Finance Committee reviews shelter relocation costs, Riverton Pool funding gap

[0:07] April Fournier: You're all set. Thank you so much. Good evening everyone. Happy May 7th to you. It's a Thursday. You find yourself at the City Council's Finance Committee meeting. I am your host April Fournier at-large City Councillor and Chair of the Committee. We're so glad to have you join us tonight. We have a packed agenda and we are going to have a whole lot of staff on our staff side so I'm not I'm not going to do introductions. I'll just ask people as they're presenting to please introduce yourself. But I am joined by my fellow committee members, Councillor Ben Grant, who is an at-large councillor, Pelletier, who is a District 2 councillor, and also Mayor Dion, who is, of course, the mayor, but an ex officio or non-voting member of the committee. So thanks so much for being here. I'll give you a little bit of a tour of where we're going to go this evening. We have a public hearing that's going to happen towards the end, but we have a couple other things we need to address. We have some updated information about the potential family shelter relocation, an additional discussion about the Riverton Pool, as well as looking at some more of our city departments on the city manager's recommended budget. And then we will also have a public hearing and then we'll talk about next steps as well as our future meeting dates. So lots to get through this evening. I'm going to look for Brendan, our finance director and fearless leader through this process. Thank you so much, Brendan. [1:44] Danielle West: Yeah, no problem. So we have quite a busy agenda, as you noted. But the first agenda item is the beginning of the public discussion on a potential relocation of the family shelter. Last Monday, there was an executive session regarding the potential relocation of the family shelter to 353 Cumberland Ave, a building that's currently occupied by the school department, and council got to hear a little bit about the capital costs associated with the potential move, and they are significant. It's looking like a total cost of $13.95 million. And I'm joined tonight by our Director of Social Services, Aaron Geyer, and our Assistant City Manager, Dina Libner, who can talk a little bit about this issue a little further and talk about the memo that's in the backup materials, and we can answer questions from counselors about the potential options. [2:50] Brendan (Staff/Official): Thank you, Brendan. Chair, would you like a brief staff overview of this [2:56] April Fournier: Issue? That would be great because I think, yeah, the public wasn't in executive session with us, so they're probably just getting some of this information. So just as Brendan mentioned and as Dina mentioned, there is a memo in the backup material, but just, I think just a quick overview on how we arrived at where we're at. And then I think we'll have a little bit of a committee any discussion on giving some guidance for what's next? [3:20] Brendan (Staff/Official): So this conversation began when staff began to anticipate the end of the current lease to the four buildings that make up the city-operated family shelter. And those leases or that lease expire at the end of this fiscal year on June 30th, I believe. So we began to think about what family shelter operations would look like after And we discussed this matter with the council, I believe an executive session specific to whether or not there was interest in extending that lease or seeking out other pieces of property to purchase or to rent. And throughout the course of that conversation, eventually, after a lot of deliberation and market analysis and consideration of the capacity of existing city facilities, the council provided guidance that there would be interest in investing in an existing facility that was currently owned by a public entity. And the building that was focused on was 353 Cumberland, which is currently owned and occupied by the Portland Public School District. Staff eventually hired a consultant to provide a schematic design for what a family shelter being operated in that building would look like, as well as a cost estimate. So after all of that work, the details of that proposal are included in the enclosed memo, but the long and short of it is the capital work required to refit the building so it would be appropriate and effective for use as a family shelter would be approximately $14 million. million dollars. So how, if there's interest from the council or the committee in pursuing that, we could talk a little bit about how that might be funded. But again, what that would translate to in terms of an increase, a net increase in the city budget is approximately $1.5 million each year. That takes into account the year-over-year operating expenses of a family shelter at that location compared to what's budgeted in FY27 for the existing family shelter. Happy to answer any questions the committee might have about shelter operations, and Erin is here to help with that as well. [6:00] April Fournier: Thank you so much, Dina. So I'll look at my fellow committee members, and we also have some counselors who have joined us as well. So I wonder if anyone else has questions. I have a couple, but I'm happy to defer to other members. Counselor Grant, go ahead. Well, [6:17] Benjamin Grant: Chair, if you have your questions teed up, why don't you go ahead and then I'll fit in after you. Awesome. [6:25] April Fournier: So Dina, the, I guess the questions that I have are just really, when we're looking at a undertaking like this, it's that's a pretty big investment. And so I wonder, I wonder if there is any way to look at kind of, in my mind, I'm always kind of looking at three tracks when there's like a large project development. So like the first one being, or the first proposal being, what is kind of the minimum we would need to get occupancy for, you know, safe operations, not necessarily absolutely everything. But I'm also trying to think about some other revenue sources that could help offset some of the costs that the city would shoulder for something like this. So is there potential future state funding, federal funding that could come into the mix as we start to build out services, wraparound services, playground stuff, anything like that? So I kind of think of three different proposals, one that's kind of bare bones, one that's kind of in the middle, and then one that's closer to what we have here that talks about really that full build out. And so I wonder if you had talked about that at all, or if that's been in the mix or part of this consideration. I know it's relatively kind of a new, well, not new discussion. We've been talking about this for a while, but for this specific property. [7:43] Danielle West: Chair, just to clarify on that first part of the question, the bare bones option. So as we talked about in the memo, the current census of the existing family shelter is now down to 41 individuals. And, you know, we're seeing the same thing happen with families coming to the family shelter as we did at 166. So would that bare bones option include this plan to expand capacity up to 165 or would it be to just house the families that we have now? So I think there's two kind of like definitions of bare bones. And I think zeroing in on what's the need for capacity is kind of part of the answering that question, I would say. [8:22] April Fournier: Sure. You know, that's a great clarifying point, Brendan. Thank you. I would be looking at what would it take to get the current census that we have with maybe, I don't want to say like maybe up to 50 families. So not like that full 160 something family capacity, but just up to 50 families, which takes into account our current census. What would that look like rather than an expansion of services? [8:46] Danielle West: And one more further clarification. The capacity at the current location is 42 families. I think it is 41 families or 42 families and up to 142 individuals, I want to say. Aaron, am I getting that correct? [9:04] Aaron (Staff): You're close. 42 for 146. [9:06] Danielle West: Okay. And right now we have 41 individuals. It's only maybe 11 families? 12 families. Yep. Interesting. [9:20] Brendan (Staff/Official): Sorry, Chair. I get where you're going with this. And I think it kind of builds off of some of the specific requests you and others gave us in the last executive session, specifically about how we might do some value engineering to reduce that total cost. And how we could potentially take a phased approach to the construction. We did look into that at a very high level. Getting hard numbers would take, we need to provide our contractor with additional funds that we didn't have available, and we didn't have the time to come up with that hard number and have them do the design work. But big picture, a lot of the significant costs related to the construction work that's necessary have to do with system-wide improvements in the building. So for example, the HVAC needs to be completely replaced. The electrical work needs to be almost completely redone. The roof is going to need to be either significantly repaired or replaced very soon. So some of the major expenses wouldn't benefit from a phased approach. And we also got feedback from our contractor that a phased approach is likely going to make the project more expensive overall. So we may spend 14 million to do it all at once in right now, and it could cost, I'm not a contractor and I can't predict what the market's going to look like in five years, but it could cost well over that if we were to do a phased approach. In terms of capacity, the layout of the building is such that I think when we talked about scaling back what the actual capacity and services in the building would look like. We thought, what if we just did one floor and we put staffing and services, really staffing and living or sleeping quarters on one floor. Again, those same system-wide improvements would need to be made. So the cost savings wouldn't be dramatically different or significant. [11:21] April Fournier: Thank you, that's super helpful. So I will look for other questions that others, [11:27] Benjamin Grant: Counselor Grant, go ahead. So I need a little clarification. Since I don't serve in the HHS committee, is a little, this is more unfamiliar to me, but at Chestnut Street now, how many staff are housed there on a regular basis? Like that's their main office or work location? Ask Aaron [11:50] Aaron (Staff): if he's able to provide that number. Yeah, we have 30 or so staff currently at Chestnut and then the FY27 budget contemplates moving down to 23 with the staffing reductions that [12:07] Benjamin Grant: that we presented last week at the finance committee and they're all in the same unit. So in other words, if we are, if the shelter is not at Chestnut Street and we give up the lease or we don't renew the lease, we don't have space for that staff as well. Like they're in the same buildings as the residents essentially is what I'm asking. Yes, sir. Okay. So