. The public is invited to come and join them and meet and greet the candidates. They are both Republicans. [7:20] Mark Dion: Thank you, Counselor. On to the motion. [7:26] Kate Sykes: I want to make a motion to move this item to next week's council meeting, which is May 4th. [7:33] Mark Dion: Is there a second? Second by Council Phillips. No discussion. All in favor, motion. [Public Commenter: Courting.] In progress, Council. fournier can you hear me i can you hear me now i can go ahead there's motion on motion on the floor to postpone order 180 25 26 the immigration question until next monday how do you vote yes all right i hate technology for the record because it's hybrid we have to do a roll call for each and every vote so that should add another 45 minutes to the evening Go ahead, call the roll. Counselor Fournier? Yes. Counselor Grant? Yes. Counselor Sykes? Yes. Councillor Ali? Aye. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor McNavidge? Yes. Councillor Bullett? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dionne? Yes. Motion passes. Chair would now seek a motion to recess the meeting of the City Council and convene the annual meeting of the Corporate of the Portland Fish and Beer Authority. Is there a motion on the floor? So moved. Second. Moved by Councillor Sykes, seconded by Councillor Ali. Call the roll. Roll. Councillor Fournier. Yes. Councillor Grant. Yes. Councillor Sykes. Yes. Councillor Ali. Yes. Councillor Pelletier. Yes. Councillor Michniewicz. Yes. Councillor Bullett. Yes. Councillor Phillips. Yes. Mayor Dionne. Yes. Chair would now refer the item to Chair Robert Odlin to present those attending. Is he there? I zoom. Chair Odlin, can you hear me? He's not. Council 's pleasure, I'll set this aside until Ms. Arlen can connect with us. Chair, we seek a motion to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2026 meeting. So moved. Second. Moved by Councilor Bullett, seconded by Councilor Ali. Any comment from the Council? Seeing none, call the roll. Mayor, point of order. [10:39] Kate Sykes: Go ahead. I don't believe we can do this because we're still in the Fish Pier meeting. I think we have to actually... [10:44] Mark Dion: No, I've just set it aside. Side. [10:47] Kate Sykes: It's over here. Okay. We're not in the Fish Pier meeting anymore? Okay. Thanks. [10:58] Mark Dion: I'm required to use it. But thank you, Councilor Sykes. Councilor Fournier? Yes. Councilor Grant? Yes. Councilor Sykes? Yes. Councilor Ali? Yes. Councilor Pelletier? Yes. Councilor McNavich? Yes. Councilor Bullett? Yes. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dayan. Yes. Chair will now return to Chair Odlin for his comment on the Fish Pier Authority. Can [11:45] Robert Odlin: you guys hear me? We can, sir. Sorry about the glitch. We all know technology can be wonderful, and it can be frustrating. So I'll be brief for you guys. I know you're working really hard. Thank you for inviting me to this corporate meeting. Meeting Board Chair Robert Odlin. I've been on the Fish Pier since I was 10 years old, let me think, 14 years old, so I grew up on the pier, and I'm honored to represent the Fish Pier Authority. I take the volunteering very serious. We had a merger, I'm gonna just go briefly to give you a quick update. We had a, we had a merger in 2024 of the PFB and the Fish Pier, so now it's sort of one entity. The Fish Pier supports at least 20 boats with birthing, offloading, fuel, ice, vitally important. It's basically the lifeblood of the fishing industry in Maine. We need a place to unload, we need a place to get ice and fuel and birth and safe harbor. There's been two recent and big projects for actually their forthcoming projects. One is upgrading our shore power pedestals so when we tie our boats up at the piers we can plug in, keep our batteries charged, keep our VMS units plugged in so the government knows where we're at. Second is two major pier replacement projects, we call them service piers one and three, they Are in disrepair after 40 years of countless tides and lots of usage. They're gonna be needing upgrading. The seals basically rotted away underneath, and our new waterfront director, Heather Moretti, has been working diligently to get some grant money through Maine DOT to pay for it. So that's a huge win for us. She has huge shoes to fill, as you know. She has taken over for Bill Needleman, a good friend, and he is mentored me through this process, you know, submitting to you guys. So the industry itself Ground fishing is kind of the main driver of revenue at the fish here, along with leases, land leases, birthing, and as you probably heard the news, fishing industry is not always smooth and easy. A lot of government regulations, lots of challenges. We do, we did, we do get occasional bones thrown our way and occasional good news. Lately there's been some USDA changes where now fish are considered parts of agriculture, you know, supporting the food security of our country. So we're hoping that there's going To be some available funds, grants, that stuff to maybe do some vessel improvements, that kind of thing. The fish pier has a little brother called the fish exchange, and the fish exchange is the driver generally, and also one of the places that take the most money away from the fish pier. I think we had about a seven hundred thousand dollar projected revenue, and it's in the covenants that the fish pier does bail out PFE, which has been going on for a while. We had to raise our fees to sort of try to Balance the budget, but we generally don't. We usually have a couple hundred thousand a year from the Fish and Beer Authority that goes to PFP to keep them solvent. Let's see, what else can I explain to you guys? There's so much, I don't want to bore you with the details, and I know you're very busy. We hope and foresee that the industry will at least, you know, be managing a one and a half million pounds annually. That's our target is two and a half, and at three we sort of break even, three million pounds at the PFE. I'm sorry, I spent ten years as the PFE president before I became the Fish Care Authority president, so sometimes I get a little confused, but we're cautiously optimistic that the industry will still maintain 20 to 25, provide both fleets, and hopefully, you know, we get some new Investments, and the fleet is graying, both captains and crew and vessels, so we definitely want you involved in this industry. I think I've covered sort of a highlight. Do you have any questions for me? [16:51] Mark Dion: I do not chair any questions or comments from the council. No action is needed by us tonight night. Anything? Thank you, Chair Odlin, for your service and work on the pier. We'll talk soon. Chair would seek a motion to adjourn the meeting of the court. Second. Moved by Councillor Phillips. Seconded by Councillor Sykes. Call the roll. Councillor Fournier. Yes. Councillor Grant. Yes, that's our Sykes. Yes, that's our Ali. Yes, that's the private Pelletier. Yes, counselor McNavid. Yes Counselor bullet. Yes, counselor Phillips. Yes, mayor. Diane. Yes She would now ask the clerk to read proclamation 2725 26 title only proclamation 25 27 25 26 recognizing May 2026 as Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month sponsored by Mark Dion mayor Chair, would inquire of Councilor Fournier if she has access to that narrative. [18:03] April Fournier: I do. I am on the Wi-Fi, which is a little spotty, so I don't know that my reading would do it justice, if one of my colleagues would be willing to read that. [18:12] Mark Dion: Chair, appreciates the yields to Councilor Phillips. [18:18] Benjamin Grant: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor Fournier. Proclamation recognizing May 2026 as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month,, whereas the people of the United States and Maine join together each May to pay tribute to the contributions of the generations of Asian American, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders who have enriched this history of our country and state, and whereas the history of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders in the United States and Maine is inextricably tied to the story of our country and state, and whereas the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander community is an inherently diverse population composed of more than 45 distinct ethnicities more than a hundred language dialects and whereas according to the Bureau of the Census the Asian American population in the United States has one of the fastest growing over the last decade doubling between 2000 and 2020 and whereas in Maine there are over 26,000 residents who identify as Asian and over a thousand residents who identify as native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and whereas the United States government selected the month of May to recognize this community because the first Japanese immigrants arrived in the United States on May 7, 1843, and the first transcontinental railroad was completed on May 10, 1869, with substantial conditions from Chinese immigrants, and whereas Section 102 of Title 36, United States Code, officially designates May as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, and requests the President to issue an annual proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe the month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities, and now, therefore, be it resolved that the Mayor of Portland, Mark Dyer, and other members of the City Council do hereby recognize Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month as an important time to celebrate their significant contributions to the United States and Maine. Signed and sealed this 27th day of April 2026, Mayor Mark Dyer, City of Portland. [20:23] Mark Dion: Thank you, Counselor. The chair will now move for proclamation, recognizing the Deering High School speech and debate team for their accomplishments. Would they stand for just a moment? I don't usually do this, but on a personal note, I was on the debate team in high school. It may have served me well. The question still remains open. Tomorrow, check in with me tomorrow on that. Nonetheless, thank you. I'm going to turn now to Councilor Grant. He's going to read the proclamation so you can have a seat before [21:03] Benjamin Grant: I start. I just let you know that I was not on the debate team and I still ended up a lawyer, so I don't know what that says about my career. In any event, whereas the during high school speech and debate team has a storied track record of success at both the local and state levels of competition and has demonstrated exceptional dedication and excellence through competitive debate, and whereas senior Noah Rashid placed first in the Senate and was named state champion, senior Zachary Lee placed third in the Senate and sophomore, Esri Pelletier placed first in the House and was named state champion. And whereas the Deering High School speech and debate team has won two state titles in the last three seasons and collectively won the 25-26 state congressional debate runner's up title. And whereas Noah Rasheed, Zachary Lee, and Esri Pelletier also qualified for the 2026 National Speech and Debate Association's national tournament in Richmond, Virginia. And whereas these accomplishments reflect countless hours of research and preparation, collaboration and discipline, practice by the student debaters under the guidance of their coach Bilal Hussain, and with the support of the Deering Rams community, and whereas the Deering High School speech and debate team has brought great pride and distinction to their school, the Portland Public Schools District, and the city of Portland through their perseverance, teamwork, and academic achievement, now therefore Be it resolved that I, Mark Dine, mayor of the city of Portland, Maine, and members of the city council, do hereby congratulate the entire Deering High School speech and debate team on a successful debate season, an outstanding accomplishment, and commend them for representing our city with excellence and integrity, and wish them the best of luck on their future competitions and future endeavors. Signed and sealed this 27th day of April, 2026, Mark Diane, mayor. Will the team [22:48] Mark Dion: stand, their coach, and the superintendent, and take our appreciation? You too, superintendent. Now you're free to stay with us for the whole meeting and see debate in action, or you can go along your evening and enjoy yourself, so we don't take any offense, because no one ever takes me up on the offer, but I ask anyways. All right, then she'll ask the clerk to read communication 14. Communication 14-25-26, Diane Herman, appointed to Civilian Police Review Board by Mark Dion, Mayor. This is just a communication regarding my mayoral appointment to the board, the backup materials online, but just to strengthen the fact that I picked her out of a pool of applicants, and I was assisted by Councilors Grant and Sykes. I want to thank them for their diligence and effort. The three of us selected the Committee of Nine. I did the Tenth, the Mayoral. And just to give you a background, Ms. Herman is an attorney. She has functioned as an administrative law judge, an executive director of a bar association, and a mediator for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, among her other accomplishments. So I thought she was well suited to join this body as they move forward as a check and balance to what may go on with our police officers in the community. So the names of all the appointees are listed in the agenda. Thank you for your attention. Clerk will now read Orders 185.25.26 through 189.25.26 Consent Calendar. Strike that. She will read Order 184.25.26. Order 184.25.26, appointing members to the Civilian Police Review Board sponsored by Legislative and Nominating Committee, Mayor Mark Dion, Chair. Motion for passage. So moved. All right then. There's a motion and a second. Is there any public comment on this list of appointees? Seeing none, is there any discussion or questions by the council as a whole? Miss Plant, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor [26:34] Public Commenter: Dion. Darian Plant, District Three. I'm here tonight to express serious concern regarding the appointment of two self-proclaimed progressive activists to the Civilian Police Review Board. This is not about financial disagree, political disagreement. People are entitled to their views. My concern is whether individuals who have repeatedly taken public adversarial positions against law enforcement and are driven by political ideology can fairly review officer conduct without predetermined bias. The purpose of this board is to build transparency and public trust, but that trust is undermined when individuals with long records of anti-police activism and close political ties to council members are appointed to roles requiring impartial judgment. A civilian review board should not serve as an extension of political ideology. It must exist to examine facts, evidence, policy, and conduct fairly and independently. One appointee has spent years accusing police of systemic misconduct, claiming officers, quote, falsified reports en masse, end quote, and criticizing police response to what he called, quote, peaceful protesters, quote. But the June 2020 protest he referenced resulted in 23 arrests, broken business windows, damaged storefronts, destroyed barricades, attempts to damage police vehicles, and officers being struck by thrown objects. The Portland Press-Herald described it as unprecedented in both size and violence, but its criticism rested on the police with no consideration of criminal behavior or the fact that their actions may have aligned with existing policies. The same individual also has political relationships spanning more than a decade with multiple current council members, including reciprocal endorsements and aligned activism. That raises serious concerns about conflict of interest, favoritism and chronism. Was this appointment made because he is the most impartial candidate or because he advances the same political agenda already championed by members of this council? Accountability does not only apply to police officers. Individuals also bear responsibility for their own actions during encounters with law enforcement. Disagreeing with laws or outcomes does not automatically mean officers acted improperly. These are not neutral positions. They reflect a worldview where law enforcement is presumed wrong and the individual encountering police is assumed blameless. That is not oversight. That is activism. Police officers work in difficult, dangerous, and often thankless circumstances. They deserve accountability systems that are fair and grounded in policy, not boards where some members have already decided police are the problem before any review begins. If this board is going to have legitimacy, it must include people capable of balanced judgment, not the loudest political voices or strongest political connections. Public trust depends on the appearance of fairness as much as fairness itself. Right now, many officers and residents have every reason to question whether that standard has been met thank you there's [29:45] Mark Dion: no one else on zoom willing to provide comment no one here in the chamber comments are closed there's a motion on the floor any discussion by the council being done call the roll councillor Fournier yes councillor Grant yes councillor Sykes yes that's our le yay councillor Pelletier yes councillor Michniewicz yes councillor Senator Bullitt? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dayan? Yes. Clerk will now read Orders 185-2526 through 189-2526, Consent Calendar. Order 185-2526, granting municipal officers approval of Clarion Hotel application for Class 1A FSE at 1230 Congress Street, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 186-2526, granting municipal officers of Fitzpatrick Stadium application for outdoor entertainment at 61 Stadium Way, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 187-2526, granting municipal officers of Sweet Fern Geometer application for Class 1 FSE at 122 Washington Ave., sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. City Manager. Order 188.25.26, granting municipal officers approval of Amore Market application for outdoor dining on private property at 52 Hanover Street, Suite C, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Order 189.25.26, granting municipal officers approval of Amore application for outdoor dining on private property at 52 Hanover Street, Suite D, sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Any comments from the city manager's office? No, thank you. Is there any public comment on any of the applicants? Steven [31:58] Public Commenter: Schaffer, Brackett Street. Order number 186 slash 2526 is in order to grant approval to quote the city of Portland doing business as Fitzpatrick Stadium, city of Portland does business as the city of Portland, so that's sort of a misnomer to describe it as that. It's an application for Fitzpatrick Stadium. I have risen in the past to oppose any applications by the city of Portland to grant itself a liquor license. This is not a liquor license, but this is a license, and it makes no sense for the city to grant a license to itself. And I object to this order and I'm very confused by it, so I think there needs to be some more explanation as to why you're suddenly deciding you need an entertainment license when you've been providing an entertainment at Fitzpatrick Stadium for about the last hundred years, so it just makes no sense that suddenly you need an entertainment license there, but I am a strenuously object to the city giving itself a license, it makes absolutely no sense. Is there any other public comment on any [33:14] Mark Dion: of these applicants? Our comment is, calls chair, would defer to the assistant city manager Dina Libner for a comment in response to the public comment about Fitzpatrick Stadium. Thank you, mayor. [33:36] Public Commenter: the city holds entertainment licenses on a number of its facilities including merrill auditorium an ocean gateway and that's to hold ourselves to the same sound management standards and other such standards that we hold private license holders. This is being sought at Fitzpatrick Stadium even though there have been a number of activities. It's been heavily used by the public school athletic facilities and departments, and the schools do not require an entertainment license with the expanded types of uses, including Hearts of Pine at the stadium. Staff are seeking a license so that we maintain the same standards that are expected at other event spaces and by other entertainment license holders in the city. And this is the first time that it will be considered by the council in future years. It would be renewed administratively by staff. I hope that helps. And Andy Downs is on the attendees list as well. [34:36] Mark Dion: There are any other questions. Thank you, chair. Would seek a motion for passage of the consent calendar. So moved by Councillor Ali, second by Councillor Phillips. Discussion questions. it's being none call the roll councillor fournier yes councillor grant yes that's our sikes yes that's our ali hey that's our pelletier yes that's our Michniewicz yes that's our bullet yes That's what Phillips, yes. They are dying, yes. Could those who apply please stand so the council can see you for the businesses that are listed in the consent calendar, the applicants. We passed this or any present. My god, I don't give get this speech, but I will say a few comments just in regards to order 187 25 26 Sweet Fern Geometer. I wanted to bring it to council's attention, the public. The Portland Downtown Corporation approved two loans for this small business earlier this month. This was a good opportunity to recognize some of the investment made by the city in support of small business. One of those loans was the interest-free storefront improvement loan, which the council enacted last June in conjunction with the PDC recommendation. Feast Ephemera is one of the several businesses that have used this loan to invest in their ground level storefront over the last year. So I just wanted you to know one of your council decisions has realized some fruit, and this particular business, which is new to our city, took advantage of resources you placed at their disposal. Late arrivals and technology. Land chair would entertain comments from William Justice. Sweet Fern, can you hear me, William? Yeah, I can, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, very clearly. You want to provide comment to the council? I simply [37:14] Public Commenter: wanted to thank the council both for the work of granting me the facade loan and the startup loan, and for approving my liquor license. I simply wanted to say that I was here and that I appreciated your work. [37:27] Mark Dion: Well, thank you for your decision to do business in Portland. I normally invite the approved applicants to stay for the rest of the meeting. Well, it looks like you've already made your decision. You're not even here. But I'm glad you paid attention so you could provide us with your comment. Chair would now ask Terry Morrison and which application he represents. [37:55] Public Commenter: Are you there, Terry? Can you folks hear me? Can you folks hear me? We can hear you. Go ahead, sir. Okay, wonderful. I'm Terry Morrison. I'm the general manager of the Claria Hotel in Portland. Thank you for supporting our license. It's basically a transfer of ownership from one management company to another. And I had to go through the whole process of selling out applications and so forth. We went from an Olympia property to advancing future American property. That simple. I want to say thank you. And if you have questions, we'll be willing to answer them. [38:38] Mark Dion: Well, thanks for working with the city to a successful outcome. And I appreciate you taking the time to provide us with comments. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk will now read resolve 9 25 26 title. Resolve 9 25 26 adopting the fiscal year 2026 and 2027 annual action plan including appropriations for community development block grant program, home program, and emergency solutions grant program, and certifications pertaining there to sponsored by Danielle West, City Manager. Chair would entertain public comment from individuals who did not provide comment on this item during the first read. Is there anyone here wishing to provide that comment? Go ahead. [39:30] Public Commenter: Good evening, my name is Rebecca Hobbs. I am co-executive director of Through These Doors. Just wanted to say tonight that Through These Doors really appreciates the inclusion of our community-based advocacy project in this year's recommended list by the committee and the city manager. And I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to remind the council of the value of this project. As Cumberland County's only domestic violence resource center, Through These Doors is uniquely qualified to provide the community-based advocacy services in this proposal. The work of this project is to prevent and reduce homelessness due to domestic abuse by providing domestic violence advocacy services, emergency services to prevent and divert homelessness, emergency shelter services, and partnership connections. Our project satisfies national CDBG objectives by providing advocacy and support services for low to moderate income individuals focused on decreasing housing insecurity and homelessness due to domestic abuse. use. The advocate funded through this grant serves as a bridge to other through these doors services such as those of our specialized advocates, our 24-hour helpline, support and education groups, legal advocates, and our full range of housing specialists who work within our residential services program making the impact of this grant which funds one position only much more extensive and wide-ranging so thank you very much for supporting our proposal anyone [41:07] Mark Dion: else wishing to speak on this result and I'm gonna qualify what I said earlier there are two proposed amendments to the main motion so if you want to speak to one of the amendments you can do so and the speaker who began this conversation miss Hobbs if you wanted to speak to the other amendments I'd allow you some time to return and make comment because I didn't provide you with the same scope I'm providing these other commenters okay all right that go online first Michelle [41:50] Public Commenter: lamb you hear us I can go ahead speaker I'm the executive director of greater Portland family promise thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and thank you for your continued commitment to addressing housing instability in our community. We're grateful to the CDBG Allocation Committee for recommending us for 221,000 for our transitional housing project at 22 Pleasant Avenue. And I'm here tonight to strongly encourage you to support Councilor McNavich's amendment to allocate $50,000 in CDBG funding for our Homelessness Prevention and Housing Stabilization Program. Since 2017, Family Promise has successfully operated this program with a combination of CDBG funding and private funding, and CDBG funding is foundational to our work. We show up for families and provide that steady relationship-based support that sets them up for long-term success. We're helping families experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness with housing navigation, housing stabilization, case management, tenant education, financial assistance for rent and utilities, and ongoing support for food and much more. These are the types of supports that stabilize families in crisis. It's helping families to find apartments, complete housing applications, navigate through an overwhelming process, completing lease agreements, walking through tenant education, how to deal with a landlord to ensure that they maintain their tenancy. We also provide financial assistance acting as a guarantor to help with security deposits and covering rental arrears to prevent eviction. These are relatively small interventions but paired with our case management they prevent homelessness entirely and set families up for independence. The work continues to grow. There continues to be a need. Families are doubled up. Housing costs are rising. Families are navigating systemic barriers. All of this requires coordinated case management. The support we provide keeps children in schools, parents and their jobs in their community, and families out of the shelter system. In our application, our total budget was 350,000. Of that, 221,000 support supports program staff. We had requested 127,000 from city of Portland CDBG, which was 58% of our staffing budget. The level of funding would have allowed us to provide 4,000 hours of staff time serve approximately 200 individuals and 50 families. With the 50,000 recommended in the amendment, 30 seconds of our original request, we would still be able to serve 80 individuals and 20 families. This reduced request would still make a meaningful impact on families in our community. Thank you Councillor McNovich and the city council for your leadership and partnership here [44:46] Mark Dion: We go to the speaker in the balcony. Hi [44:50] Public Commenter: Cassandra Wilbur, Congress Street. I wanted to start with acknowledging the work that goes into in the budget and the allocation schedule for the Community Block Grant by the city manager, the city staff, and the Community Development Block Grant committee. It reflects Portland's commitment to core values and strong priorities, putting the people of Portland first. However, it is also clear that the demand is exceeding available resources. We see that across housing, social services, and food access. Programs that are identified as high priority but still go largely unfunded or underfunded to meet the need in the community. I also wanted to briefly mention, in addition to the allocations on the agenda for approval by Council today, the shortfall in the GA, General Assistance funding mentioned by the city manager in the last Council meeting. The city had supported a bill that would have reimbursed the city at 90% of GA expenditures, and unfortunately that did not pass, and the city will only see 70 percent reimbursement from the state. And I mentioned this not to focus on GA, but to illustrate something important from my experience administering MaineCare, SNAP, and TANF benefits. I noticed that a significant amount of TANF recipients also receive GA specifically to maintain housing and receive rental assistance. That's why I think it's critical that we look at these funding gaps as not just impacting the programs who did not receive Community Block Grant funding, but how the system as a whole requires more robust funding strategies. One approach is to pursue additional grant-based funding. I did submit a written comment ahead of today's meeting that outlined several grant opportunities that specifically target housing supply, housing stability, and food systems. At the same time, I would encourage the city to explore local revenue strategies that align with the strong priorities set out in this year's municipal budget. Maine has the highest vacancy rate in the country at approximately 10 percent, with Portland coming in at about 4.4 vacancy. Exploring policies such as targeted property tax on vacation or second homes could be a significant source of revenue to help fund the needs of full-time city residents in a time of intense fiscal constraint, Portland. would not be the first to implement such attacks behind RHODE ISLAND AND SEVERAL COASTAL MUNICIPALITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS. I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH SOME DETAILS WITH THAT AS WELL FOR JUST INFORMATION. AND IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT SUPPORTING A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR ECONOMICALLY DIVERSE TAX PAYING RESIDENTS, WE NEED TO EXPAND OUR TOOLS AND THINK MORE CREATIVELY ABOUT HOW TO INCREASE RESOURCES ACROSS THE BOARD. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHAIR. [47:41] Mark Dion: WE'LL RETURN TO THE SPEAKER IN THE BALCONY. [47:44] Public Commenter: Mayor Dayan, City Manager's Office, Councilmembers, good evening. My name is Charles Mugabe, I lead the Refugee and Immigration Services Program at Catholic Charities and I live on Montjoy Hill. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. We're grateful that the Citizens Task Force and the City Manager's Office carefully reviewed this year's proposal and recommended our Immigration Legal Services Program for CDBG funding. We appreciate the rigor of that process and the confidence it reflects in not only our work, but the work of the other nonprofits helping Portland. I want to briefly share what many refugees and immigrants in Portland are experiencing right now. After years in refugee camps and extensive federal vetting, families arrive here ready to work and rebuild their lives. But recent federal policy changes have made the legal pathway far more difficult and sometimes openly hostile. For example, hundreds of refugees in our community were recently warned they could face detention and deportation if they failed to file a complex residency application within one year of arrival to the United States. At the same time, access to steady employment, housing, and economic opportunities is increasingly tied to having permanent immigrant status like green card. In recent months, a green card has also become the strongest protection for personal safety and economic stability. Many families are frightened, confused, and stuck despite being legally authorized to work from the moment they arrive as refugees. But these immigration legal services are just as essential as food, housing, and health care to lift people out of poverty. This is why CDBG funding matters so much to our lean but effective program and to Portland's economy. Catholic Charities Maine has been a careful steward of the CDBG grants in the past, and you have our commitment to build on that track record. Today, our program operates with less than one full-time staff member, supported by dedicated volunteer legal professionals. With CDBG funding, we'll hire a trained legal professional and be able to increase our service capacity by 50%. Your investment helps families secure lawful, permanent immigration status, work without interruption, access stable housing, and fully participate in life and economy of our city. These outcomes are directly tied to the CityBG goal of anti-poverty goals of strengthening families' incomes and keeping people employed. We thank you for your leadership and stewardship. We're not only honored, but blessed to be serving the Portland community. Chair [50:36] Mark Dion: would seek another speaker in the balcony. Were you coming? Get up in line. [50:44] Public Commenter: Go ahead. Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Madeline Saucier and I'm the Executive Director of HOPEX, a non-profit organization located on Sherman Street in Portland. I live on Virginia Street. street. I want to thank you for considering our application for community development block grant funding for 2026-2027. I want to express our strong support for continued partnership with the city. Since our founding in 2012, HOPAX has focused on helping asylum seekers in southern Maine move from homelessness and dependence on public systems to stability and independence. We are one of the few service providers in the state offering walk-in linguistically and culturally competent support to asylum seekers five days a week in 2025 alone we served approximately 3 000 clients and held over 7 000 client meetings a central component of our economic opportunity for new americans programming is our work permit clinic the largest in the state of maine for the past three years we have operated this clinic in partnership with the portland public library staff have been incredibly supportive and clients benefit from access to a range of library resources, including books, reference materials, and computing services. In 2025, we completed 987 work permit applications. This work is essential. Asylum seekers cannot work upon arriving in the United States and must wait before becoming eligible to apply for authorization. Without support, many cannot navigate the complex and evolving process required to obtain and maintain work permits. Our work permit clinic, along with our Hope House English language program, directly supports workforce participation. Our local and state economy depends on welcoming and integrating new workers, and our programs help ensure that asylum seekers can contribute as quickly and successfully as possible. Thank you for your consideration, and we are deeply appreciative of our ongoing collaboration with the city. Chair, will [52:40] Mark Dion: now go to the floor. Even [52:46] Public Commenter: sharper Brackett Street. I just, in looking at the package, notice that there are two amendments that I had not noticed before, and they should have been described before public comment was taken so the public could be fully informed as to that there were amendments as to and as to why members of the council are choosing to amend the city managers recommended allocations. And so I would like to hear, before I'd like to hear now, but before you deliberate, I'd like to hear why amendments were sought and on the allocation. [53:27] Mark Dion: Anyone else wishing to provide comment on this particular resolve? Seeing none, Chair would take a motion for passage. Moved by Councillor Atlee, is there a second? I'll go to the amendments. There are two amendments. We have the bullet amendment number one. Is there a motion and a second on that? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Moved by councillor Bullitt, of course, seconded by councillor Michniewicz. [54:26] Anna Bullett: Discussion. Can I give a brief description? So you might, of all my colleagues may have noticed that in the original CDBG budget, this $20,000 wasn't there, and that's because this is monies from the sale of the Cotton Street property. Manager West made the decision to allocate it to Preble Street, and I'm seeking to instead allocate it to wayside food programs for mainly two reasons. The number one reason is that Preble Street's food program operates out of South Portland and primarily serves ready-to-eat food. Wayside operates out of Portland and serves ingredients for people to make their own food. And then the second reason is because Wayside has an operating budget of $1 million a year, and Preble Street has an operating budget of over $29 million a year, and $20,000 is a very small amount of money, and my sincere belief is that it makes a greater impact at a smaller organization. Those are my reasons. I hope my colleagues will support me in making this little change. [55:39] Mark Dion: Thank you, Councilor. Chair will now go to Amendment 2, Michniewicz. Is there a motion and a second? So moved. Second. All right. Tag team this evening. We'll reverse it. McNavish sponsor, call it co-sponsor, you have the floor to explain. Yes, thank you [56:01] Pious Ali: Mayor. Yes, so actually I think our commenter from Greater Portland Family Promise did a pretty good job of explaining the program and its impact and the homelessness prevention, housing stabilization is a really essential part of the complex of services that are being offered in order to assist the immigrant population once they are housed, helping them to remain housed. This is not a reflection on any of the other programs, which are all extremely important as well. This is done in this way to take smaller, modest amounts from a variety of programs as opposed to a lump sum from any other program and to fund a portion of what Greater Portland Family Promise was requesting. And I think that's about all I have to say. [56:59] Mark Dion: Chair will yield to the Assistant City Manager for information on the impact of these motions. [57:09] Public Commenter: I think, Mayor, you were looking to see if these could both be passed and if they would contradict one another and I don't believe that they would we're [57:20] Mark Dion: going to move to amendment number one the bullet motion any further discussion or question from the council then call the roll on the bullet motion councillor fournier yes councillor grant yes councillor sykes yes councillor ali yes councillor pelletier yes councillor Michniewicz yes sir bullet yes councillor phillips yes mayor diane yes. Chair will now move to the Michniewicz amendment number two. Is there any further discussion by the council? Anything additional from the Assistant City Manager? All right then. Call the roll. Councillor Fournier? Yes. Councillor Grant? Yes. Councillor Sykes? Yes. Councillor Ali? Yes. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor Michniewicz? Yes. Councillor Bullett? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dyan? Yes. We have a motion and a second on the main motion. I'll now ask for passage as amended. Main motion is amended by Amendment 1 and 2. So moved. So moved? I have a motion. I'm trying to reflect what I think I heard somebody say. Yeah. You're all set? We're doing our motion. Yeah. It's confusing. Because I suffer from that myself. All right, then. Call the roll. Councillor Fournier? Yes. Councillor Grant? Yes. Councillor Sykes? Yes. Councillor Ali? Yes. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor Michniewicz? Yes. Councillor Bullett? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dayan? Yes. Clerk will now read companion orders 161-2526 and 162-2526 together. Order 161-2526. 6 appropriating bond proceeds and other funds for the city's fy 2027 capital improvement program sponsored by the Finance Committee April foreign your chair order 162 2526 authorizing general obligation bonds to finance a portion of the city's fiscal year fy 27 capital improvement program sponsored by the Finance Committee April foreign your chair Practice pointer always check with your lawyer all right then there'll be no public comment on [1:01:04] Kate Sykes: These items mayor may I request to suspend the rules to accept public comment we have the chair of the public art committee is here today and I'd like her to be able to make public [1:01:15] Mark Dion: Comment it's a motion on the floor to suspend the rules for purposes of comment is there a second. Second. Discussion by the Council. Are you opening it up for everyone or just this person? [1:01:35] Kate Sykes: Yeah, suspend the rules. Yes, to suspend the rules to allow public comment [1:01:39] Mark Dion: For this. All right, then. Call the roll. COUNCILOR FORNER. YES. COUNCILOR GRANT. YES. COUNCILOR SYKES. YES. COUNCILOR OLLIE. YES. COUNCILOR PELATIER. YES. COUNCILOR Michniewicz. Yes. Councillor Bullett? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dyan? Yes. Chair would seek public comment. [1:02:07] Public Commenter: Good evening, everyone. My name is Kat Zagaria-Buckley of Panoramic View Drive, and I am the chair of the Portland Public Art Committee. The committee wishes to express its support for Councillor Sykes' amendment and to thank the Councillor for her advocacy of this issue. I apologize, I have a little bit of a cold. due to the city's debt management policy the public art committee's funding has been limited in recent years to the fifty thousand dollar cap the limited allocation was insufficient to both commission new projects and adequately maintain the public art collection as we are charged public art is particularly susceptible to rising material costs which greatly impacts THESE AFFORMENTIONED AREAS. In 2024, our committee wrote to the Planning Board to express concerns stemming from our current budgetary allocations and compounded by the debt management policy. The impacts of limiting our funding reverberate across our primary areas of responsibility and contribute to inequities in what we can accept. With a budget diminished far below what the Land Use Code allocates, the committee is in turn limited to accepting largely projects by artists or individuals who can afford to donate them. While we are grateful to all donation-led projects, we note that they are typically restricted in potential neighborhood placement, thereby limiting our committee's ability to fulfill its charge and charge to increase citywide access to artwork. Additionally, our committee, our capacity to respond nimbly to both community need and opportunity is severely constrained by budgetary limitations. Finally, certainly and succinctly as Councillor Sykes noted, this policy has caused the city's public art program to fail to keep pace with the scale of capital improvements. Indeed, if our program were consistently funded at the half a percent allocation as laid out in the Land Use Code, Councillor Sykes notes that we would have received 1.2 million over the past six years to put towards our city's public art holdings. The committee has kept an eye on the future of our program and what we may accomplish when funding is more closely aligned with our duties. To that end, we have created a priority list of public land on which we hope to place future acquisitions. When realized, these commissions would foster a greater equity of access to public art across city neighborhoods. Furthermore, we are currently conducting a collection assessment to inform our conservation and maintenance priorities and costs. As we wrote in the aforementioned September 2024 letter, appropriate funding would allow the committee to achieve its goals and will ensure our alignment with our city's egalitarian motto, Resurgum. Resurgum must encompass the uplifting of all citizens. We believe the city is uplifted through equal representation of its citizens in public space. If the city can meet this request, we will achieve a more democratic and inclusive collection, one that allows all Portland citizens to rise. Thank you for your time. Any other speakers? Steven Schaffer, Brackett Street. I just want to note that the budget or the order includes a notation of reallocation of previous projects, and there's no list of those previous projects in your order. And I would like to have some sort of explanation of what those projects are. But they really should have been a memo outlining what those were that you're reallocating. Thank you. Anyone [1:05:56] Mark Dion: else wishing to provide right comment on this order? Seeing none, public comment is closed. Their motion is second to pass order 161 25 26 as an emergency. So moved. Second. Move by council grant, seconded by council boy. There are three amendments that could attached to this order. I'll begin with one year amendment number three. Counselor, if you want to describe. Thank [1:06:41] April Fournier: you so much. Can you hear me okay? We can. Thank you. I was just looking online to find the language of my amendments. I apologize, my computer's taking a moment to update itself. But well while it's doing that, as you had discussed last time, thank you so much counselor grant for carrying that amendment forward for me. This is to reallocate 200 000 from congress square park funding to the doherty field skate park for lighting. And i just wanted to share some of the rationale for this as i've talked about in the past, really looking towards equity and looking at how can we help multiple parks. I recognize Congress Square Park is used by a diverse set of residents and visitors and performers and lots of different people, and so fully appreciate the work that's being done there. But also recognize that there are other needs, and so I do want to say in talking and I was hoping that Sean would make it but it sounds like he wasn't able to make it for public comment. But the skate park group, it's a bunch of skaters, skateboarders and athletes in the area that banded together to really try and get this funding to do the first expansion for the skate park. And so they as a grassroots group raised about a hundred thousand dollars to partner with a previous CIP allocation to do an expansion on the skate park, and that's been happening since 2015. So this isn't something new, and this is something that this community group has been working on consistently. Their grassroots efforts continue, they continue to Do fundraising to help go towards the city and pay for this lighting. I don't have the exact figure of what they've raised to this point, but it is a dedicated group of individuals in that neighborhood and around the city that access this park. And as I heard the discussion last time, allowing this lighting to happen would make it more usable for longer periods. As of course Maine is first to see the light, but as we start to get into the winter months, that sun goes down a lot earlier even though it's still a perfectly usable time to be outside. So I think this would, yes, I know that there is a lighting plan that Parks and Rec has allocated. I just feel like this should move forward as an allocation that we do this year. So thanks so much. Thank you, Council [1:09:16] Mark Dion: Chair. Would now see a motion and a second for the Sykes amendment number two. So moved White House, was second also Michniewicz. Explanation, Council Sites. Thank you [1:09:31] Kate Sykes: Mayor. So this amendment corrects the public art and the land bank allocation from the $50,000 to $230,000 each, and I'll just sort of read through the memo here. So within various sections of the city code, there is language that indicates the annual appropriation for these funds shall be a half of a percent of the total CIP. However, in most recent CIP years, the annual CIP appropriation has been limited to $50,000 per year, with staff referring to language within the city's debt management policy, supporting their calculation and the upper limit of the 50,000 annually. However, this policy is operational in nature and has not been approved by the city council, only reviewed periodically with the finance committee. So this amendment requests that the appropriations for the land bank and the public art fund be increased to the amount more in line with the language in the relevant ordinances. And I will say that I appreciate both the chair of the land bank and the public art committee coming to testify on behalf of us thank [1:10:36] Mark Dion: you. And finally a motion and a second for the grant amendment. So move, is there a second by Council Phillips? You have the floor, Council Grant. [1:10:47] Benjamin Grant: Thank you. As discussed last time, my amendment restores the CIP request as passed by the school board several months ago. The two items that are covered by the amendment are four hundred thousand to fix the exhaust stack in a failed boiler at Portland High School. As someone with a student at Portland High School, I am significantly interested in there being reliable heat in the building. And secondly, this also restores money to fund HVAC repairs and replacement at the Lincoln Middle School building. Again, I urge my colleagues to pass this so we can ensure that our facilities are appropriate for our students in those two buildings. All [1:11:39] Mark Dion: right, then. The council has all three amendments before them. You're free to discuss all three at once, or if you'd like. I think as the chair, I'll go down one by one, and then we'll go to a final vote on the collection. Then I have some mayoral amendments after passage is accomplished for all or none of these all right any objections all right chair [1:12:09] Pious Ali: would take any so just to be clear we're did you indicating we're voting on them [1:12:15] Mark Dion: as a slate individual one all right so we're gonna begin with council grants Grant's request for a CIP modification for HVAC repair and installation at Lincoln School Building. Any comments? [1:12:37] Anna Bullett: Councillor Bullett? I just want to thank Councillor Grant for bringing this and remind everybody of the refrain from the superintendent and from the finance committee of the school board that the goals of their CIP this year were really around being safe, warm, and dry. And I can't get that out of my head, so I'm happy to support this amendment and I thank my colleague. Nothing [1:13:01] Mark Dion: else? Councillor Phillips. [1:13:06] Benjamin Grant: Thank you, Mayor. I certainly appreciate Council Grant bringing this forward, the 1.6 for the HVAC. I guess I'm having a difficult time deciding whether to go ahead and approve this. The reason being is because I certainly understand the $400,000 right there's students at Portland High School we definitely need to do that I also understand the 800,000 but as I understand it I'm not really sure at this point in time what's happening with the building at Lincoln I don't know if we're keeping it I don't know if the kids are staying in it I'm just confused as to what's happening when that with that building the other thing that I'm confused about is there's a ton of built there's a ton of other buildings that we have with the school department our enrollment keeps going down but we continue to keep all the buildings and so my other question and I apologize I really want to apologize for the superintendent to the superintendent because he and I had a conversation about this and he said to me if you have any questions please come forward I didn't have time so I really want to apologize superintendent for not having this conversation with you privately and having It here but I again I for me I guess I just need a plan. I need a plan. What are we doing with all of those school department buildings? And there may be a plan, but I'm just struggling with an extra eight hundred thousand dollars for the HVAC. And I'm not saying it's not needed, please believe me, that's not what I'm saying. I know that it's needed, but and I know that even if we don't have students in that building that it's still needed. I'm just wondering if there's a way to do the four hundred thousand dollars this year for Portland High and maybe the eight hundred thousand dollars next year. Thank you also Grant if I may briefly respond to my colleague the school department the school board passed a resolution this spring to examine the future of Lincoln Middle School. I'm comfortable not knowing the outcome of that because my belief is this will be a building that is used by the schools one way or the other. So if it continues to be a middle school it's going to need the HVAC. If it's going to be some other school facility it will also need the HVAC replacement and repairs. So that's That's why I understand your question. I think it's an important question for that neighborhood and the whole school community, but I don't think that decision implicates the amount of money we're allocating here. I would also say, and this hasn't come up throughout the process, but I think there is a bad procedural precedent that was possibly set here if we don't restore this money, and that is the council overruling what the school board itself had passed as its CIP request. That's not a road that I'm willing to go down. So I have a procedural grounds as well that I think we should restore the funding that they requested. But to your question directly My I have every confidence that this will be necessary for the Lincoln Middle School building Regardless of the outcome of the facility study [1:16:02] Mark Dion: Thank you. I wasn't gonna say anything Council Grant opened the door. I think there's been a difference of opinion on this whole notion of CIP between the school department and the city as a whole and It's in past practice and legal understanding that a CIP request from the Board of Education has no priority, uniquely theirs, inside the whole plan of the city to deal with CIP. And Council Grants is correct if we explore that, there's some legal issues involved. And I just want to say out loud, I appreciate the Board of Education's concern about keeping children safe, warm, and dry. I add one more word for the taxpayer, affordable, all right. I'm all for the children. A couple of them survived me as a parent, and they're proud graduates of the Portland school system. But with each increase in the school budget, we're pressed on that issue. It's not like you can set it aside and say, not really the council's problem that belongs entirely to the Board of Education. So I'll support this request, and I'll suffer the ambiguity raised by my counselor to my left, Counsel Grant. I wish there was a clearer plan, but I think some of these questions are not resolved this evening with a tit-for-tat approach to the budget. I'll support it, but if this was a court, I would say with great reservation. So, if there's no other comments, I'll call the roll on this amendment. Councilor Fournier? Yes. Councilor Grant? Yes. Councilor Sykes? Yes. Councilor Ali? Yes. Councilor Pelletier? Yes. Councilor McNavage? Yes. Councilor Bullett? Yes. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dionne? Yes. Chair would now ask for discussion on Amendment 2, Councilor Sykes, on public art. Councilor McNavage? [1:18:12] Pious Ali: Thank you Mayor. I appreciate Councillor Sykes bringing this forward. I am the council representative to the Public Art Committee and over the years the amount that is spent on maintaining the collection has, the public art collection has increased and this sum that we see before us has not. Just as an example and just to be clear, like there's the acquisition of art and there is the maintenance of the collection, and the ease of maintaining the pieces that are accepted is considered when making those choices with a preference toward things that don't require a lot of maintenance. That said, there are pieces such as the jewel box bus shelter that has cost the city, I think, $35,000. Director Kraft might have a better grasp on that, but I think that's the numbers. Sorry, Director Kraft. So $35,000 that the jewel box has, yeah, and since 2005. 2005. Now the vast majority of that has come since 2016. So the amount of money that's going into just simply maintaining the pieces in the collection, the funding just hasn't kept pace with those needs and it really has limited the ability of the public art committee to I think satisfy the goals that the city has for public art. So I am in support of this amendment and the land bank as well, and part of it is just process. As my colleague pointed out, these are sums that are indicated to be fulfilled at a certain level, and they just haven't been. I think it's also a conversation that we need to have going forward about whether those are the correct levels. And but for the time being, I think this funding should be restored, and we can continue to have the conversation about the final levels as we go forward. [1:20:30] Mark Dion: Any other comment? [1:20:35] Anna Bullett: Councillor Bullett. Am I allowed to ask Director Kraft a question? By all means. You ready for a deja vu moment? Director Kraft. Land bank. Land that's purchased for the land bank, can housing be built on it? Unknown. Preserved. [1:21:00] Mark Dion: Any other comment? Councillor Phillips. [1:21:04] Benjamin Grant: Thank you, Mayor. I also want to say thank you to Councillor Sykes for bringing this forward. Unfortunately, I am not in support of this. I certainly understand that there is some confusion regarding the 0.5% and what the city has been doing for the last several years. To me, we're going about this a little bit backwards. We're saying we're going to go ahead because this is what we see here, even though we've been doing something differently for the last several years. And we're going to go ahead and just go ahead and increase the CIP. We're going to give the money and then we're going to look at the policy. Because from what I understand, I think we're going to try to bring this to, is it HHS? Where's where's this going to, we bring HCD? So we're going to take a look at this and bring it to HCDD and then try to figure it out. And then my nervousness is that we'll come back next year and then they'll get the 50, they'll get 50 000 and not the original amount that Council Sykes is bringing forward. So I am not in support of this. I won't be voting for it. I really want us to really get together and figure out what the rules and regulations is around this before that I can approve it. And I also think it's just way too much money at this point in time. I would have maybe approved something that if we you know it was done you know over several years, but again I just don't have a clear enough understanding as to what was intended, and it's too much money for me to approve all at once. Thank you. [1:22:32] Kate Sykes: Councillor Sykes. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I'm just going to say that there is nothing really here to have an opinion about. We have laws in the city. They are reflected in our ordinances, and we have to follow them. And by voting against this, which is a correction of a law that is on our books right now, we're setting a precedent and saying, we're going to decide what rules we follow and what laws we don't follow. So I would like to ask, what other laws are we going to decide that are on the books that we will not follow? Because that's what we're doing here tonight. This is merely a correction of an error that's happened for the last at least six years. And it sets a really bad precedent. And I don't understand what the confusion is around it. Whether you want more money, you think it's too much money, you think it's not enough, you want to change the ordinance, doesn't matter. THIS IS A CORRECTION FOR A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE BROKEN THE LAW FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS. [1:23:46] Mark Dion: COUNCILOR FORNEY, GO AHEAD. [1:23:49] April Fournier: THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I DO APPRECIATE COUNCILOR SYKES BRINGING THIS FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK WHAT SHE HAS HIGHLIGHTED IS THAT THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN OUR DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY AND THE CITY CODE. BUT I ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCILOR PHILLIPS. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IS CORRECT THAT AND ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT THE landscape of both these groups public art and the land bank to identify is it the 50,000 that is the right size or is it the percentage of the CIP that's the right size and so I won't be supporting the amendment to just pay those amounts but I would be interested in having this discussion about updating the debt management policy and Finance Committee so that it can be in agreement with the city code thank [1:24:40] Mark Dion: you counselor anything else from the body chair pose a question two questions to corporation council is the ordinance in question sufficient standing alone [1:24:58] Benjamin Grant: thank you mayor so i think that the question is whether or not the chapter two as has been alluded to there's provision in chapter two and chapter 14 of the city code that are at issue tonight the provision in chapter 2 allocates 0.5% of the CIP budget to the land bank fund and then in chapter 14 is a similar provision for public art and the question essentially is whether or not the council has the authority to ignore those in its vote on these orders tonight. Although the language in the ordinances seems generally clear, there's also, there's a conflict between it and the language in the charter, which gives the council broad authority to approve spending measures after public notice to reads to approve not only the CIP budget but also the general budget. And in light of those, there's this, there's this conflict there. And there isn't, there isn't clear law in the state statutes governing municipal financial issues or very clear law and in other sources. And in and from my office has looked at, I think the general concept that the that ordinances cannot be inconsistent with the Charter. That's stated pretty clearly in state law in the statute that governs council's ordinance powers. And so my interpretation, which is consistent with what the council has done over the last however many number of years, where it hasn't approved the amount of funds that's set forth in the ordinance, is that the council under the Charter has the discretion to not include the full 0.5% in this in the CIP. It's inconsistent, it's not clear, it may be something that the council wants to consider amending in the future, but the council is certainly free to pass this amendment tonight. Doing so would be consistent with the ordinance, but I do think that there is a conflict there between these two sections and the city code and the charter, which gives the council general authority to approve appropriations. And I don't think that these sections of the city code should tie the council's hands when it comes to these annual votes. Does that answer your question? Yes. I'm happy, I'm happy to answer further questions. Any other questions? All right. [1:28:19] Mark Dion: Actually thought about this quite a bit and I'm gonna digress and give myself a lecture as if I was my own attorney, which is always very dangerous. I'd say you might not like the rule, but it's the rule. I don't like the rule. I don't know, I don't know what the intent was of our predecessors when they passed that, but it kind of reminds me of how do we go a decade without doing property re-evaluations, but we did. The rule was there and somehow it wasn't applied. I think there's an inconsistency. We were surprised by property owners when the re-evaluation occurred under my predecessor's watch. Right? You remember the surge? Things just didn't cost like they did just a few months prior, and now they do. This has the same effect on our budget. Public art has suddenly gotten a lot more expensive as a line item, as does land moving forward. I don't like the state we're in, but the ordinance is the ordinance, and I read it as it's written in plain English. There's no place to a wiggle for me. I don't like it, but I'll honor it. And therefore, if the Finance Committee wants to bring this forward and readjust this so we make other allocations or have a formula that we all agree to about making those appropriations, then I will participate fully. But tonight I'm duty-bound to follow the rule. Unless there's any other comment, I'll call for a vote on the amendment. Go ahead. Councillor Fournier? Yes. Councillor Grant? Yes. Councillor Sykes? Yes. Councillor Ali? Nay. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor McNavage? Yes. Councillor Bullett? No. No. Councillor Phillips? No. Mayor Dionne? At least wait until they call your name. Yes now. We move on to the four-year amendment number three motion second on the amendment. Any Further discussion on this councilman McNovich? Thank you, mayor. Yeah, I [1:30:59] Pious Ali: Boy, Congress Square Park, it's it's it's taken a long time to get to a point where we were sort of starting to see the end. This is the most heavily programmed park in Portland. They host all kinds of events. The constituency that uses it is extremely diverse. This park is adjacent to poverty, to wealth, to people who need to be able to access an outside space because it's their only backyard. Accessibility is incredibly important. People need to be able to use these spaces safely. And the lighting for the skate park is certainly important. It also was upcoming in the CIP in the next few years. It's unfortunate to have to rank projects, but that's just a part of what we have to do here. It was cited that this isn't a new request on the part of the skate park, and it's certainly not. The Congress Square Park is certainly not a new project either. It's, I would argue, even more grassroots of an effort to get this park secured and completed than the skate park lighting advocacy. So I am not in support of moving funding from Congress Square Park and its completion to the skate park lights. I certainly see the value, but I think we're just prolonging the pain of not finishing this park so that it can benefit everyone that it was intended to benefit. [1:32:57] Mark Dion: Any other comments from the council? All right, I oppose this amendment. I'm in league with Councilor Michniewicz. It's an anchor point to downtown, period. You want to know why property taxes are high? Business income is down. Why is business income down? People don't want to come downtown. Sometimes we look for physics when it's just plain math we did in the seventh grade. But moreover, as a city body, we pledged we'd see this to its end. And community groups took up that pledge and raised a lot of money on their own. There's been a lot of frustration about the Congress-High Street intersection. It's well-deserved. We had challenges with road construction, et cetera, but somehow that has spilled over onto the whole notion of Congress Square Park. We have an opportunity to realize a vision that's important. I was here in 77 where you could buy anything you want and anyone you wanted at High and Congress Street. See either they found me funny or they were actually there when that was happening. We've come a long way. We have to finish. Sometimes you just have to finish. And the skate park is on a list for consideration. It just didn't reach the priority. So I'm old school. You shake hands and say it's going to get done. That's all you need. And in a way Councilor Sykes reminded us of that issue. Some other counselors are not here today. Cut a deal and they wrote it into an ordinance. So we have to honor, right? Whether we like it or not, whether it's our personal priority or not. So I have the greatest respect for our finance chair. She's a pleasure to work with, but today I have to depart and I remain in support of the original allocation. Con square, Congress square park to see its project to its expected end, not another carve out. Hope it's good enough result. Any other comments from the council? Seeing none, call the roll on this amendment. Councillor Fournier? Yes. Councillor Grant? Yes. Councillor Sykes? No. Councillor Ali? No. Councillor Mayor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor McNavidge? No. Councillor Bullett? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dayan? No. Chair will now call the roll on the main motion. No, we gotta do yours. Alright. Sorry. [1:36:09] Benjamin Grant: Thank you, Mayor. This amendment is more of a technical amendment, doesn't change the substance of anything that's been discussed so far, but I would ask you to amend the order to authorize my office in consultation with the city manager and the finance director to amend the order. This order and its attachment, Exhibit A, which is a spreadsheet with all of the numbers that have been discussed tonight, will need to be amended in order to accommodate all of the changes that have been made. I'm asking him just for a vote to authorize me, together with the city manager and the finance director, to make adjustments to the order in order to reflect the changes that have been approved. A motion, a second, and then a vote. [1:37:09] Mark Dion: Yeah. Chair would ask for a motion. So moved. A second. Second. Well, Councilor Sykes moves the Mayor's Amendment slash Corporation Council. Seconded by Councilor Ali. Any discussion needed? Seeing none, call the roll. Councilor Fournier? Yes. Councilor Grant? Yes. Councilor Sykes? Yes. Councilor Ali? Yes. Councilor Pelletier? Yes. Councilor McNavage? Yes. Councilor Bullett? Yes. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dye? Yes. Yes. Chair will now vote on this passed order as an emergency and as amended, or the main motion is amended now. Call the roll. Councillor Fournier? Yes. Councillor Grant? Yes. Councillor Sykes? Yes. Councillor Ali? Yes. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor McNavage? Yes. Councillor Bullett? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Yes. Mayor Dahan? Yes. The Chair will now seek a motion and a second to pass Order 162-2526 as an emergency. So moved. Moved by Councillor Grant. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councillor Phillips. Council comment? Seeing none, the Chair would turn to Councillor Grant regarding an amendment and a motion to support you [1:38:57] Benjamin Grant: and why don't you move yeah so for the reason stated before move to amend with the 1.6 million dollars for the Portland schools is there a [1:39:09] Mark Dion: second by council Sykes any discussion by the council seeing none call the roll councillor Fournier yes councillor Grant yes councillor Sykes Yes. Councillor Ali? Yes. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor McNavidge? Yes. Councillor Bullough? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dionne? Yes. Motion for Councillor Sykes for passage on Order 162. [1:39:37] Kate Sykes: Motion to amend the Public Art and Land Bank Funds to $360,000. Is there a second? [1:39:44] Mark Dion: Second. Seconded by Councillor Grant. Take the roll. Unless there's discussion from the Council, take the roll. Councillor Fournier? Yes. Councillor Grant? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sykes? Yes. Councillor Ali? Yes. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor McNavidge? Yes. Councillor Bullett? No. Councillor Phillips? No. Mayor Dyer? No. That's fair enough. It's consistent with what other people think, too. So we're all set. Yes. Is [1:40:22] Benjamin Grant: that for you? Yeah. Go ahead. So, Mayor, I just ask you to make the same motion that we discussed before that would allow us this is going to require changes both to the text of the order and to and to the exhibit the attached budget in order to reflect the changes in these in these additional funds and again to authorize me working with the city manager and the finance director to make those edits in the final order [1:40:54] Mark Dion: Motion for passage on that. So moved by Grant, seconded by Councillor Sykes. Call the roll. councillor fournier yes councillor grant yes councillor sykes yes councillor ollie yay councillor pelletier yes councillor Michniewicz yes councillor bullitt yes councillor phillips Yes. Mayor Dionne. Yes. We will now vote on the main motion as amended for emergency. We need seven affirmative votes. Call the roll. Councillor Fournier? Yes. Councillor Grant? Yes. Councillor Sykes? Yes. Councillor Ali? Yes. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor McNavidge? Yes. Councillor Bullett? Yes. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dionne? Yes. Clerk will now read Order 179.25.26, Title. Order 179.25.26, Appropriating $10.1 million from JetPort Unrestricted Funds to Commence Design on the Phase 3 Parking Garage and Improve and Expand a Public Surface Parking Lot at the Portland International JetPort, sponsored by the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Regina Phillips, Chair. Chair will yield to Chairperson. [1:42:29] Benjamin Grant: Phillips for comment. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have been talking about the jet port and the expansion for several years now. And I think we have finally come to a place where we have a good plan to look at Phase 3, the parking garage, and expand the cell phone lot. I really want to recognize Deb Napier. I see her in the audience. I don't know if there's anybody else from the Stoutwater Neighborhood Association. If you are, if you could please stand, but I don't see anyone, just for their diligence in working with our Deptport director and listening to all the successes and the challenges of trying to bring this forward. You guys have done an amazing job voicing your concerns and your opinions and I think we've finally come to a place where we agree on what needs to happen. And so I bring this forward to the council. I don't do, I see Paul in here, is Paul here, where he's virtual, okay. I know our director, it will say a few words about this as well, and so I encourage everybody to vote on this. It's been a long time coming and I think it's at a good place. [1:43:43] Mark Dion: Thank you, Madam Chair. Will now see public comment on this proposed order. I [1:43:59] Public Commenter: said there was Deborah Napier, Stroudwater Neighborhood. I just want to say that you are absolutely right, it's been a long time coming and I think it was really, came together and I appreciate everything Paul Bradbury has done in working with us and we've all come together with a mutually agreeable agreement. And the Stroudwater Board is also in agreement with this. So thank you. [1:44:34] Mark Dion: Seeing no other public comment, Chair would seek a motion for passage. So moved. Second. Moved by Councillor Phillips, seconded by Councillor Ali. You can take that up with him later, Councillor Boyle. Any council comment? Councillor Pelletier. [1:44:58] Wesley Pelletier: I just want to commend Director Bradbury on working with the community to get this done and figure out a way back forward. Genuinely impressive. It was a contentious issue for a while, so props. [1:45:17] Mark Dion: I'm equally pleased we've come to some kind of mutual agreement. Go ahead, Council Bullitt. [1:45:24] Anna Bullett: Also want to give extreme kudos to Director Bradbury for his diligent work on this. He just continues to plug away with such professionalism and genuine delight at the concept of democratization of air travel and making sure our jet port is a true gem, which it is. I had the pleasure of flying out from PWM about a week ago and every single parking lot was full. So the need for this is real. I was responsible. My neighbor drove me to the airport. But the need for this is really real and so I'm really glad we're able to get this going. We may be Portland City Councilors, but we have the responsibility of this regional asset, maintaining it and making sure that it serves all of our neighbors across this great state. And if you've been on a plane lately coming into Portland, you know that a lot of those folks coming off of those planes have a long drive ahead of them. And for them to be able to have their car at the jet port makes that travel experience just more possible. And so again, commend director Bradbury for his work on this. And just continue to support the jet ports effort to be the wonderful Airport that it is right here in our fabulous state. Any [1:46:45] Mark Dion: other comments from the council? Seeing none, clerk call the roll. That's her for you, yes. Councillor Grant, yes. That's our Sykes, yes. That's our rally, yes. Councillor Pelletier, yes. Councillor McNavidge, yes. That's our bullet, yes. That's our Phillips, yes. They're dying. Yes. Clerk will now read Order 181-2526, title only. Order 181-2526, amendment to Portland City Code Chapter 14 regarding definition of main entrance for entertainment business in B3 and WCZ zones, sponsored by Portland Planning Board, Joseph Zamboni, Chair. Is the Chair present? [1:47:36] Joe Zamboni: Welcome. Good evening, council. My name is Joe Zamboni. I'm the chair of the planning board. On March 24th, 2026, the planning board voted unanimously to find the proposed text amendment to article six regarding entertainment businesses in the B3 and waterfront central zones, which clarifies the definition of main entrances, is consistent with the city of Portland's comprehensive plan and therefore recommends its adoption by the city council. Purpose of the amendment is to provide CLEAR GUIDANCE ON HOW MAIN ENTRANCES ARE DEFINED FOR REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. THE BOARD BELIEVES THIS LANGUAGE CLARIFIES EXISTING ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS AND WILL HELP REDUCE CONFUSION REGARDING THIS INTERPRETATION, MAKING THE REQUIREMENTS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND MORE PREDICTABLE TO ADMINISTER. [1:48:23] Mark Dion: DON'T GO AWAY IN CASE THE COUNCIL HAS A QUESTION. NO, YOU CAN LEAVE THE ROSTER. ALL RIGHT THEN. CHAIR, I'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. I know many of you here to talk about something else, you may think this is related, but I want public commentary to be focused on this technical language specifically. If you have a contest with that language or you're super in agreement with it, fine. But I don't want drifting, okay? Could you honor that? I'd appreciate it. any public comment on 181 25 26 good it appears they understand take a motion from the council for passage so moved move by council Michniewicz seconded by councillor Sykes any comment from the council seeing none all the roll Councilor Fournier? Councilor Fournier? Councilor Grant? Yes. Councilor Sykes? Yes. Councilor Ali? Yes. Councilor Pelletier? Yes. Councilor McNavage? Yes. Councilor Bullett? Yes. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dionne? [1:49:54] April Fournier: I think it's working. Is it working? [1:49:58] Mark Dion: Councilor Fournier? Yes. Sorry. Mayor Dionne Ziaz. Clerk will now read two companion Canyon orders together, 182, 25, 26. In order 183, 25, 26. Order one. Sam Boney, get ready. Order 182, 25, 26. Amendment to Portland City Code Chapter 14 regarding large theater and performance hall dispersal requirements sponsored by Portland Planning Board, Joseph Zamboni, Chair. Order 183, 25, 26. Terminating the moratorium on theater and performance hall projects with a capacity exceeding 2,000 people in the city of Portland, established by Order 9-2526 and extended by Order 131-2526, sponsored by Mark Dion, Mayor. Chair, we'll ask Chair Zamboni if he has any public comment. [1:50:57] Joe Zamboni: On Order 182-2526, good evening, Council. My name is Joe Zamboni. I'm still the Chair of Planning Board. On March 24th, 2026, the Planning Board voted unanimously to find the proposed text amendments TO ARTICLE 3 AND ARTICLE 6, WHICH WOULD MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF THEATERS AND PERFORMANCE HALLS AND ESTABLISH A MINIMUM 750-FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT BETWEEN LARGE THEATERS OR PERFORMANCE HALLS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF PORTLAND'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD DOES NOT RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. DURING ITS DELIBERATIONS, THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE RATIONALE AND SUPPORTING DATA FOR THE PROPOSED 750-FOOT BUFFER, as well as the selection of 1,000 capacity as threshold for large venues were not clearly established and appeared inconsistent with other city standards, including the entertainment sector benefits agreement ordinance. For example, board members questioned why we would assess 750 feet rather than any other distance and why the information was not provided in the materials to the housing and economic development committee. Also, why would 1,000 persons be the best threshold for large venues was that a number closely tied to Portland's current venue sizes. This was unclear to us. Without more data, there was a concern that the new threshold seemed somewhat arbitrary and unlikely to survive a court challenge. If the council wishes us to revisit the issue of a buffer, it might make more sense to have the planning board assess generally if an entertainment buffer are necessary in this regard, and if yes, what buffer distance is supported by data and evidence. In that sense, we could better assess this against best practices in urban planning and development, which do appear to support clustering theaters and performance venues or mixed uses more broadly in downtown areas to strengthen cultural activity and economic vitality. Planning board was also concerned the proposed 750 foot buffer to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which promotes less auto-centric development, more efficient use of existing parking and policies such as the removal of minimum parking requirements to encourage mode shift and support alternative forms of transportation. Adopted city policies prioritize alternative transportation modes including walking, biking, and transit while supporting downtown growth including arts and cultural uses that contribute to urban vibrancy. The comprehensive plan also encourages downtown to remain the region's primary CENTER OF ACTIVITY SERVING AS A HUB FOR ARTS AND CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND IDENTIFIES IT AS PRIORITY AREA FOR GROWTH. FINALLY, EXISTING REGULATORY TOOLS INCLUDING SITE PLAN ORDINANCE AND TRAFFIC MOVEMENT PERMITS CAN BE SUFFICIENT TO EVALUATE AND MITIGATE IMPACTS RELATED TO TRAFFIC ACCESS, CIRCULATION, LOADING DESIGN AND LIFE SAFETY ON SITE'S SPECIFIC BASIS. [1:53:51] Mark Dion: Thank you, Chair. This chair will now take public comment. I'm sure this is why you're all here. I just want to tell them about. Thank you. No, in a moment. I just want to remember. You can stay there. I'm not shooing you away. I'm just three minutes. All right. That's it. It's really appreciated by the council. So if you're going to say the exact same thing the other person said, you can consider how you want to approach your three minutes. Otherwise than that, I'm going to take this away. I'm going to pull up a chair because we're going to be here a couple hours to hear the same five sentences possibly. So you decide that among yourselves. We also have an amendment to this order. Councilor Michniewicz, you want to discuss that? Sure. Thank you, Mayor. [1:54:52] Pious Ali: There. So this is an amendment that would be essentially the same as was being proposed for the 750 foot buffer, but it would bring it down to 250 feet. And the reason for this is that there had been some conversation about a desire to look at removing the 100 foot buffer between smaller venues, and although that may make sense, it has not gone through a public process yet. The 250 seemed to make sense though for larger venues. So over 1,000 capacity, that would make sense. It would not impact the proposed venue other than the developer did suggest and I believe agreed to chamfering back, cutting back that corner to create more space around that corner. 250 feet between larger venues seems like it would be advantageous should we end up removing the 100-foot buffer from entertainment venues in general. In this particular circumstance, it would serve to create more space for people who are exiting the building, which is one of the concerns that has been brought up, having enough space so that there's consideration for pedestrian safety in the surrounding area. That street Myrtle can get very clogged with buses and tractor trailers when there's a show with a significant number of vehicles involved. And so that was the intent of this amendment. I don't think I have much else to say about it. [1:56:33] Mark Dion: Thank you, Councilor. And the chair has brought forward an order 183.25.26 to terminate the moratorium. The idea behind this particular initiative is we've run the applicant through every possible land rule issue and we've received evidence that appears to sustain the applicant's position that they're within the rule and should move forward. So this, depending how the other motions go- Mr. Mayor, point of order. [1:57:10] Benjamin Grant: Yes. If I may, there's also an amendment that I have put forward that's on the agenda. I wanted to know if you wanted me to mention it now. [1:57:18] Mark Dion: Sorry, the chair is unaware of it. Can you sidebar a second? Sure. Go. [1:57:32] Benjamin Grant: Ahead. I can speak to it quickly. Oh, go ahead, by all means. My amendment doesn't change the content of or the substance of the ordinance change. It adds some language to the preamble or the warehouse clauses to further explain the 750-foot dispersal requirement vis-a-vis the comprehensive plan. And I'm happy to speak to that when the time comes. But I wanted to bring to your attention now. [1:58:00] Mark Dion: You have that all before you. Where's the gentleman you were first? [1:58:08] Public Commenter: City Council, my name is Nate Delois. I own Uncommon Hospitality, a small family business located on 24th Street. We formed in 2017 after developing the Francis Hotel at 747 Congress. We later developed the Longfellow Hotel right across the street and we currently operate both properties. Francis was my first development. The former Hay and Peabody funeral home had been vacant for a decade. I put together a business plan when I gathered enough courage to put the property under contract. I had roughly $500 in my bank account. My wife and I were expecting our first baby. I borrowed money to get through the design and approval processes, which included planning board and historic board approvals. I was in enough debt where I would have spent a decade paying it back if our project had not been approved. It was so much on the line, we made sure to follow all the zoning rules to a tee. I literally could not afford to be denied those approvals. Building a small hotel and adding a housing in this neighborhood at that time was risky but I believed so much in what we were doing. What allowed me to pursue this project was the good faith belief that if I followed the rules my project would be approved. If I had any doubts that the city council could at any time choose to retroactively change zoning rules to target my development whatever the reason is I never could have accepted the risk to attempt this project. It doesn't matter what we think of Live Nation, targeting them based on not liking their business will sow serious doubts into the mind of developers, especially those with modest resources like me. At a time when the city should be encouraging development to add visitors, to help sustain local businesses that rely on tourism, and to add housing units to make the city more affordable, the effects of such a decision would be devastating. I truly hope that you will consider what these actions will have on future development in a city that desperately needs to add housing and fill vacant retail space. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to add [2:00:09] Mark Dion: for the audience one more time, you can comment on the order itself or any of the amendments or either order, the termination of the moratorium or the amendment for the Charter, coach, I mean code chapter, not Charter. Is anyone upstairs gonna provide comment? Well, and then I'll go to you, then I'll go to the digital arena. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Devin Medeiros. I am the [2:00:44] Public Commenter: business agent for IATSE local 114. We are main stage hand union and we are the proposed labor force for the new building, the live nature project. So I want to speak tonight in favor of that project and against this rebuffering. The rebuffering is quite simply, it's just an attack to prevent that project, specifically that one project, from happening. I think that's a pretty dangerous precedent of who can do business here and who cannot do business here, under the presumption that they're a large corporate entity, and that's not who we want here. I think it's important to point out that there are already large corporate entities fully, deeply embedded in our local music scene, and any conversation about the local music scene that doesn't include the workers who work and provide all the entertainment this city enjoys is not given the full picture. So this project would mean a lot for the people who make these concerts, these events happen in the city of Portland. Life-changing, life-changing for the people whose this is their career and their lifeblood. So I would be pretty discouraged to see a rebuffering project exclude one employer, one venue, with long-lasting implications, when it will actually serve the community in a lot of really great ways. So thank you. [2:02:22] Mark Dion: Chair will now go to Zoom. Aaron Crawford, I [2:02:35] Public Commenter: can hear me? Good evening, Mayor and Councilors. I want to thank you for your time tonight. My name is Aaron Crawford and I'm here not just as a supporter of this project and music in Portland, but as someone who operates a Maine based business that makes long term investment decisions here in the state. What concerns me most is not only this project, but the precedent being set. This proposal was approved under the existing rules. It is fully compliant with Portland zoning and planning framework, and to revisit and potentially change those rules after the fact introduces a level of uncertainty that makes it significantly harder for any business large or small to invest here with confidence if the rules can shift after approvals are granted it sends a message far beyond this room that portland is unpredictable and that will have real consequences this project brings meaningful upside to the city it's going to support local restaurants hotels and small businesses as already been suggested it's going to create significant number of jobs across operations and events, and it's a privately funded investment, which is requiring no public dollars. Just as importantly, it reflects smart, responsible growth that's aligned with the city's comprehensive plan and is backed by a developer with a long proven track record here in Portland. From a business perspective, the question isn't, is this a good project? The question is, can companies trust the process in Portland? Portland has built something very special, a city that balances character with progress, but maintaining that balance is going to require consistency and trust in that process. I urge the council to uphold the integrity of the existing framework and allow this compliant project to move forward and send a clear signal that Portland remains a place for thoughtful investment. Thank you for your time. Hello. Justin Kurtzinger, South Portland. I get it. They've done their due diligence and all that fun stuff, and code is code, and I get it. And I know you all have a, you can't please everybody. If I was buddies with the applicant though, I would encourage them to ponder that, you know, if they'd chosen a different business partner, the reaction that has been over the past year and a half might have been otherwise. And it's a beautiful day and we don't get too many of them. Anyone who's born here, she knows that. I have a ton of places I'd rather be. I have to go back to work in a minute, but I think I can speak for everyone in here that I don't think anybody actually wants to be here except for those who ran elections to get here. So yeah, I don't know, when you align yourself with such people, you're going to get a reaction like that, and I don't know. Thanks. Go ahead up above. Thank you. I'd like to comment on order 183, 25, 26. My name is Nathaniel Dombek. I'm a Mainer born and raised. I also work in the in the live entertainment industry as a stagehands. I'm a part of the labor union. I'm on the crew that's helping to build Thompson's Point this week. I work at Merrill, I work at the Arena, Thompson's Point, a whole bunch of places. And frankly, I'm looking forward to the building of another venue here in Portland, bringing more shows, bringing more different shows as well and more work opportunity for myself and some other members of the working community here in Portland. I travel down to Boston a lot over the past few years working for the Union down there and I've worked for Live Nation or at their venues at MGM Fenway, Gillette Stadium, Leader Bank Pavilion. Those all have union agreements. They're good agreements. I've made a bunch of my money down there at those venues. It's a good experience. I also see a lot of like different shows going through those venues that don't really come up here. You know I see the Portland Music Hall as a venue similar to MGM Fenway and I think it would enable Portland to bring a wider variety of artists up to our city. So yeah I'd like to speak in favor of terminating this moratorium and endorsing this project thank you digital Daniella Solano. Hi, can everyone hear me? Yes, excellent. Thank you all so much for your time. I am a Portland hospitality worker and I wanted to talk about how I am not in favor of this Live Nation venue. Truth be told, I cannot believe we are here again talking about what's going to be built there. The proposed area one cannot handle the added traffic. If we realistically think that we have enough parking that 3,000 cars can flood that entire area, we are truly not thinking about the people that live in that Bayside neighborhood. It is multi-generational, it is lower income, it is immigrant communities who are already fighting for parking. Let's not even get into what they had to deal with snow bans. Not only that, it's going to impact safety in the area and the community has repeatedly said no thank you, we are not interested. But again, our elected officials are choosing to ignore what their constituents are asking for. Instead of talking about Live Nation, we should be talking about affordable Housing inflation, or perhaps how hospitality professionals who make this tourist destination run are constantly looked over and forgotten about on a regular basis. But what I'm seeing here is that we are too busy allowing you all to look at short-term gains and not long-term impacts. Instead, you're showing favor to millionaires from away who have proven that they only care about themselves, and of course lining their pockets. Not only that, their track record has proven that they do not act in good faith, not just in multiple cities, but in multiple states. I would greatly appreciate, as many others in the hospitality industry, in the music industry, if you could take a step back and really look at this endeavor from a 30,000 foot view and realize what is truly at stake for the Portland community. Thank you so much for your time, and please think about how what it's going to be like having Live Nation in our community. This isn't just a new venue. We have venues, we have Cross Arena that can hold many different types of diverse acts. What we're bringing in is a monopoly, and we will be scorned by it. So thank you. Have a good evening. Speaker on the floor, come forward. Thank you. Portland City Council members and Mayor Dion. My name is Mike McGuigan. I'm a business rep organizer for Carpenters Union, Locals 349 and 352. I'm here to speak in favor of this project and to oppose the amendments that are on the floor here. This project, you know, we've spent a lot of time getting language in place for apprenticeship and prevailing wages, and we have a good partner in Consigli Construction who's a, who's gonna be doing the project. It's all good, all the right people, all the right players are going to be involved with doing the work. And you know, I and you know, like I know there's some, you know, some issues with Live Nation, but them coming in and building a venue here is going to open up all kinds of opportunities for other people to work, musicians to perform, and it'll be entertainment for everybody. There's some things that will be opening many doors for many people, and we want to see this project go forward. We have all the membership in the area that's really interested in this project. There's a bit of a buzz in the membership right now. You know, we want to, we want to build this project, and we want to, you know, we want to go to the concerts and, you know, have the bragging rights when we go there and check it out. And you know, we want to, we want to see this go forward, so [2:11:46] Mark Dion: Balcony speaker, good. Hi. [2:11:50] Public Commenter: My name is London Rodriguez. I'm 17 years old. I'm a student at Baxter Academy, and I am somewhat involved in the music industry here, and I just want to remind everyone who Live Nation is. Live Nation is the music mafia, and they are gentrifying the music scene, and I just have some things to mention. Live Nation is a for-profit company, as companies are, and they charge egregious prices for their fees. I went to buy a ticket to a concert and it was $36. I later find out that if I went to the venue instead I would have saved $11 in fees and got it for $25. I would also like to mention that Live Nation is extremely corrupt. There are some leaked slack messages that were actually mentioned in their case with the Department of Justice where executives were saying quote, I charged $50 to park in the grass, $60 for closer grass. Another one saying these people are stupid and then another quote, I almost feel bad taking advantage of them. Also, I would just like to state that, despite the opinions we have heard here, these don't necessarily represent what the whole population of Portland has to feel. Every single music venue I've been to, every single radio station, in which I frequent radio stations because I've talked to them before, every single one of them has these signs out here stating their disagreement with Live Nation as a corporation, as an entity, and Live Nation is very much disliked by many bands. I just wanted to bring that up also closing statement. I just I don't think Portland needs to be the next Boston. I just think Portland needs to see Portland and I think this is a step in the wrong direction and that is just my piece. Thank you for holding this time so Anastasia contos. [Mark Dion: Frank Curran. Oh.] Mayor and city council members. My name is Frank Curran. I'm a Portland resident born and raised and I just wanted to take a second and voice my support for this project and the opportunity that I believe this is for the city of Portland. I believe that this venue will fuel our economy 12 months out of the year, but more specifically those four or five months in our off season where we all know it turns off like a light switch, specifically speaking the Old Port location. I think having all of this benefit, not even speaking about the jobs, that the venue will bring itself for the construction, but also the consumers it will bring up, and also the staff that it will keep in these restaurants where some of these owners unfortunately have to cut down on overhead to just survive the winter. I do believe it will be life-changing, and that, like I said, to have all that benefit not the taxpayers' dollar. I'm from Portland, I live in Portland, and I hope to do business in Portland in the future, and I'm just trying to voice my support and do my part. All [2:15:18] Mark Dion: right, then floor. Hello. [2:15:26] Public Commenter: My name is Tom Barr. I'm the owner and operator of Lazari and Taco Escobar, two restaurants on either side of Congress Square. The mayor's characterization of this area is accurate. It's rough, especially in the winter months, as the previous speaker noted. This is even more true in the past few years after the, in the shadow of the pandemic, which much of us still feel during the off months for restaurants. The difference of something happening in town and something not happening in town is not a matter of like a percentage, it's business by a factor. And as Portland is transitioned to a more tourist driven, more less people in town in the offseason, we see higher highs and lower lows which make operation difficult and it speaks directly to continuity of employment for you know the people doing the work without i 'm specifically not here to speak to the merits or ethics of live nation specifically as a entity or that or of activist target legislation either but the economic reality of the restaurant business downtown is stark. We need people brought into town. And whether it's Live Nation or whoever else, these economic drivers are important. They're the difference of people keeping their jobs. And I just hope that the importance of this is considered as we, as you guys make your decision here, because there has been a, the decline in downtown is real. You know, we've been conditioned to step over people sleeping on the sidewalk. I've been assaulted myself. It's, it's people who are from here don't want to come here anymore. And so anything that will encourage people to come to the downtown area, and they don't just, everybody doesn't just get in their cars at the end, they go to restaurants afterwards, they go to restaurants before. So I would just urge that this is considered. [2:18:30] Mark Dion: Chair, we'll go to the balcony. Go ahead, Speaker. [2:18:34] Public Commenter: Hello, Chair. Hope everybody's doing well. My name is Andrew Roseman. I'm the Executive Director of Blue Portland, Maine, a performance arts nonprofit located at 650 Congress Street right up the road. I don't want to mince words when I say it would be beautiful to put Live Nation to rest both in Maine and elsewhere just for being a criminal frauding enterprise. I have a lot of respect for these gentlemen from the union who came to speak. It comes as no surprise that an organization that tends to benefit directly from this project who maybe didn't even have that much agency into developing that opinion that you made public. I'm curious to know how and why you feel that way. I'm not surprised that Live Nation absolutely makes you feel safe since you stand to benefit financially directly. I think the concern is from people who are not on the inside of this crime family. I think the concern is coming from people like me, people who play at small venues, medium venues, and large venues who run their own operations that aren't looking for the mafia to back up their business organizations. So, as we kind of look into the future, I hope that we arrive in a place that keeps our community organizations as safe as possible. [2:19:40] Kate Sykes: Thank you. If there's anybody in the ground floor, please come forward. [2:19:52] Public Commenter: Hello. Can you hear me? Thank you, Council, and thank you, Mayor, for considering this issue and for doing it in a way that centers safety issues. I'm here to Oh, thank you. My name is Ernest Braun, I live on Monjoy Hill, and I'm here to voice my support for the increased buffer zone. And firstly, I'd just like to point out that I'm not against growth or development. I just live here and I need to know that I can bike safely and cross the street safely, and that if there is an emergency vehicle passing along Congress Street or in this area, that no matter the time of day or night it can reach its destination because this is my home and these are my neighbors. I'd like to also point out that the question isn't whether to develop the lot or not, it's whether to develop the lot with an ill-considered venue that would put many components of our community in jeopardy or to develop it as housing which is my understanding of the original version of the proposal for this space. Now tonight we've heard and I think we'll continue to hear a lot about, you know, what kind of message this buffer proposal might send to corporations that seek to do business in Portland. And I would like to reframe the conversation about trust and dependability in this city. What would this project, what kind of message would this project send to residents of Portland, to your constituents? Now, this buffer zone, of course, is about a project that Live Nation is involved in, but this buffer zone is about safety. It's about pedestrian and cyclist safety. It's about street parking availability, which is a much more relevant metric than parking garage spaces. It's, as I said, about emergency vehicles being able to reach their destinations. So please consider this buffer not as a rebuke of any particular kind of business that happens in Portland, but as a responsible and common sense way to make sure that your constituents are valued and are able to move about this space in a way that is not physically dangerous to them. And in addition to that, please also consider the vibrant and locally-owned arts economy that can really only thrive without the presence of large monopolies. Thank you. [2:22:32] Kate Sykes: Thank you. Can you please come forward upstairs? [2:22:38] Public Commenter: Hi, I'm Claret Thompson. I live over on the Valley Street area. Though not born and raised in Portland, I chose to come here with nothing but enough money for a plane ticket and a place to stay for a bit. If you weren't here last time, I'm the one that came from a small town in Los Verdes, Texas, and I saw firsthand how letting in a large business that is, frankly, no competition for the smaller people since they have a lot more money back in them, can price out them immensely. immensely. Walmart came in and priced out every single local business. The ones that have been there for 20 plus years, even 50 years. The hardware store, the grocery store, the Lopez supermarket that eventually got shut down because they just couldn't compete and had to downsize to a small little bodega. And so it's just, I don't want to see that happen here. Portland is Portland. And like I said before, we don't want this to be a Boston. We want this to be Portland. And I like how it is here. And this isn't like how the previous one said, we don't want no development. We just want to make sure we're working with the right people who have Portland's best interest in mind. And I frankly don't believe that Live Nation has our best interest in mind. They are an out-of-state company that wants to take a lot of our money and even other people's money that come here. So if we want to develop that, I'd say we'd develop something that would keep a lot of the money here. As a lot of small businesses do, they keep the money here and not get pumped out to other places like every other place that they'd set up these in. A previous person said a lot of what I was already going to say so it cut my deal short but [2:24:09] Kate Sykes: Thanks for listening hope you have a good day now thank you we are going to go on Zoom I think there's one person [2:24:15] Mark Dion: Becky Jacobson good [2:24:27] Public Commenter: Evening Mayor Pro Tem Ali and members of the Portland City Council my name is Nate Cludier I'm not Becky Jacobson my apologies for the confusion I'm here on behalf of Hospitality Maine, which represents restaurants, bars and lodging businesses across the state, including many in Portland. I wanted to focus our comments on the timing of the proposed buffer and how it projects that are already well into the approval process. Where are we? It was stated that the project tied to this discussion has been in front of the city for close to 500 days. Over that time so much work has elapsed between the applicant and the city's own review process and during that time like any project decisions are made along the way based on the rules in place at the time that includes decisions like leases financing designing all of it now the question in front of you is whether the buffer the 750 foot buffer should be applied after that process is already underway and from our perspective that's where the real concern is there's a process in place for a reason and projects move through it and ultimately stand or fall on their own merits under the rules that were in place when they started the bigger issue here is what the vote will mean moving forward. If rules can be applied retroactively in this case, it sets a precedent that they can change on the next project, whether it's a restaurant, a hotel, or something else. Business and economic confidence are undoubtedly strongest when people know the rules will hold from start to finish, and that is something that businesses of all sizes certainly keep in mind when looking at investing here. I will close that was the comments that were made by previous speakers we do agree with so we thank you for your time and consideration of our comments from hospitality name anyone [2:26:35] Mark Dion: want to speak from the floor? Can I excuse me sir in the blue, what are you doing? Well, what's your role here? Oh, you're waiting to speak, okay. There's been cruising around, I'm just trying to figure it out. That's So go ahead. [2:26:57] Public Commenter: Hi, my name is Logan McDonald. I'm a Westbrook resident, and I'm a working musician in the city of Portland. And in the interest of brevity, I would like to just echo the statements made before me in favor of the new 750-foot buffer between venues. I speak for my peers as well as myself when I emphasize the disruption that bringing such a large capacity venue will bring to the local culture, not to mention the safety issues regarding the combined logistical nightmare of two major music venues in such close proximity. juggling opposing vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic simultaneously thank [2:27:29] Mark Dion: you to the balcony of [2:27:35] Public Commenter: Front Street I've lived in Portland for 21 years I've worked at a small business downtown for 15 years and I've been a musician here the whole time I've lived here and I just wanted to say the local music scene means a lot to me personally when I had my baby those were the people who came and brought me food all so many of my connections in town are through the music scene and it's been so important to me and I believe it is a part of what makes our city great and interesting and a fun place to live I believe that the Live Nation venue will create a problem for this vibrant scene that we have, as it has done in other towns. And I also think that having the buffer will be very beneficial because I worry about the traffic and I worry as a cyclist about safety and all of the other things that other people have already said. But I just wanted to say that. To the floor. Go ahead. Hi. My name is – ooh, that's a hump. mic. My name is Caroline Homer. It's good to see you all again. I work and I play music in Portland and I also was a resident here for about seven years. I'll keep this very brief, but I'd also like to be counted as another voice supporting the position of the Maine Music Alliance and the 750-foot buffer. As others have mentioned, my major concerns are public safety, parking, traffic, and also pedestrian safety thank you for your time above [2:29:17] Mark Dion: balcony thank you so [2:29:19] Public Commenter: Much, my name is Clifford Cameron. I'm a musician in Portland. I've, I make a hundred percent of my livelihood performing in and around Portland and the state. So thank you for the opportunity for public comment. The speakers tonight, several of whom have referenced, oh I should clarify, I am in, I'm support of the buffer, the 750 foot buffer, and obviously in opposition to Live Nation's development. Several speakers have referenced the moving goalposts that have been imposed retroactively on this business venture. And last time when we were in attendance, there was due comment and notice given to how when you make an agreement, you don't revoke said agreement. Well, there's essentially this elected body as my only means of communicating a different, my only means of resisting a large monolithic corporate entity. I have that troubling notion that they are so puzzled and bewildered by. That's what I took to be democracy, or at least representative democracy, and you will continue to see public outcry at this kind of eradication of a beautiful local music scene, of which I would be one of the people who would see a huge deviation in, I guess, my normal wages that I could barter with small local venues. Use those will be completely decimated by a giant corporation. When we play down in Boston, we can't ask for the wages that we can ask for up here, and as a result we have a flourishing music scene of artists, musicians, as has been already said, so I won't belabor that point, but I would echo it. But I really do think, yes, you as our elected representatives, we can come to you in droves because that's the only, that's the only voice we have is we have our elected representatives to support the will of the people. If the people don't like the rules that have been negotiated up till now, I think we should have some means to do so. I did not have all, of course, the resources that Live Nation did when entering into their agreement. As has been brought forward, I think there was this body could be, you know, addressing the housing concern or like to help with our union members here, like wages, all of these issues that we are right now through inflation, all those things really struggling with, but instead we're, we're trying to fight this giant corporation from kind of decimating a local music scene, and I'm grateful for your time to share these thoughts, and I would just like to echo those notions. Thank you very much to the [Mark Dion: floor. Thank] you for giving me the opportunity to speak. My name is Abby Borowski. I was born at Maine Medical Center. I am a developer of affordable housing, and our company has developed over 200 units of affordable housing for artists. So I would imagine many people here would love affordable housing for artists in Boston, in Portland. Is that right, affordable housing for artists? I think would be an incredible thing for Portland. We've looked at Portland as a [2:32:44] Mark Dion: development, and this, excuse me, excuse me, over here, yes, I'm not up there, is this on this order [2:32:52] Public Commenter: are you going to, yes, no, this is okay, I was hoping you get to that, yes, I'm just saying that we have looked at developing affordable housing for artists in Portland, going into a city that has taken a project that is approved as of right, that the planning board supports, and then changing the rules makes Portland look like a city that doesn't know what it's doing. That would preclude us ever from developing affordable housing for artists in this city. And I am one of many real estate developers that develop affordable housing, but if you change the rules of the game after a development has started, you are basically crossing off your city as a place for investment. We would love to develop here affordable housing for artists, for teachers, for creative artists, for fine artists, for dancers. That's what we've done in cities like Lowell and Brockton, but if you change the rules of the game, let me just tell you, there will be very little investment in your city is [2:34:06] Mark Dion: there a speaker in the balcony? All right, then on the floor, go ahead counselors. [2:34:16] Public Commenter: Mayor, my name is Matthew Tanello. I'm a property owner and resident of the city of Portland. I live at 22 Pine Street. I happen to also be a owner of a small business or partner in a restaurant. That restaurant needs desperately foot traffic that this venue would provide, more than just foot traffic in the summertime. However, my primary job as a construction manager, and for the past two decades I've directed regional operations for Consigli Construction from our office on Franklin Street in Portland. Over that time, we and my colleagues have had the privilege of helping to deliver more than 40 projects throughout the city, projects that have contributed to Portland's growth, character, and economy. I'm here to speak for repealing or not advancing the buffer and to turn back the moratorium and put it to bed. Consigli has deep roots in Maine. We currently employ more than 150 residents, including about 70 skilled craft workers, union carpenters and masons, who earn wages and benefits well above prevailing standards. 22 of those employees live right here in Portland, and they are desperately waiting for this project to move forward. This project isn't just about our workforce. It is, it is expected also to generate over 300 jobs across 20-month period, from electricians to iron workers, truck drivers, suppliers and local subs. These are not abstract numbers. These are real people with families who depend on steady pipeline of work, and that pipeline is already under pressure. The construction industry is facing real headwinds, high interest rates, rising material costs and a shrinking labor pool. In that environment, certainty matters more than ever. Workers and businesses need to know that if they follow the rules that their project will move forward. This project has followed every requirement set forth by the city's ordinance. It is not seeking public funding. It is not requesting variances. It has not, it has undergone rigorous review by sitting planning staff or parking traffic and safety, and has been found to be compliant with both zoning and the comprehensive plan. And yet despite doing everything right, the development continues to be hold back, held back. I respectfully ask that you do not impose a buffer zone and do not advance the 750-foot buffer and vote to end the moratorium and allow this project to proceed through the process the city has already established. [2:37:06] Mark Dion: Speaker in the balcony. [2:37:09] Public Commenter: Hi. My name is Amelia Dahlin. I've been a professional musician, songwriter who's made my living here in Maine for the past 25 years. Excuse me. me. I know that there's something to be lost from supporting the moratorium, which I do, and the buffer zone. And there's also something to be gained, and we need to weigh those things against each other. I changed the rules and changed the game. If you know that the entity that you're dealing with has just been found to guilty in antitrust laws by a federal jury. That's not the kind of business that we want to do here in Portland. So, you know, yes, it puts out a message, and I think it puts out the right message here for Portland. And I hear that the hospitality industry is in support of this venue, or at least some venues,, but what will be lost if other smaller venues, which a lot of people can afford and a wider breadth of people who come to Portland can afford. The kind of venue that is being proposed is exclusionary to a lot of people who come to Portland. I also have a really, hard time believing that development will not continue in Portland if this does not go through with Live Nation. Everybody knows we've got a seacoast town with a great arts and music scene with a wonderful food scene. It's gonna continue whether we want it or not, so I don't think anything hangs in the balance of this venue. Thanks. [2:38:55] Mark Dion: To the floor, go ahead speaker, you. [2:38:59] Public Commenter: Little nervous and shaky, so sorry. We're all nervous too, it goes away after a while. My name is Amanda Barnett, I'm a civil engineer working in Portland. I live right on Pearl Street right around the corner, and I want to thank first the Maine Music Alliance for providing a lot of information around this proposed venue. Something that people are echoing that I just want to echo one more time are the concerns raised about Live Nation and particularly the impacts on traffic flow and public safety here in Portland. I know not everyone is comfortable speaking publicly, and so the Maine Music Alliance suggested we all wear black to show our support of this 750 foot buffer. And if it's permitted within the council's guidelines, I'd like to invite those in attendance who feel similarly to this statement to briefly stand and show their visible support. So the counselors can see how many people in this room and people outside of this room are here in support of the 750-foot buffer and against Live Nation. So if you want to stand, just so you all can see, Speaker above. Hi, my name is Catherine Hewlett. I am a born and raised Portland, Maine resident. I am a DJ and working musician, and I am just here to support my voice for the 750-foot buffer. I would like to echo the statements of preserving the safety and culture of downtown Portland. I also travel and work in New York City a lot, and I hear so much about what a wonderful city Portland is to visit and escape from the city. And I would really like to, I see and hear and recognize all of the short-term economic benefits that will come from building this venue. But I think that there are longer economic benefits to be gained by preserving the culture of our city and preserving the arts community of our city. Because the lifestyle that we have created here is why people want to come here, and that's why we have such a vibrant tourist industry. [2:41:30] Mark Dion: Eric Sawyer, can you hear me? Eric Sawyer. Yes. Go ahead, you have the floor. [2:41:41] Public Commenter: Good evening, Mayor Dion, members of the council. Council. I am Eric Sawyer, a proud member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. We are the stagehands union here in Maine. I have been a professional stagehand in and around Portland for over 13 years. We work at venues small and large across the state, and venue owners and operators seek us out. Having a contract with our union means that stage work is performed in a safe and efficient