Bangor Finance Committee advances $75M parks bond order amid concerns

[0:04] Speaker A (unidentified): It's like it's supposed to be the entire, yeah. [0:18] Wayne Mallar: We don't know what a fan. [0:37] Susan Deane: Good evening and welcome to the regularly scheduled finance committee meeting. Today is Monday, March 16, 2026. I am sitting in for Councillor Fish as chair on the committee. Tonight we have Councillor Balloon, Councillor Mallar, Councillor Beck, Councillor Deane, which is me, and Councillor Leonard will be sitting committee. Also at the table is Chair Haas, City Manager Carollynn Lear, and our finance director Stephanie Kimball. [1:07] Speaker D (unidentified): Thank you. Looks as though we will end up with bids and purchases, yes. Okay, the first one we have today is a patrol vehicle for the police department. The police department's budgeted for the purchase of three patrol vehicles in fiscal year 26. The vehicle will be purchased under the state of Maine master bid agreement, so therefore it did not go out to bid. The budgeted amount for the purchase of the patrol vehicles is 118,473 and the purchase price of the vehicle is 46,117. This will be funded through budgeted capital and we request approval for the vehicle. [1:53] Susan Deane: Any questions on the vehicle? I entertain a motion. So second, we have motion, we have a second. We will go with staff recommendation for the purchase of a vehicle for 46,117 dollars. Next [2:16] Speaker D (unidentified): up is the sewer system maintenance and repair. Yes, the engineering department requested bids for sewer system maintenance and repairs contract. This is fixed defects in the sanitary sewer system and storm water drainage system for small projects that don't exceed a hundred thousand. Any large projects will go through the capital improvement planning process. We had two bids from qualified local contractors. One amount was 1.2 million and one amount was 2.2 million. The low bid was CNC Lynch excavation. We have a excellent experience with them and have worked with them on small projects in the past, so engineering is requesting that we award it to CNC Lynch. Any [3:06] Susan Deane: questions on the? All right, I'm just looking at, all right, so the amount of the award as needed, can you explain [3:18] Susan Faloon: that and then the budget amount is that like plus or minus a million dollars because it comes in at [3:26] Speaker D (unidentified): more than that and I'm just curious. Yeah, it's for small projects, so multiple small projects, that's [3:32] Speaker A (unidentified): not just one specific project, but I'll let Jefferson. Hey, Mr. Director of Engineering, so this [3:39] Speaker F (unidentified): Is a as needed award. So what we do is we budget yearly for this, and then we have a bid item if you look in, so the big tab, so we have multiple items that are for each unit, yeah. And so the way the totals don't really matter, it's just that individual bid item. But we can only, we can only spend what we budget for. So we budget a million dollars usually, or 800 to a million dollars [4:13] Speaker A (unidentified): a year, and then we do projects with that amount. So when it comes out over like this one, [4:21] Susan Faloon: million two hundred and seventy eight thousand one hundred, like where does that like over range or [4:26] Speaker F (unidentified): this is just, this is just to get us, you know, this bid total is an average of three years kind of thing. So it's kind of confusing, I understand, but we only, the amount of award is as needed. It's because it's a as needed basis, so we're not afforded 2.2 million, we're not awarded 2.2 million. The only thing that sticks in this contract is actually the unit items [4:55] Susan Deane: I don't know if that makes sense. Yeah, this is more of a price list, right? So this is a price list, so [5:01] Susan Faloon: they just, if we needed that item, you need each of those, and then you roll it, so the quantity [5:07] Speaker F (unidentified): of off as needed. Yeah, the quantities in this bid item sheet are like a three-year average, yeah. So we had to, we had to give the contractor something to bid on, yeah. So yeah, okay [5:18] Speaker A (unidentified): thank you. We just stick with your actual unit prices, yeah. I have a question, Jefferson [5:22] Susan Deane: so this one million is for one fiscal year or is that for the three years though? So this is [5:30] Speaker F (unidentified): a three-year contract, so the unit items are guaranteed for three years, but the we budget, you know, paying 112 million dollars a year, a year, yeah. Any [5:43] Michael Beck: other questions, counselor back? And we have to take the whole list from there, like we can't say for example, I'm just looking at a couple of these, you know, the six foot diameter manhole replacement, the low bitter is 12 500 and the one that we didn't go with is only 9 000. So we can't pick and choose our card, so this is how we come up