do we have capacity in the system somewhere to put those staff or would they have to follow the shelter residents? They would follow the shelter residents. Would they have to though? [12:48] Brendan (Staff/Official): Yes. We'd also require, we'd need more staff to staff this particular building, because right now families are in separate private units, basically apartments. With this layout, which is essentially an open space divided up into private sleeping quarters, we'd need many more eyes and hands-on available to provide support, to make sure people are safe, to provide the sort of oversight that we need in an environment like that. [13:18] Benjamin Grant: Have you talked to the school department at all about how they assess the facility? I'm just, I'm not willing to accept that the building needs, and I put those in my air quotes, those improvements at this moment. And my thought was that the schools took a different view of what was like necessary right now. [13:41] Brendan (Staff/Official): I believe the school's about to undergo or has, or is planning to undergo a facilities assessment plan. We don't know. I don't know if they have the details related to a hard and fast cost estimate and an assessment of the building. That's what our contractor provided us with. So it's the most reliable estimate we have available. [14:07] Benjamin Grant: I guess what I'm interested in ultimately, and this will be reflective of what I said to you all the other day, is something much less costly than this proposal. Let's just say, and I'm not asking you to agree to this, if we as a council decided we don't need to replace HVAC or the roof and we just needed to literally redesign a floor for 40 people to live temporarily. Like, to me, that's what the bare bones is, you know, thinking of Castle Fornier's kind of like tiered approach. I don't feel like what's on paper here is like the bare bones. I mean, it's the lowest level based on how you all have assessed it, which I don't, you know, you had to start somewhere. Somewhere. But to me, this just isn't reasonable for 40 people. So I'm just wondering if there's a way for us to get to some cheaper alternatives. [15:01] Brendan (Staff/Official): If there was interest, if there was kind of consensus from the committee that you're interested in seeing an estimate specifically that doesn't take into consideration improvement of those building-wide systems, we could certainly provide that and kind of do some addition and subtraction of the numbers we were provided with. This is what was, this estimate was provided in, our request. What are we, what do we need to successfully operate a family shelter? Yeah, I mean, you did. [15:35] Benjamin Grant: Exactly what we asked you to do, so don't, don't take this personally at all. That's not what, that's not what I'm getting at. I just, I just want to see something else to compare with, and we just need to be eyes open about what it would mean to not replace the HVAC at the, at this moment and maybe defer that, but I at least want to see what that looks like. You know, how do we literally just get 40 people and, I guess, associated staff, I suppose, have to be there as well. Is there. [16:00] Brendan (Staff/Official): Is there, so are you interested in only, I guess I should ask the chair if there's consensus from the committee in, providing a cost estimate for just activating a single floor and deferring those major system-wide improvements. [16:22] Benjamin Grant: That's my ask. I'll defer to April if she wants to do it that way. But to me, that's like the most basic bottom line thing. [16:31] April Fournier: Yeah, I would say let's hear from our other committee members and other counselors, and then we can give some guidance, I think, once we wrap up the conversation. Great. Mayor Diane, go ahead. [16:49] Wesley Pelletier: Thanks, Madam Chair. I understand what Councilor Grant is getting at in terms of compartmentalization of costs, right, in order to make it. But I've thought about it for quite a while, Ben. I have a whole building. I don't know how you not address the internal infrastructure issues, electrical, plumbing, HVAC. You may save some money not building out the other floors for actual use, but I'd have to hear from a contractor. I don't know if you can divorce one part of that building from not addressing the whole part. I think the guts have to be examined as one picture. And then the question of building out the other floors, I would see as added cost that could be avoided if that's the choice of the council. [17:41] Brendan (Staff/Official): Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry. I just wanted to confirm. That's also the feedback we received from our contractor doing those, not just the increased cost, but the logistical challenges of then relocating families, potentially finding another location to be in when we did that more intensive renovation work was another challenge that we anticipated. [18:03] Benjamin Grant: If I may, I just want to have the information to have that as something to compare to. I'm not saying that we need to do that. I just want to have those numbers and those arguments, I'm sure, will remain prominent in the discussion. [18:17] Wesley Pelletier: I totally understand that perspective. I'm just trying to figure out what the scope of rehab is and where we can save money. Because the difference between running pipe behind sheetrock and then building it all out can be pretty significant. So it's definitely worth having a comparison of a build-out per floor anticipating a whole structure we have on infrastructure issues. That's what I'd like to see. And now my question turns to Aaron. I've concluded he and I share the same barber. However, nonetheless, Aaron, my concerns with the program as a whole, what do you anticipate moving households from an apartment setting to these one-room bedrooms and then having communal kitchens, et cetera? Do you think that might incentivize them to accept a referral to more traditional settings? [19:27] Aaron (Staff): Yeah, I think it certainly could incentivize, but I also think it will allow us to provide wraparound services. I kind of look at the HSC model where we have DHHS on site. We're the only shelter in the state that has DHHS on site two days a week, and you can literally get every service that you can get by going to their office at the jet port. And so we just don't physically have the space in the current buildings. We've been in those four buildings since 1993. And so certainly best practices and models have evolved since then in service delivery. And so I see this as a way to improve that service. And I see ways to do education, even though we're going, I look at the centralized kitchen, I laugh because we're hoping to see fewer fire alarms. But I see, I see a way to do education around cooking and life skills in the new space that we're unable to do in the full building approach. And then having the ability to,, to pivot and fluctuate as well for the surges we've seen. I mean, we're talking about right now 40 individuals, but when you think about even like last September, we were well over 100. And so we've seen a sharp decline in the capacity recently, but keeping in mind we were over 100 last fall. The soccer hotel that the state was operating had 85 or so families in it through most of the last year, and it was only a couple of years ago that we closed the expo. So that's the piece that I like about this is we do have the ability to pivot either way and utilize rather we do one or two, you know, one or two floors. [21:10] Wesley Pelletier: Well, I'm just going to ask one more question, Madam Chair, then I'll go mute. But Aaron, when I was looking, and you don't have to answer it now, and I hate giving staff homework, it's not my style at committee meetings, But this time, I would just like to have a trend analysis in terms of census and any speculation you have about moving forward and length of stay. Hold on. This will be the last part. It's part B of the question. And part B is where do they actually get referred to when they leave the family shelter? Where do they land once they leave? [21:51] Aaron (Staff): That's it. Those are great questions, and I can get those. So, yeah, we have – so 82 days is essentially the length of stay. Utilization rates, we provide those monthly for ESOP, so I can put together a collection of those. I think one thing to keep in mind when we talk about utilization rate is also the hotels that we're using. So if you only go – you can only go back sort of two years or so to get that utilization rate, because the utilization rate would be impacted by how many hotels we were in. Like, we closed, we closed the actual in the summer of 23, we moved to the Freeport Lewiston hotels, and that was like 63 or so families, and they were in hotels until early 24. So we have to use that, but we certainly can use that to sort of look at the utilization rate. And then yes, we see folks referring out to housing placements. Throughout southern Maine, we have landlords that we work with in various communities. We certainly place a lot of folks here in Portland, but have some landlords in the Lewis and Auburn area that work with us, and a couple of landlords in Westbrook. So we have a variety of sort of communities that we're placing folks into. [23:04] Wesley Pelletier: All right, I just wanted as evidence to justify an investment, that's why. But thank you, Madam Chair, for your patience. [23:11] April Fournier: I'm done. Thank you so much, Mayor. Councilor Michniewicz, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. [23:19] Pious Ali: The mayor actually just asked several of the questions that I had, including, you know, where people end up being housed eventually. And obviously, a lot of those other towns were brought into the fold, I guess you could say, when with the, you know, over the past several years with, sorry, adding hotel capacity for families. Did any of them end up also enhancing shelter services for families? Are there other resources in other municipalities where they're doing similar work? Or obviously not to the scale we do, but what's going on outside of Portland? [24:01] Brendan (Staff/Official): Aaron, do you have an answer for that? [24:03] Aaron (Staff): Yeah, I mean, no. No, locally, if that's the question, there are not other shelters, you know, in the neighboring towns or communities. [24:15] Pious Ali: Right. So, yeah, so we are sort of the clearinghouse for folks who are coming in. And I guess the second question is, how has the census demographic changed over time? Because, you know, we did used to have a lot of more, like, local families or folks who were in more, I guess what you would say, traditionally homeless situations, as opposed to folks who were, you know, seeking asylum. And that's been true pretty much through the past several years. Do we, I don't know, where are folks going who are coming through into the homeless system that are not asylum seekers? [24:56] Aaron (Staff): I mean, so we serve asylum seekers and