HEDC votes on TIF districts, entertainment buffer amendment

[0:00] Pious Ali: Housing and Economic Development Committee. My name is Piros Ali. I am counselor at large and the chair of this committee. I'm gonna pass it on to committee members to introduce themselves and then follow by staff. [0:14] Kate Sykes: All right. Hi, I'm Kate Sykes, district counselor, District 5. [0:20] Sarah Michniewicz: Sarah Michniewicz, district counselor, District 1. [0:28] Dina Lipner: I'm Dina Lipner, assistant city manager. Michael Goldman. [0:34] Michael Goldman: I'm not. Sorry about that. Michael Goldman, Corporation Counsel. Go ahead, Matt. [0:41] Matthew Grooms: All right. Matthew Grooms, Deputy Director of Planning and Urban Development. [0:46] Mary Davis: Mary Davis, Housing and Community Development Division Director. [0:51] Sarah Michniewicz: Lori Pollett, Housing and Economic Development Department. [0:55] Mary Davis: Heidi McCarthy, Housing Program Manager. [1:05] Dina Minett: You're muted, Shirley. Yeah. Thank you all. [1:08] Pious Ali: Well, I am going to ask for, well, the first item on the agenda is reviewing and vote on the minutes from June 2nd. Do any committee members have any questions or comments about the minutes? [1:31] Kate Sykes: I move to pass the minutes. Second. [1:35] Pious Ali: Moved by Councillor Sykes, seconded by Councillor McEwen. I'm going to call the roll. Councillor Sykes? Yes. Councillor McEwen? Yes. The second item on the agenda is, and we will be taking public comment on this, to review and make recommendations to the Planning Board and City Council regarding an amendment to Chapter 14, Section 6 to remove the 100-foot buffer for entertainment venues. Is Councillor Pelletier here? I [2:15] Dina Lipner: don't see him, Chair. I'll give him a text to see if he's able to join us in the next couple minutes. Okay. [2:22] Pious Ali: Should we skip to the next item or do you want us to wait? [2:29] Dina Lipner: It's up to you. We can accommodate either one. [2:33] Pious Ali: Okay. Let's skip it and go to the next item him if or when he joins us, then we can go back to this. The third item on the agenda, we will take public comment on this as well, is to review and make recommendation to the full Council of Affordable Housing Tax Increment Finance District Requests. Is Heidi McCarthy [3:07] Heidi McCarthy: McCarthy here. Yes, I am, Chair. Do you want to take this? Yes, thank you. Thank you. So this is [3:15] Mary Davis: to consider the adoption of two new affordable housing tax increment financing districts and amendments to an existing TIF district. I'll review the first district, and then, Chair, would you like me to pause after the first for questions, or would you prefer that I continue [3:36] Pious Ali: you through all three. Which will be will you be comfortable with? [3:42] Mary Davis: I'm fine with either. There can be one public comment period for all three together, but each will need a separate vote if the committee decides to move forward. [3:54] Pious Ali: Okay, so let's take the questions on each of them from committee members. [3:59] Heidi McCarthy: This. Great, thank you. [4:02] Mary Davis: The first one is the Prime at 197 Oxford Street. This is 47 units of affordable rental housing, all available to households at 60 or 50 percent of AMI, and it's on the site of the former Oxford Street Shelter. It's a mix of studio, one and two bedroom units. Twelve of the units of 47 will serve as off-site inclusionary rental units as part of an approved joint site plan with Reveler, and these units are ineligible for the TIF subsidy. Therefore, Avesta is seeking a 75% TIF for 30 years for the remaining 35 units, which equals out to a 56% TIF for the entire project. 20% of the units will be set aside for persons experiencing homelessness, victims of domestic violence, people with disabilities, or other special housing needs. Construction is set to begin June 2027 and be completed by the end of 2028. Total assessed value upon completion is a little under 5 million, which would yield a little under 60,000 in property value in year one. The approximate revenue return to the development will be a little over 1.36 million, or approximately 45,000 per year over the 30-year term. The revenue to the general fund would be a little over 1 million, or 35,630 per year. If the project isn't completed, nothing would be returned to the developer, and any tax revenue generated from the property would be returned to the general fund. The tax sheltering benefits are approximately $22,681 per year, or $680,428 over the life of the district. This particular TIF is coming forward now because they are looking to meet the deadlines for the Maine Housing QAP for tax credits, which we have discussed in the past. I'm happy to take any questions about this particular TIF request. [6:07] Pious Ali: Is there any question from committee members? Seeing none. [6:16] Kate Sykes: Oh, Councillor Sykes. Sorry, I couldn't find the unmute button. So one of the questions that I have with this, it sounds a little bit unusual from ones that we've maybe seen before. Do all of these go through the finance director to determine the offset for school funding? And if we're kind of striking that right balance? [6:47] Mary Davis: These go through, the tax shelter is calculated via a formula that is provided by Main Housing. And there are documents used that are provided by the Department of Education used and the county used in that. So I don't believe the finance director is directly involved in that. I believe that is done in-house or in our department. [7:18] Kate Sykes: Okay. I just have a question. [7:21] Mary Davis: If Counselor Sykes I'm curious I think Mary might have a little bit more info on that I just noticed you raised your hand so yeah let's hear from her I don't mean to cut you off no that's good thanks I just wanted to add that we have a Excel spreadsheet database that we use used to do all of the calculations. And that spreadsheet gets updated annually by a consultant that the city works with. Lori Pollack could probably tell us the name of that consultant. I don't have that name right off the top of my head. So that person is checking to make sure that we're up to date with all of those formulas that Heidi mentioned and that the calculations [8:13] Kate Sykes: we're using are accurate. Okay. So I guess my second question and just is a, and it doesn't relate specifically to this project, but I think it's something that this committee might want to consider. Does the city specifically someone who's involved with our budget. So Brendan or someone else, take a look at the calculations that Maine Housing is used at least annually to make sure that it's not going to put us in a kind of off-balance situation. And it seems to me like if we would review those policies and then maybe run that through the Legislative and Nominating Committee to make suggestions at the state level about whether or not that funding formula is working for us I mean is there like where's the loop like where's the feedback loop on that we can actually make sure that funding isn't going to put us at a disadvantage because it's a I mean it's a careful tax shelter balance that we have with school funding I know and so I'm just curious how do we review that on a annual or semi-annual or whatever basis [9:21] Mary Davis: This counselor, I don't know the specific details of that, but I could certainly get back to you. What I do know is that we, that our department, Housing and Economic Development, works really closely with the tax assessor's office and calculating the assessed values and tracking that year to year. And then we also work really closely with the finance director in looking at the revenue generated and used within the TIF districts and how that's being allocated. That part is specifically around area-wide TIFs, but I can certainly get more information and bring it back to the committee that [10:11] Kate Sykes: That would be great. I'd just love to hear from Director O'Connell just to see what his thoughts are around this, and just to make sure that we're not becoming off balance with those tax shelters. Because I know there is an advantage for school funding, but it also, you know, it's our tax base, too, that we're not collecting taxes on these particular projects. So thanks, Mary. I really appreciate that. Thank you, Councillor. Great. [10:41] Sarah Michniewicz: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Share. I'm not exactly sure what my question is in here, but this, as you know, is one of the buildings in the phased major site plan for the buildings that Reveler have around their master development plan, and like that, these are going to be off-site inclusionary zoning units, and obviously the balance is regular affordable housing, and then you've got the four set aside side for people exiting homelessness. So I appreciate the, that kind of got complicated