with an average, yeah. And [6:07] Speaker F (unidentified): we don't know if we're going to end up using that in the three years, but we have to put it in there, so if we do come to it, then we don't have to fight with a contractor or negotiate, I should say negotiate with a contractor, and at that time they're going to be a much higher price because it's going to be heated right then, yeah. And I [6:24] Michael Beck: would also imagine too that you would, it takes staff time to have to go through this list every time they, oh who's the cheaper guy here, who's the cheaper guy here, whereas it's just one contractor [6:33] Speaker F (unidentified): or you know you've done the work since 2014 we've rewarded like these three-year contracts yeah this i think that started in 2014. So you know we have that contract available, so if something breaks or if there's a you know if we in one of our videos if we see something that's going to break and we need to fix it, you know if we don't have it as a bid unit then we have to negotiate with a contractor and then just things are much more expensive, so this one this bid item sheet that you have in front of you is much more advanced than the last years the last you know three-year contract because we've seen what we've used in that average of three years and we try to get those prices down, I [7:17] Speaker A (unidentified): just confused everybody in northern so worst [7:20] Susan Deane: case scenario say we went through every single item and then we needed two of something, where [7:25] Speaker A (unidentified): does the additional funding come from, we don't have to go back, we'd have to go back to Utah, probably never seen that happen, no we try to you know I have a I have a gentleman engineering [7:38] Speaker F (unidentified): that looks at all these videos, this is what he spends most of his time on, to see you know where the worst of the worst are, and we probably use that 800,000 to a million in that this year to get it all done, so if there's a big if there's a bigger break at the beginning of the year we might use more money up front, typically these are a hundred thousand dollars less, I think there's only been two times you know in the last 10 years or so where if we've come across something that's going to be three hundred thousand four hundred thousand [8:10] Speaker A (unidentified): years and months, any [8:15] Susan Deane: other questions, any kind of motion, I do staff recommendation, second, motion we have a second, any doubt, we will see this on council on Monday. [8:29] Speaker D (unidentified): Update on 290 Pearl Street, yes, the city's tax collector spoke with Ms. Rambo in addition to mailing a letter in regards to moving forward with taking possession of the property. Prior to the meeting, she had reached out and to see if Mr. Tenant, I'm sorry, reached out to Mr. Tenant to see if he would be willing to list the property for her rather than city taking possession. The request was discussed with the tax collector. They were hopeful that there was an interested buyer with the latest information. It was requested that it be tailed until next meeting. meeting. Everyone met to discuss the deadlines that we felt were reasonable. We propose a deadline of April 15 to sign a purchase sale agreement with closing taking place May 31 2026. As of March 16 2026. The amount owed is 32,341. And 27 cents. [9:36] Susan Deane: Questions. So if I just might as a reminder, this one was tabled because I think council was in agreement with allowing her to sell the property but was looking for that end date to make sure that the city was protected and so the new information is that the deadline is going to be April 15th and a closing to take place by May 31st is the owner still in the home no I'm getting up [10:14] Michael Beck: answer back if you have questions yeah so if that deadline comes and it doesn't work out because that just puts us back to the square one with taking the property yes yeah so I guess in staff's opinion then I mean this just seems like a greater but it just seems like we haven't been gaining nothing to lose by going into this agreement because our worst case scenario is we're just right back when we started and we look at taking [10:43] Susan Deane: the property I think that's right I mean all we're all we lose is time and we are required to go through listing with an agent and so we would incur these costs directly they're going to be that's going to be managed by the seller so it saves us any other questions and a motion either staff recommendation second motion in a second any doubt I'll see this on the and we have another workout agreement on 181 State Street yes this was also tabled I believe [11:39] Speaker D (unidentified): last meeting Mr Butler requested a meeting with city staff regarding taxes and utility that were delinquent on 181 State Street there are multiple liens on the property including matured liens for both for a total of 59,111. He's