non-asylum seekers. We don't differentiate. But to your point, you know, as you know, from sort of the ESAR stuff, yeah, we had a big window when we first opened the Exmoor in 2019 through really the end of last calendar year where we saw a lot of asylum seekers and seen less domestic, if you will, I guess, non-asylum seekers. And we've actually seen a little bit of a shift in the last month and a half or so picking up more non-asylum seeking families. Okay, I don't know what that trend line looks like because [25:36] Pious Ali: only been a month and a half but yeah that makes sense and then going back to the repairs that may need to be done i'm assuming maybe i'm wrong that there would be there be life safety standards that might be a little different for housing as opposed to being offices right now like are there upgrades that would need to happen where you were to go into a use that involved you know human habitation yep the schematic designs include everything it would take to make it compliant for the right Yeah, I guess so. That's my point being that it's not, it's not a direct transfer of the systems that currently are in place necessarily. Like, if there were to be a kitchen, there probably have to be a fire break, there might be suppression systems, like there it might be additional systems that are not necessary and not like the infrastructure isn't present at all now from it being used. I don't [26:37] Brendan (Staff/Official): believe new systems are being introduced. There won't be an on-site kitchen, for example. Okay, yeah. So I don't think there are major building-wide systems that would be new to the structure that are proposed for introduction. [26:50] Pious Ali: Okay. And then the other piece was the zoning piece, because the way emergency shelter zoning is currently written, it's open site lines, it's a central office. If this were being divided up, would there need to be any zoning changes made? [27:09] Aaron (Staff): No. So, all right, [27:13] April Fournier: I think that's it. Great, thank you, Counselor. Counselor Pelletier, go ahead. [27:19] Kate Sykes: Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Counselor Grant's request. Again, not saying that we'd go with that, but to see the actual bare minimum of this is compliant and, you know, that baseline would be good to hit. Understanding that it may increase costs, but I may be naive, but hoping for a changing landscape in statewide funding around this so that we can, not to pin all our hopes on that, but to have an understanding that we might be in a different place and may not have to, for instance, bond for 10 mil, which I think I'm not eager to do. While also understanding that we obviously need a shelter. So to get us to a place where we can hold until we can assess what the landscape is going to look like would be ideal, but having that information would be great. Thank [28:24] April Fournier: you, Counselor. Thank you so much for bringing this forward, Dina. And I wasn't able to be at the executive session because I was traveling. But I think one of the things I'm mindful of is the ongoing cost. cost, being someone who has chaired this committee for a couple years, is really thinking we're trying to balance kind of the two things of, you know, doing a good investment. And I think this is a really excellent long-term investment for our city for being able to provide these social services in a way that's helping families find a safe space to land, get the supports and services they need to become resilient and be able to, you know, have that self determination to move into a permanent safe situation that is an emergency shelter. And so to do that, of course, you're going to need a space that not only has the shelter in place, but also the supports and services around that helps make that more possible. And I think, as Erin had mentioned, you know, the average amount of time that families are staying in the shelter is about 82 days, and then they're transitioning into more permanent housing. And so I do see this as a really important and critical investment. assessment, one of the things that I wrote down specifically as it was, as it came up is, you know, the schools are doing, you know, a facilities assessment plan. And I just, I want to make sure that as we're thinking of how are we using our buildings and especially if we're going to bond for something in this amount, are we taking in, you know, this whole ecosystem that we have in partnership with the schools and partnerships with the different things that we own and really taking that, I mean, this is going to be a multi-year, you know, for a while we'll have this bond out there. So how are we thinking for that long-term? Not only for the building itself, you know, the investment's really important, but then that also comes with those annual operating costs and those other things. So I'm in support of this. I just think we do need a little bit more information to kind of look at what can we compare, making it enough to be able to have families occupy and support them so that we can come out of the other properties. And then also, what does that look like to do over time? So any other questions or comments from members? And then Dina, is there anything else you need from us? Just for the benefit of the public too, because it's just a discussion item, we don't have public comment on this item. And we're not specifically taking action as a committee. This was just providing some guidance for staff. And so we'll have additional discussions before specific action is taken. If [31:21] Brendan (Staff/Official): there are no other comments from members of the committee, I do have some clarifying questions. Sure. So what staff could come back to you with in a relatively short amount of time would just be what the cost would be minus the most significant building-wide improvements? And maybe minus some of the capital costs related to playground infrastructure. So things that aren't must-haves in year one. But our ability to attest to the fact that HVACs aren't a must-have in year one would probably need to be informed by a professional who could provide us with information and guidance when it comes to phasing construction. So if you're interested in just comparing numbers we can provide that pretty quickly but if there's interest in the sort of information you may need to make to take action on this item that would probably need to come from a professional and that would take longer to provide so some guidance on exactly what sort of information you're looking for in order to make what sort of decision would be [32:30] April Fournier: be helpful sure counselor grant go ahead yeah that certainly sparks the timeline question i mean [32:38] Benjamin Grant: it seems like no matter what is going on here we're prepared to extend for one more year Chestnut Street. I mean, it seems like a massive rush job to get out of it for this year, but someone stopped me if I'm wrong. My impression is that we have like one sort of one year built in to do this. In other words, we, I don't think we need to rush to get that full professional number that Dina was just mentioning. But someone correct me if I'm, if I'm 27 budget contemplates moving [33:11] Danielle West: From four buildings as we have in the current year down to two buildings and the staff reductions that Aaron noted. So we technically are looking at a being in a different location on July 1. [33:27] Benjamin Grant: Seven. Okay. Okay. That's all I wanted to just make sure I was thinking about clearly. [33:49] Brendan (Staff/Official): So am I right in understanding that you're just interested in essentially what it would cost to do to forego some of the building-wide systems improvements and the capital expenses that we could defer because they're not essential for day-to-day operations? [34:11] April Fournier: That would be my inclination, but I'll look to you, Councilor Grant, Mayor, Councilor Pelletier, if you have a different understanding. [34:18] Benjamin Grant: No, Dina, you just captured exactly what I want to see. [34:24] Wesley Pelletier: Dina, I'm fine with your analysis. That's fine. [34:31] Brendan (Staff/Official): Yes, me too. All right. We'll have that ready for you at your next meeting. Awesome. Thank you so much. [34:46] April Fournier: All right. Brendan, I think we are now back to you and we're going to have a chat about the pool. [34:51] Danielle West: Is that right? That is correct. Correct. I will note that in the backup materials to tonight's meeting, the budget frequently asked questions and answers document is there. And there are 13 questions that are covered there, one of which is around referendum thresholds for bonds. And just for the council and the public's benefit, if we were to issue bonds greater than about $10.15 million for a single capital item or project, that would trigger a referendum. If we were to use municipal tax funds greater than $15.25 million, that would also trigger the need for a referendum. So it sounds like there's more to come, and hopefully the amount of bonds potentially being considered, this is going down, not up, but we are, as it was contemplated in the memo at least, running up against that threshold. So we'll likely have more discussion about that in future meetings. And see yes the correct the next item is the referendum pool oh sorry it should be Riverton pool and it is the same assistant city manager Dina Libner oversees park parks recreation and facilities and I believe we also have I'm just double checking in the staff side director Ethan Hippel as well to talk a little bit about this project. So, as the council knows, this pool has been closed for repairs for quite a long time. And they were doing some recent testing that's uncovered some more extensive work than originally anticipated. And I'll turn it over to Director Hipple to talk more about this and introduce this item. [36:42] Ethan Hipple: Thank you, Brendan. Good evening, Councilors. Ethan Hipple, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Department. So, yeah, this pool, Riverton Pool, is a beloved pool. The pool was built in the 1970s in the Riverton neighborhood, and it's co-located at the Riverton Community Center and part of the same complex as Talbot School. We had issues with the pool in spring of 2023, so it's been three years that this pool has been closed. We had to close it immediately and make some structural repairs. Those structural repairs have been completed. Completed. So that's the little bit of good news here is that the headwall repair that originally caused the closure has been completed, but there's a lot of other issues that have been uncovered as we've progressed with the project, and some of those are detailed in here. I won't go into the nitty-gritty. I'll leave time for questions about any of that, but in a nutshell, shell. You know, it's been a very hard project. We've had our project managers and our public buildings division working on this with the contractor and the architect. It's one of those projects where when