fast, and I appreciate the math that was done to figure out how to make that work. It's kind of one of those more complicated situations. Now, this building or this property is being sold to Avesta, but this is in conjunction with Avesta. Can you, I mean, with Reveler, is there more you can say about that arrangement? I'm not exactly sure how that works [11:46] Mary Davis: Yeah, the building has already been sold to Avesta. They've already done the acquisition. That was part of in the underwriting memo, phase one is what is what is what it's called, but yeah, that has already been completed at this time and so [12:08] Sarah Michniewicz: Does so this is completely owned by Avesta now. There's no portion of it that's going to be retained by Reveler in any [12:14] Mary Davis: Fashion. I can get more details on that. My understanding is it is owned by Avesta, but I will reach out and double check so that we can be sure. Okay. Yeah, I would appreciate that. There [12:26] Sarah Michniewicz: Were some fairly complicated financial arrangements at the 89 Elm building. And although this building doesn't have a ground floor or activated use, I just kind of want a little more transparency and understanding that went through several iterations that ended up with it being sort of condo-ized by both owners, and it became very unclear. So yeah, if you could give me some more details on that, I'd really appreciate it. Yeah, sure, thank you. Thank you, and both of you. [12:56] Pious Ali: Do you, Councillor Sarge and Councillor Michniewicz, do you want this information that you asked to come back before we move this forward? Or how do you want to do it? [13:13] Kate Sykes: For me, my question is general. It doesn't relate to this project. But I just think we need to be having some accounting for some of these things. I have some kind of just additional questions about these particular projects, but I'll let Councillor Michniewicz answer first. [13:28] Sarah Michniewicz: Okay, thank you. Yeah, in terms of the timeline, would it slow it down too much to get those answers first? [13:36] Mary Davis: Yeah, this, I'm sorry, chair, no, go ahead. Thank you. This, has already gone to council for a first read because of the timeline for submitting to main housing, and is hopefully, you know, if you, if you decide to move forward, it will be for a second read on July 20th, which is before our next meeting. Okay. [14:02] Sarah Michniewicz: Yeah. I mean, I guess it's more of a general question. It's just, like I said, it's very, complex. I, you know, I know RICO changed the IZ rule, so it's, I don't think they can do it offsite in quite this way any longer. That's my understanding. But yeah, when you just have that many moving parts financially essentially, and the previous iteration of this project that included a housing first portion didn't work out because the funding was, the mechanism was, I'm not sure what the details were, but that was the reason given for it not working out. So I guess I just want to make sure that if we're going to move ahead with this, it actually does move ahead in the timeframe that we're anticipating. Okay, thank you, Mary, your hand is up. Yeah, as Heidi was running through [14:57] Mary Davis: that, I was looking in the application file for this project to pull up the organizational chart for the ownership structure, and the way it looks is that Avesta set up a limited in a partnership called Avesta Oxford Street LP. The general partner of that is another Avesta entity called Pinecone Housing Corporation, and they will have a percentage, they'll be a percentage owner as a general partner, as will Avesta Housing Development Corporation, recreation reveler or any reveler entities don't show up in that organizational structure so it appears that a Vesta will have ownership through its own various entities [15:54] Pious Ali: okay all right I think that's all I have now okay thank you Aili please go ahead [16:04] Mary Davis: Sure. So the next TIF is Dashaway Commons at 15 to 19 Cedar Street. This is 30 units of affordable rental housing, all available to households at 60 or 50% of AMI. It's a mix of one and two bedroom units. 24 of the units will serve as housing replacement for units that will be removed during the Boys and Girls Club expansion of its Cumberland Avenue Clubhouse. 20% will be set aside for persons experiencing homelessness, victims of domestic violence, people with disabilities, or other special needs. Construction is set to begin September 2027 and be completed by the end of 2028. The total assessed value upon completion is a little over $4 million, yielding just less than $50,000 per year in property value in year one. This number is in the memo was $49,817. But after looking again, the actual number is $49,787. So I just wanted to note that. The approximate revenue returned to the development will be a little over $1.5 million or $50,493 per year over the 30-year term. Revenue to the general fund would be a little over $500,000 or $16,831 per year. Again, like the other project, if it isn't completed, there would be nothing returned to the developer and any tax revenue generated from the property would return to the general fund. The tax sheltering benefits are $24,760 per year or 742,794 over the life of the district. Happy to take any questions on 15 to 19, Cedar. [17:50] Pious Ali: Thank you, Heidi. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, Heidi, we can go to the third item. Sure. [18:01] Mary Davis: The third TIF is not a new district, but it is going for tax credits, just like the other two. This would be an amendment to an existing district at 42 Atlantic Street. This district was approved by the council and main housing in 2024. It then had some issues beyond its control and was delayed. Those issues have been resolved and the project is ready to move forward. It's a four-story building which will contain 30 units of rental housing for individuals with 60% to 50% of AMI. The amendment requested is only to allow the project to utilize the legislation that was passed in 2025, which allows for a more flexible start date to when the 30-year captured value begins. It allows it based on the certificate of occupancy date rather than the main housing approval. The total term of capture values still cannot be more than 30 years, regardless of the date it starts. But it could be less than 30 years if the certificate of occupancy isn't received until more than five years after approval. So we saw two other TIFs last year, or a few TIFs last year that had this same provision in Mayor Housing and Cumberland Boyd both had this provision in as well. And I'm happy to take any questions on this proposed amendment. [19:42] Pious Ali: Thank you, committee members. Does any of you have questions for Heidi? Thank you, Heidi. I'm going to take public comments and then come back to committee members for any further discussion. If there's any attendee here who wants to give public comment on any of these three projects, please raise your hand. [20:21] George Roe: There is one, George Roe. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay, great. So for the 42 Atlantic project, I have just two questions that hopefully will resolve some ambiguity in the staff memos. The project, I believe, has already been awarded low-income housing tax credits from Maine Housing a couple of cycles ago. And it's not clear, it says there, I think the staff memo said they're applying again. So I don't know if those tax credits or awards were taken away from them and they now have to start fresh. So that would be helpful to resolve what the posture is there. And also they say that their litigation, a neighbor had sued them and that had been in the courts for the last couple of years, I believe. They are saying that 's resolved, but there hasn't been any public acknowledgement of that. There's nothing in the meeting materials that sort of shows that 's the case. The person who's suing has a whole website talking about the lawsuit, and there's nothing on that public website that suggests that they have agreed to settle the case or give it up. So that would be helpful because I think it would be silly to, you know, go forward without understanding exactly where this project stands. On the other two projects, I think you should absolutely say no for the time being. The $1.97 Oxford Street project is intimately connected to the illegal use of the inclusionary zoning off-site provision. Reveler is the developer in getting credit for inclusionary zoning units that it is not funding in any way. You're funding them. The taxpayers of Maine and the taxpayers of the federal government are funding those units. units. Reveler is actually getting money from Avesta for the land that it's selling. And so Avesta, the entire spirit of inclusionary zoning for normal developers that they have to provide the units or they have to pay the in lieu of