interested in redeeming the property, would like to enter into a workout agreement. He proposed an agreement calling for minimum payment of 6,500 per quarter, which would go towards this property. Included in the agreement is the requirement to keep all taxes and utility accounts current and paid on time for all properties. The term would be for one year. In addition to entering into the agreement, he'd be required to enter into an agreement with Community Economic Development for vacant building registry fees. If all terms of the workout agreement have been met by the end of the one-year period, he may request a new agreement for the remainder of what's up. Any [12:45] Speaker A (unidentified): questions, Council? [12:48] Michael Beck: Back part of the discussion we had last meeting was looking at all the other properties to see if any of them were behind. Did we determine that they're all currently, everything else [12:57] Joseph Leonard: is up to date that he owns? [13:03] Speaker I (unidentified): So yes, after I just did your name, I'm sorry, Janelle Emerson, Tax Collector. So I did speak with him after we met last time, and he came right in. He has all other properties paid to a zero balance. It's just 181 State Street for taxes and utility. [13:27] Susan Deane: I do have a question on this. How long does this go on if he's not fulfilling his commitment? Is it a year that he has to fulfill his full commitment, or do you go quarter by quarter? [13:38] Speaker I (unidentified): Quarter by quarter. So he would, if he defaults, I would send him a letter. He has 30 days to comply, and then he doesn't. At that point, he could, it would be pretty intense. Any [13:54] Wayne Mallar: other questions? He's up-to-date as of today, and he has to continue to be up-to-date with the work. [14:08] Michael Beck: So after the year, if he makes these four payments, he'll owe half the amount, it looks like, roughly. Would he just enter another one-year agreement for the other half, or? [14:18] Speaker I (unidentified): Yep. So if he complies with the agreement, we would come back with another request. [14:24] Michael Beck: Okay. And this is the first agreement for this property? [14:27] Speaker I (unidentified): He's had some prior agreements with us for all his properties. He's just at the point where this [14:33] Speaker A (unidentified): is the only one that's left. Okay, and he was in compliance with all the other ones? Yes. [14:43] Susan Deane: Entertain a motion. So a second, motion and a second. Any concern? Staff recommendation to enter the workout agreement about the map. Next up is an order authorizing issuance of 75 million dollars of general obligation bonds for consolidated parks and recreation facilities. Okay, so you'll recall that Dr. Workshop now two weeks ago, Director of Parks and Rec Tracy Belect and I discussed or brought back the ongoing conversation surrounding the committee, the special committee's proposal for a new parks And rec facility after, and we at that time we presented sort of a phased construction schedule as well as a more detailed bond repayment schedule than we had our first go around at this conversation. At that workshop, council voted to move forward with placing that on the ballot, a workshop vote obviously. And so then on first reading you had this, order authorizing the issuance of the 75 million dollar bond that we would be looking for in the event that the voters approve bonding for the new parks and rec facility. This is now the finance committee meeting on that bond order, and then this will appear again for second reading and for a public hearing on January 3rd. And at that time there would also be an order placing the item on the ballot, and so it would have the specific ballot language that would appear, but that doesn't require two readings, just the, bond authorization does require two things. That's why it's done a little differently and [17:06] Speaker A (unidentified): they don't sort of travel together so [17:11] Susan Deane: the public hearing would be a good time for the public to both questions. It would still be a public hearing, so it wouldn't really, according to our policy, wouldn't be an opportunity for questions, but it would be an opportunity for the public to weigh in on whether they think this is a good idea or not. I [17:37] Susan Faloon: have some comments and a bunch of questions so i and i want to start with just saying like i definitely support the new parks and rec facility because we need it i 've you know been to the rec facility recently and it's it's in dire shape but so my concern isn't like whether we build it 's how we go about it and I'm really concerned about going too big too fast and just defeating the project entirely which I think would be a worse outcome than taking a more measured approach and I realize it's already been, you know, some time, but since our last discussion I've heard from some community members expressing a few concerns, one