you make some progress and you do some demolition to address an issue and you uncover further issues. So we've had to completely redesign the gutter system, which is a custom stainless gutter that goes around the edge of the pool, a key component of the filtration system. We've had to regrade the bottom of the pool to meet modern safety codes. We've had some surprises as we've been doing the work with the floor drains. So imagine the pool deck where you get out of the pool. You have 100 people that are getting out of the pool. They're all wet. The water's dripping. It's got to go somewhere. It goes into these floor drains. Those we've discovered have failed completely, which now involves jackhammering up the pool deck, which we were not planning on doing, and retiling, and the tile is expensive. So there's been a number of just setbacks and delays to the project, and the latest one was around the bonding of the pool, which thankfully we resolved with some additional testing and investigation. But the bonding is kind of the electrical kind of grounding of the pool. And there were questions raised about that, which we've thankfully resolved, but it resulted in a really unacceptable delay to the project. So at this point, things have come to a point where we need to ask your direction on what to do next. We've been working with our architect and the project team. We unfortunately are in a position where we have about a $1.5 or $1.6 million shortfall. It's actually, we're budgeting at $1.5 million with a little bit of an extra contingency on there because we do not want to come back to you again on this project. We would like to see this pool open and people enjoying it. And that's our priority. So it's a $1.6 million funding gap on top of what we already have. So just to briefly remind folks, there's been about $3 million, $2.9 million that the council has allocated to this project so far. That money, we've spent about half of that. So there's about $1.5 million that's been spent. There's $1.5 million that is, you know, kind of obligated already for spending as part of the current contract. But we're now foreseeing that to put everything back together, if you go over there and look at the site, it's a big construction zone. All the demolition has been done. But to put it back together now is going to be more expensive than anticipated. So that's where the extra $1.6 is it comes into play to get us get it fully reconstructed and back open for business you know i'll just say you know this is a time when we're really focusing on pools in our city we think pools are really important for a lot of reasons you know providing access to swimming lessons and so people have a lifelong skill it's a public safety issue some of our population knows how to swim, and that's part of their culture, and some of our population doesn't, and we feel it's really important to provide places to swim as a city. That comes at a cost. Our pools are not cheap, and I know that, and I know you have a lot of priorities you're trying to balance. We're currently wrapping up construction on the Rising Eddy Pool, the outdoor pool, that will be wrapped up this summer, and Reiki Pool has stayed open through this. That's the a little pool that could. And that's a similar age as the Riverton pool, but we've been maintaining that. And we've done a lot of programming. A lot of the programming that was done at Riverton pool has moved over to Reiki in the meantime. So I just want to give a shout out that despite the difficulties and the public frustration and our department frustration with Riverton being closed, our staff have gone above and beyond at Reiki to provide lessons and open swim and lap swimming incoming at the Reiki pool. So, I'll just, I'll stop there. But basically, we need to bring this to you to get some direction on where to go. Actually, I want to mention two more things, sorry, before I turn over to questions. You know, we're projecting that we need $1.6 million to finish this project. You have some options that I've outlined in the memo that I just want to go over quickly. You know, our preferred option from our department perspective, which is completely up to you, is, you know, issuing additional bonds to complete the project in the amount of $1.6 million. And Brendan has put in some annual or some estimates for what that would be. It looks like it's $145,000 in annual debt service for 20 years. You also have the option to reallocate. I'm sorry, before I get to that, we could pause on the project and consider this during the next CIP. We know this is where you prefer to consider these funding questions, and we just wrapped up the CIP process. Unfortunately, a lot of these pieces were still in motion during CIP, and we weren't able to have that final estimate of what we're looking for to finish the project in time. So you could pause. We could wait till the FY28 CIP process. That's going to result in a much longer delay of having the pool closed. So we don't, from a staff perspective, we don't prefer that option, but that is an option. And then, you know, Your other couple options are reallocating monies from an existing CIP project that you've already approved. We don't have one in mind, or one that we're recommending at least, but you do have that ability that carries complications because that was approved for a reason, and those projects are all approved for a reason, and that would create other complications. And then your final option is to just not move forward with the project. Just decide that you don't want a pool at Riverton. So again, we don't prefer that option. We strongly advise against it, just given the rest of our priorities. But that is something that's before you here. Year. So just looking for some general direction from this committee so we can take the next steps with this project and hopefully get it done. So that's it. Thank you, Director Hipple. [44:51] April Fournier: I will look to my fellow committee members and other counselors to see if you have questions for Director Hipple. I know, man, hindsight is 20-20, right? If we knew, like going in, You always hope for the best. And this, pool is really, wonderful. My son took swimming lessons, you know, with learning to swim as a child with autism. And so that was really, critical. So I do feel like this is an incredible community investment and something that should definitely be protected. And it's, I remember when my grandmother had an in-ground pool and it was tricky, very, tricky for the maintenance. So I will go to Counselor Grant. [45:39] Benjamin Grant: Thanks. Certainly second all those sentiments. Both of my kids did swimming there. So I guess a couple questions. I guess I'd start maybe with Brendan. You know, well, let me start. I'm not that interested in further delays or not doing this project. Like, I think there's a significant community expectation that we finish this as soon as possible. And obviously, it seems like kind of a Murphy's Law kind of project where everything that's possibly could have gone wrong has gone wrong. Say that as it may, we are here now. So I'm more interested in either bonding or reallocating. So I have a couple of questions in those two categories. So in terms of timing, I guess this is a Brendan question. Is there a material difference in terms of our ability to get the money for the project between additional bonds versus reallocating funds that already exist? [46:32] Danielle West: No. So in either option, once the council gave us direction, we had the authority from the council to spend, we could begin spending. It's not contingent on actually issuing the bonds. We have sufficient amounts in our capital fund and our operating fund to move forward with any spending directive from the council. [46:50] Benjamin Grant: Okay. Then I'll be the bad guy here for a second, and just ask for a couple, and I don't think it has to be now. I don't need to put anybody in the spot, but what are a couple ideas of what could be reallocated in a reasonably fair way, meaning something that's brand new and could be delayed for a year, but whatever metric. Trick, and I don't even think it needs to, for my purposes it doesn't have to be restricted to parks, so it's just anywhere in the CIB CIP world. You know, what would be a couple things that could be horse traded for a year? Again, I don't need to put anybody in spot right now. I know that's a loaded question. I am confessing to being the bad guy. Probably discuss with the manager and [47:36] Danielle West: come up with a response? [47:39] Benjamin Grant: I'm just looking at in a budget season where we're, you know, laying off a lot of people and cutting positions, like adding another 145K, even that much. I just want to see what the path not taken might look like. And if there is a reasonable argument that something out there, you know, isn't mission critical for this particular year, I mean, this might slide in ahead of it. So that's my request for maybe for next week or something. So I know that it requires a lot of discussions internally. I'll stop there. [48:10] April Fournier: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Michniewicz and then Councillor Pelletier. Great. Thank you, Chair. [48:17] Pious Ali: Boy, I'm one of those kids that grew up learning to swim at the Clark Memorial and was very glad for the experience. I think public pools are incredibly important. I do find myself feeling a little deja vu in thinking about the CIP and finishing projects that are long overdue. Clearly I like finishing, like finishing things that are in progress. That's why I really was hoping we could finish Congress Square Park for all these same reasons. And I'm inclined to feel like that's, that's the route. I don't, I don't think that there's, there's not really any rationale for not moving forward. But I would like to ask just for the sake of clarity, when does Rising Eddie open and what kind of capacity would you expect it to have, and how are people now getting to, well, not now, but when that pool was out of order, how are they getting to Reiki, how are they getting to the other pools? Does transportation exist to make up for not having the Riverton one once Rising Eddie is open? And it's not a one-to-one exchange and I get that. I'm just curious. Yeah, Rising Eddie pool. [49:34] Ethan Hipple: We're making great progress. It should open in early July. We're selling passes, they're going like hotcakes, memberships, and so there's a lot of excitement, and construction is on schedule and on budget so far. So that's good news. In terms of transportation, you know, we don't, you know, we're not involved in transporting people from or to the pools aside from our programs that we run. So we do have some lesson programs where we have bus transportation for our summer camp programs and also some school programs, but those are generally school buses or buses that we provide, so those have just been redirected to Reiki while Riverton's [50:18] Pious Ali: been closed. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I mean, obviously transportation can be a significant barrier. Okay, then the net amount of pool will be increased though once Rising Eddie opens. Okay, I think that's all I have. Thank [50:41] April Fournier: you counselor pelletier yeah i may lean a little [50:46] Kate Sykes: little bit more towards bonding than my colleagues but i guess i 'm certainly not opposed to hearing good quote unquote good options for reallocating but having you know gone through those presentations nothing's leaping to the top of mind but i do want to see this project done thank [51:10] April Fournier: you counselor mayor diane go ahead i'm [51:17] Wesley Pelletier: going to agree with Council Pelletier. We've promised this. Let's get it done. I was disappointed we're not getting Congress Squared done as I'd hoped. I understand the arguments for the reallocation at that point, so I've moved on. You just can't dwell on it. But I have an assumption that the CIP is the best calling of priorities among projects in the city, and I don't really want to subject them to an additional round of trimming, because then that defeats the purpose of getting those projects done. So I'm willing to hear out the analysis that Council Grant has requested, but I would vote for bonding, and I think it's defensible. It's, it's a city resource, but the Riveting neighborhood has waited patiently, and I still get emails about when is this ever going to get done. And I'm sure some of you have received those as well. So I would vote for a bond and move forward. But I'll wait for the analysis that's been requested. Thank you, Mayor. [52:30] April Fournier: I am, as I mentioned before, very similarly sentimented to my colleagues. I think this is a huge community asset. Of course, we would have loved for all of the renovations to happen at the beginning. And it's, you know, once you start peeling the onion, you find out what's in the other layers. And so I do think, to me, it makes sense to do the bonding. I do appreciate Counselor Grant. And I think we did this conversation with the schools as well, when there was requests for new funds in CIP, looking at what are the outstanding CIP projects that hadn't been started? Is there a way to shift some of those allocations to help reduce some of the new requests that we would have to do? I feel like this is a similar exercise. So if we're able to get that, I would just be interested to see it, but I'm happy to move forward with this. [53:28] Benjamin Grant: Counselor Grant, go ahead. Yeah, just one follow up. Do we lose anything by not deciding tonight as we put like, does my request like slow things down too much? Cause I don't want to stand in the way, but if a week doesn't make any difference, I do want to see what the answers to my questions are. [53:44] Danielle West: Well just based on the timing of required public hearing notices it doesn't make a difference because we could not have this on the agenda for the next council meeting no matter what. [53:57] Benjamin Grant: Because of the public noticing around okay I'll sleep easy then that my request is not going to. [54:03] Danielle West: Take and also we didn't have this advertised as a vote tonight anyway fair I'm taking public comments so I think the takeaway for staff on this item is we present you with the two options to vote on next week reallocation of a project versus new bonds schedule is public hearing and vote at the same time we'll prep public hearing notices for the July or June 1 council meeting. [54:28] Kate Sykes: Great thank you perfect. [54:32] April Fournier: That sounds great all right so make sure everyone comes back for next Thursday we're gonna have even more to talk about so I think that takes care of the additional items we had to talk about and now we're moving back into review of the fiscal year 27 recommended budgets. That [54:56] Danielle West: Is correct and I have some great staff here with me and a team from Portland downtown as well. So I will start with Tony Workus from the parking division to talk a little bit about the parking division budget for the upcoming year. [55:19] Tony Workus: Good evening. My name is Tony Workus, as Brennan said. I'm going to share my screen really quick. Did everyone see that? Yes. Okay. So I just have two slides. So starting with the expenditures, high level, the main increases were related to payroll. We had two changes last year with a retirement of transitioning to a management assistant instead of an administrative associate, just given the amount of funds that are handled by the parking department. Also, we made some adjustments to overtime. So some of the lines, if you'll notice, were in temporary help. We shifted those into the overtime line instead. One thing to note with the overtime, that is all related to enforcement and parking control officers. So whenever we're adding an overtime shift, we actually recruit three times that amount within the first three months. That's not even based on the number of citations issued. So anything we're adding in overtime, we're always more than recouping those costs. And then also the expenditures, there's a significant change to the contractual services, and that was related to the adjustments in snow band parking. So since we're no longer operating our own impound lot, we aren't incurring the costs of retowing vehicles and some of those other items that in the past were an expense that the parking division absorbed. Moving on to revenue. So I'll start with the items we added this year. So if we extend the meters by one hour on Monday through Saturday, so right now the meters are running nine to six. If we extended that to run nine to seven, that would generate an additional $541,000 as our estimate. And if we added on the Sunday day enforcement as well from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., that would generate an additional $350,000 in revenue. By adding the Sunday meters on, we would be able to absorb most of that within an overtime basis on our existing staff. If we did add the Sunday enforcement on, we would need to add an additional FTE. So again, there would be an increased cost there. Some other items that I'm proposing are increasing the daily maximum in the garages from $28 to $40. So right now the hourly rate is $4 an hour. We have not increased the daily maximum rate since I believe 2018. So this is one that could use a significant increase. This still is well below the market rate of what other garages are charging. So I think this one would make sense. And then with revenue, some of the things we're combating are decreases in monthly and hourly parking across both of the garage facilities. So, we're having to try to overcome those decreasing numbers. The number of vehicles actually utilizing the garages isn't significantly decreasing. What we've benefited from is some companies that have been paying for monthly parking spaces that they have not been using. And so, they've slowly been reducing those numbers down where they were paying for one company, four times the number of spaces, and they've slowly been reducing those numbers down. So that's resulted in a drop in revenue for us. Also, another item we're dealing with is the closure of the Ocean Gateway lot for the Portland Harbor Commons Park. So that is another revenue source that we're trying to overcome. Other than that, most of the adjustments to the budget, it's very similar to previous years. We did a little bit of shifting around on some light items just to make them make a little bit more sense for kind of how I was approaching things. First, there's the previous director, but overall, most of the items are very similar. And that is all I had for the parking division on a high level. [59:29] April Fournier: Thank you, director. All right. I will look to my fellow committee members and counselors and guests to see if you have questions for director work. Marcus. I know I've seen some emails come through my inbox about the proposal or potential of Sunday parking. Those meters. Councilor Pelletier, go ahead. [59:51] Kate Sykes: I probably controversially am okay with raising the prices. I do think it would be great. I don't need them now if you don't have them, but basically what are the costs of maintaining all those parking spots? What are the costs of, you know, what are the costs that we are incurring that, you know, we are not eating by, you know, offering a, you know, how relatively low are our parking fees, when compared to, the cost that it takes to maintain that infrastructure. So I don't know if you have that off the top of your head, I would be very impressed if you do, but, to be able to just have that in our back pocket to say like this is the cost and this is tangibly why we're doing it's not a cash grab it's because like right now this is a very much money losing proposition [1:00:46] Tony Workus: For the city, so I would need to get back with you on part of that answer, just so I could discuss with Brendan a little bit of overall kind of the long-term capital improvements we have to make, as well as the day-to-day I guess. I see it was the reason I think the garages, I did not propose a rate increase there, is that's something we have a little bit more flexibility on, where keeping those prices where they are and trying to encourage people to start to utilize the garages more makes a little bit more sense, both from a revenue standpoint, as well as how people behave. The street spots are the ones that are the first ones to go and seem to be the ones that people want to utilize more. So that's where I kind of focus. It's more on, we want to remove move barriers to access the garage rather than increasing those costs is my general opinion [1:01:39] Kate Sykes: totally yeah and my question is mostly around street parking and i guess another question is there any way that we actually i'm like ideologically split on whether or not it's good to offer to like where to put those parking costs so i'll belay that question for now i think honestly if we the more we can justify raising street parking prices and changing that schedule [1:02:03] April Fournier: the better, so thank you, thank you. Counselor, any other questions or comments? I will say, I and it's probably also controversial, I am in support of increasing the hour and then also adding Sunday. I think especially when we come into the warmer months, we have lots more visitors. I understand that there is certainly some growing pains that go with that for those that have enjoyed free parking on Sundays. But I do think, you know, one of the other goals that we've had as a council is to try and move to be less reliant on cars and trying to figure out how, you know, how do we really create more transit opportunities that are not focused on just that single vehicle, and so I'm I'm in support of these. I appreciate the work and yeah, I don't see, I don't see any other questions. Oh, counselor, great, go ahead, that just sparked a question [1:03:08] Benjamin Grant: for me, maybe it's in the detail, but I missed it if so, would we still retain free parking