fee. And Reveler is not doing that here. So this is an illegal arrangement and it will be challenged at the appropriate time. Also,, the Boys and Girls Club situation is sort of a different but similar case where the housing replacement ordinance is being violated, both in spirit and by its letter, because they're supposed to provide over $2 million in lieu of payments to provide replacement housing or provide the housing. And Boys and Girls Club has basically, through a couple of little loopholes and tricks that I don't think hold water, has basically farmed out and outsourced their obligations for the housing replacement to Avesta on the cheap. They're literally only having to spend a fraction of that over $2 million of obligations to provide the replacement housing, which again, most developers who want to take advantage of this housing replacement mechanism, they're not allowed to outsource it in that way and avoid their financial obligations. So please don't say yes to those two projects and clarify the 42 Atlantic stature. Thank you. Thank [24:01] Pious Ali: you. Thank you, George. Is there any other public comments? Sorry, and then he vanished. Anyway, counselor, do you want to give, are you going, do you have questions or you just want to give comment? [24:25] Sarah Michniewicz: it yeah so that's that's me yes i think that was the hand you saw okay yeah and actually yeah i would like it if we could dig a little bit into the use of well the use of inclusionary zoning in that way i mean i brought it up before but as i say there were changes made in recode and that apparently it was allowed to do this off-site in this way in the past it This came up during the process for 89 Elm and for this project as well, that when the decision was made to change these properties over to Alesta, that it was pointed out that they were, it was just a very unusual arrangement. So, can you talk a little bit about what was allowed before RICO changed? What was allowed when these were approved for what's being referred to as off-site inclusionary zoning? And was there any contemplation of a completely different entity owning or operating that off-site inclusionary zoning units? [25:35] Mary Davis: As I was not involved in those discussions, I'd like to defer this question to Mary, if possible. [Speaker K (unidentified): ] I think we may also have to ask Matt Grooms to help us weigh in on the planning board process there. But in relation to the Oxford Street project, it's my understanding that was part of a smaller, I don't know, Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, master plan that had two or three other properties included. And as part of that planning process, they were allowed to use the Oxford Street site as off-site. As you mentioned a couple of times, that's no longer allowable in the ordinance. But at the time that the plan was approved by the planning board, it was allowed. out. And so that's how the 197 Oxford was able to move forward. Matt can correct me if I'm wrong or add if there needs to be more added to that. Yeah. No, I think Mary, you summarized it really [26:50] Matthew Grooms: well. Those were two separate applications between the master development plan for the Bayside Master Development Plan, which includes the 89 Elm Street project and then a number of other projects that are tied to that. And then the 197 Oxford Street site is a separate phased site plan application. So there were two 24-unit market rate buildings that were approved in conjunction with the larger affordable project at 197 Oxford Street. And again,, in that situation, there was a known relationship between Reveler and Avesta, who was responsible for developing the IZ units that were going to be the receiving end of the inclusionary zoning piece of the other two market rate projects. [27:42] Sarah Michniewicz: Yeah, yes, I think those were scaled back to, I believe they ended up at 24 units each. Although in that process, there was either a miscalculation or some other rationale where there was the incorrect number of bonuses where bonuses were taken that were not actually allowed under the rules at the time. And I think it was like a doubling of the number of units in one of them. I mean, and that was a whole, that was sort of a different project because again it was, it was the housing first project and it was divided up a little bit differently. But you know, arguably the precedent for them arranging it this way here was set by 89 Elm over which I don't know that, I don't know that there were completely satisfactory answers about how that came to be. So yeah, I'm, I'm sort of struggling with this because I don't have the, you know, the, I mean, I'd like for it to go forward if it could, but I am, I think feeling more that I really would like more information on the financial arrangement and how this got to this point. Thank [29:04] Pious Ali: you counselor. Well, because I think at the request of staff, which I said yes during meeting last week, we brought this forward so that it will have its first reading because there's a timeline around some of them. Will it be okay with you for us to vote this out and then the information that you need between now and July 20th will be presented to you by staff or emailed to all of us on the committee? [29:42] Sarah Michniewicz: Yeah, I would like it emailed to the, I would like it shared directly with the whole Council if that's possible so that everybody has some understanding of what we're looking at here. [29:54] Pious Ali: Okay, thank you. Councillor Sykes and then Mary. [29:59] Kate Sykes: Thanks Chair. Just a quick question about the process here. If this fails in committee and does it still go to the full council for a vote? [30:13] Pious Ali: I believe so, but I'm going to let the experts speak to the corporation council. [30:18] Michael Goldman: Yeah, it would. The committee is making a recommendation one way or the other, but it would go to the council. [30:27] Kate Sykes: Thank you. I think that the question of timing is irrelevant. I think we just vote how we feel and we'll get the information. We'll have a discussion on the Council floor. [30:38] Pious Ali: Okay. So on that note, may I have a motion and a second to move 187 Oxford Street, 1519 Cedar, and 42 Atlantic? I move to split the question. [30:57] Kate Sykes: Come again? I move to split the question. I'd like to split the question into three votes, one for each of the developments. It might be different for them. [31:12] Pious Ali: So let's listen to Mary. Mary, sorry, I skipped your hand, and then I will ask for the motion. [31:20] Mary Davis: Okay, so I just want to comment on the motion. We would prefer to have it voted three, make three separate votes, one on each project, just for clarity purposes. And but then I want to be clear on what Councilor Michniewicz is asking for staff to deliver by the council meeting. Are you looking for more information on the financial arrangement between Reveler and Avesta? [31:51] Sarah Michniewicz: Mm hmm. Yeah, I would like more information on the financial arrangement between Reveler and Avesta. And maybe it would be helpful to have the background on the inclusionary zoning ordinance, as it was written at the time. [32:12] Mary Davis: Okay, we can, we can have that ready for the council. [32:18] Pious Ali: Thank you that's all set. Okay, so may I have a motion in a 2nd. to bring the proposed AHT district amendment on 197 Oxford Street. So moved. Moved by Councillor McNeill. I [32:54] Kate Sykes: won't be seconding this. [32:58] Pious Ali: Seconded by Councillor Sykes. [33:00] Kate Sykes: I'm sorry, I do not want to second this. Oh, you don't want to second it? [33:03] Pious Ali: Mm-mm. Oh, I am seconding it. Alright, I'm going to call the roll Councillor Sykes? No Councillor McEwen? No I am a yes So It's going to go to the council With two to one vote May I have a motion in a second For 1519 Cedar Street? So moved Second Moved by Councillor McEwen Seconded by Councillor Sykes I'm going to call the roll. Councillor Sykes. No. Councillor McNeill. Yes. And I am a yes. The last item on these three projects is 42 Atlantic. May I have a motion for that? So moved. Moved by Councillor Sykes, seconded by Councillor McNeill. I am going to call the roll. Councillor McNeill. Yes. Councilor Sykes? Yes. And I am a yes. I think Councilor Pelletier did join us if I got it right? Yes. Councilor Pelletier, we're going to go back to the item that you are going to present, which is and we'll be taking the public comment on that to review and make a recommendation to the Planning Board and City Council regarding an amendment to Chapter 14, Section 6 to remove the 100-foot buffer for entertainment venues. Councillor, it's all yours. [35:03] Speaker K (unidentified): I'm happy to do this. I thought Councillor McTavish was, this was hers, but I'm more than happy to present. But I will yield to Council Member Critch