Bangor committee weighs Ohio Street zoning change, central kitchen funding

[0:06] Joseph Leonard: Very live, all right, good evening everybody. Today is January 21st, 2026, it is seven o'clock. This is the Business Economic Development Committee. I am Councillor Leonard, I will be chairing this committee. Committee members are going to be Counselors Carson, Fish, Mallor, and Faloon. We also have around the table Council Chair Haas, we have a Community Economic Director and Greek, we have Counselor Beck, we have Counselor Walker, and we have Counselor Dean. And the first item that we have on our list is regarding annual reports and we only have one to go over the cultural commission. Yep, you've done the previous other ones that are required [0:56] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): to be done every year, so the cultural commission, just briefly, you know, they held their grant program, they do have a work, a proposed work plan about, you know, reviewing applications. They are going to discuss the comments that the council had previously given about the grant program at their February meeting, because at their January meeting they had a quorum but they didn't, they wanted to discuss it when more of the members were there, so they're going to do that at the February meeting, so I'll come back at a February ED meeting with their recommendations, and they're also going to be working on their, you know, looking at other grant funding opportunities for public art and working on their required five-year vision lives. [1:59] Joseph Leonard: Any questions for Director Creek? Okay, oh yes, counselor, just clever equation question. [2:09] Speaker D (unidentified): is this the committee that is in charge of taking the inventory of what the art did they make a mention of the current status of that in their report it's a project they want [2:24] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): to take on this year. They're just worried a little bit about capacity of the commissioner, commissioners to be able to do it and, you know, to get it done this year, so they may kind of take it over a two-year period be able to get it done. Yes. [2:42] Joseph Leonard: Unless there are any other questions or comments for Director Krieg, we do need a request to move this to Council, correct? So I'll take a motion if anyone has one. I have a motion to everybody, second, unless doubted this will move forward. So for this next item, I'll just the council and participants in the room, so what we're going to be doing is we're going to be having introductory information delivered by Director Krieg first and foremost. If any counselors have any questions regarding some of the information that Director Krieg has brought forward, feel free to ask them. If there are no other questions, I want to open up the public comment for some citizens to up on this topic. I will say that I will have a timer right here, and I'll give citizens three minutes. I'll put my hand up when you have 30 seconds left. left. Okay, I'll let you try to wrap up as much as possible. I'm going to be cognizant of time. And I will say the planning board had a bit more of you, but I did hear all your comments. I really do appreciate the information that you relate there very much. And would you like to take it away? [4:10] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): Yeah, thank you. So the request is to amend the land development limit code to remove Ohio Street, and State Street from the minor arterial street definition, and add Ohio Street to the major arterial definition. So this came about with a request for potential development. So that happens often, we'll meet with a developer at a staff level, and you know, work with them and you know, whatever their project might be and it may end up needing a you know a zoning change or a land development code change and so we try to take a look and see like what makes sense look at the comprehensive plan just for guidance and make a recommendation so that's kind of how this got started and in your packet i provided the anya colette who is on vacation this week it's not here but she had provided a slideshow presentation to a planning board that i put in your packet and i also did because it's something that we hadn't done for newer or counselors is i put in a memo just reviewing the process of how land development code gets changed because it is different than other code changes and other types of work that you do so i just wanted to be sure you understood that so the bottom line with these changes is we throughout the throughout the land development code there are certain uses that are confined find two different types of roadways. It's a way to, you know, to say, well, this use may not work in this whole neighborhood, but it would work if it was on this road. And so that's how we use those terms in our land development code. So I think if it organizes it best, and either the staff memo, or on this slide where it says what does this change do, so in certain districts URD1 to LDR, low density residential and high density residential, it would add nursing homes for example, and so it goes down through the list of what it adds, like in the rural district it just adds sale of farm products in OH, and also private schools, sorry, and recreational uses in the RNA, so it does add some uses to different districts that happen to be on that road. So we also gave you a map so that you could kind of see like where everything would go. So because it changed such a large, you know, swath of the city with Ohio Street, most notably, we did do a notification of everybody owned property, and there are butters on Ohio Street. So you know, so there were a lot of comments that were in your packet. So staff is here to answer, I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. [7:41] Joseph Leonard: Does anyone have any initial questions for Director Krieg? [7:45] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. Not on the committee, but if I could ask a question. Of course, yes. When this was brought to our attention, I believe we asked, were there any negative effects of changing it? And it sounded like everything was a pro, not a con, but residents have brought some concerns to the table that we were not advised about. So I wish we had more information prior to this, but in the future, I think we should know pros and cons in order to make a decision so we don't get a better response until we do [8:16] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): the notification to planning board. So what we could do is when we do the notification about the planning board meeting and we get responses, we could make sure those go into your next packet [8:29] Speaker E (unidentified): so you'll have that earlier. I kind of feel like we were a little bit blindsided, it's not like a great idea at least to me, and then all of a sudden you see what the cons are about changing [8:41] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): it to a right major material. Yeah, but we didn't receive those until we do that notification, which happens before or after the initial bed meeting that we have with you, yes. [8:56] Carolyn Fish: Counselor Fish. Yeah, I think that, Counselor Dean, too, at that last bed, I did specifically ask had we had any feedback from residents, and we were told, you know, no. But I think that, so I assume they had been notified. So I think that I felt that residents knew. And or, you know, I know a lot of times you have to go to the city website. Sometimes residents aren't aware because I think the city could do better in communicating, especially when things are serious. But I had assumed they had some type of notification and, you know, and then just, you know, we're fine with it. And then this past week as well, then I guess after that meeting, they were notified. So again, I think there was either a misunderstanding or a miscommunication that I had made the conclusion that they had been reformed and they were okay with it. And then all of a sudden, you know, I too was contacted with a lot of people. And I too thought that there weren't many negative impacts, but after talking to some residents and them explaining to me how it would impact them [10:05] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): I feel differently about that. Yeah, so maybe what we can do is I'm trying to think of threshold, but we can come up with a threshold of before we take things to BED D or the formal process that we have a workshop. Yeah, and we notify because this again people weren't notified until we did the hearing notification. So but we can look at