that perhaps the coordination between the city and the Y hasn't been as robust as it could have been. I think you may have heard that as well. And so I think we, you know, we need to address that. But I think that the community needs assessment was conducted before the details of the Y project were widely known. And so we may even need to do a new community needs assessment because that may have changed, things may have changed. In the Y facility and the proposed rec center facility are very similar in design. So I think, you know, we should probably revisit the scope and the design of the project. There's a concern about the fact that the price tag hasn't come down. And so, you know, despite the fact that like certain components that were originally envisioned, probably aren't going to happen or would happen much later in the project, I think that we, you know, need to really look at that cost, because I'm concerned that we're going to go out to bond, and that price tag is just going to be sticker shock for people and it's not gonna fly you know people are concerned about their taxes with you know the potential for a jail bond which from what I understand now is not going to happen until the November ballot but still like that's you know people are aware that 's happening I also think you know we don't have any real financial commitments we've talked about a lot of that. But I think it would be good to have a clearer picture of like, who the potential financial partners are going to be. You know, for example, like, you know, we've had a lot of people express their enthusiasm for the project. Obviously, we got a lot of emails. We got a letter from Huston College. However, I don't, there wasn't I went back and read that letter and it doesn't look like they are committing to any money. And so that would be a question like, do we have any kind of commitment from them? Because it looks like, you know, based on their letter, most of that support is, you know, this would benefit our, you know, internship programs and field work and those sorts of things. So it seems like most of the benefit would be for them, but like, what would be the benefit, you know, back to the city? I spoke with some local gym owners and who are already concerned because the Y is putting in a new state-of-the-art fitness facility. I think like in the new you know the new plan I mean that's not gonna happen but we haven't seen a new revised plan but you know we've got some local businesses fitness facilities who are already concerned and then this is just gonna kind of you know exacerbate that issue because you know we don't want to be putting that amount of business so I think we need to be thoughtful about like not overlapping with the private sector so those are kind of my comments but I don't I know we're on limited Time and I don't want to monopolize. I do have questions, but like if anyone else has stuff, I don't, I have more questions, but I don't want to monopolize the time because I know some people have to leave early. So did [22:00] Susan Deane: you want answers to those questions, because I'm happy to have. [22:05] Speaker A (unidentified): I'm not sure. [22:06] Susan Faloon: Yeah. I mean, like, I guess, and I know that all the answers aren't going to be available tonight, but, you know, like, I guess the, you know, financial commitment, I guess, would be one of the questions. And, you know, would we be seeing a revised plan before we do this? Oh, and then another question that I have is, have we considered potentially doing the bond in phases? Like we do, you know, for phase because I know we have a, you know, what you presented us last time was a phase in project, but still the bond would go out for the full amount. So that's a phase bond. Yes. Okay, so that so it would be so how much would be the bond on in June it would be that first 6.2 million is the first bond tranche okay each so there's five total issuances in adding up to 75 okay so those are gonna go up so we're not going to be looking at a 75 million dollar bond issue so [23:22] Susan Deane: okay and this schedule assumes that it's issued in those five tranches that's why okay it doesn't [23:29] Susan Faloon: start at the highest payment amount yeah because that way we can make sure that it's going to work things might change we'll kind of you know like build some trust along the way anyway i had a lot of questions out there a lot of questions but before you answer does your question piggyback [23:47] Susan Deane: back on councilor Falloon's totally separate. Okay. [23:52] Speaker J (unidentified): Tracy will have Park Recreation director. So we answered the bond question you had, as far as commitments, that is going to be the conversation pending your approval, put it on the June ballot, there'll be an opportunity to start to really solidify some potential commitments out there. Right now we've been kind of this holding phase before we can really pursue those kinds of