if she wants. [35:18] Sarah Michniewicz: Yeah, I'll hop in and Councilor Pelletier can kind of clean up after that if he has other thoughts. So this was the removing the 100-foot buffer between entertainment venues in the WCZ and B3 zones was proposed during the proposal for the 750-foot moratorium, sorry, the 750-foot buffer for music venues over entertainment venues over 1,000 seats. And at the time, I felt that it was a very different proposal, that they didn't have a lot to do with each other and shouldn't be wrapped in, and that this deserves more consideration. Restoration and part of that has to do with the dense fabric of the downtown area and the need to take a little more time to look at it and think about it through the lens of the noise ordinance and the activity level that it would potentially increase. The buffer was put into place originally because of the level of activity and issues in the downtown area at the time and you know that was in, I think, 2006, 2007. It doesn't really matter. I don't want to bother the Corp Council with that one. In that era, it's about, yeah, it's about that long ago. And so I think there's a lot of merit to encouraging more nightlife and making it easier for people to host live events. And I think we just need to be a little bit cautious about it, at least to do our homework and our due diligence you know one of the factors that's that's a little concerning about it is that back when all those issues were happening downtown there was you know we had a full a full police force and apparently there were i think what i was told like 12 officers in the old port that kind of to manage the level of chaos and incidents that happened and now there's 12 for the entire city and one patrol for downtown which you know on the whole seems to be working okay so you know we i don't think that we would see a rapid increase in venues i could be wrong so the kind of information that i'd be wanting to see the see the planning board look at would include the average number of entertainment venues and licenses and whether there was attrition after the unknown deferred buffer was originally imposed and what the police calls for service and their breakdown down into types of call, what that could tell us about the evolution of the activity in the downtown area between 2006 or whenever this was implemented and now. So that's where I'm coming from on this. I do think we should take a look at it and just assure ourselves that this is going to work well. And if we're going to try removing it, consider whether we would want to be maybe a little stricter in enforcement, if that's possible, to offset any additional impacts. [38:45] Pious Ali: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Pelliccia, do you have any additional comments? [38:54] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, thank you, Councillor Marksman, for bringing this forward. Yeah, I generally think that, you know, Portland's demographics and the whole situation has changed pretty starkly since when this was first introduced. You know, an entertainment license is largely for, you know, amplified music, which doesn't necessarily mean, you know, like there's lots of different ways that people are getting rowdy these days, that you don't necessarily need an entertainment license for. And so, you know, I've heard from two different businesses, Cocktail Mary, which recently moved into a new spot, as well as Toineon, I'm butchering that pronunciation, but the new hot spot, hot pot place. And, you know, both of them have tried to activate their spaces, but then I've run into this 100-foot buffer because Lincoln's has a license on Market and Portland Stage obviously has one on Forest. So I think it's preventing businesses from, like, being creative in how they want to, you know, activate and bring people in. And I'm not like, you know, I don't see as big of a risk, especially from live music and, you know, I think we want to create as many opportunities for the arts as possible, or at least I do, and I think that's a great way to do this, just make it easier for and create less red tape for people to get an entertainment license so they can bring local artists in and, you know, let them perform. [40:50] Pious Ali: Thank you. Is there any additional discussion? Councilor Sykes. [40:58] Kate Sykes: Thank you, Chair. My question is for Corporation Council. I just have a question. Could you advise us whether removing this buffer zone would have any impact on any pending litigation involving entertainment venues? Just whether or not this would impact how the city is seen to be handling buffer zones broadly? [41:36] Michael Goldman: You're asking whether this change is going to have any impact on the litigation? I don't see that it would. I think it is a separate issue. It was something that was already discussed, I think, several months ago last, I think maybe it was first presented by Councillor Pelletier to the committee back in November or December. It's been a little bit of a while. And at that point, the committee had discussed sort of splitting those issues and taking up this one at a separate time because it's a separate issue. So I don't, I mean, who knows what will happen enduring in that litigation but I don't I don't have any immediate concerns no about that okay [42:28] Pious Ali: Thank you thank you counselor and corporation council before I take on public comment I have a question for you are we making the change tonight from this committee or are we going to [42:43] Michael Goldman: Refer it to planning board right no that's a good question that this needs because it's a change to chapter 14 the land use ordinance it'll need to go back to the back to the committee I mean I'm sorry back to the planning board first and then once the planning board my understanding I think and Matt can jump in and correct me if I'm wrong is that the plan would be for the planning board to have a workshop followed by a public hearing and a vote to make a recommendation to the city council and It would come to the city council sometime at the earliest late August perhaps more likely sometime in September but sometime in the next couple of [43:32] Pious Ali: Months yeah so our vote tonight is not whether to amend it or not our vote tonight is to send it to the irrespective of how we feel individually we are voting to send it to planning board correct okay all right on that note I am going to take public comment on this item if you are here for this please raise your hand I Dave I said to [44:11] Speaker L (unidentified): Me counselor can you hear me yes great thanks I just wanted to thank the committee for taking a look at this. I think it's really important for the small businesses in the city, especially those of us that rely on nightlife. I think that 20 years is a good time to reassess the landscape of Portland in general. And there are a lot of businesses and other creative spaces that are putting a lot of effort into revitalizing some parts of the city that are not as a little lackluster, you know, Congress Street for me being one of them for sure, and taking down some barriers that were put up at a different time for a different reason. Again, I just want to say how appreciative I am of the committee for taking a look at things like this, and I'm hopeful that we can continue to look at other barriers that don't make so much sense anymore. So again, thank you, and I'm looking forward to bringing even more life to the city and looking forward to other entertainment venues [45:29] Pious Ali: around the area. Thank you. Thank you, George. Yes. [45:44] George Roe: Can you hear me? Yeah, okay, thank you. So I wasn't necessarily going to speak on this, but since I'm here, I have my two cents. So I'm in favor of this being removed. I do think that Corporation Council should make it very clear exactly what part of city code requires you to send this back to the planning board. I think that as a general rule, we have, you know, have a planning board for a reason and we, you know, put things in front of it as a way of, you know, feeling comfortable that the community is weighing in on land use issues, but I do not think it's required. The city charter certainly doesn't require it. And I think that the city council has the right to remove things from the planning board and go directly to the city council if it so chooses. So I think that should be made clear, if not just for this, but for future reference. You can speed things up if you want to. But the main issue I do think it could certainly be used against you in the litigation with Live Nation or the formerly known as Live Nation venue because, you know, I think having a concentration of entertainment in an urban area is exactly what every downtown in the world on the planet attempts to do. I mean, that's the whole point of an urban center is you have a lot going on in a very concentrated area in