doing more [10:37] Joseph Leonard: workshops. Absolutely. Okay, is it discussion related or is it regarding the introduction? I think it's discussion. Okay, well, we'll hold off on that then because I do want to give citizens their public comments. So unless there's any other questions regarding the information that we had before, I guess mine probably is because I think [11:08] Wayne Mallar: I think it's very confusing to the average person, I assume I'm half-adject anyone, reading this and we're removing Ohio Street and State Street and then adding Ohio to the other. State Street was a correction. I think it should have been a separate item because it's too confusing. [11:30] Joseph Leonard: So we'll bring that up in the discussion. Yes, I do want to actually. Okay. Okay. Unless there's anything else, I'm gonna open up the public comment. And again, you have three minutes and I will give you a hand wave at 30 seconds to let you know, okay? But unless there's any other comments, public comments open. Oh, and please state your name and I know it sounds silly, but like where you live as well. [12:07] Public Commenters (Joe Pratt, Paul Paskman): My name is Joe Pratt. I'm a Bangor resident, and the recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Council is that this change ought not to pass. During the public comment portion of the Planning Board meeting, no one spoke to support this change. Everyone spoke to oppose it. In all the materials presented to the committee tonight, no one from the public is in support of this change. So why is there so much opposition to the change? One, Ohio Street does not meet the Land Development Code definition of a major arterial street. It does not have daily traffic in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day. According to the Maine Department of Transportation and city staff, Ohio Street has less than this volume of traffic, so it does not meet this definition. Also, Ohio Street does not contain more than two lanes, travel lanes. From downtown to Glenburn, it only has two travel lanes, so it does not meet this definition. A December 18 letter from the city contained a list of 11 uses that the letter described as currently not allowed on Ohio Street. This is not true. Those uses are allowed. This handout shows 11 current uses that exist on Ohio Street right now that have been there for years and by their presence it demonstrates that they are in fact allowed. The letter also says that the proposed change would allow new uses. What new uses? As this list demonstrates these uses already exist and most of them have been in place for years. years. There's already a process in place to approve new uses and it has been in place for years. The development and new uses have been approved using the existing planning board and city council review and approval process. That process has been in place for years. Also, changing Ohio Street would destroy the little bit of residential feel that still remains. In conclusion, Ohio Street does not meet the definition of a major arterial street. The so-called not allowed uses already exist. The process to approve new uses already exists traffic issues can be addressed by addressing them on parallel existing major arterial streets and adding 10 000 vehicles per day to ohio street would certainly change the residential feel of the neighborhood thank you thank you very much thank [15:28] Joseph Leonard: you jeffrey [15:29] Public Commenter (Forney): Forney, I live at [address]. I'm opposed to this, and I had submitted public comment as well, written and verbal, to the planning board. I repeat, I don't want to repeat some of those points because I think that, but it is worth mentioning that it just is demonstrably false that Ohio Street, as a matter of fact, meets the general definition of major arterial. It's defined specifically in the code. It has to meet two conditions. It has to meet a traffic volume condition of an annual average daily traffic of 10,000 or more vehicles, and I did supply carbon transportation data on that point as Exhibit A in the written submissions that I put to the planning board. You can actually see that some of the traffic volumes have actually decreased over the time. So not only does it currently not meet that traffic volume definition, but traffic volume on Ohio Street has diminished. So it's unclear why the staff presentation said that it met some or all of the conditions for major arterial when it doesn't meet any of them. There was some issue from staff suggesting that direct farm sales would be an advantage in changing from minor to major arterial on Ohio Street, but it's worth mentioning that already on the residential, rural residential and agricultural district, direct farm sales are already permitted on a minor arterial as long as sales are not conducted from a structure that's that's more than 500 square feet, and that's at code section 165-105c2. So that point by staff is, I don't quite understand because if that was an issue that they wanted to permit direct farm sales, that's already permitted in part along Ohio Street in that zoning district. Staff also mentioned, I think there's some confusion on this, there was discussion about how some legally non-conforming uses would be brought into conformity, but this code already makes clear that if you have a legally non-conforming use, that is a use that preceded a zoning change that then made your use legally non-conforming, that is a vested interest that you have. You're not required to change that legally non-conforming use. You continue to maintain that use. You could make changes to your property in terms of maintenance, and also you can transfer that property. So that issue is not going to be addressed by changing the definition of Ohio St. The other issue, the last one, was that, well, some of these uses are conditional and would be a discretionary decision by the planning board, but there's no reason to allow discretionary decision making function along Ohio St. That would potentially more likely change the character when I think staff admits that since there's no expansion project for Ohio Street, why would you allow any kind of decision making to extend the traffic volume on Ohio Street, which you can't currently maintain? So for those reasons, among others, in the written submission, I'm against the change in definition. Thank you. Thank you, sir. [19:09] Public Commenter (John Schneck) / Joseph Leonard: My name is John Schneck. I live at [address]. I'm a four-term former state rep and I'm currently a member of the Liquor and Lottery Commission. I don't want to rehash what everybody's already said and what we said at the planning board meeting, but you know, one of the things that came up at the planning board meeting is that this proposal is about two streets. It's, it's about Ohio Street, about State Street, and the street that really concerns this problem is State Street. And we were told at that meeting that the proposal can't be split. It has to go back to the drawing board and come back as either two proposals or just State Street. And after four terms in the legislature, I've learned one thing for sure. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And there's no problem here. Nobody brought this problem to the city. We don't need to make this change for Ohio Street. Let's fix State Street, get it in order, and we'll all be happy. Thank you. Thank you, John. [20:23] Public Commenter (John Dion) / Joseph Leonard: Be sure you keep me up to that time, okay? I can be long-winded now. I'm just kidding. My name is John Dion, and I live at [address]. Street. I moved to Bangor after college in 1982. So for 44 years, even though I wasn't born here, this is home. And so anyway, initially, I was living on [street] and then Howard Street for the two of those who are on the east side for about 20 years. And then about 13 years ago, moved to outer Ohio Street. And even when I was not on Ohio Street, I always perceived or looked as Ohio Street as being primarily a residential area. And my perception has not changed because it was intended for it to continue to be a residential area. [Public Commenter (John Schneck) / Joseph Leonard: You. So I] Don't know if you all read this statement from Jeffrey. I wish you would if you haven't. There's only one thing that I disagree with on this. And this is Jeff writing, I do not represent any other person or association in this matter. I refute that. Okay, you did an excellent job in presenting a very well detailed document that speaks to truth. It speaks to facts, and so I do implore you to please review it. It's very good. 1 of the best lines