manner. Our members are stagehands, technicians, wardrobe specialists, riggers and more. I would look forward to the proposed venue not only for our workers but for those represented by the building trades unions and others across this great city. I would also hope that other service workers that the venue would be unionize some time. Portland can support a venue of this size without detracting from others and I'm confident that its approval would serve all in a good way in the future. Thank you for your time before [Mark Dion: Go ahead] Good evening, Mayor Diane and members of the council. My name is Thomas O'Boyle. I serve as the advocacy director for the Portland Regional Chamber. Thank you for this opportunity to speak this evening. The chamber's position on proposed buffer zone amendment is not about any one project. Is about process, president, and what this decision signals about Portland as a place to invest and create jobs. Over the past several months, the city undertook exactly the kind of review a moratorium is intended to allow. That process has now concluded, and the outcome is clear. City planning staff found that Portland already has a comprehensive regulatory framework in place to evaluate and mitigate impacts on a case-by-case basis, including site plan review, traffic movement permits and event management requirements. They also concluded that current conditions and the city's long-term vision do not support implementing a fixed separation buffer zone between venues. The Planning Board reviewed the same body of work and voted unanimously to recommend rejection of the amendment, finding it inconsistent with Portland's comprehensive plan. Board members were clear in their reasoning. They described the 750 foot buffer as an arbitrary and Blunt Hall and noted that the concerns prompting the amendment, namely traffic and parking, are already addressed through existing processes. During the Board's careful review, it also emerged that the existing 100-foot buffer was originally adopted to address late-night crowd safety and bar-related impacts, not theatre development or traffic, making the proposed buffer increase a significant departure from the policy's original intent. Additionally, the Planning Board emphasised that extending the buffer would limit opportunities for cultural and economic activity in the very area the city has identified as its primary growth centre. That point is critical. Portland's long-term goals outlined in the city's comprehensive plan and downtown vision plan consistently call for strengthening downtown as the region's centre for art, culture and commerce. The plans emphasize concentrating activity, supporting cultural venues and reinforcing downtown as a hub of economic life. Staff analysis also shows that this approach is consistent with peer cities which typically rely on zoning and site level review rather than fixed spacing requirements and in many cases actively encourage the clustering of arts and entertainment uses to create vibrant downtown districts the type of venue under discussion aligns directly with those goals as presented as presented previously analysis from oxford economics projects that the proposed portland music hall will generate more than 44 million dollars in annual economic impact create hundreds of jobs and produce almost $3 million in new annual tax revenue, all contributing to the city's tax base and overall economic vitality. Ultimately, this comes back to predictability and confidence in Portland's planning process. When a proposal complies with existing rules and those rules are then changed, despite staff analysis and unanimous planning board recommendation, to the contrary, it sends a concerning message. For these reasons, the Chamber respectfully urges the Council to reject the proposed buffer amendment and to lift the moratorium, allowing Portland's established planning framework to guide future development. Above. Hello, my name is Alex Silver. I currently live in Scarborough, but I did live in Portland for several years. I'm a teacher. I play music here. I'm involved with the venues, and I like to pay attention to these issues locally and nationally. I think that this issue actually is being watched nationally, which is very interesting. Interesting, it's been written about in a number of publications. And I think that while I do think I'm very much in support of creating opportunities in this city, and which is, you know, a leader in this state for, sorry, I'm so much taller than this mic. I'm going to go down here. You can crank it up if you'd like. Yeah, I should know how to do this, and I'm actually a musician. But I guess what I'm thinking about is that I'm, I think it's important to create these opportunities for, you know, especially organized labor. I do understand that perspective. I do understand the perspective of setting up rules and following them. But I think that even though we want to make an abstract kind of thing that everyone can follow. I do think that, as a city, we need to be able to look at something specific, like a company like this, and be able to express our volition about it. So I would just like this city to have those means. That was kind of spoken to before in the conversation about U.S. representatives. But I don't know if this is the best way it could have been done, but I think it seems like a reasonable way to approach it. And yeah, I just like to see the city be able to make those types of choices, like we don't have chain restaurants downtown or things that other cities have done that people admire. Thank you for your time. Bye, Sean. [2:48:08] Mark Dion: Randall, can you hear me? Sean Randall. [2:48:33] Public Commenter: Anastasia Contos, do you hear me? Yes, hello. Thank you, Mayor Dion and members of the Portland City Council. For the purpose of brevity, I would like to echo the words very eloquently spoken by the gentleman from the Chamber of Commerce and to reiterate, we oppose the proposed amendment to land use code. Thank you. All [2:49:06] Mark Dion: right, now I'll go to the floor. Come forward, Speaker. Hi, thank you so much. You can adjust the mic. For all these performers, it's like [2:49:13] Public Commenter: you're afraid of the mic. Sorry, I am used to a performer. I'm used to not touching the mic. My name is Jules. I was born at Maine Medical Center as well, and I live on Free Street, and I work on Wharf Street. For those of you who aren't from here, that's a very, close walking distance. I went to Portland High School right next door and graduated from Casco Bay High School. Both of my parents graduated from Portland High School. I am here on behalf of myself, a born and raised Portlander, not on behalf of any corporation or criminal enterprise. Personally, I have never been found guilty of a crime by a jury. I'm in favor of the buffer zone as it is for the people's safety and preventing harm. For business owners speaking today who wish to increase foot traffic, address the core issues parking and wealth inequality. A lot of Portland workers cannot reasonably afford their food without our employee discounts. Invest in your people. I'm here just to be counted as a drop in the bucket of Portlanders who choose local flavor over corporate slop. Portland is a home for people like me, not just a business. Shout out to the Hill Arts on Monjoy Hill. All power to the people. Thank you, folks. Above. Hi, everyone. My name is Kevin Greer. I am a cartoonist and I live and work on Congress Street and I'm opening a business on the State Theater building and I've received a very warm welcome from the city of Portland especially the Development Corporation and investing in me opening my business I relocated here after 20 years being dedicated to the downtown of Machias and being very involved in the downtown revitalization work there. Here in Portland, besides getting my own space open and just in general paying attention to all the problem solving that needs to be done on Congress Street, I also work as event staff at another venue on Congress Street, and I spend a lot of my time for the past six years as an uber driver and specializing in getting the ladies home safely at night, mostly rescuing the hospitality workers who couldn't get home when the surge price is happening at 1 in the morning. And so I'm out at 2 in the morning getting people home. So I've paid a lot of attention to the traffic flow, safety, the different surge around traffic and people being able to move around in the downtown. And I strongly support this buffer zone. I'm going to keep it short because a lot of what I feel about the larger issue here has already been expressed in all the monopoly posters that I made that you've seen around. But really I just as I'm sitting here listening to this tonight, I just want to express that my empathy for being y'all being put in this position by this company that has a bazillion dollars and could be trying to set foot anywhere. I really strongly feel that this is the wrong spot because it is so up against the Merrill Auditorium. And to not protect the Merrill Auditorium, your own venue, is self-destructive. And I'm gobsmacked that we don't have more push to try to get, bullies need boundaries. They will set foot wherever they want to if we don't make space that is necessary for the elderly and the young people who come to this most fragile of venues in your downtown. And I'm just going to leave it there. [Mark Dion: Noah Farwell.] Noah. Hi, good evening, Council. My name is Noah Grineer. I'm a local musician here in Portland. I live on the West Bend. I just want to echo what I've heard before. I'm in favor of the moratorium. I think that there needs to be more consideration involved when it comes to the safety and well-being of our Portlanders, and also we need to kind of question ourselves in regards to who we allow to set foot and I don't know do business in Portland. I think that there is a better way that we can in like revitalize this city and like put money and like money or efforts towards affordable housing towards like helping out with Like having better services for those that are unhoused on the streets that we see every day. I think that it is time for a change, and I think that we need to stay unified together as Portlanders and say that we do not want Live Nation here in this. And with that, is my time. To the floor. My name is Howard Goldenfarb. I'm the president of RAM and the president of Mile Marker, one of the developers of Portland Music Hall. I hope to be the developers of the Portland Music Hall. I have a speech that was two minutes and 58 seconds, but I'm going to put it down because much of what I was going to say you've already heard or you will hear. But I do want to make a couple of comments and tell a very brief story. Story. First, Live Nation has been doing business in the city for 50 years. In fact, a little bit longer than 50 years. It started with Don Law, who's now, I believe, the chairman of Live Nation New England, and now continues with the actual corporation. So they have been booking acts in the Merrill. They've been booking acts at the Civic Center. They've been booking acts at Aurora. I even think they've booked acts at the State Theater, which when I came to town 56 years ago, was an adult movie theater. This city has changed since I came here in 1970. In 1973, I made the decision to leave a job to go into the real estate development business. I've done 30 projects in the city that I've developed, owned, managed, 22 of which are within four blocks of this site in the Old Port Exchange. The very first building I bought in the Old Port Exchange was 80 Exchange Street, which you may know as the building with the mural on the side. It didn't have a mural when we bought it. We put it on the side. And I took my wife, and that was before Exchange Street had brick sidewalks, before it had trees, before it had pretty light poles. And I took my wife, who knew that I had just given up a good job, do this on my own with a partner, and I took her to Exchange Street to show her the first building that I was buying, A.D. Exchange Street. To put it nicely, there was someone in the doorway urinating, And my wife looked at me and said, that's what you gave up a job for? And I said, yes, that's what I gave up the job for. The reason I brought up that story is the Old Port Exchange, which we all take advantage of, love, remark to other people who come here, show them. In 1974, when we started, it was not the Old Port Exchange. It was Exchange Street, which was a rundown area with empty buildings, mostly empty storefronts. The point of this is a city grows. I remember when they only had two hotels in the city, the Holiday Inn and the Eastland, which is now the Western. It is a city that has grown. I remember when Marriott came in here, people said that's going to be the end of the hotel business. When other large chains came, that was going to be the end of the hotel business. I've seen Whole Foods come in here. That was going to be the end of the Hinnerford supermarkets. This is a city that is growing, and it has to grow, and part of that growth has changed. And I believe that what we will do with Portland Music Hall will be done in a way that will benefit this city for years to come, not just for the people who will work when we're building it or who will work when we're operating it, but as a site that people will be proud of for many, years to come. [2:57:55] Mark Dion: You have the floor above. [2:57:58] Public Commenter: Celeste Park from Blue Portland, Maine. And I just want to address a couple things. I also strongly oppose Live Nation's proposal and think that the buffer zone is a good idea. However, I understand there's been some valid concerns about changing those zoning rules, and I would just like to say maybe this council, I believe, has the authority to deny business licenses to companies that have violated antitrust laws in Maine. So maybe this is not about zoning or anything else. Maybe this is simply we do not do business with companies that violate laws. I would strongly urge you to consider that is not being anti-business at all. Furthermore, I'd like to say addressing some other folks who have of restaurants, their desires to bring more traffic to their places. I remember when this city first got kind of put on the map as a food place, a great destination, a lot of us that worked in the industry itself were the ones that supported the industry throughout the winter months. We were very self-supported, and I believe that support, that internal support has left because this city is no longer affordable for the people that are working in those jobs. We can't park to work at those places, so we're not going to go out afterwards. We're not going to walk home from our job and stop by to see our friends at another restaurant. I don't think that this venue makes that culture any more likely to happen. I think it in fact probably hurts that culture instead. We're gonna see bottlenecks of people who are just trying to get in and out of our city as fast as possible, leaving most of their money in Live Nation's pockets. So, thank you. Catherine Buxton. [3:00:11] Mark Dion: Catherine? Catherine, can you hear me? Okay. I can a little bit. [3:00:22] Public Commenter: How about now? Yeah, I can now. Great. Sorry about that. So, I will be brief. My name is Catherine Buxton. I am an actor and performing artist. And in my day job that we all have, I work incredibly closely with Naeem's labor unions. And so I just want to preface by saying I am all for bringing more good union jobs to our state and our city. However, I know that there are many folks who are unionized labor in Portland who are in support of this venue. However, I have heard from friends and family who are near and dear to me as well, who are local artists and musicians, and also union stagehands, that the support of the Live Nation venue that would be going in was not something that necessarily was voted on by the full membership. So I just want to bring that up for the councillors so they have sort of the full picture of who is supporting this venue and who isn't, that this is not a unilaterally supported venue across all folks who are members of Organized Labor or in Portland. And I just, you know, I think it's really important to highlight that solidarity isn't just about bringing more union jobs to the city. Solidarity is also about looking to who this development will impact. So that is, you know, the musicians, the venue staff, venue owners who are for independent venues here in Portland. You know, that is the folks who, you know, I obviously laboriously helped organize at the State Theatre. And I deeply worry that there will be a net zero amount of stagehand jobs if the state is forced to close, if other venues are forced to close. And so I just wanted to offer that note to folks and encourage the council to, you know, listen to folks like Celeste, who's a venue owner in Portland, and if need be, get creative about the ways in which we can curtail doing business with a company that has violated numerous federal laws. So thank you for your time, and thank you for listening to all the different stakeholders in this conversation, and I hope that you will make the right choice and not support moving this venue forward. I guess. Go ahead. The floor. Hello. My name's Bree Dee. I'm a constituent of District 1. I live over on Washington Ave. I'm also a local musician, and I work in the service industry. I work in the Old Port. I work downtown, and I use this intersection almost every day, the Franklin, Congress, Cumberland, to get around to get to work, and I'm very concerned about the further development of this venue and the impacts that it would have on our community. I think it would be detrimental to the local music scene, but the effect on pedestrian safety and traffic logistics would honestly be a nightmare. And already when there's an event at the Merrill, the traffic is congested there, and I honestly don't think we have the infrastructure right now to support a venue of this size in this location, and that it would be great if y'all could focus on public safety as a baseline. I also think it's very interesting that we're having this conversation, which seems to be coming down to a difference in values, and is going to dictate the direction that our city is heading. Do we favor corporate profits and greed of endless development, or the local community that facilitates art, connection, and care for each other? And I urge you all to listen to the artists and the workers that make Portland the destination that it is, and do everything you can to prevent the continuation of this project. [3:05:00] Mark Dion: The chair is taking a recess for 10 minutes. So we're going to be back a little after 8.15. [3:06:45] Public Commenter: One. No one's hurting anybody. [3:06:47] Mark Dion: That's right. He's not hurting anyone. He just wants you to get on the bus to heaven. Yep. Right. We all could use a little heaven. Especially tonight. [3:07:07] Public Commenter: But the people stand up and get a line and [3:07:20] Wesley Pelletier: right now they're willing to [Public Commenter: make a point] and change the climate [3:22:45] Mark Dion: Council's back in session. I'll go with a speaker on the floor [3:22:53] Public Commenter: Hi, my name's Nix. I live in Westbrook now, but I work for Portland schools. The proposition to expand the buffer zone is here due to our concerns about safety and infrastructure. We love music venues and businesses here. Live at Madrid's just opened since the last time we had a city hall meeting about this. And we're not here on behalf of financial interests. We're here because we want to be heard and have come, many of us after long days at work, just to express those concerns. While those in favor of the venue are saying it checks all the required boxes, the legal process that we're doing today exists so that we, the people, have a final say to express our concerns on laws that could threaten safety. What is a point of this process if you cannot listen to concerns of your constituents? That 150 feet is not enough to of a buffer to be safe. On my way to work this morning, I drove past several pedestrian memorials that get me thinking about this conversation all the time and I had a pretty eventful day at this Portland school I work at an assembly we started we started the morning with an assembly assuring students that their voices matter and will be heard when they raise concerns and organized protests around an administrative decision, please show them that 's true and that individual public voices matter and actually have an impact on our safety and our futures in a crucial part of our democratic process. That's really all I have to say. Thank you. Speaker above. Lynn Aubrey, [3:24:49] Mark Dion: Could you move the mic closer? We won't hear you. How's that? [3:24:53] Public Commenter: Very good. Okay. Hi. Lynn Aubrey, Munjoy Hill. I'm in full support of the buffer and continued moratorium. Others have spoken to the public safety issue and infrastructure aspects of this issue. Coming from a family of first responders, I wish to echo those sentiments. Timing is crucial. If emergency vehicles cannot reach their destinations due to avoidable congestion and poor planning, the consequences can be dire. I recently moved back to Portland. I love this city. I missed its uniqueness, its ability to thrive without entities like the L.A. Live Nation. Excuse me. It's a special place. You don't get this everywhere. I know most of us are aware of how lucky we are to have what we have here. I pose this question to the council. An entity that is going to cause undue burden to its very vocal constituent body has come to you with a project allegedly playing by the rules. Knowing the long-term harm this entity will cause to your community, how in good conscience does this body go forward with permitting the project simply because the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. I would like to see this council support growth in the community, not starve it. [3:26:18] Mark Dion: Fred Forsley. Fred, can you hear us? [3:26:24] Public Commenter: I can hear you. [3:26:25] Mark Dion: Yep, you have the floor. Okay. [3:26:28] Public Commenter: I just, Fred Forsley, owner of Shipyard Brewing. I've done business in the city of Portland for over 44 years. I was on the board of the Civic Center. A big supporter of, you know, our family business supports local artists. It's a simple formula of supply and demand. The more areas you have to provide world class and local places for people to play, the more musicians will come. Nashville is a great example of it. Portland has become a tourist town. Right now, you have Howard Goldenfarb, who single-handedly, with the Monks family, redeveloped the old port. His son, Todd, they're world-class developers. Everybody's talking about Live Nation. The city of Portland already does business with Live Nation. I understand the concerns that people are giving, the really heartfelt concerns. Concerns, but it takes a lot of courage as a council to stick to what the planning board had for rules and their recommendations. We need these jobs. We need this venue to provide tax revenue and to persevere in the mission of Portland being a world-class tourist town. It's for everybody. This last winter was brutal. Had we had more venues for people to play and world-class acts coming in, we would have had more business in the city of Portland. I feel very strongly that this is a unique opportunity that I think everybody that's spoken against this would think three and four years in now, boy, it was good that we had that. I can envision a night where somebody plays at the Merrill Auditorium, there's music at the Portland Music Hall, and there's an event at the Portland Civic Center, and there's events down on the Old Port from the porthole to every other venue, and the city of Portland comes alive. Without the ability to have world-class venues built in new venues, the State Theater, I went there as a kid to watch movies, I got dropped off there, it's a beautiful venue, and we should, you know, it'll stay there, it will not be hurt by this venue, and I encourage the town council to stick with the recommendation, the Portland Planning Board, and approve this. You have a unique opportunity with people that have given their life to the city of 30 seconds, the Golden part family is a world-class developer. They put money into the city of Portland and they've done it in other communities in the state of Maine, and I think you'd be well served to take advantage of this and not do a retroactive act that's against your planning department's recommendation. I strongly encourage you to approve this project so it'll be a benefit to all residents. Thank you. On the floor. Hello, Council Mayor Dyan. My name is Eric Hager. I am the resident of the City of Portland. I work for a prime tenant of Merrill Auditorium. I have an office directly across the street here, and we have been watching development on this corner for a long time because we do work in Merrill Auditorium. We do need the streets here. We do need the pedestrian traffic, and I watched with actually with excitement as a development was announced down here, and I was looking forward to seeing Herald Square be developed and wanted to see how the construction process was going to affect us, how much, how many issues we would have in moving in and out of Merrill Auditorium, and was surprised to find out that suddenly Herald Square was no longer Herald Square but going to be the Portland Music Hall. I bring this up because we put 2,000 people in there on a good night in Merrill Auditorium for our productions, and if we add another 2,000 people 100 feet away and they all have to leave at the same time, there's just not enough room. You can't get that many people out of a theater at the same time. If there's an emergency, you don't coordinate your finishing times with the other entity. Your show ends when your show ends. Likewise, your show starts when your show starts. If we have that much traffic trying to move on Myrtle Street at the same time, it's going to be a mess. 750 feet is not too much to ask, and I ask you to please support the 750 foot buffer zone. Thank you. It's gonna be fun. [3:30:59] Mark Dion: I hope so. I shouldn't have said that. I'm going upstairs. Anyone? You're all good? You have the floor. Good [3:31:15] Public Commenter: Evening. My name is Colleen Glynn. I'm an International Vice President of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. I am here tonight on behalf of IATSE to speak in favor of the Live Nation new music venue moving forward here and remove the monitorium and maintain the current buffer zone. IATSE is the largest entertainment union behind workers in the United States and Canada. We represent over 180,000 behind-the-scenes workers. IATSE represents live event workers in 60 live nation venues, both new and old, across the Alliance. My day-to-day job is the business manager of IATSE Local 11, Boston Stagehands Union. I represent 1,500 workers at seven Live Nation venues in the Greater Boston area where we hold collectively bargained agreements protecting backstage workers. These contracts ensure protections including good wages, benefits, and working conditions for stagehands. Our relationship with Live Nation New England and the contracts we have collectively negotiated have allowed live event workers to not just have a job, but a well-paying career with health benefits as well as pensions and 401 retirement accounts. Just over four years ago, Live Nation opened MGM Fenway Music Hall, a 5,000-seat live event venue attached to Fenway Park and across the street, directly across the street from Live Nation's House of Blues, which we just recently organized. Since the opening of the new MGM Fenway Music Hall, our Live Nation workers have a combined annual wages and benefit contributions in the $20 million range. From all accounts, the smaller venues in Boston have not BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED WITH THE ADDITIONAL NEW MGM FENWAY MUSIC VENUE. ON BEHALF OF IATSC, I STRONGLY SUPPORT LIVE NATION NEW ENGLAND'S BID TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEW VENUE IN PORTLAND. THE PORTLAND MUSIC HALL WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT IATSC LOCAL 1-1-4 STAGE HANDS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AS WELL AS BENEFIT, AS WE'VE HEARD, OTHER SECTORS ACROSS THE CITY. Building a new 3,000-seat venue will be a year-round economic multiplier for the entire downtown Portland community. And continuing the strong relationship IATSE has with Live Nation New England, negotiating contracts for the protections of backstage workers, is a huge win for the IATSE Local 114 Portland stagehands. day chance. Thank you for your time and consideration and the preservation of the current buffer zone and allowing the new music venue project to go forward. Thank you. [3:34:28] Mark Dion: Above. See, I knew there was someone. [3:34:34] Public Commenter: Go ahead. Hi, my name is Jen Haas. I'm a six-year resident of Maine and I value and support the vibrant community of artists and musicians that we that we have throughout the state. I also support ending the moratorium and denying the proposed buffer zone. A venue like the Portland Music Hall brings added interest and visibility to the city while also supporting the local businesses as patrons dine, shop, and participate in events before and after shows. Supporting and investing in spaces like this helps maintain the cultural energy and the economic activity that benefit the broader community and have made Portland so special from many years. On the floor, please. Scott Mueller, Portland, Maine. I want to start by saying that I agree with a lot of what has been said tonight. The voices you've heard before mine have spoken with passion, clarity, and I'm proud to stand alongside them. As Executive Director of Maine Music Alliance, I've had the opportunity to speak directly with almost all of you over the course of this process, and I want to thank you sincerely for the time and care that you've given to this issue. In a world where I can feel like the concerns of artists, musicians, and independent venues fall on deaf ears, you listen and that matters. What began as a story about a single venue in Portland has grown into something far larger. It's become a story about a city and its citizens choosing to stand up to a corporation that seeks to extract from a community that it did not build. Independent stages, good timing. Independent stages are the rooms where artists take their first risks and audience have their most memorable nights. These are not just businesses, they're cultural infrastructure of a city and they are where community is made. This story is also about something else. It's a story about local government working the way that it's supposed to work. You took the time to meet with us, you heard our concerns without dismissing them, you educated yourselves about the complex and invisible pressures