things other opportunities for naming sponsors all of that absolutely and we had some of that discussion when we were having a discussion with bonding attorney so there are opportunities for commitments [24:29] Susan Faloon: out there this is the first step to get us toward that okay has anyone like indicated that they are interested in? [24:41] Speaker J (unidentified): They're waiting to see how this process goes. So they're, and we've heard, and I see some folks from the Y here tonight. Certainly there's an opportunity, I think we shared this, if I can speak correctly, with some staff at the Y already, is an opportunity for ongoing discussions and meetings back and forth as we go through, if we go through and when we go through the next process. Much of what we're doing now is essentially going to move to a new facility. So it's the program that we currently do spread out city, it's the child care that we both do. There's been a lot of conversation about the fitness piece in general. When we spoke with council back in July, we talked about pulling that off the initial concepts and so as not to create that potential perception of that duplication. So the square footage that we need hasn't changed, the programming that we're doing now hasn't changed, and the need in general hasn't changed for either facility. So it's been through a feasibility process which was a very robust us stakeholder. There was there was knowledge of the Y project at that point. So the feedback that we have seen and what the consultant performed the feasibility study for us heard was the need for this combined facility. Council [26:23] Susan Deane: Leonard. Before councilman Mallory [26:25] Joseph Leonard: have [26:28] Susan Faloon: I answered? I, yeah, I think I have some more questions, but I just like, I didn't want to monopolize the time because I know, can I go before, I know councilor Maller has to leave so [26:41] Wayne Mallar: He's conceded. All right, the question I have is what's the effect on the tax rate during the five different issuance of the bond and what's the final effect in the after the fifth [26:59] Susan Deane: So I apologize, I did not find out copies of what I handed out last time and so depending on the, as we had discussed last time, this shows you three different potential repayment schedules. The highest payment amounts appear in about years five through eight, which is shortly after we take out the largest of the tranches of loans. And depending on which repayment schedule you look at, we choose, it would be between a low to high $5 million yearly bond repayment. [27:51] Wayne Mallar: Which would be what effect on a $250,000 assessment? [27:55] Susan Deane: Roughly $300 a year on six, it's 6%, 7%, $300 a year on a $200,000 house. So not cents, it's real dollars. So I [28:17] Wayne Mallar: Personally am not, I don't have a problem with building a new facility, but I don't think this is the time to do it. We don't have enough information on what's available out there as far as the Y is concerned. And the sports facilities that are being built in Hamden for soccer, I think it would be nice to wait and see what's going on there before we jump. I don't want to give the tax burden to the citizens for 30 years of 300 and some dollars potentially a year. [28:57] Joseph Leonard: So I'm we need a new opportunity in a Sawyer arena is at its end of life. I think we're all going to that and going into this I was well aware of the four million dollar increase in the school budget. That's a very real thing. I will be supporting that school budget because the only cuts that seem like we can make from there are cutting teachers, which never gonna be a fan of. And even with that in mind, even with the cost rising up, I saw this as a good opportunity for us to really get into the weeds. Of starting a much needed process to get a new facility in, but especially a new hockey arena. The thing that really threw a wrench into my overall feeling about this is the war in Iran. I don't know what's going to happen fiscally speaking this upcoming year due to all that. And I feel like if we go through with this right now, when voters come out in November to vote on this, I think it's going to fail. I don't want this to fail. I want to see us revisit this. I want us to have a bond question that goes out to Bangor voters because we need a new Sawyer Arena. I think we owe it though to not only the public but also to ourselves to have a year's worth of coordinating with some of these individuals who are waiting behind the scenes for what we are doing to actually coordinate with them to say, hey, how much are you willing to put forward with this? Because right now, this is going to be a regional facility at the end of the day. That's what it is. And it's not going to be just for Bangor. I strongly believe that the usage is going to be there. I strongly believe that the demand is there. I think right now, we need to give ourselves time to actually