that he wrote was the zoning ordinance. Governance must be in basic harmony with the comprehensive plan, you know, and that's that's our mission. That's your mission is that makes sense. One additional thought that I had today as I was thinking about this, I was a little shocked when I saw the DOT survey about the amount of traffic on Ohio Street. In certain areas, maybe up to 9,000 per day. Okay. And, of course, that's a very small area to be concerned with. And when you come up the hill off Union Street or up Hammond Street, and you come to that intersection where you have Hammond Street, Union Street, Ohio Street. That's an off ramp. That's a bypass for a lot of people to get to Union Street. And that's why you get so much traffic there. I do it myself, even though I live on that street, but sometimes I'm not even going home. And when I get to that intersection, I go up the road on Ohio Street because I don't have street lights to deal with or many and it's a it's a better scene for me and then i'll cut off into ohio's i mean union street in order to go somewheres other than home so keep that in mind that's very much part of the reason why there is a high traffic and i 've dealt with this before on howard street i lived a block and a half from eastern main medical center and the traffic from State Street cutting Across to get to Stillwater was a mess that the city dealt with a long time. And I don't know if they've really fixed it yet. But maybe, you know, having a section there that's one way at that intersection would help resolve that problem. Sir, you're welcome. [24:40] Public Commenters (Joe Pratt, Paul Paskman): My name is Paul Paskman. I live on [street], which is just off Ohio Street. Excuse me, I've been here for a long night here, my throat's getting a little dry. The Comprehensive Plan has a section of Ohio Street beyond Davis Road that is outside the growth boundary and it's labeled rural. The definition in the Comprehensive Plan on the future of land use is areas outside the growth boundary are prioritized for conservation, low density rural development. Rural residential areas are low density residential areas where open space and farmland is a primary feature of the landscape. I've lived in Bangor and I've been a resident homeowner here for 45 years and taxpayer. 30 years of that, I lived in town when the kids were grown and gone and we were looking at retirement. I met my wife and I were looking for an area where we could be that was quieter maybe had some open space more traffic and we looked around and we found this place out there changing this to a major arterial would not only be contrary to what's in the comprehensive plan it might eliminate my reason for actually living in Bangor thank you sir anyone [26:14] Public Commenter (Mary Tedesco Schneck): else would like to speak I'm Mary Tedesco Schneck I also live on [street] 2078 and I served as John Schneck's campaign manager so I'm very good at knocking on doors and you have the letter and I just want you to know that there were many people that signed that letter and support all that's been presented here and I believe I was able to get to more doors there would be additional support so I hope we'll take that into consideration thank you anyone [27:02] Joseph Leonard: else I'm [27:12] Public Commenter (Jamie Boyle): just gonna reiterate what everybody else's did I just get your name sorry, Jamie Boyle, and I am co-owner of 2377 and [address], along with my sister. So it's actually been our family farm. We were the last dairy farm in the city of Bangor. We got awarded, my dad got awarded a plaque here at City Council Chambers several years ago and we have not sold our property because we want to maintain that farmland and we want to maintain that ability to have those kind of residents in this area and so for us we don't want this to be changed because we don't want increased traffic we don't want increased businesses to come out and encroach on the farmland that we still have and there's not much left in this area so that to us is important to maintain so I guess that's I know what [28:21] Public Commenter (Meredith Smith): I'll say thank you so much. I'm the sister, I'm Meredith Smith, and I live at the farm, and I emailed you all my comments because public speaking is not my thing, but I am against it changing, and I agree with everything that's been said, so thank you. Thank you. Anyone [28:51] Joseph Leonard: else? Last chance. All right, I will be closing the public comment. I do want to actually pan it back to Councillor Mallar, the discussion regarding the separation of the state in Ohio. Do you want to retake that [29:14] Wayne Mallar: discussion? Yes, I think it's important to remove State Street from the Ohio Street issue because State Street was already listed as a major arterial. We're just correcting an error as far our State Street is concerned. Ohio Street is a different game, so I would move that we adjust amend the council action to separate the two, and I don't know how that's done, you know, I just [29:51] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): my recommendation would be to not pass the order when it goes to vote and then ask staff to prepare a new order that just does the State Street. Yeah, okay, because we under the state statute we have to, you know, notify and post the exact language, so once you're into the process the only way to make amendments is to, you know, vote it down [30:27] Joseph Leonard: and then direct staff otherwise okay so regardless of how we as a body feel tonight sounds like the best approach is going to be to motion it to council regardless of our feelings and then we can vote on it at council i 'll save my comments at the end of the committee but does any other yes council back just a clarification so i guess what happens if [30:56] Speaker D (unidentified): if it's not motion or whatever to that motion is voted down, what happens to the Sun? Does it [31:02] Joseph Leonard: just follow the foreign eye or could it be killed tonight? I mean, I assumed it would [31:09] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): be killed, but a cancel order, it doesn't have to go to the meeting of the next meeting to vote. [31:16] Daniel Carson: Yeah, because it was delayed, right? I used the point of clarification. The motion that I made was date certain on that specific order. It was to refer discussion only. I felt that we needed more discussion time on this, so I referred discussion to this committee, but the motion was date certain to bring the order as written back to council. So this is an action request that this is just [31:40] Joseph Leonard: a discussion, basically. Okay, so that clears everything up. Okay, so this is a discussion question top, so we don't need any action whatsoever tonight. Okay, any other comments? [31:54] Susan Faloon: Or questions? Yes, can you please clarify then if we vote this down? All right, I know we asked a question before, like, what are the pros and cons? So what would be the pros and cons of us voting [32:11] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): voting against this? Well, there's a potential for a recreational use on Ohio Street. That's what started this, so that would not be able to move forward. The, you know, we don't do use variances here. The uses that are out there that were listed that are may or may not be allowed out in that district, they're, they have non-conforming protection, they can stay, make some [32:41] Joseph Leonard: changes, but you know, but that's, but that's it. So this is a question, Needlepoint Sanctuary [32:51] Speaker D (unidentified): wasn't that on Ohio Street? They had to get a use variance, I thought. No, they went and did a zone change to government district. Could I guess my question would be then, you know, because that process seemed like it worked okay, and people had a chance to speak up, or his report, but wouldn't that process work for the possibility of this other project? Well, that use would, the district [33:15] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): that we would have to assign to that use would be a lot more intense, you know, and again, you know that the comprehensive plan is correct, you know, certain parts of Ohio Street are, you know, much more rural, and so, you know, that was why we had offered the idea of, well, what if we, you know, looking at the uses that would be added out there, you know, what if we just changed the arterial list to allow for that, so, the other option they have is to do a zoning change, but I probably would not recommend that for them because that would be direct, directly against