that, you know, kind of creates its own weather and creates a lot of activity and interest and people flood in to take advantage of it, hopefully for the right reasons. reasons. But you're basically in one instance saying concentration and too much activity is bad. The infrastructure of downtown doesn't support it, can't handle it. It's going to impact parking and quality of life and blah,. And then here you're saying we've had a stupid rule for 20 years that barely made sense 20 years ago. And I don't actually think conditions have changed very much. I think it was just a ham-handed way of dealing with one or two blocks of the old port, Wharf Street, and you applied a stupid rule to many,, many blocks because you didn't want to be accused of just treating Wharf Street basically as one problem. You wanted to pretend you were dealing with a city-wide or a peninsula-wide issue. So let's get rid of the rule. That's fine. As fast as possible, frankly. But recognize you are basically arguing two different things, which is we want as much activity as the market can generate, small business owners out there, working with landlords, finding space, bringing in artists, creating nightlife, creating lots of reasons for people to flood into downtown on a Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday night, or on a weeknight. And that's good. If we succeed, we collectively succeed, we have a thriving downtown. But on the other hand, somewhere else, you're saying something very different. So I think you do need to reconcile that. Thank you. [49:04] Pious Ali: Thank you, Mr. Rowe. Who is next? Let me see. Mr. McDoug? [49:19] Speaker M (unidentified): Yes. Hi. Thanks, Chair, Ellie, Councilors Michniewicz and Councilor Sykes. Thank you, too. And city staff, thank you as well. I own Cocktail Marion, 3D Market Street, and I'm in full support of removing the buffer zone. And I wrote this down so I could get all my points across. This is really fundamentally about keeping young people in Portland and bringing more of them here. The workers the city needs are in their 20s and 30s, and they don't pick a place on jobs alone. They pick it on whether or not it's alive at night. A downtown that goes dark at night loses them to Boston and Portsmouth, and it works the other way too. At the old cocktail area, we regularly had people drive up from Portsmouth and Boston just for parties, spending their money here. Nightlife doesn't just keep people here, it brings people here. The peninsula is small, and the eligible drones are even smaller. A 100-foot rule takes a big share of possible locations off the table, while we have empty storefronts downtown that the city's trying to fill. This ordinance keeps usable space dark for no benefit. It hits our artists directly. Fewer venues means fewer stages. Portland has a real community of DJs, musicians, and drag performers, many right on the edge of making a living from their art, and we're bleeding that talent to bigger cities that simply have more spaces to perform. Every venue this buffer blocks is a paycheck a local artist never gets. And I'll say plainly who these spaces serve. For the queer community, the dance floor has always been one of our oldest and safest places to gather. That's part of what makes a city welcoming to the people Portland says it wants to keep. After 30 years in this industry, here's what I also see. People are drinking less. That's healthy. I welcome it. I love it. Entertainment programming is the revenue stream that keeps a modern venue alive without leaning on alcohol. And this buffer stone restricts exactly that. The concerns behind the rule, noise, safety, crowds at closing, Portland already handles those by business through licensing, noise ordinance, and public safety standards. My own venue's proof. We're on the second floor. We have full sound modification plan in place, staffed doors, operating responsibly right downtown, everything required to be a big a good neighbor, ready the moment we can actually get licensed. Please remove the buffer zone. My community lost significant money during this pride month because I wasn't able to hire drag queens and DJs to perform for my community, so this isn't just an issue of, you know, keeping downtown quiet. It's also genuinely an issue of employing people in the arts in the city of Portland. And I'm very excited to and willing to and cannot wait until I can start doing it again. Thank you for your time. [51:51] Pious Ali: Thank you. Isaac, did you say, is it McDougal? Yes. Okay. Thank you. You the next person on the public side is Creative Portland. Hello. [52:14] Dina Minett: This is Dina Minett, director of Creative Portland, and I came here today because Creative Portland recently launched a new experimental pilot program called Third Wednesdays to complement our First Friday Artwork Walk program. And the purpose of it is to attract visitors, patrons, tourists to the Congress Street Corridor in the Arts District. And we're trying it on a Wednesday afternoon, evening, where we're hiring bands, musicians to perform, as well as artist pop-ups and even sort of kid-friendly family, face painters, balloon twisting artists, that kind of thing. So what we did in the 500 concentrated block or two block area of Congress Street is we literally went to each property owner and business owner in that area and talked to them about our plans. And we had a very sort of enthusiastic response and a willingness to even help sponsor and to help us pay for some of the musicians to perform. And subsequently after working with parks and rec to discover that if I mounted some of the bands on private property, then maybe I could avoid some of the hassle for the city. So we wanted to keep it as easy as possible, as streamlined as possible, only to discover after getting permission from the 511 Congo Street plaza poor property work out any time you know you get the idea all the businesses around us including Arcadia who has the entertainment license bad neighbors escape room subway mecca space art department, art shop, everybody was in on it. And then we were told, no, you can't have the band perform in the plaza. Even though it was only for a couple of, you know, it was a very short period of time. And I asked about, you know, the question of, can you give us a waiver for a land use ordinance for this to do this summer? Because we're in position to activate and we've booked all the bands, were all ready to go, and the answer was they didn't believe so. We could ask Matthew Grooms that today, I suppose, but I just wanted to say that we're trying to activate and revitalize the area by hiring musicians and local artists to do something fun and to work with the property owners and businesses who are supporting it and not asking the city for cash or an investment to do that. So we hope that, you know, this hundred foot buffer, you know, will go away very soon. Three minutes, it sounds like, as our counselor said, it will be at least till August or September until it even can come up for [55:33] Heidi McCarthy: a vote. All [55:36] Pious Ali: right, thank you. The recovery team members have any other comment or question? And council ability, are you too [55:48] Speaker K (unidentified): Okay, council ability, thank you, chair. Yeah, I so first just to address Mr. Rose comments, I'm not going to demean his listening skills, so I won't. But I did bring these together as one because the reason for enacting the large venue buffer zone was to prevent a large amount of traffic from being concentrated in one space. And I brought it paired with the 100-foot buffer, getting rid of that, because I want to spread that out, dilute the traffic. This is not about not bringing people to Portland. This is about spreading out the impact. So, you know, I want to make sure that 's on the record. And, you know, I think any good lawyer would recognize that. And I would also like to know if there is a way in the short term that staff can provide waivers. You know, I think that whether it's per event or for a short amount of time, I think that, you know, a lot of people are running into this right now, as we've heard. And so if there is a way that, whether with our permission or, you know, frankly, I think it would be fine if they just did it. If that's possible, that would be great to know. Thank you, Chancellor. [57:18] Matthew Grooms: Matthew, go ahead. Yeah. So just to answer that specific question. So the 100-foot buffer requirement, it's in the land use code as a zoning requirement. So in that case, the planning authority nor the planning board actually has the jurisdiction to waive the requirement. It would technically have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. [57:42] Speaker K (unidentified): Chair, do you mind if I ask a follow-up? Go ahead. So that is to provide an entertainment license. License is there like another thing that we could call a license that would