facing independent music venues and the broader live music ecosystem, system, and then you acted. You acted because you understood that when a community speaks this clearly and this urgently, leadership means responding in kind. The risks of approving this development are very real and quite literally right outside your window. Your constituents have made it clear that in the recent citizen survey that navigating the city and parking were chief among the concerns that constituents have. This is not a problem the free market can solve because where a monopoly exists there cannot be a free market. And just to put a little button on the Whole Foods analogy before that, maybe Hannaford did survive, but Wild Oats, Lois's Natural and Rosemont Foods did not. Thank you. The floor. Debra Napier, Portland. I'm here to ask that you not terminate moratorium. I think there's still a lot of work to do as all many other speakers have brought up about safety, traffic, parking, and numerous issues. But also, I think it's very important and relevant to this matter to note that when the Planning Board got this project, we did not have all the information about Live Nation. That was quite a while ago. Live Nation didn't come to the table saying we're in the middle of a lawsuit for being sued for monopolies. They didn't come out and say that. But now we have new information because just, I think, three or four days ago, maybe a week ago, the New York Attorney General James won the case against Live Nation for monopoly practices that hurt consumers. That hurt consumers. They were outraged over Live Nation gouging consumers on ticket prices and fees. And it was so strong that 34 states in this country joined that lawsuit. That was a huge legal victory just a week ago. And a New York City jury tried this. It went in front of the jury. And they determined that Live Nation was running an illegal monopoly. That was evidence, according to the trial, that huge economic and cultural impact was experienced. experienced. So they went after antitrust issues. So now we're looking at a company coming in here. They say they've been doing business with us for 50 years. What they've been doing is bringing acts to all of our various venues. What happens now, they have their own private venue. They're not going to be dealing with Aura and Blue or any of the other state theater. They're going to be holding these shows at their own venue. There's only so many ticketing dollars in people's pockets. So if you're going to be buying a high ticket price ticket to go to Live Nation show, you're probably not going to go to too many at the State Theater or One Long Fellow Square or any of our other great locals. And the analogy the other person gave about when Whole Foods came in and put others out of business, same with Starbucks putting coffee shops out of business, I just want to say that hindsight is 20-20. We have a two-place system with the planning board and all you folks, and the buck stops here. It's up to you folks to take all the information, and regardless of the planning board's rules and stipulations they have to follow, it's not important to them to know how it's affecting the residents, but it is up to you folks to do that. So these 34 states regret that they allowed Live Nation into their towns and cities. Once they are here, there's no going back. The decision you are making is going to affect the city of Northern for years to come. I hope you'll give that serious consideration. Thank you for your time. Also thank you to the counselors who have been keeping an open mind throughout this and really listening to the many different people that have been speaking. [3:40:59] Mark Dion: I'm sorry, did you say your name? I missed it. [3:41:01] Public Commenter: That was my third sentence. My name is Farron Stark. Okay. I live in West Bayside, just a few blocks down from where the proposed venue would be. I'm also a working musician that performs in Portland and across the East Coast. And I'm here to speak in favor of the 750-feet buffer zone and the continuation of the moratorium. I would love to have a venue of this size in Portland, but as someone who lives and parks in this neighborhood, I don't see a world where less than 750 feet is enough room for thousands of people to flow in and out of this tiny congested area. This location is surrounded on one side by narrow one-way residential streets where I live, and for local businesses who spoke out in support of this venue, one controversial music hall is not going to save Portland's downtown. And for the developers of the Portland Music Hall, if the council is not able to prevent this venue from being constructed, please know that you are entering into doing business in a city that will not welcome you. You are seeking to cement yourselves in a local music scene that will actively discourage people from attending your events and shows. People will boycott your venue. There will be protests. There will be public outrage. This does not end here. Thank you. Go ahead, the floor. I'm gonna try to be a little less threatening with my letter. Good evening, councillors. I've had the pleasure of speaking with all of you over the last 500 days of this process. My name is Todd Goldenfarb, I am the lead developer of Portland Music Hall and to give another plug for Maine Medical Center, I was born there. We started this project because we believe in Portland. You heard my dad, 1974 he believed when no one else really did and I think the city's doing pretty good today. It's history, it's creativity and it's future. This is what we believe in. This is not just a building. This is an investment in the city's energy, its small businesses, and its long-term vitality. Portland Music Hall is designed to bring more than a hundred and twenty-five nights per year of world-class entertainment to the city. This means more for downtown. More eating in restaurants, staying in hotels, and supporting local businesses services across the board. It means more jobs, over 200 of them, and millions more in economic impact that Portland can count on year-round. And it means hundreds of thousands of dollars to the local arts community every year. That has not been mentioned one time. We have offered a piece of every ticket to that community. We didn't have to be asked. We offered. The city codified it and we are happy to do it. Do you really want to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? I don't think so. We followed the rules. We submitted our plans to the Planning Department following the city's zoning laws. Recently the Planning Board after reviewing the facts unanimously rejected efforts to change those rules in a way that would attempt to stop this project. It is not only unfair to try to retroactively change the rules midstream, it is harmful to the future of this great city. This moment is bigger than our project. It's about whether Portland is open to thoughtful investment or whether we change the rules after the fact. I don't think you would want rules changed on you after the fact. It is about whether we support the arts or allow the city's momentum to stall. All. I've personally heard from restaurant owners, hotel workers, and residents who want more life in this city, not less. They want Portland to thrive, especially in the months where we need it the most. We are ready to move forward. We are ready to invest with no public funds, and we are ready to deliver something Portland can be proud of. I respectfully, I respectfully ask you to reject the 750-foot buffer tonight and lift this moratorium so we can move forward. [3:45:51] Mark Dion: Anybody above? Or? [3:45:58] Public Commenter: Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Robert Hastings. I'm a resident of downtown Portland. I am here to show my support for building a new Portland Music Hall. This is a project that this city as well as several smaller businesses in the downtown area would greatly benefit from by bringing visitors from away to the downtown to spend money. Like I said, I live in downtown and I see firsthand the positive impact on restaurants anytime there's a show at any venue, and this development would greatly enhance their ability to stay busy year-round. Plus, it would make Congress Street more appealing for anyone who's considering opening a new business at one of the many vacant storefronts. As far as parking concerns go, I don't believe it. I recently went to a University of Maine hockey game at Cross Assurance Arena. It was over 6,000 people at that game. The same night, there was a sold-out show at State Theater that had 1,750 people at it. The Spring Street Garage did not even fill up. You're talking over 7,500 people on a Friday night at the same time. That didn't even fill up. This is a venue of only 3,300 people, not even half the size of that. And with six parking garages within four blocks of this area, it just would mean so much as downtown, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Plus it would give me an opportunity to not have to drive to Bangor or New Hampshire or Boston to go to concerts. I go to them right here. I love going to State Theatre, I go to Longfellow Square, I go to Portland House of Music, I love live music. There used to be a lot more important when Cross-Assurance readers have a concert. They don't get them there now. We need this venue. Please make Portland what it used to be for live music. Thank you very much. Laura. Hello. My name is Ryan Tinsman. I live on Congress Street. I'm a local content creator and I had no intention of speaking here tonight but after learning that just 12 days ago Live Nation was found guilty of pretty serious thing. I had to get up here and just tell you guys, you guys are giving very crony capitalistic vibes. I think you're going to prove tonight that crony capitalism is not reserved for Republicans. So, I mean, one of you has already pretty much admitted that you're voting in favor of it. And we got another member here falling asleep. It's pretty sad. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Go ahead. Hello. My name is Sumit Coleman. I'm a Portland resident and I have a career in accessibility and education I'm also a local musician I just wanted to put in my word for supporting the 750 foot barrier I know that you have a lot of eyes on you and there's a moment to set a precedent and I know that we want growth in this area this is not your only and last opportunity tourism is actively growing and will continue to do so and there will be more spaces that open up for us as long as we show what spaces we want to welcome. So I just hope that you guys are willing to vote for safety, pedestrian safety, road safety, cultural safety, and that you're able to hear us all here tonight. And I also want to say that I think that there is no shame in fixing a mistake, especially when more data is presented. So thank you. Above. Go ahead, on the floor. Thank you so much. I'm Stacy Mitchell. I live on Atlantic Street. Grew up in Portland. Mayor Dionne, you referenced the things that used to be sold on the corner of High Street and Congress. I remember those days. It's been a wonderful thing to see our city become so vibrant and a lot of that is due to arts, music, culture, and our unique identity. I am here to support the buffer. I would like to point out that it is not only consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, but it's really essential to the vision that's laid out in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan talks about how arts and culture, we will support that and that is the center of our identity. It talks about the uniqueness of Portland. It talks about supporting local businesses as the path towards our economic future. We can see all across the country, example after example, of situations where a large development, outsized development, featuring a company that has predatory practices designed that gets by putting its competitors out of business. We can see across the country examples of when that has come in and has not been economic vitality and growth, but has really been economic destruction. And that's true of Live Nation, it's true of Walmart. There are lots of other examples people have referenced. The idea that, you know, there are rules, that zoning policy is in place, but reality, and you all know this, is that, you know, the comprehensive plan is the guiding light, and you can't expect the zoning rules to cover every possible variation. That might be out there, which is why we have this process and the important duty that you all hold with that comprehensive plan. So I hope that you will hold it up tonight by voting for the buffer. [3:52:07] Mark Dion: On the floor, next. [3:52:10] Public Commenter: Hello, my name is Liam Doerr. I originally wasn't going to say something tonight. However, you know, that has changed now. I came here expecting to stand for the buffer zone. I saw the posters. I've listened to the arguments. But now, after hearing what everyone here has had to say, I've realized that I am against it. I've walked down the same Congress Street that you have. Even within the course of my very short life, 19 years of existence, I can remember a time when Congress Street wasn't this depressed, when I wouldn't have to walk over bodies littering the street, as someone put it so elegantly. I look forward to a time where, you know, life can be breathed back into the city, even though I think, as some of you said, this isn't a fix-all for everything and it's by no means going to be perfect. It's a good place to start. I love live music and I think one of the things people fail to see is that you really cannot, you cannot kill the beauty of a small venue, the intimacy of that or of, yes, of seeing these small shows. It isn't like, you know, the, I don't, I doubt there's much cross-pollination, between Sabrina Carpenter or seeing local, fairly niche artists or like David Sedaris who came to the State Theater. I doubt he'd be performing in a stadium. So, yes. That's what I have to say. [Mark Dion: Floor, go ahead.] Patrick Fallon, live on Deering Street in Portland, right near the State Theater. I'm here to support the moratorium and the buffer. Someone who walks, bikes, and drives. This area is already obscenely full of traffic when there is an event. The idea that you'd be able to safely move that many people through this area with another 3,000 attendees is ridiculous. Then to a few other things, the notion that not allowing this build would scare off developers from the city is not something that will happen. This city is a pot of honey and everyone wants to grab some of it. And thirdly, that yes, this is a seasonal city. I work on the water. It is not what it's summertime is not anything like wintertime and one venue is not going to save anyone's business with increased foot traffic support moratorium or My name is Marlon and I'm a longtime Portland resident worker concert goer and bicyclist. I'm also a member of a trade union. I'm not here to speak on behalf of my local and I think the short-term personal gain of these potential construction jobs is outweighed by how my city would be negatively affected by the increased congestion of a venue this size. I'm in favor of the 750-foot buffer zone and the continued moratorium. It's already difficult for bicyclists to safely get around town and the kind of traffic that will come with this venue will make it more unsafe. There will be increased traffic from tour buses and tractor trailers and a dramatic increase in the number of personal vehicles for people who are not familiar with our roads. Last year I was working on a construction site in this exact area biking to and from work usually in the dark like you would be leaving a concert and the streets were very congested they were full of deep potholes and they were very poorly lit during the length of Congress Street. These are not good conditions for Increasing traffic whether it be vehicle bicycle or pedestrian. I currently live in the Arts District, a stone's throw from the State Theater, and I love being able to walk to shows and to restaurants on Congress Street. Living so close to downtown has made me more likely to do both, but this also means I'm directly impacted by the touring vehicles and concertgoers' personal vehicles. It is incredibly difficult to live in the same neighborhood as a large venue. I avoid driving my car on any regular weekend night because it's so hard to park when I get home. But on show nights, when tour buses take up all the metered parking and concert goers take up all the rest of the free street parking, because they are not using the garages, they're going for the free parking, it becomes downright impossible. I don't want my neighbors in Bayside to be subjected to dealing with this twice over due to having two major music venues in their neighborhood. The larger buffer would make their lives easier in dealing with street parking and would make my fellow bicyclists feel safer in navigating Portland's roads. Laura. Good evening. My name is Cameron Silvera. I'm a Portland resident, independent musician and proud public schools employee here. I am here to express my support for the buffer and to echo sentiments against Live Nation. Tonight I've heard a lot of comments by people in favor of this project expressing concerns about the precedent that enacting the buffer zone would set in regards to business development that the city might be walking back on its rules. I want to offer the perspective that putting this buffer in place and denying a law-breaking corporate entity like Live Nation the opportunity to take money out of this city sets an important precedent about the kinds of businesses that we do want here and also paints a picture of a city that is nimble and agile and able to listen and respond to its constituents, to its citizens who are continually showing up and speaking out against something that they don't agree with. When a member of this body opens the floor by saying, let's not repeat ourselves too much, that gives me an idea that the council does have an understanding on where general public opinion lies on this issue. Good evening, council. My name is Nicole Byrne, and I'm a Portland resident in District 2. I'm here to voice support for the 750-foot buffer. I've heard some people frame that number as something that sounds prohibitively large, so I want to reframe that number as saying 750 feet is a three-minute walk to if you move like you have somewhere to go, which is something I'm really used to doing because my main mode of transport here in Portland are my own two feet and our metro system. And as someone who literally spends a lot of time with my boots on the ground, that gives me a perspective of what it's like to be a pedestrian all the time in Portland and interact with our traffic here. One of the reasons that I'm a big supporter of the 750 foot buffer zone is because of how many close calls I have with our track system as I'm following all of the rules and best practices as a pedestrian. The reality is that Portland has small narrow streets which are characteristic of small New England cities, and they make people frazzled when they're trying to navigate them in a rush, as people often do when they're going to things and leaving things, especially when it's dark outside. I worry about my own safety trying to attend these events in town and just get around with my day to day life, and a 750 foot buffer, a couple of minutes of walking, would make me feel a lot safer just trying to live my own life. So please support this. Thank you. Laura, good evening mayor and counselors. My name is Mary Costigan. I'm with the firm of Bernstein Sure. We represent Portland Music Holdings, the applicant for the proposed music hall. I submitted a letter that hopefully have all had a chance to read, so I will just be brief. Also Portland resident. It will come as no surprise that we oppose the proposed amendment to create a 750 foot buffer for large music venues, as it will effectively kill the proposed project. We agree with the Planning Board's unanimous recommendation to not adopt the proposed buffer, because it is arbitrary, not supported by urban planning standards, and not consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. I wanted to note that the 750 feet, hopefully you had a chance to look at the planning board materials and the very, robust report that Director Kevin Kraft created. In that report, it includes a map of 750 feet around each 1,000 capacity music venue. And essentially, if anyone hasn't seen it, blocks out the entire downtown for any new venues over 1,000. And that is the primary thing that the planning board looked at in terms of whether it's consistent with a comprehensive plan. Does a comprehensive plan want to bring a new venue into the downtown? Or do you want to have one up on Monjoy Hill and out on the West End and out of town? The answer is no. That's not what a comprehensive plan intends. It intends for those venues to be downtown. Town. In addition, the retroactive application of any buffer that would make the music hall project impossible to construct in its proposed location is legally indefensible by the city. We're also in support of terminating the moratorium because the committee has completed its work required by the moratorium. We ask that order 183 be enacted so we can get back to the work with the staff and the planning board. The comments tonight about safety and traffic and emergency transportation, all of that is dealt with at the planning board. The other thing I was thinking about as folks were talking and as someone who does a lot of works on a lot of development projects, the interesting thing of having the CIP discussion at the beginning of this meeting, it shows that there's a finite number of dollars that the city can put to important projects throughout the city. Potholes, traffic lights, everything else. But when you have a big project come to town and things are not safe where that project is, that project is required to make it safe. So things that you see, improved traffic light signage, improved sidewalks, improved lighting, all of that stuff that the city does not have to pay through CIP for, the developer is required to pay for and improve so much of what you see remember that's a lot of that as private investment that's coming from the developer when they do a project so thank you anyone [4:03:44] Mark Dion: Above just a check or Thank [4:03:50] Public Commenter: You council members my name is Ryan Vangel and I'm the president of live nation New England tonight you're considering whether to enact a buffer zone around large venues city staff and the Planning Board have discussed the concept in general terms I want to talk about what it means specifically for Portland Music Hall. Getting fans to and from events safely is foundational to everything we do as Live Nation. It's a core value for our company. It's built into every show we operate. We have a lot of experience doing it successfully in cities of all sizes, including Portland, where we've routinely handled crowds of 6,000 fans across the insurance arena. We'll work side by side with public safety officials even before we open to make sure everything runs smoothly at every show from arrival through exit. Portland Music Hall will take that same approach. We submitted a detailed event management plan as part of our proposal. It outlines how we'll coordinate with local police and first responders, how we'll stagger arrival and exit times, how we'll guide pedestrian flow, how we'll communicate directly with ticket holders so they know exactly where to go and how to get there safely. This is what we do, and we're confident we can do it here safely and effectively. What we've seen in city after city is that the need to manage the logistics isn't a reason to limit activity, it's a sign of a healthy, active downtown. And when it's done well, it supports local businesses, it strengthens the economy, and keeps people safe. Picture a sold-out night, 3,000 people moving through downtown, having dinner before the show, grabbing a drink after, shopping, booking hotel rooms, not just in peak season but year-round, especially during the off-season when local businesses need that activity most. Consistent, reliable, economic activity for downtown Portland. That's on top of the other benefits Portland Music Hall will create, hundreds of new jobs, millions in local tax revenue, and money for every ticket sold that supports local arts. All by building a venue that fills a gap in the market and gives artists and fans another choice here in Portland. So when we talk about Portland Music Hall, we're, we're talking about more than a building. We're talking about creating a safe, well-managed venue that brings more music to Maine, empowers a more vibrant and active downtown in Portland. Just a side note, I came here from New Orleans, which is another city that has an incredible music and culinary scene, and it has a variety of different venues, venue ownerships, small and large. They all coexist and they all are doing great. Thank you. [4:06:58] Mark Dion: On the floor, go ahead. [4:07:03] Public Commenter: Folks, thanks for letting us speak. My name is Miles Smith. I live on Pitt Street. I have spoken with a bunch of you on this topic, and I really appreciate how much you were interested in listening and learning. It's impossible to know the vast amount of information of different sectors of the economy that you guys have to know to make these decisions, and I really appreciate how seriously you're taking this issue, and we can see from the folks in the music scene in this city how important it is to them, so when you do pass this buffer zone, you'll be sending a strong message that democracy works here, that you listen to your constituents, and that you believe that we are about community development, not just economic development here in Portland. I'm from Portland. I grew up here. I've been going to concerts at the Civic Center since we called it the Civic Center, not the Cross Arena or whatever it was. And my concern specifically about this company is that their two biggest competitors in this market are the Merrill Auditorium and the Civic Center, both of which are publicly owned. Many of the events booked at both of those locations are Live Nation events. Up to 40% of the revenue coming into the Merrill Auditorium last year was from Live Nation booked events. If they move those events to their venue and the Merrill Auditorium becomes financially unsustainable, that means our taxes will have to go up to support the profitability ability of Live Nation in Portland. And that's why this is not the same thing as just another venue opening. This is not even the same thing as Whole Foods coming in. It's more like if Whole Foods were to say, okay, we're coming to Portland and we're going to be the exclusive supplier of apples, milk, eggs, and butter. They are in a much different position than other companies. companies, and that's what the federal court case ruled two weeks ago. So the other thing I will mention is that I am sorry that you are in this position. I'm sorry we are all here. I'm sorry that I'm taking three more minutes of your time when you've listened to all of us say all these things that you've probably thought of already. Why don't the developers find some other partner for this project? Why won't they find another venue operator that doesn't elicit such a vehement response from the public and from the music community? Because there is none. The only way the business model for the Portland Music Hall is gonna work is to take business away from the Civic Center and Merrill Auditorium and the State Theater with their unfair practices, with their exclusive arrangements, with the tours they book at those venues. That's the only way it works. And if another company were to operate here and have to compete fairly, it'd be a different issue. Not Live Nation. They don't do it fair. Whoa,, whoa,, whoa. [4:10:13] Mark Dion: That's not appropriate, okay? Not appropriate. You snuck it in. No more. All right? We fair? [4:10:24] Public Commenter: Floor. Hi, everybody. My name is Jennifer. I am a Portland resident. I work in the live entertainment industry here in Portland. I'm also a musician. I just wanted to comment. So I actually live off of Grant Street, which is very close to the Seadogs and the Hearts of Pines. And it is very difficult to find parking when there are sold-out games. Hearts of Pines is sold out this entire season. Just trying to find parking and that gridlock at that intersection, actually with cars when everybody's trying to leave at the same time, You know, I've watched ambulances try and get to Maine Med, and it's just kind of like a cluster. So I just, I really do appreciate the time that you've all taken to really consider those things for emergency personnel, for the public, cyclists, walking. Being near the cross insurance arena in a sold-out Mariners game or hockey or a concert, sometimes those lines of pedestrians, they are wrapping around the building. They're wrapping around Spring Street parking garage. And so to just imagine that here between Merrill and this proposed venue, you know, it is just really concerning. So I do appreciate your time listening to everybody. You know, we are the ones that live and sleep here every night, not this large organization that's just coming in. So just think about the people, not about the money, you know. So thank you. Hello. Thank you for your time. My name is Martin Lodish, resident of District 3 and have been for 20 years. For those people here who are complaining about changing rules, that you can't change rules midstream, our rules are you can change the rules. That is one of them. The moratoriums have been used effectively, at least in my tenure here, three times by city council. It's been done with hotels. It's been done with homeless shelters. And it's being done now with large venues. And if you're from the city of Portland and you work in the city of Portland, you know that. You know that those are part of the rules. And one of the things that allows you to do is when there's something, there's a difference between the letter of the law, the letter of the rules, and the spirit of the rules. And when something is going on that's in violation of the spirit and it's not what you intended, you can, you can pause and you can rewrite them. And it allows you to prevent egregious errors. Whatever goes up in that venue, that lot across the street is going to be here for generations. It's worth taking the time to get it right. And to get back to the hotel moratorium, those people who say, well, if you change the rules, developers won't come. Once you guys lifted that moratorium, I keep seeing hotels being built in this city. It hasn't stopped, it paused it. There's very large hotels, the number of hotel beds in the city is keeps going up, and it's not because you change the rules midstream, it's because people want to do business here. And I'm strongly in favor of the 700-foot moratorium and extending the