the company as a plan comments [34:07] Joseph Leonard: or thoughts? So when I attended the planning board meeting, planning member Boucher, I actually brought up a, I think, a really good point in the discussion where I, it did sound like a lot of the discussion was mixing up urban and major arterials in some way, but that's beside the point. The point is, even if we were to as a body take that into consideration, the fact of the matter is the planning board did vote this down. It is a split decision, but I very rarely like to go against what the planning Board's decisions are, but also ultimately speaking, this is a largely impactful issue to a lot of residents as well. And even though there's nothing in the code that specifically states that we take into consideration what residents do, I, it's a massively important to me personally as a counselor. And so this was always going to be something that I feared was going to fail when it came to Council anyway. So I'm glad that we had this discussion so that we know what the next steps are because that Amendment to State Street needed to be done, but so I think staff has pretty good direction on like what the next steps are. Did you have any questions of me or the other counselors? Ham, no, I think that's it. Does anyone else have anything? [35:45] Carolyn Fish: Any last thoughts on this? Yes, Counselor Fish. You know, I know economic development and opportunities for Bangor are very important for us to move forward and grow as a city. But being in real estate, Ohio Street, you know, even in town when it's always felt and seemed more of a residential neighborhood, and then further out you go of Ohio, it seemed even more rural. So as much as I love economic development and growth and opportunity, I at the same time feel that Ohio Street has really instilled, at least this point, you know, in life here in Bangor, I feel it really is more residential, and I agree State Street's a whole different thing. So and again, the Planning Board, I think they take a lot of things in consideration, and I consider what they recommend, and I don't always agree with them, but in this case I do agree with them. Okay. [36:51] Joseph Leonard: Well, so this will move to the next Council agenda, and I don't take any bets, but I think it's a safe bet what half this is gonna go probably, unless there's any other final thoughts on this. I think we should move on to the commercial kitchen project and discussion on the and account board to go into negotiations. Thank you everybody for coming, I appreciate you here. Okay. [37:33] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): So staff prepared information that was requested at your last meeting about the central kitchen project and our economic development of the circuit leader, and then this Smith is here to review it because my voice is starting to go. I'm going to ask her to take the reins to discuss all the data the people together. So [38:04] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: The last time that we had our discussion, there were some very specific questions that were asked, and we made sure to be able to answer those as concisely and clear as possible. I do want to say, reminds our group that our intention is to be able to start and have negotiations with our construction manager and to be able to complete an operations financial report so that we can give you even more information and so that we can really walk through this project together, understanding whether or not we can afford it, because I think affordability has come into play. And yeah, so again, just being able to go because we're not going to be able to keep with that holistic package, unless we go into negotiations with the construction manager and get the information from operations consultant. So I'm just gonna just plainly recite the questions and, the answers. So first question is, what national success statistics exist for commercial kitchen incubators? I think several counselors asked this question. Industry data indicates that businesses participating in commercial kitchen incubators experience more than double the long term success rate compared to businesses that do not participate in incubator programs. Supporting USDA case studies are attached. The second similar question explains why. Are businesses that start in incubators more successful than those that do not? Business incubation research across industries show that businesses participating in incubator programs report five-year survival rates of approximately 87 percent compared to 44 percent for businesses that do not participate. participate and the reasons why is because there's higher success rates because it reduces the start of cost, they have access to business education and mentoring, they share resources, and they have clear Pathways to Market that sources business news daily. sure I have [40:29] Wayne Mallar: the question I hear what you're saying, I understand that they the five-year program but nothing is said about who pays the costs for the first five years because the impression I get in reading the literature, the start-up company is not paying for the service. We're providing everything. We're providing the equipment, we're providing the facility, we're providing the training, and I don't see us recouping any of the costs. I see a $200,000, as presented at one point in time, deficit plus a $400,000 deficit for the bond. So who's providing the money for the first five years? [41:13] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: So again, just to be, so first off, the tenants pay a subscription fee, right? They have to be members of the facility. So that's how we start taking in our revenue. We talked about the cold storage as another additional revenue stream. But I'm not able to give you break-even models until we're able to create those structures with our operations consultant. [41:38] Wayne Mallar: Well, before we go to pay money for something like that, what's Portland's history been? How's that success? What was their break-even point in years? [41:49] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: Yeah, so I am not familiar exactly with their financials. However, what I do know, and I want to be very careful, as I had mentioned before, because I don't want to throw Portland under the bus. But I do know that they went from a 5,000 square foot building and made a decision to go for a larger building of which they only had 35% of that capacity they were using. So they moved to a new building. They had to pay a larger amount of a lease and they weren't utilizing the entire building. I don't know specifics around whether that was their demise. However, I do know that was their decision and if you go into any business transaction and you're purchasing something bigger than what you need you're not going to be able to recoup those expenses if you're not utilizing it and renting it out well eliminating the cost of the building [42:47] Wayne Mallar: What was their experience did they make money or lose money other than the rental fees for [42:53] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: The space they're using so I from what from my conversations with the general manager they came to a break-even point they did not get to profit as of yet and then I believe that they were I believe six years six years so we have no guarantee of any profit again, I really want to be able to give you to get to have the opportunity to be able to give different models, different financial models for us to say together, this is a structure that looks the best. This is how we're going to break even or not, but at least give us a chance to give you those models. So and, [43:40] Joseph Leonard: I'm so sorry, drop, but I do want to make sure just for citizens purposes that are watching that we get a consistent like you can ask all the questions you want Councilman I just want to make sure that Bikita gets through her presentation is [43:53] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: That okay. I lost my train of thought. I wanted to say one more thing because we may, I mean, like I said, I can give you preliminary information, but if we go to the Jordan board and, oh, this is what I wanted to talk about, because I believe you asked the question the last time about who's going to manage it, who's going to govern it, the operate, so our operations work that we need to do is to run through those models, run through whether it's, first of all, what we do know is that as a municipality it's not in our wheelhouse to operate this entity on a regular basis. It definitely is and it should be considered an