on certain holidays? Yes, [1:03:17] Tony Workus: there would be no change in the city holidays. Okay, thanks. Mayor Diane, go ahead. [1:03:27] Wesley Pelletier: Losing Sunday parking, it's going to be a tough one, but not for this budget, but just to put it out here among this committee, the city manager is in the year ahead, Tony, can we figure out a way to provide, I'm going to use a term that may not be applicable once you look at it, but some sort of discounted rate for individuals that are working in the hospitality to Alley Center downtown, one, to encourage them to use the parking garage because their complaint is, I can't park just outside my work, and it would get cars off the street and into a garage. Because that's who we're going to get blowback from. It's going to be a lot of employees downtown feeling that we are doing a cash grab. That's why I appreciate the question is how much does it cost us to maintain those street curb parking but just in the future I wish we could take a look at that [1:04:28] Tony Workus: I think I agree with you we are going to get some negative feedback regarding that because realistically what we're going to initially discover is people who have been staying beyond the two-hour limit that have not been utilizing the street spaces as they should and we're we're going to catch a lot more of that. That being said, that's something that's similar to what we did with the snowman. I think it's very important that we provide people with options, not just you're getting your parking ticket, tough luck. It's a, you got a parking ticket. Here's your options in the future. Here's this, the park and work program we have where you are able to get discounted parking in the garages. So I completely agree with that. It's, this is not just a crash grab. This is a much bigger picture of, we can start to adjust to behavior. And also [1:05:14] Michael (Staff/Legal): so we can benefit from it financially yeah I just wanted to follow up on that Mr. Mayor I mean there that program you're talking about as Tony just mentioned does exist it's the park and work [1:05:23] Wesley Pelletier: program for downtown that's helpful it shows you how oblivious I am because I always struggle for on street parking so we need to do more education about that because feedback I'm [1:05:37] Danielle West: Getting that's never part of the conversation. Well, Mayor Dion, in the backup materials that I just added earlier this week, there is question 10, is there a discounted parking program for Portland employees, and there's details on that park and work program, which is administered by Portland Downtown in partnership with us, and it has links and everything, so it describes it in great detail. And that's great. You caught me not doing my homework. No, it's a long memo, I know, but it is, you get to ask almost every year. [1:06:11] Wesley Pelletier: You don't understand. If I missed it and you actually gave it to me, it never comes up in the conversation in the community. I'm just saying we need to consider how we can educate our consumers of the parking resource. That's all that. That's what I take away too from Councilor Pelletier's analysis, is we have to have a story. I'd like to have that evidence to tell. This is televised, right? So everybody will know I didn't do my homework on the parking piece. God, it's not a good day. I'm getting ready to go away. Nonetheless, we need to do something about that because they're not going to read the packet and they're just going to react. So thanks, Tony. I'm going to shut off my camera now because I've been on air too long after this. [1:07:08] Danielle West: All right. Any other questions for parking? [Benjamin Grant: Okay,] I will briefly share my screen and go through a couple of other departments that we have not talked about yet, at least to my knowledge. One, I gave Corporate Counsel Goldman the night off. I know all of you are familiar with his work. The legal department budget is actually up 8.45% this year, but that is mainly due to the fact that we have a full office there. Last year, we budgeted for a little bit of salary savings because he had some vacancies, so we budgeted assuming that he wouldn't fill those vacancies until a little bit further in the fiscal year. year. That's really the only significant change in his department budget this year. Although I will note that as we discussed during the permitting and inspections budget, we did raise that long-term registration fee in recognition that this office is incurring significant legal expense related to outside lawyers who help with the rent board. So that is the main change within in legal and that revenue shows up in permitting and inspections. It has come up, the question has been raised by Councilor Pelletier, could we actually charge even more for that long-term rental registration fee? Because are we covering our costs right now with that? And I posed that question to one of the other department heads, and I don't have the exact answer in front of me right now. But it was that we are, with this increase, with the increased revenue that we're going to be bringing in from that $5, we will be fully covering our costs related to that office right now. So I believe that leaves us in a position where we can no longer charge any higher than that amount. And I would defer to Manager West. I know this question's come up many times in the past. [1:09:12] Michael (Staff/Legal): Yeah, thanks, Brendan. There is a variety of case law, which I know Michael can update and provide the committee with if you're interested about having our fees tied directly to the costs of providing a service. So we have obviously honed that in and tried to make sure we are in compliance with that as we create our fees across the board. And there's a lot of nuances, of course, in the case law. Like I said, the legal department could advise the committee on if necessary, but one of the key factors is ensuring that it's connected to that cost of the service, as Brenda was confirming in this case. [1:09:56] Danielle West: Another question is on legal. [1:09:59] April Fournier: Oh, sorry, a couple. It looks like we have a couple. Counselor Pelletier and then Counselor Grant. [1:10:06] Kate Sykes: So, I mean, I guess I'll take the answer, but essentially, like, I mean, I would love if licensing and permitting was, you know, value neutral, right? Like we are finding a way to make sure that our, fees are covering the costs of, all staff members, right? All staff members. And so if, is there no arguable way to say, you know, well, these staff members were brought on specific, like, for example, we hired a staffer last year to help enforcement control. Is that completely covered right now? Or will it be with a raise in long-term registration fees and similarly with short-term registration fees, right? Are the costs of those FTEs completely covered? [1:10:58] Danielle West: Yes. So yes, they are right now. And we will make sure we're monitoring that carefully. And I think one thing that we can promise is we will scrub because as I've talked about in other departments, sometimes there are some costs that aren't necessarily captured, so we'll be making sure we'll be beating the couch cushions and looking to make sure that we're capturing every dollar. And you know, because we understand that desire to make sure that we're covering the full cost. [1:11:25] April Fournier: Awesome. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you, Counselor Grant. Go ahead. [1:11:31] Benjamin Grant: Yeah, just playing off Council Volunteer's questions, are there any other areas is that we are that the cost is outstripping the fees, not necessarily permitting, but any other kind of categories of legal work that is done? Are you only talking about legal or other departments? [1:11:51] Danielle West: Just legal. I'd have to look. I will look into that because we often have this discussion. Michael doesn't love that a lot of the legal expenses get paid by his office for other departments, but it's important that he and his staff are reviewing those invoices to make sure they're fair. But you know, we'll talk about that and prepare an answer for next week. Okay. [1:12:10] Benjamin Grant: And then I have a unrelated question just about outside council budget. Do we do we have a budget for that or is it just sort of we do pay as needed? What is that as part of? [1:12:21] Danielle West: $200,000. Okay. And you know, that's for typical like outside expertise for cases where Michael's office does not have the expertise to do it in-house. And we've really had, it's tough to predict that line. We've actually spent $153,000 of the $200,000 this year. Last year, we went over and we spent $232,000, but it's not an expense where you stop and you tell the outside council, [1:12:50] Benjamin Grant: we don't need you anymore because we hit our budget. Oh, I'm well aware of how that works, [1:12:55] Michael (Staff/Legal): believe me. Yeah, and I would say too, I would just add on to that, Counselor, in my experience with this budget that the outside council line has to do with litigation too. So in years we've been heavy on litigation and something that legal team for the city can't provide, that amount has been very high. So that has run over in the past significantly. [1:13:20] Benjamin Grant: The other key question there, do we have a cap on fees that we'll pay to outside council or do we basically take whatever they're offering? [1:13:27] Michael (Staff/Legal): No, there's a municipal rate that's provided that we consistently have been lining up with Maine Municipal Association that's fluctuated over the years, but it's definitely significantly lower than the market rate for attorneys. Brendan, you don't have that at the top of your mind, do you? It's like 225? I believe it's like 225 or 250. It's like half of what an hourly rate would be usually. [1:13:57] Benjamin Grant: Yeah. Okay. Again, I'm very familiar with this phenomenon as well for my day job. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. [1:14:09] April Fournier: Counselor Pelletier, is that a new hand? [1:14:11] Kate Sykes: It's a new hand. I'm sorry. No, you're good. Out of curiosity, how many paralegals are in corporation counsel's office? [1:14:21] Michael (Staff/Legal): I can speak to a lot of these questions, Counselor. Currently,, I believe there are two, there was at one point, one and a half positions, I think the, and we have different individuals who are serving in those roles from when I worked in that office. So I would have to defer to Michael on what he currently has, but that's what consistently we had. [1:14:48] Kate Sykes: Okay, just to idle care us. [1:14:55] April Fournier: Any other questions? Questions. Thank you, City Manager and Brendan, for pinch hitting for Michael this evening. I appreciate it. All right. I don't see any other questions. I think we're okay to move forward. [1:15:11] Danielle West: All right. Can everyone now see the Housing and Economic Development Department budget here? Yes. Okay. So I will pinch it for this one as well. And one of the nice things about this budget is it is almost entirely cost neutral to the property taxpayers because all of the expenses, except for a very small amount, are paid out of the Bayside TIF, the Downtown TIF, and the waterfront tiff the main change in the budget this year is we made a reduction in the small amount that is not paid by these tiff sources and they are related to the underwriting fees that we have for h for cdbg and we are reducing it was around $100,000 of estimate last year, reducing it down to $79,000 in the current year budget, reducing the net city ask by that same amount. And that was in an effort for this department to meet the budget guidance. So they're at a 3.83% increase overall, no other staffing changes. [1:16:35] April Fournier: Thank you, Brendan. Questions from anyone on the committee or at other counselors in attendance? I'm not seeing any at this point, Brendan. I think we can move forward. Okay. [1:16:59] Danielle West: So the last budget-related presentation we have is from Portland Downtown. And I have the Executive Director of Portland Downtown, Kerry Tyson, here with us. Kerry, thank you so much for your patience. And he has prepared a brief presentation on their development program and their budget. Right. [1:17:20] Speaker L (unidentified): Good evening, counselors. Thank you for everything. Give me just a brief moment and I will share my screen here. I think this is going to work. Oh, all right. Basically, you'll see the budget. All this is in the background material, but our budget is by and large the same as it was last year with about a 5% increase just to cover for inflation. I'm going to go through this really quickly. I know you've got a full day. I want to respect your time, but I'm certainly happy to answer any questions. This is just a brief highlight of some things we've done in the last year. A lot of things that are very similar, but a couple of them that are quite different. Just to give you a couple of examples, we work very closely with various partners in Cotton Street for the food distribution hub. We've really done a lot of placemaking, space activation work, and, you know, other things that are happening before the end of the fiscal year. Preview of that includes a World Cup Watch Party, things to come there. Like I said, this is about a 5% increase overall, basically the same as before. Just as a reminder of some of our work that we underwrite at 100%, six downtown public works employees, and at 50%, two additional employees for a total of eight. We have other contributions we make to social service partners. We are launching our public restroom, which is under construction and should be done in a couple of weeks. Hopefully, it'll launch in a couple of weeks after that. We continue with a variety of murals. And one of the things people don't always know about us is we are the very largest funder of the Holiday Light Program. Briefly, again, these are some things that are happening going forward. We're, we continue to work. Our ambassador program is sort of our signature program these days responding to the needs of the community. I've been giving quarterly reports to city council and upper level staff regularly. And we've also been pushing our monthly updates in between on social channels. Hopefully those have been beneficial to you. I think overall, it has been very successful. We received an extraordinary amount of positive feedback and did try to do our very best to be very open about the work we're doing and answer questions. Again, our work is going to continue by and large the same as it was last year. Last year was a big jump for us. But again, we found it to be very successful and we're going to continue those efforts. And this is just some brief stuff on our strategic plan. I thought I had one final slide that was the last report, but I guess it's not showing up. So with that, 's very quick. And I know a very high overview, but I'm more than happy to answer questions if anybody has any. [1:20:23] April Fournier: Thank you so much, Kerry. Fellow counselors, Mayor, any questions? Mayor Dyan, go ahead. [1:20:36] Wesley Pelletier: No questions. Just congratulations, Kerry, to you and your staff. You really turned the corner downtown for us, and I appreciate it. [1:20:49] April Fournier: I definitely have a question, but I see Councilor Michniewicz also has her hand up. So, Councilor, go ahead. Just kind of the same. [1:20:56] Pious Ali: I've heard some really great feedback from folks in the downtown district, both businesses and people who are just passing through, and residents. And, you know, it was a really innovative way to approach that, and I think it's working out well. So, thank you. [1:21:13] Speaker L (unidentified): Thank you, Counselor. [1:21:17] April Fournier: My question really just is around just the staffing of the ambassadors, how that's gone. Are you currently fully staffed? Are there open positions? Now that we're, of course, coming into warmer weather, tourist season, can you also talk a little bit about just are there any other trainings that you're anticipating having a spouse that works along Congress Street at a bar in the evenings? You know, there's definitely reports that I get just about how things are going, and they've been incredibly helpful, but also anticipating with warmer weather, I think we're going to see a lot more traffic along there. And so how are they getting ready for that? [1:21:50] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah, thank you very much for that question, Counselor. You're exactly right. That is one of the lessons we learned in the last year. As you may recall, we launched about middle of July. So we're earlier in our advance, and obviously we had quite a learning curve last year. I think we're by and large past that this year. We are staffing up for the summer season. We are currently at nine staff. We hope to be to 15. That gap being the seasonal employees that will work till sometime around Halloween, give or take. So we're hoping to have coverage from seven in the morning to eight or nine in the evening. Obviously, I think as we continue to grow in the years to follow, I think we'd like to have 24-hour coverage, but we're just not quite there yet. But yes, we are ramping up in advance of the summer. We're hiring. We're a second-chance employer. So if you know anybody looking for work, we would welcome a connection out there. Thank [1:22:51] April Fournier: you so much for that, Carrie. That is all the questions I had and just yeah, lots of gratitude for the program and looking forward to seeing that continue. [1:23:00] Speaker L (unidentified): Great. Thank you all very much. All [1:23:12] Danielle West: right, so that is all of the staff presentations I had for tonight. I wanted to briefly talk about the questions and answers that I have in the memo. I'll probably just list the questions, not necessarily go through all the answers, but the budget frequently asked question memo covers the breakdown of the tax rate between city and school operations. It's now about 43% city, 53% school, and 4.1% county. It breaks down the impact of changes to the combined tax rate or mill rate. So the dollar amount that's equivalent to a 1% increase is 2.5 million dollar increase to the tax levy. And for every $204,000, that would increase the tax levy by a penny. For every penny of increase to the tax levy, the median homeowner pays an additional $5.40 in annual taxes. There's a question in there that I covered previously around what external organizations receive funding, the Cumberland County, the Portland Public Library,, Metro, Creative Portland, Greater Portland Council of Governments, Portland Media Center, Portland Harbor Commission, Maine Municipal Association, Peaks Island Council. There's a question around the FY27 budget and elimination of 72.3 FTEs on the city side. And there's a question around how many vacancies does that leave remaining in every department? Department. And I break that down there. And I will note that the number listed for police excludes the amount of folks that are currently in the academy. There's a question around how much COVID relief funding is in the budget and whether there's any unspent COVID relief funds, and there's no significant COVID relief revenue remaining in our budget. We had a really responsible spend down over multiple years, and remaining unspent ARPA funds are approximately $600,000, but they're fully allocated to external organizations and they're likely going to be spent in the next month to a month and a half. There's a question around fund balance and what was the fund balance as of the most recent available data? And we talked a little bit about that. The most recent unassigned fund balance was $74.6 million, which was a surplus of approximately $2.9 million above recommended amount for the fund balance policy. This budget actually recommends use of $4 million of fund balance, which anticipates a little bit of additional surplus being generated as part of the current year budget. There's a question around the public health department that came last week and what portion of that is funded by non-property tax sources. And we conclude that the public health budget is approximately 52.66% covered by property taxes, and 47.3% covered by other sources. And I break that down in detail for anyone who's interested. There's a question around how fundraising works in relation to the city's operating budget. There's a question on our property tax relief programs and what ones are available. There's a question on that discounted park and work program. There's a question on the referendum requirements, which I covered previously. And there's a question about what is the annual debt service costs associated with each $1 million in bonds. And I break that down between type of bonds, between either a 10-year bond or a 20-year bond. And we talked a little bit about that previously in the context of 20-year bonds. And then there's a question about what authority does the council have over PPL and their contract negotiations with employees that I added in there as well. [April Fournier: Comprehensive as always.] So I'll pause there and just say, are there any other questions? [1:27:14] April Fournier: I don't think so, but we get to move into our public hearing now, I believe, since we have concluded all of the other items. And so, Brendan, can you remind everyone we have a public hearing this evening, and then we'll have another one next Thursday. Is that right? [1:27:29] Danielle West: Yep. So yeah, typically we do, when we have instances like this, where we postpone the vote, we'll take public comment at both meetings. At the second meeting, it'll just be those who haven't had a chance to comment previously. So the schedule would be a meeting today, another public hearing and vote, next week's meeting, where we'll also have hopefully those last two items repeating as well, the Riverton pool, and also hopefully some more information on the relocation of the