allow music to be played, you know, is there any way that like we could, you know, if a waiver isn't it, we could do a temporary event license or something like that would, you know, sort of go around, you know, the current, the current structure. Yeah, it's a good question. [58:28] Matthew Grooms: I actually I don't have the answer to that off the top of my head. We could follow up with the permitting inspections team to see if there's any kind of temporary event license or some other workaround that could work in that instance, but unfortunately I don't have that information. [58:43] Speaker K (unidentified): Okay, it would be great. I feel like I've been asking this, but I have not asked you for a few months. So, if we could put a little bit of speed on that, would be great because, you know, people have been asking about this and I think it would be a great middle ground, especially while businesses are trying to, you know, capitalize on the tourist season. So, thank you. [59:07] Heidi McCarthy: Thank you, Chair. [59:10] Sarah Michniewicz: Chair, and to Councilor Pelletier's questions, this is a discussion that I've had with licensing permitting, and I believe this is why Corp Council has raised his hand as well. He'll probably chime in. So yes, there are single event licenses that are available. A business can get up to five of them per year, and those are also subject to the 100-foot buffer, but because that lives in licensing in chapter four it was we I had some discussions about whether that the buffer could be removed on that through chapter four without going through the planning board and the opinion like from licensing and planning and I believe again this is I'll counsel weigh in on that but that because it was a that it could go through the committee instead of going to planning my again that's one of those where i actually would i 'd be interested in maybe exploring that but i think if that were removed there would need to be some stricter language about noise violations simply because, you know, folks who are doing a single event, they may not know how to mitigate sound as well. And I just think it would behoove us to make sure that those events don't become more problematic if we were to consider this. But I'll let Corp Counsel take over. [1:00:50] Pious Ali: Thank you, Counselor. [1:00:53] Michael Goldman: Thank you, Counselor. No, I don't, I won't take over. A couple things I wanted to say. One, I guess, is in response to the question about litigation, and I don't want to comment any more on the litigation than necessary right now, but I can't promise it's not something that won't come up in the litigation, but I do think that the two situations are distinguishable, and Councillor Pelletier makes a good point about the impact it might have, the positive impact of spreading travel. So with that said, whether or not it might come up in the litigation is yet to be determined months down the road. So I just wanted to qualify that statement. The other issue in response to authority to make changes to the land use code, there's two provisions that require this to go to the planning board first, Because the 100-foot buffer is already in the land use ordinance, 30A section, it's titled this in statute. There's provisions in state statute and also in our own ordinance that require this process. process, but 30A MRS section 4352 requires planning board to provide notice for any amendments to land use codes and hold a hearing before making a recommendation for the legislative body. So that's something that's in state law. There's also a provision in our own land use code, which is in Section 2, it's Chapter 14, Section 2.1.10G, which governs the jurisdiction of the planning board and makes it clear that their job is to make recommendations to the city council for amendments to the land use code. So those are the two reasons why it has to go to the planning board first and is not something that the council can just change on its own. In the end, the planning board might not recommend it and it doesn't mean that the council can't adopt a change that the planning board has recommended against, but it does go through that process. process. And then the other issue about amending the another section of the code. There's nothing right now in the city code that provides staff or the city council to waive this requirement. It is going to require at the very least some change to the city code. So, you know, is it possible to create some additional kind of license that doesn't, you know, that isn't entertainment and you could put that into Chapter 4 or another provision of the land use code so it's not considered? What's currently in the land use code, the 100-foot bumper, applies to something that's defined as entertainment businesses. And entertainment businesses includes anything that has an entertainment license under Chapter 4. And so, you know, can you create some new kind of permit or license for the purposes you're talking about in order to avoid the 100-foot buffer? And, you know, I think, you know, there might be a way to do that. It seems unnecessary given that this process is sort of already moving forward. forward. But that would require an ordinance change. It also feels to me like it has the potential to be viewed as an end run around the provisions in Chapter 14. So I'm happy to answer questions about that. But I think I've answered some of the questions that came up. If I missed anything, let me know. [1:05:14] Heidi McCarthy: Thank you, Corporation Counselor Siles. Thank you, Chair. I recognize [1:05:21] Kate Sykes: I recognize that it's complicated, but I think that if we have a really long runway for this, and I would like to maybe get a sense of how long it would take for this to go through the planning board and then get back to council, I think it's worth it to do what Councillor McNevidge said, which is to remove the licensing requirement for a temporary event having to comply with the 100-foot buffer. if that just lives in licensing, let's just do that as a temporary fix. I worry that it's summer and there are a lot of, you know, it's just hard to get meetings, right? This could go on until October. And so if we could do it quickly, it's worth it, but I don't have a way to kind of gauge that. [1:06:09] Pious Ali: Thank you. Dina, you [1:06:18] Heidi McCarthy: know, we can't hear you. You are muted. This is something we did explore [1:06:22] Dina Lipner: briefly before this meeting with Corporation Council on Permitting and Inspections and talked about whether or not a direct amendment to Chapter 6 would meaningfully expedite this process. And the difference in terms of when it would be enacted is about two weeks, two to four weeks, maybe, max. So it's the difference between something being enacted in mid to late August versus at best late August to mid-September. So that's the difference it would make. Okay, thank you. [1:07:01] Pious Ali: Thank you, Dina. Matthew, and then Councilor Pelletier. [1:07:09] Matthew Grooms: Yeah, I just wanted to speak really quickly to the planning board process. I think from our standpoint, this wouldn't take all that long to get onto an agenda. I think, as was mentioned previously, this would go the route of going to a planning board workshop up to gauge the board's, you know, comfort with any such amendment or any, you know, understand if there's any additional research that needs to be done. I know Councilor Michniewicz also mentioned some research that she'd like to see done as part of any text amendment that then could presumably go fairly quickly to a public hearing. And so in terms of overall timeline, I think we're estimating this would take maybe two months with the planning board and then, of course, being referred to the city council. So the council would likely see any amendment to Chapter 14 on this topic sometime early in the fall. Thank you, Matthew. [1:08:01] Speaker K (unidentified): Councilor Politi. Dina, is that math for council, including suspending the rules and bringing an amendment from the floor? It is. Yeah. So next month, don't we have a meeting next month? Yep. Mid-July. Mid-July. So if we brought, so hypothetically saying we get the votes, bring it to the floor, pass this emergency, it goes into effect immediately. Wouldn't that be, I don't know. [1:08:35] Dina Lipner: Sure. One of the things that we don't have an order before us right now, so we know generally that there's interest in expediting the process so that businesses can operate sooner than late August. That's the policy direction we have, and I think it's going to take potentially more, another meeting in HEDC to actually review and discuss the proposed amendment. [1:09:04] Speaker K (unidentified): To do the process right. But if we don't, then there's a way to get it done. Okay, well, I just wanted to make sure we were, we were clear about the timeline. Thanks. Sure. Thank