investment. It should be considered something that we have oversight of because based on our investment we want to make sure that it fulfills its purpose for our community. But we do have to run through those models, whether it's a nonprofit and a for profit with, if it's a trio, a nonprofit for profit and us, but we do need the opportunity to run through those models and share them with you. And I think that we can all weigh in on those things. If, again, we have the time to do [45:02] Wayne Mallar: that. And what's the cost to run through these models? [45:07] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: So I had mentioned in the last meeting that we are paying the consultant approximately 24,000 and he's already started to work with us. I can give you the credentials of the consultant who's done incubator models before, both built them up, they're successful. Everyone that he's worked on has been successful. He's worked on sustainability as well as government structures. So this is someone, and it's someone who is not from this area. This is a person who was from North Carolina, who's worked in North Carolina and Ohio, and really had an understanding of all incubator models throughout the country and understands kind of what areas have gone wrong, the direction to go to. To. He's been watching our council, our committee meetings, really trying to make sure that we dig into what's the best model for our city. You want me to continue? [46:11] Joseph Leonard: If you were at the tail end of incubators or getting ready to start with the school [46:17] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: Department or higher education. Yeah. So I'm going to, I'll make this brief, right? Should the central kitchen partner with the school department or higher education institutions? Absolutely. Absolutely, we should. But again, we are, we have not gotten to the point where how we could partner. We've recently had a conversation with UMaine. We know that there's part, there's partnering opportunities there. We have to crystallize those. School department, absolutely, for learning, opportunities. Students who may want to get into the field may want to be entrepreneurs absolutely but we have to be able to really have the opportunity to create the plan what's next has the city explored partnering with BAFS the BIA flight kitchen I believe this was your question from a resident yeah okay so just to be clear and I'm glad Jose is in the room because we toured BAF first of all and Jose if I'm not using the right terminology please interject but BAFS has a contract with the airport so their facility and what they do in terms of the flight kitchen I believe that was a term that was used is contracted with the airport we did tour their facility and discuss collaboration their facility is very old similar to the building that was originally or is 50 Cleveland one. So that whole idea of redevelopment would have to take place. It would be expensive. And bottom line is, that they're not interested. They're more interested in an advisory role for us. Jose, you want to add anything? Any other background with regards to just the contract? Because I think the idea was that they're a standalone entity in that kitchen is a standalone entity, but in fact, it's contracted with the airport. [48:16] Public Commenter (John Schneck) / Joseph Leonard: Way sure [48:27] Daniel Carson: Hostess of a dry airport director I don't want to get too much into the details of what our business relationship is with the flight kitchen and or tenant but I do believe that those are certainly ongoing conversations with airport important habit to facilitate should there be a need to assess options that might support the visibility of the project or if there's any way that they collaborate with the business and economic development. We partner in a lot of different areas of assessing and managing property for the city, and so certainly we're always looking to partner with our peer departments to explore further areas of collaboration. And this is certainly something that as the airport continues to grow, as the business model changed at the airport, again the need to reassess a lot of these things, it's important to keep all options available. So that's from the airport to that point, that's what [49:34] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: I would say. Thank you. However, just to be clear, in our tour of that facility, and Jose you're familiar with the facility, it's completely utilized. There's no room for any additional [49:45] Daniel Carson: space to build a kitchen incubator. And to Bigito's point, I think that it's important to remember also that facility is part of the original infrastructure that was transferred to the airport from the military. And so it is a facility that remains in use, that it serves the purposes of our tenant, that the contract is where we have active contracts and renewals, but that eventually the asset replacement does become a question not just for the airport because if we have a tenant in place then obviously our role as the landlord from both the airport and the city as an entity, then it's a responsibility to maintain the place in terms of capital expenditures, right? And so again this type of partnership with business and economic development become that much more important for us to continue to work very closely because of the redundancies that projects like this [50:56] Joseph Leonard: would create. So thank you. The question, yes, council, back the five million dollar [51:07] Speaker D (unidentified): bond. I don't know, we've gotten actually gotten that yet, but the question I had was, is that going to end up having to go to the voters, or is that something we already have to go to the [51:17] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: voters? I'm gonna, I was gonna invite Stephanie as soon as I, is that okay, as soon as I finish these questions, and then Stephanie was gonna come and talk a little more specifically about the bond. Could Job Corps be a potential partner? Absolutely, workforce development opportunities, yes, no brainer, definitely Job Corps would be a potential partner. Again, we would have to crystallize exactly what they bring to table and what the exchange would be, but yes. [51:46] Susan Faloon: So I think that question when it came in I read it as like, could they be a partner, like as in use of their facility, kind of like the airport? [51:56] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: Oh okay so I thought the question came in more as like a workforce development opportunity, so for instance the job corps right, and so they have job ready people with certain skill sets, and what could we potentially partner with them to bring them in as hires for those [52:13] Susan Faloon: tenant businesses in their operations. I think it because they have that culinary program like so like do they have space that would work for this use I guess was yeah kind of the gist of the questions. I'm sorry if I didn't like I can I can definitely find that we can find that out [52:35] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: up. But I also think that it would be great to partner with [52:37] Susan Faloon: them. Yeah,, I wasn't thinking of it from that perspective. But yeah, but yes, yeah, thank you. And then here [52:45] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: is our bond question. So the bond question, we have 5 million that is bonded. Stephanie will come and talk about the specificities around that and how much it's going to cost us. Stephanie, you can take this. is [53:04] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): hi Stephanie Kiffel finance director so there is five million that is going to be bonded 2.9 million of that has not yet been authorized has been approved through the budget process but has not yet had a council order to authorize to issue which I was planning on doing in the next week in the next couple meetings but two million of that has already been approved through the budget process and authorized to be issued the bond issue just has not been done yet essentially so and then there's 1.5 million in grants available [53:51] Joseph Leonard: yes counselor beck and [53:53] Speaker D (unidentified): counselor so just to make sure i'm understanding so the bonds that are going to be issued it's it's going to be a bunch of small bonds to add up to that amount or the total no it's total [54:03] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): or exactly well let's see we had a bond authorized already but not issued for 503 500 we had another one for 1.5 million which brings it