get everything organized so that we actually know what we are going to be delivering to the voter for a question coming up. I think right now, if we put this forward, it's gonna be too fast. That 75 million dollar figure, while it's not going to be the figure that is going to be the first thing that they're going to be voting on, I can guarantee you that's all anyone's going to be talking about. So I don't want this to fail. I think if we put this through, it is going to fail in November. So that's how I feel about it right now, and I just, I just don't see this happening. I don't think the citizens are going to have the willpower to actually vote on this, and if I'm being quite frank, it's our responsibility as counselors to also be responsible in terms of giving questions to the voter as well. I don't feel like it would be prudent of me to vote on putting out a bomb question when I believe it's going to fail, when I also don't believe it really has a chance to go forward at this time. I think we need the public to be more educated on this. We need to also have more public private partnerships. I'm even open to opening a tiff district for the city if that helps out in some way, but right now I just, I'm very concerned about the future of not just Bangor but also in the country right now. So that's where I stand, that's [33:02] Michael Beck: our back. So I know we've discussed the cost of doing nothing, you know, the facility of the crumble, you know, the ice arena is fast, it's useless. Has there been any discussions about plan B if this were to fail as far as alternatives? And here's what I mean by that, like the ice arena for example, we had have received so many emails, so many in support. I reached out to about 40 of those emails and I was moved really by the number of people wrote back and said how do we get involved, from the director of the Black Junior Black Bears to the board members there who say how can we get involved in the booster, how can we get involved in a non-profit, how can we partner with the city to make the arena piece happen. Likewise I look at the child care situation, how many child care facilities closed during COVID, ARPA money would have helped but didn't get out to them in time, and that's just how it is. But as far as you know, what do we do about that? Is the YMCA had the capacity where, you know, would it be cheaper for the city just say, okay, you know, we're gonna come up with scholarships to come up with the difference between what our fees were with the YMCA charges if they could take the capacity? Or how can we help bring, maybe bring back some daycares that we had in the city before? I guess, cause to me, I guess it's hard because it's a choice between this or watch it all crumble. Whereas it feels like, hey, we can have this, but if it doesn't work out, this is what we're, this is what we can do instead. It would be nice to hear about a plan B, but especially when it comes to the private public partnerships, I feel like in just looking at how the conversations happen, I get the idea that, well, it's nice to know we've got the bonds and this is going to happen one way or another, now how do we check with the cost? But I mean just to know for a fact before we even go into the bond, hey, these are the people who are going to stand with us, these are the businesses that are going to stand with us, you know this is what they can do, so I, it would be good to hear more about a plan B, that's what I'm saying, just that this doesn't work out, I [35:13] Speaker J (unidentified): see I'll take sorry Arena first and I think I've shared, I know I've shared with you all collectively throughout the process, we're on borrow time. In answer to the question about plan B, repairing Sawyer Arena is not one of those options. It's a sand floor at Sawyer Arena. I'm going to call it the mat that we use to freeze the sand to create the ice. It has been repaired once and the company that prepared it for us on the way out said no guarantees, and that's the last time we'll be able to do that. Chiller is the original chiller and it's 30 plus years old. The awards at Sawyer continue to lean outward, again, that's just a matter of time. So trying to answer the plan B question, it was quickly apparent during our feasibility process to the consultant that renovate has got an option because of the cost just to do that and you're, we are still with 30 plus year old facility that's more than recent useless. The park and rec center is getting the same situation, child care. I think we talked about this at the workshop, child care in particular has changed as far as needs of participants, some of that quiet space that many newer schools and or child care facilities have. We don't have that quiet space currently, is the hallway by my office. We're starting to see some roof leaking again and a roof that prepared it's nearing its maturity. We have some of the sprinkler system in some of the maintenance areas is