moratorium, the 750 buffer and extending the moratorium, because your work here is not done. The things you've been discussing, this might be the last thing, but you want to have safely get people in and out of venues. Large venues, people come over a long period of time and they can all walk in one door if you go to a concert in the Merrill auditorium and you are up in the balcony you don't leave the way you came in they funnel you a different way when that concert ends there's a thousand people going out of a different door the same thing is going to be true with a with a two to three thousand or larger venue you should relook at the rules to make sure that people coming into the venue and people coming out of the venue can do so safely and that's something that was I know, Councillor Pelletier, you mentioned it in your February 3rd memo, Councillor Michniewicz, you talked about it in the HEDC committee, that it's not just getting people into the venues, it's also getting people out of the venues, and I'd love for you guys to consider that, not just for all, I don't think you need to do it for small venues, it's fine to have 100 people leave a bar, it's probably fine to have 500 people leave a bar 100 foot away from somebody else, but it's not fine if there was an emergency and you've got 2,000 and people coming out of the Maryland or Myrtle Street and people coming the other direction because that's one of the, you know, backup exits. Thank you for your time. [4:15:07] Mark Dion: Go ahead, sir. You have the floor. [4:15:09] Public Commenter: Good evening. Joe Dasko, Rieger Dasko Properties. We own the property next door. We've developed here in Portland, we've developed Hobson's Landing, the Mason Block, 113 Newberry Street, the Bay House. The timing of me speaking COULDN'T BE MORE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO SAY ARE, AS A DEVELOPER AND A DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, THE FIRST THING YOU DO WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS LOOK AT WHAT YOU CAN DO BY WRITE. And if we don't think we can do something by write, we usually walk away from the property. So the applicant here did that, they're a good developer, they came to us, they looked at what they could do by write, and they looked at the comprehensive plan and said this fits with the city's goals and I understand that if you want to change rules you can change them the city went through extensive recode prior to this project even coming forward and the way to change rules is to look at it going on a going forward basis not retroactively and changing them in the middle of the game so if you learn something here it and you find something that wasn't done properly or if you think it could work better a different way you do it on the next project and the next project in the next project that's how we evolved as a city that's how you evolve as an organization and I hopefully you'll come to the right decision tonight and I appreciate your time thank you but [Mark Dion: Peter] McLaughlin 146 Central Ave Peaks Island I am the board president of Maine Music Alliance and the music programmer down the street at Space Gallery where I've worked since 2010. I'm also a union member with UAW 2110. I know and respect the labor concerns at play here, the need for jobs, for investment, but at what cost? How much of our culture are we willing to gamble? How much of the diversity of our art scene and its opportunities for new voices how many small businesses venues and arts organizations how many lost jobs with them you know Walmart on the Brian Boru lot in the old port that would bring a lot of new jobs to the council has heard plenty about the ghoulish live nation so let's talk about what's before you passing this 700 foot buffer for a thousand capacity or more venues is good governance. It's common-sense policy. It builds on the existing ordinance, the hundred foot buffer, which has been on the books, and makes perfect sense when we're just, the hundred foot buffer makes perfect sense when we're discussing the small independent venues and bars that make up most of Portland's scene. When we were talking about large-scale unprecedented new development, the a hundred foot rule does not cut it. No one thinks the city could support multiple cross arenas on the same block. No one thinks the Thompson's Point Peninsula could support a second 5,000 plus capacity outdoor amphitheater. Sometimes a project comes along that reveals the current rules are inadequate, that the guardrails need to be moved. Some say that you should let the market figure these things out, but in a country truly addicted to deregulation, the market is being manipulated, subverted every minute of every day. Unfortunately, monopolies exist. Monopolies that can open up businesses for which there is no market, businesses that will be unprofitable, simply to gain further market share, simply to box out competition, simply to crush small businesses, to bring local economies to their knees, simply to raise revenue for one of their myriad of other holdings. Despite the enormous investment our city has seen in the past 15 years,, no one else has proposed a 3,300 capacity venue for downtown Portland. No one else would. Others have addressed the clear justification for a revised buffer, the many unique unprecedented issues that this project brings up, public safety, pedestrian safety, traffic congestion, parking capacity, infrastructure, economic concerns. I will not repeat these, but I hope you can all listen to the broad-based concerns of your constituents and stand up to protect the diverse local independent music and arts community that makes our wonderful city the place we love to call home thank you [4:19:57] Mark Dion: chairs and make an inquiry how many more people plan on giving comment to anybody outside anyone upstairs can you get in line so I could see you because it would be your turn now since It's like he's going to the floor. You need a minute? Yeah, sit around. [4:20:27] Public Commenter: Okay. Go ahead. She needs a minute. Hello. I am Casey Oaks. I'm the Associate Director at Portland Ovations. We have regular performances at Merrill Auditorium and venues across the city. So I work right behind you in our beautiful 2,000-seat venue. you and I want to say how impressed I've been listening to the people of Portland speak over the last 500 days as we've heard and how impressed I've been with all of you listening and I know you've probably already made up your minds but there's one big thing that I have noticed in the comments having been to every meeting and hearing every comment and that is the distinction between two groups. One is a group of artists and a group of people who make music and art who live in Portland and are telling you their lived experience. One is a group of people trying to develop further in an area that we are telling you should not be. I love the folks at the Portland Symphony Orchestra, but if they called me and said they were building a 3,000 seat venue across the street, I would say that's a little crazy. I love the people at the State Theater, but if they said they were going to put a 3,000 seat venue across the street, I would say maybe that's not a great idea. I have crossed Cumberland Ave after many,, many performances at Merrill Auditorium and almost been taken out by a few cars. It's a dangerous intersection. Let's put some lights there. But I think you have heard, I think you know how you're going to decide. I urge you to pass the moratorium. I wish it were more than 750 feet. We're not Boston, we're not Nashville, we're not even Asheville. We're a wonderful community and we are doing what we do best. So also please don't expire the moratorium. There's a lot in there that we have not figured out such as the economic impact on the existing arts community. So just because we do one does not mean the other is resolved. That feels like a tag on. on. Thank you for all your time. Above. Hi, my name is Amber. I live in the greater Portland area. I'm a 15-year music industry worker. I've worked at record labels with global distribution for the majority of those years. I've represented artists from all over the world, like legacy artists such as Tom Waits and Nico Case to up-and-coming acts like Indigo D'Souza and Spirit of the Beehive. I'm here tonight in support of a 750-foot large venue buffer. The only people here in support of Live Nation's proposed development believe they stand to directly benefit from the project at the expense of their neighbor's safety, opportunity, and comfort. I think this hypothetical venue would fail, which is something I wish they had the foresight to see. There is currently no market for a venue of this size here if our intentions are to serve the beautiful and growing independent live music ecosystem that already exists here. I heard a stagehand earlier argue in favor of this development, asking the public to take into account the needs of those who make shows happen in this town, referring to the community of unionized stagehands who, may I remind you, are not unilaterally in support of the Live Nation development, though upper leadership would like us to believe they are. Stage workers do not bring shows here. They help make them happen once they are booked, but the shows would not exist at all without the artists. From the perspective of somebody who has worked directly alongside successful independent artists for many years, the kind of artists you want visiting this town do not want to book shows through a found criminal enterprise who overcharges fans, enforces harmful merch cuts, and limits artists' control over their own live shows. It's not hard to find many examples of this monopoly undermining arts communities and homogenizing local entertainment, ultimately hurting all artists save for the top earning few nationally who do not represent this community. I urge everybody to look to what the National Independent Venue Association has said on this topic. I believe they spoke at a past meeting. That Live Nation sends profits to stakeholders elsewhere while putting our local venue owners and local jobs at risk, harming artists, fans, and diversified culture at large. They strongly advocate for restoring fair market competition which Live Nation's very existence opposes. Make no mistake that Live Nation will lose money on this project and they can stand to just to secure an oppressive presence in this town in order to advance their own vertically integrated companies. Real musicians do not want this. Real artists do not want this. If the council votes against the large venue buffer, and in support of this development, this community will continue to lead national advocacy against this monopoly with continued outrage. Thank you. [Mark Dion: Good evening.] My name is Patrick Russell. I live on Sherman Street in Portland, and I'm the owner and director of Factory 3. First, I want to say I really appreciate all of the time and energy that you all put into running our wonderful city. I can imagine there is never enough time in the day or enough money in the budget to do everything that you want to do and I thank you all for trying every day to do it anyway. I think it's clear where I stand on this issue dressed in all black. I know you saw me standing up earlier I'm probably the tallest person [4:26:16] Mark Dion: In the room. I noticed that. I know you did. [4:26:22] Public Commenter: Touche. I will not repeat what others have said tonight. They have put it into much better words than I. I've been up since four in the morning. I run a small business. This is past my bedtime. They've all said it very well. I will briefly repeat words I've been hearing through the night from those that oppose the buffer. Oppose the buffer, yes. This sets a dangerous precedent for developers looking at investing in Portland. It's harmful to the future of our great city. Do we really believe that nothing is going to happen in that parking lot, that giant space in the center of this beautiful city? It's just such a special, wonderful place. You walk five minutes in any direction, you're at the water. We have a beautiful, vibrant arts and music scene. People are coming here from all over. People want to be here. Everybody wants a piece of Portland. I don't think there's anything to worry about. That would be my opinion. [4:27:35] Mark Dion: Does anyone want to provide public comment that hasn't spoken yet? I'll get to it. I want to make sure. All right. Wait. Stand by. Michael Borowski, can you hear me? Michael? I can hear you. Go ahead. You have the floor. [4:28:04] Public Commenter: Thank you. My name is Mike Borowski. I live in Kennebunkport, Maine. And I want to say I strongly support the Portland Music Hall. I support the Music Hall because I love live music. I love independent artists, regional artists, and national acts, all of them. And I think there's a place in the city for a diversity of venues, whether it be a 100-seat club, a 1,000-seat room, State Theater, outdoor music venues. And I really struggle to understand how adding more live music to a great live music city like Portland, Maine, will harm the city. It just adds more music. It helps put Portland even more on the map with regional and local artists who need a place to play in a venue that can accommodate their needs. As we all know, when bands travel the country and they book shows, they look up and down the East Coast, and a lot of times they'll stop in Boston, or a lot of times now, they're stopping in New Hampshire. But I think there's a lot of people that want this venue, and I think some of the people that want this venue are people that love live music. It not just people who could profit from it. I have nothing financially to gain from this project. I just want to, I just would love to have the opportunity or love to be in a city or live near a city that has the opportunity to bring national artists so I can go watch good music. I don't think that's, I don't, I don't think any of us should be ashamed to feel that way. And I think that, and I don't think this is a question of taste. I think you can love independent music and love the music that a lot of the folks who have been out there today have spoken, you know, the music they make and the music they support and the venues they work at. I certainly do. But I also like other music that's supported by these larger venues. And so, you know, I really think, like, for a city like Portland, this venue really makes sense. It meets a demand. It helps support local businesses. When I say local businesses, restaurants and nearby businesses, because people are going to travel from nearby Portland and maybe even travel from New Hampshire or wherever to come into Portland to see a show, get a meal, walk around, do some shopping in the Old Port, et cetera. So I strongly support this project, and I think it's great for the city. [4:30:32] Mark Dion: All right, then. No one there? Final call for public comment. My public comment period is now closed. Chair would seek a motion for passage and a second on order 182.25.26. So moved. Moved by Council Palatine. Is there a second? Second by Councilor Ali. Chair would now seek a motion for passage or adoption on Amendment 1. So moved. Moved by Councilor Michniewicz. Is there a second? Second by Councilor Phillips. [4:31:18] Pious Ali: Discussion of the amendment. Council McNavich. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, as I introduced before, this is a 250 foot buffer. This would go to about the corner of Myrtle and Cumberland Ave. It would create a buffer between, same as the 750 in terms of capacity over a thousand seats needs. This is meant to address the crowding and the exiting from the building, the density of people who would be on that corner otherwise. The applicant has chamfered back the corner in order to accommodate more people so that there's a more safe pedestrian environment and improve traffic safety in that area. Let's see, it's, it is not going to change whether the project can be built. And I think Director Crafts, I think you did some work on the what that would look like in practice, what 250 feet would look like. If you would be so kind as to talk about that. Definitely. [4:32:34] Kevin Kraft: Not as tall as the last gentleman. Second here, so Kevin Kraft, Director of Planning Urban Development. So we mapped the varying buffers that were under consideration. So on the map that you can see on the screen here, in navy blue is the 750 foot proposed buffer, and the orange coloring, that is a proposed 250 foot buffer that the councilor is raising here as an amendment, and the teal is the existing 100 foot buffer. So you can just get a sense of the context when we looked at the block pattern of downtown, primarily between Cumberland and Spring Street, as well as State Street and Franklin. The general context of downtown is pretty fine grain, so your block patterns range really from 50 feet to up to 500 feet. So if you have a 250 foot buffer, that's roughly forcing venues to be about a block and a half apart, as opposed to immediately adjacent to each other. So the colors that you're seeing here, the blue and the orange, are showing, let me start here, the blue is showing blocks that are ranging in feet from 0 to 249 feet. In orange are blocks that are 250 feet to 499 feet. In any of the blocks shown in red here are 500 feet or greater, just to give you a sense of that context downtown. [4:34:13] Pious Ali: Okay, and part of this came out of the original proposal that Council Palatio brought forward suggesting removing the 100-foot buffer that currently exists between entertainment or venues that carry an entertainment license. And so although that would make sense for smaller venues over 1,000 seats, a 250-foot buffer seemed to make sense so that they would be about a block apart. So while we're considering potentially removing that, this was an attempt to ensure that there was an overcrowding of venues of that size, which are, you know, we don't think we have any in the pipeline, but that seems like a more common size that we might have in the future than 3300 or something like that. So this is attempting to address the safety issues that people were bringing about pedestrian safety. I actually have another question. Sorry. Oh good. Can you, can you bring up the map with the radiuses again. Whoa. That was impressive. Infinite screen. Okay. So the top of the screen represents the Bayside neighborhood. And so basically everything that's north of Cumberland here. So the radius around that venue extends down to Oxford Street. That's correct. Maybe [4:36:25] Kevin Kraft: Maybe to give some context, the pink shaded area is the B3 downtown business zone, so that really covers roughly Marginal Way down to Commercial Street and then roughly State Street to Franklin. The area shaded in blue is the waterfront central zone, so those are the two zones that this would be applicable within. [4:36:43] Pious Ali: And so those are zones in which this could, of any like this, could be built? Correct. Okay, so when you go north of Oxford Street, there are, we've talked about this, I think you hadn't figured out the, had no reason to figure out the acreage, but within north of Cumberland, there's roughly 12 acres of developable land. Some of it is owned by the city, some of it is owned by private developers. There's already nine acres that have about 1,000 units approved on them, and some of them are already under construction. So about how many apartment units could be fit with the height zoning in these areas? About approximately per acre, would you say? I know density, it's a hard question. [4:37:37] Kevin Kraft: B3 zone, it'd be hard to give you a rough estimate. I think as this council knows, the B3s are densest transit-oriented zone, so there's no density requirement for residential. And the heights vary, it's based off of a height map, but in that area of Bayside towards Marginal Way, heights really do range from about 120 to 180 feet. [4:37:56] Pious Ali: Yeah, okay, yeah, so from the calculations that I've roughly done based on the projects that have already been approved and the projects that have been sort of tentatively floated between the Midtown properties, the scrapyard, the noise property next to it, Franklin Arterial, and there's a couple of other parcels. Theoretically, this could go on any one of those, and those are all outside. There's about nine acres, I calculated, where you could put this venue that's outside of the 750-foot buffer, correct? Correct. Yeah, okay. Okay, and in terms of those units, none of them will require on-site parking, correct? [4:38:40] Kevin Kraft: No use in the entire city as a parking requirement. [4:38:43] Pious Ali: Yes, so we've potentially got, the math I did is, you might be able to put about, say, 4,800 units, roughly, in that area with no on-site parking. Correct. Right, so that would have potentially, depending on how we scale up the Metro depending on how we approach parking and traffic in the future depending on how much a Franklin big dig disrupted the whole area that could have a significant impact on traffic and parking. [4:39:17] Kevin Kraft: Capacity a venue in that location, the housing, certainly. Yeah, I mean, I mean, ultimately, the policymaking over the last several decades has really focused on prioritizing housing and development over prioritizing auto-centric development. So in an effort to transition the city to a more multimodal public transit location, as opposed to continuing to build our street network and our developments based around cars, it was intended to incentivize folks to transition more to different modes. We will say, and we presented this information to the council during recode, that we have seen the market, particularly in residential developments, provide a mix. So we have approved a number of projects in dense mixed-use locations that have still provided parking on-site because we live in a very rural state. We're fortunate here in Portland that we are really the only city that actually has robust public transit. However, we still are seeing the private market provide that parking on-site for a lot of projects. We've also seen a number of recently, not, I think that's the balance that we've seen Portland kind of go through recently. And many things that this council has seen with vision zero and complete streets as well. So you're seeing that transition. [4:40:34] Public Commenter: Yeah, okay. [4:40:35] Pious Ali: So the point of that is that a 750 foot buffer wouldn't stop this project from going on any of those roughly nine acres that somewhere else and the amount of cars and traffic that would be coming in with no on-site parking associated with the guesstimate, but I think probably a pretty accurate one on the number of units that we could have. That would be, for that number of units, roughly how many cars, how many vehicles would you expect? [4:41:09] Kevin Kraft: For 4,800 units? I mean, you could use a basic calculation of one car per unit. It would be a fairly conservative estimate, recognizing that not every unit will be one-person households. [4:41:22] Pious Ali: Okay. So, yeah, that's quite a lot of cars that will be coming in the future, and a lot of units. [4:41:31] Mark Dion: Okay. That's all I have for now. Anyone else from the council? Council Peltier. [4:41:39] Wesley Pelletier: Quick clarifying question, Georgia Craft. That map doesn't include the existing 100 foot buffers, correct, the one on [4:41:47] Kevin Kraft: screen does right now, that's the teal color you can see with the existing 100 foot buffers between smaller venues. No, it does not. This was focused on how it impacts the ordinance proposal tonight. Okay, I appreciate councillor. [4:42:03] Wesley Pelletier: McNevish bringing this forward, I also apologize for having a cold. I think that this acknowledges that there is a safety issue with these large venues, but I struggle with the fact that it only addresses the pedestrian portion. We've heard a lot of concerns tonight specifically about car traffic, and I think that this would move the exits apart from each other so people would egress in different spots, but we would still be left with the same traffic issues that we already have and that would be exacerbated by this. So I again appreciate this being brought forward, but I will not be supporting it, so [4:42:50] Pious Ali: just the last clarifying question on of its question, but so whether or not the point I was making is whether or not this gets built there are likely to be, let's just say 4,800 I got max, I mean we don't know. Vehicles, like in that, this is roughly, what is the, yeah, it's about a 750 foot radius when you head down there. So there would still be a substantial number of cars and vehicle and traffic that would be expected within the next, say 10 years, it's a good 10 year build out. Whether or not this is built. Whether or not it's built. There's still gonna be a- 10 year or not. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Yeah, which I guess the jury's out on whether it would be the same type of pedestrian impacts when it's local traffic compared to traffic coming in for a specific event. Okay, thanks. [4:43:47] Kevin Kraft: The one difference will be if it's an entertainment venue is going to most likely rely more heavily on the private parking garages or parking lots with those being primarily more concentrated outside of Bayside. [4:44:02] Pious Ali: right yeah because right now all of those parking garages are well not all but almost all of them are north i'm sorry south of cumberland ave there's one the chestnut street garage that's on that's north of cumberland ave so as that area develops there may or may not be parking facilities that are added okay all right that's all I have does [4:44:34] Kate Sykes: anyone else have anything councilor Sykes Thank You councillor Brinknovich for bringing this forward I think this is a very interesting idea for 250 foot buffer my questions would be does this prohibit the current project from going forward [4:44:53] Kevin Kraft: 250 feet would not prohibit the proposal. Okay. [4:44:58] Kate Sykes: There's also been some conversations about kind of a diagonal corner solution. I wonder if you could bring that up so that we can all take a look at that if it's around. [4:45:07] Kevin Kraft: I do not have the image of that. Ideally, generally speaking, what it would do is it would angle the main entrance of the proposal at the Cumberland and Myrtle entrance, thereby creating more sidewalk space paired with curb extensions to allow for more pedestrian space for queuing and entering the building and exiting the building after a show, so to create more space. It would also help with disbursement. When you look at actual disbursement of a venue like this, particularly in that location, folks are going to be either heading directly to where they parked, which, as we just showed, many of the parking garages are towards the Old Port, so you're going to head back up Myrtle Street towards Congress Street or you're going to head up Myrtle Street and make a left to go to the top of the Old Port, there's no reason to really mix with Merrill Auditorium. Merrill Auditorium's visitors, if they're exiting as well, they're similarly going to exit to the right towards Congress Street, continue to head into the Old Port or down Congress Street or down Congress to the top of the Old Port. So that closeness doesn't really impact the crowds in terms of them exiting the facilities in and around the same time so it gives a little bit more options from a pedestrian standpoint on which sidewalks they could utilize to get to their [4:46:27] Kate Sykes: closest parking destinations or a hotel or whatnot okay great thank you and this is something that the developer has said is possible to do and they would do or i'm just where is that in the process [4:46:37] Kevin Kraft: right now yeah that's a conversation that the developer as they were looking through alternative designs that was a suggestion that staff brought up previously in terms of looking at ways to help create better pedestrian flows, ensure there was space for queuing. Ultimately, the developer tested that out and it was actually a better design from their standpoint in terms of how to bring people in and out of the facility. [4:47:00] Kate Sykes: Okay, great, that's really helpful. I mean, I think for me, this is a middle ground that actually addresses the safety concerns, but isn't a kill shot on the development. And I think that's what we as a council should be seeking is a way to mitigate the problems that we might see between venues while still allowing the development to go forward as planned it seems like a great compromise to me I will be supporting this amendment and I think that it yeah it just makes sense so thank you for me Ford you [4:47:35] Mark Dion: still have a comment council [4:47:36] Pious Ali: Michniewicz yeah I just I just wanted to say that you know I'm obviously about this for it i will be supporting it and part of it is that the 750 is also it might not allow it at this location but it's also not a kill shot it's it alleviates some problems in this area but those problems will persist with the amount of housing that's coming in and with other projects that will be coming in anyway council [4:48:12] Benjamin Grant: phillips Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Councillor Prunekwicz for bringing this forward. I've had numerous conversations about the 250-feet buffer versus the 750-feet buffer. I've had conversations about Live Nation. I've had conversations with Live Nation. You know, we as a council, I think that all of us really and truly meet with anybody and everybody we can in order to determine the best, you know, to actually get all the information that we possibly can in order to make a decision that we can live with, right? These decisions are extremely, difficult and I really appreciate everybody coming forward, right? Folks for the 750 foot buffer and those against it, right? But at some point time a decision has to be made and that is that has to be up to us. I am in support of the 250 foot buffer and the reason being is because again I have talked to everybody about it or some of the people about it And it does meet the safety concerns regarding the folks that are going to be exiting the building or going to concert. It does meet that. And I also appreciate the folks that came forward to talk about the comprehensive plan. You know, we sit here and we talk about that we have rules and regulations and ordinances and all that other stuff. We also have plans. We have a comprehensive plan that we spend a lot of time putting together. and we have a Vision Zero plan that we spend a lot of time putting together. We get public comment on those, and those things, not just those things, but other plans, they come together so that we can make sure that folks are safe and warm in this city. And those are real things, and as you, Director, have pointed out, and as the Planning Board has pointed out, this does meet, I mean, this goes with the