you. Is. [1:09:19] Pious Ali: There. Is there any other question, comments, discussion? Say none. May I have a motion and a second? So moved. Sorry, second. I'm asking for a motion and a second. And Councillor McNeill moved it. And I hope you second it. [1:10:04] Kate Sykes: I'm sorry, Chair. I seconded it. I don't know if you're waiting for me. Councillor Sykes. [1:10:09] Pious Ali: Seconded by Councillor Sykes. I am going to call the roll. Councillor Michniewicz? Yes. Councillor Sykes? Yes. And I am a yes. I think the next item on the agenda, which is the last item on the agenda, is for us to discuss and make possible amendment to the Judicial Housing Trans Fund so that we can expand what we use it for to include housing assistance for residents, for example, eviction prevention and security deposit assistance. Thank. [1:10:56] Dina Lipner: You. This was included on the, on the committee work plan as one of the council common goals that came out of the goal planning process at the start of this year. If it's okay with you in the committee, Mary might be able to offer some general information about the housing trust fund to start the conversation. [1:11:18] Pious Ali: Mary, go ahead. [1:11:24] Mary Davis: Thank you, Chair. So as Dina mentioned, this item is before you because it was part of the council common goal setting process this year. And staff put together a memo and some information in your packet that just gives an overview of the current ordinance that governs the housing trust fund, as well as some information on where revenue has been generated up to date in the trust fund, as well as the expenditures made out of the trust fund. So just as a brief high-level overview, the Josie Doosan Housing Trust Fund is established in the city ordinance and specifically in chapter 14 section 17.3.1 and it outlines two purposes for the fund one is to encourage creation retention and promotion of sufficient housing supply specifically affordable housing and that's supposed to be across all economic groups, while also restricting the net loss of housing units. The second purpose is to meet the housing requirements for moderate, low, and very low income residents. Those terms are defined in the land use code and in the backup I've kind of given you an overview or fact sheet of the trust fund, which outlines what those terms mean. I'll just briefly describe it. Very low income is 50% of area median income or below. Low income would be 80% area median income and moderate income is 120% of area median income. income. To assist with your discussion tonight, we looked at how the trust fund is administered. That's done by an annual plan that the council adopts. The city manager in the code, the city manager is responsible for that plan, and the manager's Office has made the Housing and Economic Development Department sort of the lead in preparing that plan for council review and approval. The plan outlines the specific uses of the fund and what types of projects or programs would be funded. it. Looking at a history of the trust fund, primary revenue sources to date have been inclusionary zoning, both the regular IZ and hotel IZ fee and lieu payments, the housing replacement ordinance fees, and direct allocations from the city council. The staff memo outlines sort of a comprehensive review of all of the sources that have contributed to the housing trust fund and what those balances are. It would be important to note that of the 5.6 million in council allocations, 4.8 of that came from American Rescue Plan funds. So that was a one-time special allocation. IZ fee and lieu revenues are deposited when a project is built and completed and prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued. The most recent hotel IZ fee was paid in 2025 and the regular IZ the most recent payment was received in 2024. We haven't received a fee from the Housing Replacement Ordinance since 2012. To date, the use of the Housing Trust Fund has primarily been to leverage financing for projects in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. And primarily it's been used for new rental units. There is also a memo in the backup that lists the expenditures and allocations that have been made from the trust fund. In addition, I thought it would also be helpful for the committee to have a brief overview of other sources that the city uses to make these types of housing assistance payments. In starting with the fiscal year 2013 and 2014, the council began allocating a portion of the city's annual home program grant for tenant based rental assistance. We called that the TBRA program. The program mirrors Main Housing Stability Through Engagement or STEP program and is overseen by the City's Social Service Division. It provides short-term rental assistance and security deposit payments. Over the past 14 years, the program has supported 1,293 households and annual program allocations have ranged from $132,246 to $200,000. Eligibility for home TBRA is limited to households earning 80 percent of the area median income. The another resource is one that you're all probably very familiar with, that's the General Assistance program. Through General Assistance, the city can offer eviction prevention and housing support specifically for extremely low income households. Eligibility is capped at maximum monthly incomes which are adjusted for household size. To give you a reference, the 2025 maximum income for a one-person household was one thousand five hundred and seventeen dollars per month and one thousand seven hundred and twenty one dollars for a two-person household per month. As reported in the Health and Human Services Department annual report, the program provided rental assistance to 1047 households during 2025 and that funding totaled a little over $4 million. GEA doesn't typically cover security deposits, but in 2025, 198 deposits were provided at a cost of just under $210,000. The Health and Human Services Department has another source of funding that they use. I believe it's a relatively new funding program from Maine Housing. It's called Housing Problem Solving Program. The city just recently received an allocation of $208,000, and that funding is used to assist individuals who are currently homeless or at imminent risk of losing their housing and can be used for a variety of needs, including security deposits, rental application fees, housing or utility payment assistance. And the funds can also be used for transportation, moving expenses or minor home or unit repairs. pairs. During calendar year 2025, deposits into the Housing Trust Fund totaled $461,712. And that came from three sources. $113,291 came from short-term rental registration fees. So those are fees that are after permitting and inspections deducts all the costs associated with administering the short-term rental registration program. Any fees remaining are deposited into the trust fund. And the other sources for 2025 came from a $70,000 hotel IZ payment and approximately $276,000 in condo conversion fees. To date, in the 2026, the fund has received only one payment, that was $76,498 through a condo conversion fee, which was received in June. June. The trust fund has a current balance of $2.9 million under the 2026 housing trust fund annual plan, which the council adopted on March 2nd. A total of $2.4 million was appropriated for use in 2026 and that includes 1.9 million for housing development and 500 000 for to maintain a minimum balance in the fund that leaves us with an unappropriated balance for 2026 of just a little over 500 000. with the release of the 2026 affordable housing development and tax increment financing application. We've received to date two applications which were are seeking a combined 1.7 million in housing trust fund funding. Those projects are currently being reviewed and or underwritten and would be coming to the committee at a later date if they if they successfully pass through the review and underwriting process. So in addition to any amendments that the council may consider or the committee may consider to the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance, the council may want to also consider the revenue sources and the stream of revenue that goes into the fund and the priorities in which it makes allocations from those revenue sources. I'm happy to answer any questions or be available during your discussion. [1:22:45] Pious Ali: Thank you, Mary. Does any committee member have questions for Mary? Councilor Sattis. [1:23:00] Kate Sykes: Mary, thank you so much for this really thorough overview of different funding sources that are coming from social services and sort of what the trust fund is made up of and why, and why it exists. I think it's really important that we have a solid understanding of these different things because it can often be difficult. We can lose sight of the big picture. And so this for me really clarifies a couple of things. One, that this is