up to the two so those are authorized approved through budget authorized to be issued bond issue just never happened and then the so that's the two million so then the three million that is left over to make up the five has been approved through the fiscal year 2026 budget but in the next meeting or two sure I'm going to be doing the authorization to issue council order I think it's important to add that this bond is being be paid out of the economic development fund and not under the capital fund right so it's there's self-funded and it's not going to affect the taxpayers this is not coming out of your capital fund [55:12] Wayne Mallar: it's self-funded by explain to me how it's self-funded so it's [55:19] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): An enterprise fund so the revenues that they collect in economic development pays their expenses essentially, but so far they all the projections I've seen is the two hundred thousand [55:31] Wayne Mallar: dollar loss a year, so how are you going to pay four hundred thousand dollar in bonding [55:37] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): if you're running a two hundred thousand dollar loss? One of the bars in there is was paid off this year. Because that's how the previous city manager was able to make it work. [55:54] Wayne Mallar: We bonded it and we paid off the bond already? [55:57] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): No, on a different project. That's in the ED fund. So those funds that used to pay a different bond. [56:05] Wayne Mallar: So how are you going to pay this off? You're not going to pay it off with profits from Central Kitchen, you're going to take [56:11] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): from another project for this enterprise fund. The enterprise fund is not making money, so the central [56:21] Wayne Mallar: kitchen enterprise fund is not making any money to finish your question. Then I want to make sure [56:26] Joseph Leonard: that we don't have a gaggle. Yeah, so you first, Councillor Mallar, then Manager Lear, if you can [56:32] Wayne Mallar: jump in. I'm just confused. I don't understand. You have a special fund from economic, you know, that you can utilize however you want. Maybe the program is done, so you're taking that money to come to pay off the bonding, the 400 000 bonding expense for the year. [56:58] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: Yes, so the economic development fund is comprised of about eight to ten properties of which we collect money from those properties because those properties are leased to tenants, so we have consistent revenue happening. That fund also includes the sale of 110 Hildreth, remember the two million that we made, so in that, so that's where that money goes. [57:24] Joseph Leonard: Did you have a comment that you wanted to add? That was going to be my comment. I could see [57:28] Robin Stanicki: where Counselor Meller's confusion was coming from and I thought it would be helpful to explain [57:31] Joseph Leonard: where the revenue in that fund has come from. I guess it brings up a question of [57:37] Wayne Mallar: But what have we used the revenue from that fund for in past years? [57:43] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: The reoccurring maintenance of those properties, the upgrades, so painting, carpet, things like that, environmental studies for certain properties that we need to have happen. So we have a significant amount of monies in those properties, and it's all not utilized within a year because there's a significant amount of money in there, so yeah, of course [58:12] Wayne Mallar: So what you're telling me basically, and as I understand it, the money that's accumulated from income coming in is going to be used to pay expenses for the central kitchen, not necessarily [58:27] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: The maintenance of the building that the income well I mean that's the thing and I don't mean to be a broken record but that's the thing we have to create the actual financial plan so from that economic development fund we'll be able to utilize those proceeds to pay our bond back however we need to see because of the revenues from the actual central kitchen will go into that fund as well if there are and there won't be any for the first five years not necessarily okay [59:00] Joseph Leonard: Yes counselor [59:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Back I just want to answer the question in different ways I mean because to me the bottom line is this these amounts we're talking about being paid back and sounds like none of it is coming from property taxes it's all going to be taken care of by these proceeds so I guess to help my thinking on it 's it's definitely an investment of those funds that the you know the taxpayers aren't seeing anything on their you know their bill for that I guess for me I guess what kind of gives me pause was Just seeing the loss for the first fire but I mean any startups can have a loss and maybe this is what we'll get into next is this feels like with these conversations the last several times has come around is just there's no excitement from our side you know where you all the energy that you know and the hard work that staff's putting into this and then they come to the table and we're you know we're going to ask the hard questions about the numbers and you know I want to hear you know you know I want to be sold I want to be sold on this as far as you know what you know in terms of you know see what job you know jobs that'll come out of this you know where we'll end up creating new businesses that'll end up you know having to move to expand to their own bill and create more tax base and those are the stories I want to hear about this in addition because that's good to know that you know we're not burdening the taxpayer so it's [1:00:34] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: That's that's good to hear yeah and we I mean we're very excited about it entrepreneurship opportunities job opportunities growth in the city yes we're very excited and quite frankly I mean ask all of the financial questions because we need to be in good financial in a good financial position to make sure that this is a success. $400,000 to pay back a bond, we know that. That we know, and it could be less based on the interest rate. But we need to know what our revenue model looks like. And we need to be able to come together and say, okay, here are the proceeds. And quite frankly, I can't say that we're going to lose $200,000. I think that you looked at a market feasibility study that's a little dated. We're going to do that all over again and I and ideally which front with the objective of no loss because we have this cold banking storage that we want to really capitalize on its revenue potential, council. [1:01:33] Carolyn Fish: I think I think the hesitation is, you know, the error we're in right now with, you know, taxes being and on our mind so much and in the restaurant industry and even anything kind of related. I know this is an incubator and this is a very creative thing for entrepreneurs and this incubator project is very exciting, but I think, you know, for the risk in the food industry, the restaurant industry that and, you know, the event centers that have centered around banquets and those several of those that had been in business for years and failed because of just where we're at with the economy and the uncertainty and knowing we're going to be in the red i want to be excited about it i mean i get excited about creativity entrepreneurship economic development but i'm just i 'm too not feeling as good as i want to feel about it and i think it's just because i have all this uncertainty you know five or six million dollars and i just don't feel i have enough information and maybe if i knew okay we build this facility, it's like, you know, we envisioned it's here. Let's just say it goes defunct, it just doesn't work. How much would that real estate with the infrastructure built on it, if we had to sell it, what would that be worth? Would that be worth a million, two million, you know? So these kinds of information, if we're going to take the risk, I think we all just don't have the information. [1:03:13] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: We want to get excited about it, sure, and my and our ask is allow us to get it for you. So in allowing us to get it for you means let's go into negotiations with our construction manager. What kind of facility are you going to be able to build for us for how much? Okay, we have that number specific specified. Now we go