comprehensive plan. It's a plan. It's a good plan. We all support the plan, and because this goes with the plan, I certainly won't go, and I appreciate you sending me the email earlier. I certainly won't go through all of the things in the comprehensive plan. Folks here tonight have mentioned the comprehensive plan again. It's a good plan, and it talks about the things that we want to do in the city. The other reason why I'm supporting this is because we also have a Vision Zero policy, right, and we're working really hard on that Vision Zero policy. This is changing. This right here is changing. We're talking about Franklin Street, and we're talking about Franklin Arterial changing. The reason why we have Vision Zero is because we want to look at the transportation in this city. We don't want 3,000 cars coming into this city for any reason, for any reason. I don't even want to come to the city on a Friday night. You can't find parking, so I won't even go there. But I'm just saying the reason why we have a Vision Zero policy is to look at transportation. We want more bikers. We want more pedestrians. We want people to take the bus. We want people to park in the garages. We want all of those things, and that's why we have as Vision Zero policy. And so again, I appreciate the folks talking about the comprehensive plan and the Vision Zero policy. I appreciate comes McNabb, it's bringing us forward. I think to a 250 buffer will meet, will mitigate, like Councillor Sykes says, will mitigate all of the concerns that folks have. And so because of those reasons, I will be supporting this. Thank you. [4:51:34] Mark Dion: Anyone else? I want to be brief. How long did we study parking for recode? [4:51:46] Kevin Kraft: Parking's been studied prior to recode for decades here, but it was looked at holistically [4:51:50] Mark Dion: for seven years. All right, and we voted on it. It was our intent to reduce the number of vehicles [4:51:56] Kevin Kraft: in the city. Actually, the council during recode phase one made an amendment from the floor to eliminate parking requirements for any site within a quarter mile radius of a transit route, which was 80% of the city. And in Enrique phase two, the council adopted parking maximums. [4:52:12] Mark Dion: Are you aware if the applicant in this particular instance has made any accommodations, plans or contracts to address parking in connection with any event at the music hall? [4:52:24] Kevin Kraft: As part of their application to the planning board, they did submit plans to partner with various parking garages throughout the downtown offering discounted rates. They offer also had to study their transportation impacts as part of their state required traffic movement permit that also looked at parking. Did your [4:52:42] Mark Dion: office make any conclusions about the safety that could arise from the venue [4:52:47] Kevin Kraft: being activated? Yes, the department, as well as coordination with the state and our city's traffic engineers, again went through the traffic movement permit process and determine that with the mitigation that the applicant would be responsible for, that it was found sufficient to meet the standards within the city. So they would be required to not only mitigate the intersections in and around the venue, they were also required to upgrade all the sidewalks leading to the various parking garages that were identified as the primary [4:53:17] Mark Dion: points of parking for patrons. So we have not been ignorant as a city to the public safety issues surrounding pedestrian or traffic movement. Our site [4:53:26] Kevin Kraft: site plan process and traffic movement process is very robust. It requires life safety reviews, so we actually review all of our applications in coordination with the police department, fire department, and the various traffic engineers throughout the city and the state. [4:53:42] Mark Dion: Thank you. I'm all set unless somebody else has a question for the director. Seeing none. In terms of this proposal, I want to begin by saying that I don't like buffers. Even when I was in the state legislature, I could never wrap my head around the idea that someone or something was impermissible at 759 feet, 11 point some micron inches, and then, wow, one more inch and we're good with God. We're just good with God. That's why I don't get buffers. I tend to look more at qualification standards or expectations being met. So I want to support this 250 foot buffer because the idea that we would create a standard that just knocks out the applicant. Now earlier in this, if you were here for the meeting, I voted in favor of Councilor Sykes' amendment. I don't like the law, I still don't like it, but it is the law and it's fair to the people that are going to be impacted by the law that we sustain the credibility of that ordinance. We can amend it in the future. Some of you may not like the fact that a particular applicant has successfully satisfied all the standards that are laid out in the zoning ordinance and the additional burdens that have been placed on the application. We can amend zoning laws in the future, but this is a clawback. It doesn't feel good and it's not fair to me, and I'm one individual. I mean, I'd hate to apply for something, be told midstream, well, you were this close, but we've reconsidered and you've added something more. And what I get for complaints as a mayor more often than not is from small business owners that run into hurdles with the city's zoning and inspection statutes. They just don't get it, like they're being hampered. So it happens to people who think they're doing right. This applicant, whether we like them or not, is not relevant to me. They're an applicant, and objectively they've satisfied the standards, so I'll vote for this buffer. It's not the best way in my mind to approach this issue, but it does preserve fairness for the process as a whole and the applicant's journey through that process. All right. If there's nothing more- Mayor, excuse me. Oh, sorry. [4:56:19] Benjamin Grant: Before you vote, on Councillor McNavidge's amendment, there are two parts to the document, to the order, the main order. There's a page and a half of whereas clauses, the preamble there, and then there's the document that actually includes the language in Chapter 14, the land use code. When we prepared the amendment, we changed the language in the code, but we didn't change the language in the preamble. And I just want to point out, if I can just offer or suggest a friendly amendment to your amendment, Councillor, which is to replace the two references to 750 feet, this is on the second page of the order, with 250 feet. That's all. Doesn't change the substance of your of your proposed amendment. Friendly [Pious Ali: amendment accepted. We] need to do about that. I think I think you're good with that. Yeah, unless anybody has any questions. Yes, it'll just be incorporated without objection. Corrected. Yeah, it's it's a non substantive change. It's really just a Claire Calera on my part. [4:57:38] Mark Dion: There's nothing else than the clerk will call the roll on the Michniewicz amendment. Councillor Fournier? No. Councillor Grant? No. Councillor Sykes? Yes. Councillor Ali? No. Councillor Pelletier? No. Councillor Michniewicz? Yes. Councillor Bullett? it? No. Councillor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Diane? Yes. Motion Fails. We now go to the grant motion. You have the floor, [4:58:21] Benjamin Grant: Councillor Grant. Thank you. I have some longer remarks prepared that I'm going to deliver when it's time for the main motion. I think whether you vote for or against the 750-foot buffer, my amendment here only serves to bolster the whereas clauses or the preamble to clarify some of the reasons that the buffer is supportable as relates to the comprehensive plan, and I'll describe that more in full with my longer remarks. But I think no matter which way you go on this, on the underlying 750 foot buffer, we want to be in the best legal standing we can be if it ultimately passes. So that's all I need to say here. I'm happy to answer any questions you [4:59:16] Mark Dion: know what I'm saying to you without me saying that. Right. Good. We're good. You'll have to make a motion, get a second, move passage of my men. All right. Is there a second? There's a second. Discussion. Go [4:59:35] Wesley Pelletier: ahead, Council Pelter. I'll make it brief. I support this. I do think that a lot of the talk around the, plan, I'm thinking inclusionary plan, that's not what it's called, a comprehensive plan. You know, it's, it seems like we can pick and choose and it's been confusing to me to see, parts of it. So, parts of it are, so clear about what they're trying to do in this city. And you know, one part that is really, I've struggled with is, the idea that a lot of people will be coming to a venue like this within Portland when you know there's no data to support that 's the case. A lot of people will be coming from across the state, and I think that it's important that our whereas causes show that there is a, that there is, this is in fact what we're doing here is within the comprehensive plan. So I appreciate Counselor [5:00:30] Mark Dion: Grant bringing this forward. Council Grant, you're going to offer an explanation? Yeah, you can. Yeah, we'd like to hear it. [5:00:39] Benjamin Grant: Okay. There's been a lot of discussion, appropriately so, about the comprehensive plan and how it relates to the buffer zone. I had planned to speak on this a little bit longer later, but I can delve into part of it now. And again, I want to offer a caveat that I will offer later, that I'm not your legal advisor. I am an attorney. This comes up a lot. I'm not offering this as legal advice, although I do think our corporate counsel will support at least my interpretation, and we would never ask them to support the conclusion. The point of this amendment is to further clarify the tie between the buffer zone and the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is a 98-page document that contains many,, many provisions. One of the legal standards that we will have to meet if this is challenged is to show that this buffer zone amendment is in quote basic harmony with some ass with some aspects of the comprehensive plan so my amendment includes three paragraphs to the whereas preamble that uses the exact wording from the comprehensive plan to make it clear that the rationale is tied to that plan so i'll stop there and answer any other questions people might have just about the amendment any [5:02:02] Mark Dion: comment from the council on the amendment oh go ahead i want to hear them i know i'm asking council grant i'd like to hear more information before i call a vote [5:02:19] Benjamin Grant: what i want to this is just a vote to add the amendment correct excuse me this is just a vote to add the [5:02:27] Mark Dion: amendment yeah you're adding an amendment if we pass that right and then we would vote on the main motion yes as amended right you want to reserve your comment for that yes all right makes my vote easier then all right then if there's no other comment call the roll counselor fournier yes counselor grant yes counselor sykes yes counselor ali yay counselor pelletier yes councillor mcnovage yes that's our bullet yes counselor phillips no. Mayor Dion. No. No. Sorry. All right. We now have the main motion as amended by Grant's motion. Any discussion on that? Councilor Pelletier, go ahead. [5:03:23] Wesley Pelletier: I don't think it'll come as a surprise that I'm supporting this motion. As city councilors, I think it's our duty to leave the city better than we arrived. I like to think that we're on the precipice of a new era of growth in Portland and we need to be designing that Portland sustainably and intelligently. The proposed project next door has brought the need for that smart zoning around venues of this size into stark relief. Sorry, I pre-wrote this obviously. It is council's role to make sure that our city again is designed with the future and traffic safety in mind. We can and we should have density and events that draw people in, but we have to be smart about it. Large entertainment venues are unique in that online housing or retail. They force the city to accommodate thousands of people arriving and then leaving all at once. The city has not yet had to address venues of this size and I believe it's our responsibility not to let that prior oversight or whatever let us stumble into that. Myself and scores of constituents have raised the very obvious point that traffic already becomes gridlocked which shows that Merrill are let out. Even the developers legal counsel has conceded that venues of this size create traffic and safety problems and that have said that a buffer is bad idea as it would be preferable to cluster those problem areas together. And that's an opinion on policy, and it's one which I disagree as an elected city officer. We should be working to mitigate rather than compound traffic safety issues, and if we have the power to do so, which we do, then we have the responsibility to do so. And I believe that this proposal does so. It ensures that we do not have thrice-weekly gridlocks in one of the busiest inlets into town, while still supporting our rich, diverse arts and music venues. use. I agree that it's not good for council to be picking and choosing among businesses and that's not what this is. You know this is looking at the map of our city and saying you can build but you have to build in a way that makes sense and if it doesn't make sense and it's going to put our constituents at risk then we need to address that and I believe that's what we're doing tonight. [5:05:21] Mark Dion: Thank you. Any other comments? Well who is it? You two are dancing. Go ahead Councilor Grant. [5:05:43] Benjamin Grant: First, I want to acknowledge the time and effort that has gone into this issue on both sides of the issues, hundreds if not thousands of hours and comments and conversations covering all of the multidimensional aspects of this issue. I have always and will continue to appreciate how much participation we get in Portland on issues of major concern. concern. Because of the amount of time that's been consumed on this issue, I want to spend a little bit more time than might be usual with some prepared remarks. I think I owe it to everyone to explain my rationale and my vote. I also want to express some grace towards my colleagues around the horseshoe. As we know, this is a vote that will disappoint many people and elate others no matter which way we vote, and I think we should have that grace with each other in that recognition. The time for a win-win on this issue to the extent it was possible has long passed and was foregone by many people that are not here around this horseshoe, so it's left to us to pick an outcome. And for me, all I believe I can do in this type of situation is make a decision and explain it as transparently as possible. So here it is. I'm going to walk through my thinking carefully in the hope and in case that it helps any of my colleagues who might remain undecided. As we mentioned before and as comes up frequently, I am a lawyer, so I start with the law itself and with the caveat again, I'm not speaking as your legal counsel, just I'm speaking as a councillor and a citizen with a certain type of experience. Again, this is not legal advice, and if we want that, we have Michael here. As a threshold matter, you should all be comfortable in knowing that the law gives us broad discretion in the two key legal issues that are most likely to arise in the aftermath of this vote. The status of the retroactive referendum and the zoning ordinance change itself, represented here by the buffer extension. On the retroactivity of the moratorium, Maine courts have previously decided that retroactive moratoria are permitted under state law, and the criteria is very light. The standard is that we must simply demonstrate any facts that support the need. In other words, someone who sues us would have to show, quote, a complete absence of any state of facts that support the moratorium. This is about as deferential a standard as possible and one that's easily cleared here. Just by way of one example, a main court has found adequate support in a prior case merely on the stated opposition of members of the community to a proposed land use. I hardly need to point out that we have received hundreds of communications from constituents opposing large music hall for all for a myriad of reasons. So whether you agree or disagree with the reasons is not the legal issue at hand, it is merely that the opposition exists. On that alone, we are permitted to have taken the action on the moratorium. Some may think it's unfair, and that's fine, but it is allowed. Moving on to the zoning change itself, the buffer zone extension, main courts have also opined as to the rights of municipalities to make land use zoning changes. Here, like in the prior argument, the standard is extremely deferential to the municipality, and it's important to be precise about why. The zoning change, as I referenced earlier, must only be in, quote, basic harmony with the comprehensive plan, meaning it must be consistent with some goal or goal stated in the plan. In other words, the plaintiffs would have to show that the change is inconsistent with the plan, and a court would apply its weakest standard of review, which is called rational basis. What this means, and I address this because I've seen this argument many times now, is that on the narrow issue, on this narrow issue, it is not material if the music hall itself is compliant with the comp plan or current zoning. That may be a reason you want to vote against the buffer, but it's not legally required. The sole issue here is if the buffer extension on its own is in some basic harmony with the comprehensive plan. My view is that's an easy bar to clear. The comp plan contains all of the following statements and goals, and these are also referenced in my amendment. Managing the growth in automobile traffic demand, reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips to the peninsula, developing parking management strategies to reduce parking demand, development around priority corridors, and efficient delivery of safety and emergency services. My view is that all of these comprehensive plan goals are promoted and strengthened by expanding the concert venue buffer zone. Because any additional large concert venue in such close proximity to another is going to exacerbate congestion and parking problems, invite more and more vehicle traffic in small areas, and create a potentially impossible public safety situation in a worst-case scenario. Now, you know that the Planning Board has reached a different conclusion, so I want to address that directly. First, we're not bound by the Planning Board or its rationale. It's a recommendation to us. Second, even if you agree with them, the goals I have cited here are in the Comprehensive Plan 2. The law court has recognized that cities are permitted to, quote, strike a reasonable balance among various zoning goals. In this way, it's more Rorschach test than Ten Commandments. In other words, concert venue or music venue do not appear in the 98 pages of the comp plan. So in sum, the planning board reached a conclusion based on A, reading of the plan, The plan also supports the opposite conclusion. The planning board cited some aspects of a 98-page document. I have cited others also found on those 98 pages. The point here is that when that mix of messages exists, it is ultimately the council's job to resolve what that mix means for the facts in front of us. So I hope you'll indulge me for another couple of minutes. It concludes my legal analysis. But I'm also here because I want to talk about the why. It's not just about the technicalities. It's about what I think we're here for and why I think we should vote yes here. The best way I can do this is start with one of the chief arguments I've heard for voting no on the buffer zone extension, and in particular how it implicates the very essence of what we are here as councillors. It goes like this, and you've heard it tonight many times. The large musical developers complied with the zoning laws and Portland needs to remain predictable for business development. I get why this argument has a lot of appeal, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone around this horseshoe if that's one of your reasons to vote no. But let me tell you why this offends my sense of what the job in an elected representative is. Contained in this plea about predictability and staff and planning board approval is the notion that the elected government should run on autopilot, that our individual agency should be checked at the door. That notion is fundamentally contrary to what I believe about representative government. At its core, I believe I was sent here by the voters of the city to use my judgment to do what's best for Portland, not to simply make sure the bureaucracy hums along at the same pace. The fact is that laws are imperfect, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Laws are made in an attempt to anticipate actions, but there are no laws that do that perfectly. perfectly. It's fine to say that most of the time actions by people or companies fit into the schemes we set up to bring order to chaos. But there are always cases that don't fit neatly into the boxes we make. That's where we come in. It's our job to apply our judgment based on our own values and the values we believe that reflect the community we represent to the difficult issues that prior councils could not anticipate. The fact is that for all the work that went into the comprehensive plan, or all the work that went into recode, no one accounted for the notion of a large conference hall directly next to Merrill Auditorium. No one asked for this, no one said they needed it, and I suspect no one even considered it until the idea fell into our laps. And that's fine, but what's also fine is that we are allowed, and I would argue compelled by the voters, to make the final calls. This is one of those times, and I will not check my vote at the door when I believe I'm permitted to do what's best for Portland, and what I think is best is not to have a large concert venue right next to another one. It's as simple as that. So I urge my colleagues here to vote yes. [5:14:51] Pious Ali: Any other comment? Go ahead, Councilman McNavish. Thank you, Mayor. I also want to acknowledge the incredible amount of work and passion that people have brought to this. I've had great conversations with people. I think the commentary has been great. I actually, I am in Portland because of the local music scene. My husband was playing keyboard, sax, and bass with two different bands at the USM Local Motives Blowout, and that's how we met. And so I feel pretty passionately about that scene as well. And I also think that we all are looking at the same goal. We all want Portland to be affordable and livable and vibrant, and there's some disagreement about how we get there. There. And I actually don't disagree with anything Councillor Grant has said. I think that the music scene deserves support and defending and it needs funding, which is why we passed the ordinance to help do that, to create a trust fund. That's not enough reason to pass this. You know, I'm not here to defend a monopoly or a company that's been deemed a monopoly, but I think that good governance is important and I support, I actually support my colleagues in this and in voting for the buffer. But and that, you know, one of the focuses, of course, of the community is the antitrust question. And we have state regulators. That's the state's job. And frankly, if there are, you know, if this were to have passed or if there are issues with any other business that is engaging in antitrust activities, I would urge you all to bring it up to the state and make sure that is pursued. That's the right path. And I would, I would hope that people would pursue that, but I also would urge my colleagues to commit to addressing the traffic and the parking issues and any of the other issues that have been brought up as a, as a, you know, concern with what would have happened if this has been built, because as I was trying to make the point earlier, those problems will still exist, they will still happen. The housing we need is going to create impacts that in aggregate may not be that dissimilar. Although this is about a lot of things, that is a piece that we can continue to address. They are serious. I live two blocks from here. I live with the same traffic impacts that people have experienced every day. What I don't want is for this to have been just an exercise in talking about those things and having those concerns which are genuine and then walk away and say well we got through that 's been stopped so that problem is solved because it's not and if we want Portland to grow in smart ways in sustainable ways in ways that we can sustain a tax base and keep us affordable we have to deal with those sooner or later so I would just invite my colleagues to join me in pursuing some concrete plans for how we deal with that in the downtown and in Bayside as those neighborhoods grow and change. Anyone. [5:18:31] Mark Dion: Else I don't regret my vote at all. Let me begin that way. I'm not apologizing for it. My vote is intended and I will vote no is intended to recognize what's in the best interest of the city, economically. Everybody complains about property tax. Our market value for our homes has gone up about 43%. I can understand why people think it's unaffordable. And you're taxed on the value of your building. Business income only went up 9%, okay? In a perfect world, business income would be high enough that taxing it would relieve the burden on property tax owners. That's not happening. You heard one business owner here today say Congress Street is dying. It's not a hallucination. It's reality. Okay? We want this certain kind of world. The money isn't there in this city to do it. You can do all the studies you want. It's not there. If we don't build business, the city will die of stagnation. [Public Commenter: Right.] I wish I had time to prepare a brief so I could answer lawyer to lawyer to counsel grant but I'm more concerned with simple things. Back when we had the Portland Museum of Art battle I was in the minority that night too. I'm comfortable being there if I have to be there because I wanted to defend the decisions of the planning board. We just appointed people to a board, I think that's really important. I respect the time they put into it, the expertise that they deliver, and I'm not a rubber stamp for them, but I have to take notice that they might actually know things better than I do, and I should be able to try to sustain their decision. And they have a process, and I will say one of the flaws of the planning board process, it's not even falls to the board or the chair, it falls to the public. They just wait and see, and then they show up at council, and we're supposed to fix it, all right? I guess that's what tonight is. We're going to fix it. Well, I'll vote in favor of an economic future for this city, because if we don't realize one that makes sense, then we will continue on this path that I see that's not so promising, all right? Right? You can have a great legal argument, even a sound one, but it could turn out not to be just. So with that, I'll call the roll. Councillor Fournier? Yes. Councillor Grant? Yes. Councillor Sykes? No. Councillor Ali? Yes. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. Councillor McNavidge? No. Councillor Bullett? Yes. Councillor Phillips? No. Mayor Dionne? No. So, all right then. We'll move on to order 183, 25, 26. Motion for passage. I'll make it because I was the sponsor. Is there a second? Second. Second, Councilor Michniewicz. Who? All right, I'll give it to Councilor Phillips. There we go. All right then. Is there any discussion by the council on this order? You know, it's really funny. I have one question for Corporation Counsel. Let's talk about public safety and economic impact studies. Are those the jurisdiction of a land use moratorium? [5:22:49] Benjamin Grant: I'm not sure I understand the question. [5:22:50] Mark Dion: Well, the question is, I'd like to terminate this. At least I've made a motion. We'll see how it goes. But there's been talk that the moratorium should continue on till we address economic impact issues or public safety issues. Is that the purpose of a land use moratorium? [5:23:11] Benjamin Grant: In order for the moratorium to continue... Well, right now, it's been extended until September, so if the council does nothing tonight, it will continue in effect until September. But one of the statutory requirements is that the council is taking action to make changes that have not yet been made after tonight. And so in order to leave the moratorium in place, the council would need to be taking some action to address the issues that were raised in the moratorium. moratorium, the parking concerns, the safety concerns, the overuse of city infrastructure concerns, the creative economy concerns, those things that were raised in the moratorium. If there's further action that the Council wants to take to address those concerns and that you feel are not addressed by this new ordinance passed tonight, then you can leave [5:24:17] Mark Dion: it in place. Any comments from the council? Seeing none, call the roll. [5:24:28] April Fournier: Councillor Fournier. Sorry, just a quick question on procedures. So the, I guess, vote is to terminate and no is to keep it in place. Is that correct? Correct. Sorry, I was just trying to follow along with all the different moments. [5:24:45] Benjamin Grant: Can I interrupt for one second? Sorry. And I just want to be clear that the way the termination order is drafted is it will not become effective until 30 days after today, which is the same day that the new ordinance will become effective. The new ordinance will go into effect on May 27th. Under the Charter, ordinance has become effective 30 days after the vote, and the termination of the moratorium would go into effect on the same day. So between now and then, for the next month, the moratorium remains in place and the new ordinance will not yet be in effect. So it'll be status quo for the next month. Any additional questions? Thank you, that was great. [5:25:37] Mark Dion: Thank you, Councilor. [5:25:40] April Fournier: Go ahead, Clark. So my vote is yes. Councilor Grant? No. Councilor Sykes? Yes. Councilor Ali? [5:25:47] Mark Dion: Yes. Councilor Pelletier? No. I'm sorry, did you say no? Thank you. Councilor Michniewicz? Yes. Councilor Bullett? No. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Dionne? Yes. It did pass. I heard somebody say it did pass. It did pass. Chair would now seek a motion to adjourn. Moved. Second. By unanimous consent, seeing no objection. [5:26:33] Public Commenter: Are you parking in the garage? Just going to make sure we can get everyone out. Recording stopped.