largely a question of whether or not we think the Housing Trust Fund is a capital fund or if it is a social service fund. And knowing, like having read the actual ordinance language and the purpose of the fund, and knowing how little funding we have for actually creating housing supply, I cannot support using this fund for one-time expenses, even if it is to unlock housing for someone that has a voucher. That's just not creating housing supply. It's helping one person or one family, which is really important, but that's to me not what this fund is set up for. And we have so desperately little money to do that kind of work with that I think losing that could be, it would be a real loss. I think in some ways this is a question that we should be considering after the social housing Task Force comes back with its recommendations and talks to the council about how to move forward with social housing. Because I think at that point, we may be looking at the creation of a different kind of fund to fund housing supply. But right now, this is all we have. And it's really desperately needed. So I don't think right now it's a good idea to tinker with that, but I would be supportive of having that conversation later on down the line if we decide we're going to start bonding for housing or doing other things. [1:25:17] Pious Ali: Thank you. Chancellor [1:25:21] Sarah Michniewicz: Nicknewitt. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I mean, there's a few things coming down the road that might affect both, could affect the amount that's going into the fund and the uses that we want to apply it to. You know, I, just looking over the list of what it has been used for, one of the things that stood out to me was the, down payment assistance. It looks like that was only used for 60 Parish Street. Is that correct? Have there been other instances where it's been used for that? Sorry, [1:25:57] Mary Davis: couldn't find that unmute button. Yes, it was only used that one time in relation to that particular project. And I believe it was due to a change in how the affordable sales price was calculated under inclusionary zoning, and it created a gap and a difference that the city, in the transition of making that change, it was created and the city helped to fill the gap. [1:26:38] Sarah Michniewicz: Okay, so it's not something that is typically done or would typically be used for going forward? Okay, because that's the one thing that stood out to me is a little bit different than its typical uses. And I think that can be a legitimate use. I mean, if we're creating lower price, lower income condos, the down payment piece is a struggle for a lot of people. So I can see a use case for that. That, you know, I do think there's a lot of value in diversion and in rental assistance and, you know, keeping people from falling into homelessness in the first place, you know, it's just much more expensive, so I, but, you know, the, where the funding can come from for that, you know, it's, what other sources are you aware of for things like, for rental assistance? Assistance? [1:27:34] Mary Davis: Well, primarily just the ones that were included in the staff memo. I spoke with staff from Health and Human Services and talked with them about where the resources come from that they use, and those were the ones that we identified. Yeah, and there was a significant [1:27:57] Sarah Michniewicz: amount available during the pandemic or at least it was a focus on that and I guess I am I am kind of curious you know what the statistics tell us about how many people were kind of prevented if you can even tell that from coming almost in the first place and to better understand what would be potential uses for the housing trust fund but yeah I mean I think I think there is room to play with it, but until we do know more about what we might potentially be have coming into it, 's a little bit hard to make a judgment. You know, if changes were made to IZ where you're getting less into it and the fund isn't as big and robust, maybe it's not going to be necessary as much if we, you know, move forward on some other, something like social housing. But it also may be, you know, just not the volume of cash that we would need to give some of the bigger awards that we have in the past few years. So I guess on the whole, I'm not feeling like this is a huge rush to change because of those factors. Yeah, that's where I'm at. Thank you, Councillor. [1:29:11] Pious Ali: Mary, Gina, do you think you have enough information from us to move this forward? [1:29:17] Dina Lipner: It sounds like [Heidi McCarthy: it doesn't sound] from the feedback I've heard from the committee that there's interest in moving it forward at this time [1:29:28] Pious Ali: Okay, so thank you for bringing it forward anyway. I think it was part of the council's work, so we'll discuss it, we'll check it out on out. I don't think we have any other thing on the agenda. On that note, we have, oh, are you guys willing to meet twice in July? What's [Sarah Michniewicz: the other date] We don't have a date yet. I will work with you. Do you have a date opening [1:30:09] Dina Lipner: up our working calendar right now because I did also want to give the full committee and any attendees who might be here an update on how the work plan has changed for the rest of the year. Okay, right now the next meeting is scheduled for July 21st, so there's one meeting in July that's on the books. There's no meeting scheduled for August. There's one in September and two in October. That was the major scheduling change that's been, that we worked on with the chair recently, and that's to accommodate three IZ workshops or work sessions. Those would take place on October 6th, October 20th, and November 17th. [1:31:05] Pious Ali: Would that work with committee members? Members and Councillor Sykes, I know that the IZ is something that you care about. So when I look at the dates that we have available, I want you to participate because after that meeting, I don't think there's any other, well, there might be if we chose to, but Thanksgiving is also on the calendar. So that will make it possible for you to participate. I value your input. [1:31:44] Kate Sykes: I am good with all of those dates. When is election day? November something. [1:31:52] Pious Ali: Is it a second November or the first Tuesday or the second Tuesday in November? [1:32:05] Dina Lipner: It's going to be on November 3rd, I believe. Yeah. [1:32:12] Kate Sykes: Well, I'll catch you for the first two meetings. [1:32:17] Dina Lipner: And I don't think it would be the first time. Sorry to staff. It's not going to be the first time if we have to that we would schedule something in the first week of December. [1:32:27] Pious Ali: In case of an emergency, right, so let's keep what we have now, Dina, and then if there's the need, I'm sure by the second meeting in October we will know if there's a need for us to add another. Will that work for committee members? It [1:32:48] Kate Sykes: works for me. I just have a question. I have on my calendar that we have a meeting or we have a possible meeting on July 14th. Is that no longer something? Oh, sorry, that's HHS. Never mind. Sorry. Yeah. [1:33:05] Dina Lipner: Just to give also so that everyone is aware of how, what the work plan looks like for the rest of the year. There's a lot on it. In July, among other things, there's going to be a discussion of amendments to the rent control ordinance to strengthen enforcement, consider policy to enhance public support for the arts. In September we'll continue that. Oh, there will be a conversation about considering regulating parking lot advertisement and pricing disclosure requirements, and on October 6th there will be discussion about recommending regulations or restrictions related to data center development to the planning board, similar to the recommendation that was just made about entertainment buffers, and there are several other things coming down the pipe too, so it looks like a very busy second half of the year. Could you send the committee [1:34:03] Kate Sykes: just a schedule that would be great, just to be able to see when that's all happening? Sure, that's [1:34:16] Heidi McCarthy: it from me, chair. Thanks for the time. Oh, thank you. [1:34:21] Kate Sykes: I have one more agenda item. I just want to say that I think Mary's nails look really great tonight, and I know I won't see you before the Fourth of July, so I think they're perfect [1:34:34] Sarah Michniewicz: for the Independence Day holiday, so thank you. Can you hold them up, Mary, just for those of us who [1:34:42] Pious Ali: haven't seen them? Oh, thank you. Very nice. Happy 250th birthday to all of us. May I have a motion into agenda? Second. I'm moved by Councillor Sykes, second by Councillor McNewis. Councillor McNewis? Yes. Councillor Sykes? Yes. And I am a yes. See you all at the fireworks. All right, good night. Good night.