into our operations consultant, we have a pro forma for the next two to five years, we give you that information. We're not asking for you to authorize and say yes to the project absolutely right now because we took some steps back. So allow us to give you that very clear. [1:03:48] Daniel Carson: information to make that decision else carson and counselor yeah i'm in favor of i need a lot more information i am i mean i worked in banking i watched how difficult it was for food service industry businesses, particularly green businesses, as they got started. I see the rate of failure cited in the memo and the estimated rates of success for incubators. So I'm more interested in some of those planning pieces than I am concerned about the potential for losses in the first number of years. years I've seen a number of corporate a number of companies startups that actually built losses like that into their planning and today you know they're forming out of the water so I'm a little less scared about that but I need a lot more information to reassure to confirm that I'm as less scared about that as I think I am thank you have a couple of questions if that's [1:04:52] Susan Faloon: okay first of all i want to say i am excited about this project too so all right oh several people i know the last meeting in this one talked about the number of food related businesses that fail but i just want to point out that for as many that fail new ones are constantly opening so like every time one goes away one or two more appears so i think that 's gonna you know it yeah it's a revolving door but there are always new ones so that's always going to be you know new businesses that could potentially come in and use the facility the other thing is i just want to like to simplify this for my non-financial brain how the economic development funding works all right you've got this pot of money so that's where this bond is going to come out of as you take the money in from the people who are utilizing the kitchen, then that goes back into that pot. So we're not just like not getting any money for that five-year period. And I think that maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the questions, but it seems like maybe there's some confusion. So that money is going to be constantly coming in to replenish that. And it's going to take five years to fully replenish it approximately sure right you have to get very specific into [1:06:18] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: The design of the model, so for instance, if we know that we have to pay four hundred thousand dollars back, let's, I'm just throwing out these numbers, we need to pay four hundred thousand dollars back, we need a two hundred thousand dollar profit, we need xyz number of tenants that use the facility, this amount of hours and pay this amount of membership to be able to get there. Is that possible? Do we, and then we go back and we couple and we lay back into the market feasibility study, do we have enough of those business in the market to meet this? Because obviously like you said, the planning, right, we're going to plan for success. Now if we walk this walk and we say wait, is there's no way that this can happen, then of course, I mean, why would we, why would we make a bad financial decision? But again, we just need to design the model for success. [1:07:11] Joseph Leonard: Yeah, I don't think anyone wants to invest in a sunk cost fallacy model. So I think we're all on the same page there. And again, to reiterate to people who are watching, like this is not us going forward with the project. This is just to get much more information and a much better understanding of what's going on. Any other questions or comments from other counselors? Okay. [1:07:39] Wayne Mallar: That's one, sure we're invested [1:07:41] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): so far in the project and span from the grants the just for the architect we had that [1:07:49] Unidentified Staff/Presenter: number at your last meeting, so it's upwards, it's so it's it's a little less than 400 000 for the architect to design the building, significant amount of money, 24 000 for the consultant. And, around $10,000 for the market field feasibility study. This was all in the spirit of when there was excitement of let's move forward with the central kitchen. And then we just released our RFP for our construction manager. And I love their eyes at this table as well. [1:08:26] Joseph Leonard: Okay, unless there's any other comments or questions, I do need an action on this item, so I would be looking for a motion, a second, so we have a motion, a second to bring this forward to council, is unless this is doubted, hey we'll do a roll call vote. Councillor Mallet, no. Councillor Fish, yes. Just so I'm [1:08:59] Carolyn Fish: if I know, was this just, I thought this was just continued conversation in order to let them [1:09:07] Joseph Leonard: continue with the research. Yeah, okay, yes. Council Carson. Council Flu, yes, that'll be yes as well, so this will move on to council. Okay, CD blog grant [1:09:29] Unidentified staff member (likely City Manager or Director): development officer Robert is there to give an overview. You. [1:09:42] Robin Stanicki: Hi. So I just wanted to come before this committee. I know that some of my colleagues have talked to you a little bit about their divisions and some of the things that they do. And so this is my just taking an opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Robin Stanicki and I'm the community development officer and I'd like to talk to you just a little bit about what some of the things that we do here and what projects we're working on with the city. So I did prepare this memo with a kind of a high level overview. So I'll just kind of skip around a little bit. But we do a lot of housing and community. When I say community development really talking about you know really just about everything that the city does and the city touches has something to do with community development but drilling that down is just what 's it like to live here and all of the different ways that you interact and intersect with the city in some way and so one of the things that we do is we are guided by what's called a consolidated plan and this is our expression of you know what are the city's approaches for things like housing and homelessness and health care our property values what are we doing for economic opportunity and mainly this is in parallel it's it's a strategic device advice that's very parallel to the city's comprehensive plan and it digs deep into the social health of the community. So we talk about poverty and we talk about health care and we talk about you know homelessness and what's going on with our substance use disorder issues and things like that. So it does have a little bit more of an expansion in that area and it gives us additional markers that we can set certain benchmarks against. So we are actually in the middle of our consolidated plan process right now. And at our August meeting last year, we did a great big data dive presentation about, you know, what are the current housing and economic development conditions in Bangor. And so now we've been talking to housing planners and real estate professionals and service providers to provide a response to that and so we are developing a really what I think is a pretty nice looking strategy to present to you all at your next meeting. And so we really look forward to your feedback on that. We have several key programs that we run. I did provide a nice healthy list on the back. We typically have anywhere between I don't know six or seven active projects going at any one time I Know it looks like, oh wow, they do a lot of things, but you know, those are things that, you know, the ongoing either planning functions or grant programs that we have and things like that. We do service all of our loans, so we have a very self-sustaining revenue generating loan program and, you know, things of that nature that we're doing. We have had some challenges though. I wanted to kind of make sure to go slowly in this as you may know that the federal government has had some challenges and they have issued certain regulatory changes and a lot of them have been discussed with this council and mainly the way that they affect my department is in the area of how are we going to do our job very specifically. So how are we going to ensure that these federal dollars are managed in a way that's consistent with the way that they're you know being issued to us. We've done a lot of work to try to understand those to make sure that our mission is aligned