family shelter. And then this moves to the council for a first read at the Monday, May 18th meeting, where there will be a public hearing. And they'll also take public comment on June 1st when we have council action, because public comment is required on any council action appropriations. So quite a few more meetings and opportunities for public comment. [1:28:24] April Fournier: Great. Thank you, Brendan. All right. So for members of the public, if you are interested in giving public comment this evening, I would ask that you raise your virtual hand now. So I know that you are in line to speak and it gives me a sense of how many people we have left. Also, so I don't close public comment too early before you've had a chance to share what you think. As a reminder, our public comment is three minutes. It is related to our budget item discussions and the overall city manager budget. We will, I will call on you and meet you and then start your time. And I will give you a 30 second warning as we're getting close to time. So just as an FYI, I have three people who have their hands raised now out of the 14 participants we have here. If you are intending to speak, please make sure that you get your hand raised. So first I have Joey Brunel. Hello, can you hear me? I can, go ahead. [1:29:21] Public Commenter: Head. If first I may beg just the indulgence of the chair, is this the appropriate germane time to ask about the port tariff agreement, or is that a different discussion? [1:29:32] April Fournier: Well, with public comment, it's not a back and forth, so you're welcome to share. [1:29:38] Public Commenter: Okay, well, then this might be undermane and, you know, call me on that. But so as a member of Portland Cruise Control, I just want to address four specific problems with the environmental discount in Port Tariff 11. We didn't really go over it, so I hope you all have context for this. Here we go. First, there is no verification mechanism. The tariff offers a $2 per passenger discount for ships using clean fuel at berth, but contains no requirement that ships document compliance in real time. Fuel records are kept aboard the ship and only the Coast Guard can access them, and even then only during random inspections. The city cannot verify what any ship is burning at our pier. This matters because the industry has a documented and ongoing record of withholding and falsifying documents. Princess Cruises paid a record $40 million criminal fines for falsifying discharge logs and then violated probation and paid $20 million more. And just last summer, Alaska state inspectors were denied access to scrubber data aboard five Carnival ships. These are the type of documents that Portland is relying on. The tariff needs to include language requiring fuel reports. Second, LNG, liquid natural gas, does not qualify as environmental improvement. The tariff includes LNG as a qualifying clean fuel, and it should not. A study found that LNG cruise ship engines emit 70% more greenhouse gases than marine gas oil, and real-world measurements show methane leaks from these engines at its highest rate when ships are idling at low power, precisely when berthed in Portland Harbor. Portland would be paying ships to emit a more damaging greenhouse gas, and then the fuel this discount was designed to replace. LNG must be removed from the list of clean fuels. Third, a formal MOU, Memorandum of Understanding, is the only instrument that changes behavior. Seattle uses two instruments to achieve real results. A tariff, a terminal tariff prohibition on scrubber wash water at birth confirmed to be independent of federal VITA preemption and an MOU with cruise lines which requires a pause on all scrubber wash discharge while in Puget Sound. Portland currently has neither of these things. A discount without verification. Thank you. A discount without verification or consequences cannot produce any environmental outcome. It can only create the appearance of one we're asking this committee to require three things before tariff 11 passes one add verification language so ships must document compliance to claim the discount to remove lng from the qualifying fuel list and three direct the port director to begin formal mou negotiations with the cruise industry thank you thank you [1:32:24] April Fournier: Okay, next we have Jay Gruber. You can unmute. [1:32:31] Jay Gruber: Hi, my name is Jay Gruber. I'm a Portland resident in District 2, and I've worked at the Portland Public Library downtown since 2021. I do not represent PPL, but I'm here as an individual employed at the library to ask the Finance Committee to increase the budget allocation to the library this year. I want to acknowledge that most branches of the library don't close until 6 p.m. tonight, which prevented many of my co-workers from attending this meeting. I love my job. I love the patrons I serve, my co-workers, the joy of connecting people with free resources, and the way the downtown library is a critical hub for programs and services in the city. At the Finance Committee meeting on April 16th, you heard from the library's executive director about all the essential services provided by the library and the value we bring to the city. Our impact is huge, but now I want to talk about the impact the city's budget has on me and my wages and my coworkers. About 84% of the library's budget comes from the city, so it largely determines my wages. The library's trustees have indicated to us that the library is limited to the 5% increase in the city manager's recommended budget. In the library's prospective budget for fiscal year 2027, this funding will continue the pattern of wage backsliding that the library employees have experienced for years. Let's take just the last several years, for example. In 2018, the base starting wage for my position was $17.67. Using the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an equivalent wage for fiscal year 2026 should be $22.65. Again, $22.65 would just be for the starting wage to be stable year over year. But despite having worked at the library since 2021, my wages are only $22.17. I am currently below the equivalent starting wage of an employee just eight years ago. Currently, the base starting wage for my position is $20.48, which leaves a new employee in my position drastically left behind. If I had been hired today into a full-time position, I would be making over $4,000 less than the 2018 starting wage when adjusted for inflation. This is not sustainable for employees of such an essential city hub. We not only deserve a livable wage, it is necessary in order for Portland to maintain the immense depth of knowledge, experience, and care that is held by its library staff. Because no matter how much we at the library love our work, the city of Portland has to be invested in us too. Thank you. [1:35:18] April Fournier: Thank you Jay. Next we have Rebecca and that is our last hand just for everyone. Rebecca you can unmute yourself. [1:35:31] Rebecca Starr: Thank you Councilor Fournier and good evening everyone. My name is Rebecca Starr. I am a resident of South Portland who works at the downtown branch of the Portland Public Library. library. Again, I'm not speaking today on behalf of the Portland Public Library, but I am here as a library worker, and I'm here to ask the committee to consider a budget increase for the library of more than five percent in the next year. During tough economic times, a lot is asked of public libraries, and we always do our best to meet the challenge because the individuals on staff care about the community. When the library reopened after the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic,, I can't even describe with words the true relief I felt seeing so many of our regular patrons return to the space. Patrons cried while they told me how much it meant to them to be able to come to the library, how their emotional and mental well-being suffered without us. As frontline workers, library staff see how much everyone in our community is struggling right now. Many people who have never even used the library before now rely on us for access to books, computers, and a friendly, safe and comfortable space where they don't have to spend money to exist and anecdotally as a reader's advisory librarian and the fiction purchaser for the downtown branch I've helped so many patrons this year more than I've seen in any other year who've told me that they're using the library for the first time because they can no longer afford to purchase books they are relieved when we welcome them with open arms and I am relieved they have found us my colleagues and I take so much pride in public service and in being able to offer assistance without asking for money in return. However, much like the patrons we serve, many of us are struggling. We do our best to take care of each other. So for example, when SNAP benefits were frozen last year, staff association members pulled resources so we could purchase Hannaford gift cards for those of us who needed groceries. This year, as our wages continue to have even less buying power, and with even larger healthcare premiums looming ahead, we are coming to a breaking point. It is hard to show up for others when you can barely show up for yourself. We certainly understand that fiscal decisions are tough this year, and along with many members of our community, I am asking the city to invest in library staff as much as library staff invest in the well-being of our community or of our city and our community. Help us take care of ourselves so we can continue to deliver the service, resources, and care our community expects and deserves. Thank you very much. Thank you, Rebecca. [1:37:58] April Fournier: That is the last hand I had up for public comment. I will give it a moment. As Brendan mentioned, we will have another opportunity for public comment next Thursday and then at two upcoming council meetings. All right, with that, I will go ahead and close public comment for this evening. And I believe that is it for on our agenda. Is that correct? Brendan, I think I read it right. That was the last thing. Yes. Beautiful. All right. So we will be back together next Thursday and be on the lookout for those materials. Again, everything we chatted about this evening, including the Frequently Asked Questions document, is in our backup materials on the agenda portal on the website. But so good to be with you this evening. Thank you so much to city staff for all of your work in crafting this budget. It is especially a challenging year. Thank you to the public for coming and sharing your comments. And with that, I will take a motion to adjourn. So moved. See, moved by Councillor Grant. I saw your mouth moving, Councillor Pelletier. [1:39:13] Kate Sykes: Okay. Second. I'll do a second. [1:39:16] April Fournier: Thank you. So moved by Councilor Grant, seconded by Councilor Pelletier. We'll go ahead and vote. Councilor Grant? Yes. Councilor Pelletier? Yes. I am also a yes. We are adjourned at 6.40 PM. Have a wonderful evening, everyone. We'll see you next week.