exactly with the delivery of those funds and at this time it's our belief and HUD has let us know that we will be fine. We don't do anything within the city of Bangor using these funds. They don't have any issue with anything that we're doing and so we have every confidence that we can just continue to run our programs the way that we always have. It may change some things related to reporting or the way that a form looks, very minor changes to that sort of thing. So I wanted you all to be aware that yes there are some changes, a little bit of shake up, but really on my level we're not really seeing anything really big going on with that. Yeah. So really that's, that's community development. We have some really exciting things, that are coming down for us. We have been working with the school. I'll just highlight one or two of these, the school, department has partnered with us on, civic engagement initiatives. So we've been working with them in our consolidated planning process because we realized we don't really ask the kids some of these, you know, higher order topics about planning. So we decided to lean into that a little bit and they were very excited to partner with us and the superintendent's office worked very closely with us. So we've been working with these high school students whom you will see at the end of this academic year because they will be preparing a report for all of you on the things that they have learned and the things that they feel like you should know, so more on that, but I will leave that given you know the issue of time. If there's some specific questions about our programs or any issues that you [1:16:45] Joseph Leonard: want to raise, so back, so how much money do we get a year in CDBG funds? We receive somewhere [1:16:54] Robin Stanicki: somewhere around 850,000. Because I'm looking at the sheet and that's 13 plans that you're [1:17:00] Speaker D (unidentified): squeezing out of that money, that's pretty incredible. We do a lot. Yeah, so it is capacity [1:17:06] Robin Stanicki: and not necessarily representing a dollar that comes out, but I should, and I apologize for interrupting you, I should say that we do have revenue that's also generated by this program too, and right now we've had a little bit of atrophy in the program because of COVID, so we haven't brought, this is actually last year I think was 192,000. Typically it runs just about $300,000 a year, it could be more, the more that we, the more you put into it, the more we would get out of it, so really we're looking at about a million dollars. See, that's my next question, because [1:17:44] Speaker D (unidentified): looking at these programs, you know, obviously these programs can only go so far because when the money is out, the money's out. But if you had a, if you had our ear and you were able to do the budgeting process and say hey, if you would invest a little bit more into this or that or the other, which of these programs would you say are worthy of additional funds, or is that even possible? Can you match or add local tax dollars to CDBG funds for them, these, or do they have to be [1:18:11] Robin Stanicki: kept separate well yes actually you can and many communities actually do you know this council has talked a lot about housing and i think that 's one place that i've really heard you stress about having that local investment but i would say that one of the advantages that we have in the cdbg program is that we have a self-sustaining model that has worked really well so it's a proven model and just really adding in the capacity pieces is going to bring us quite far and the inroad that we could Make with that model could get us to a point where you're talking about maybe a housing bond issue of a much lesser amount out if we're just really looking at how to do our programs really well. So I would say, you know, of all of these here, if you're really focused on housing and taking some of the ones that are based on housing, we could do a lot with, you know, just a capacity building as maybe a pilot for some of the things that you might find a use for other funds. Well, yeah, because I'm in favor of [1:19:30] Speaker D (unidentified): eventually looking at doing like a housing bond, and I like the idea of, yes, we need voter approval depending on the amount, but asking them to co-sign as opposed to, you know, it's self-sustaining, and we're already doing that on a smaller scale, and it's just a matter of capacity building. [1:19:45] Robin Stanicki: That's exciting. Well, one of the things that I, you know, in doing a lot of this stuff, and I've only been with the city for a couple of years, but I've gone back, you know, 10 years, 12 years, and I've seen that our program income was a significant amount of money in the 90s, but that's because we had a staff of six, so we could make 750 to a million dollars if we put more the same staffing level potentially, but that program income is a revolving door to development, so it's really a tool that you have, and you can have it be as big a hammer as you want it to be. So, you know, that's what I would say, in our next meeting, your February 2 meeting, that big strategy that we're going to be bringing in, actually is probably 90% of it is the housing, closing that housing data loop that we talked about last year. So [1:20:54] Carolyn Fish: this business and economic development committee as a whole, do they work outside the CDBG grant? I mean, is there other monies that come through or that are available and other projects outside just CDBG? Okay, that's actually another really great point. Boy, you're [1:21:13] Robin Stanicki: you're hitting all these things. I don't want to give too much away, spoilers, but there is another big pot of money that we are eligible for simply because we receive CDBG funds, and essentially is called the Section 108 program. And it gives us about $5 million of capital up front that we can use, and then we can pay it back kind of like a paycheck loan. Remember when we had those where you're like, we'll give it to you today and you just kind of pay it back. So we would be able to pay it back out of our future CDBG disbursements, but it would give you a big bunch of money upfront. We also, of course, because of our longstanding relationship with HUD, they kind of tell us things a little bit before you might hear it in the news or have another way to have that information dispersed. Dispersed, so there is another advantage to that also. I heard that rumor. Yeah, exactly. Any [1:22:19] Joseph Leonard: other comments or questions for Robin? Good. Well, it was, it's really great to know that the what's happening at the federal government is not going to impact the program. That's been a concern of mine for quite a while. So it doesn't mean that it won't change. No, I know, but right this moment. All right. Well, thank you so much, Robin. I really appreciate the update, and we'll be looking forward to some more Bangor housing related discussions in the future. So I will take a motion to go into executive sessions when it unfolds ready. [1:23:06] Carolyn Fish: I make a motion that we go into executive session. MRSA 405 6c the items on that and that [1:23:18] Joseph Leonard: motion second roll call vote Councilor Ballard yes Councilor Fish yes Councilor Carson yes Councilor Fallone yes I will be a yes we are in executive session so you may have another question right so you are live now okay so open those stores i just want to make very quickly that i have a conflict of interest on this item so i'm going to be vacating the room and counselor carson will be chairing the committee for at least close up all right oh [1:43:13] Speaker E (unidentified): okay you cleared the door all [1:43:19] Daniel Carson: right so we have two things that we need to move on don't we yes great emotion on the first i move [1:43:27] Carolyn Fish: that we accept staff a recommendation for a new lease as discussed and move it to council [1:43:37] Joseph Leonard: second is there anything oh sorry [1:43:42] Daniel Carson: this one first do we have is there any objection okay all right that moves forward [1:43:55] Public Commenter (Meredith Smith): next one [1:44:00] Carolyn Fish: why move that we accept staff recommendation and move forward the piece of property [1:44:11] Joseph Leonard: is discussed and put it on council for next week thank you moving seconded and unless wait did we need a roll call vote for this no we don't unless doubted this will have passage okay so it unless Ann or staff or counselors you have anything else to add it is 8 44 p.m and this will include the BED meeting other than that I guess have a good night