starting to leak, so we'll have to make some repairs there. So much like Sawyer Arena where we're located, it's an old armory, it's also reaching that reaching that time. So this was the need that we had that we saw and recognized. Counselor, to your point, that's probably no great time to push something like this through. We had discussion back in July, I with the council, we paused then for some reasons to create some information for you to present that we did a couple of weeks ago. So I think I've been able to answer your question as far as plan B is concerned. We're getting on borrowed time with both places and Sawyer is more eminent for sure. I've said a few times at these workshops, these meetings, we cross our fingers every time in October when we turn the chiller on and hope it all works out, we don't have leaking or some other issue to deal with. It was never intended to last as long as it has. So and the park and rec center and old armory much in the same situation. Would it be fair [38:15] Susan Deane: to say that if the chiller at Sawyer did not turn on in October that resource would just go [38:22] Speaker J (unidentified): The resource would go away. We had a situation where we had to make some repairs this year due to some vandalism, and we were able to rent something at a cost, so we worked with an insurance company. To replace that chiller is going to be quite an expense for a six-month operation. Conversely, in the concepts we've done for the new facility, there'd be an opportunity to generate revenue with at least one year round sheet of ice so that would help increase help us increase our revenue for the ice operation in particular to help offset the cost. Thanks [39:03] Susan Faloon: are we going to see a new design with some of the things you know like a fitness [39:12] Speaker J (unidentified): Center removed, we can go back to the original consultant and actually interesting, we are probably already have that in the original feasibility study. So the original feasibility study did not include the fitness piece, so we have, we can share those for sure from the original study. It was part of the special committee's recommendation that council appointed to bring that back, so we can revert back to the original concepts and feasibility study that did not include the fitness space. [39:53] Susan Deane: May I ask a question first? Yeah,, yeah. Childcare. Do we currently have a wait list? Yeah. And the new facility will bring in considerably more? [40:04] Speaker J (unidentified): We're hoping by improved, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. We're hoping by improved spaces at where we're at the Park and Rec Center out of our childcare. And if you've been in there during child, before and after school, it is a very segmented facility. That requires us to dedicate staff to those spaces and staff appropriately for the ages in the new facility single level and kind of a pod arrangement, so we're hoping that it's at the very minimum going to enhance what we're doing, and by allowing some better spaces, perhaps add some slots to the child care to expand that. I think everyone will agree that's doing childcare there's not enough. Is not enough and even with expanding child care there's still especially with school day here for before and after school programming I think both organizations were a draw off to pick up scenario that we get transported to and from school every day I believe the why does something similar but I don't want to speak for them [41:21] Susan Deane: Just follow up on that do you know if the lack of child care is keeping some parents from actually being able to go out and work outside of home and would that you know start to spark some more economy by allowing more people to work if [41:36] Speaker A (unidentified): There's better child care available in [41:39] Speaker J (unidentified): Generally speaking try I think there are families here in Bangor that make some pretty tough decisions when it comes to those kinds of things and what is affordable for them and what they can where they can get into for child care we do offer a fee assistance program now for residents that's utilized by residents who have affordability issues in addition to that and we're participating in state child care subsidy programs so that we get some of those fees back so yeah I think there are some Families out there that makes pretty tough decisions [42:18] Susan Faloon: How many, like, do you know how many more child care slots you plan to have with a new facility? [42:29] Speaker J (unidentified): It depends on what our enrollment is at that time, so certainly it will allow us, by better efficient use of space, to grow a few slots, but a definitive number we did come through with. [42:46] Susan Faloon: The feasibility study, okay, because I know the Y is planning to double theirs, so I didn't know if, like, we necessarily needed to double it, but, you know, probably increase it. Yeah, absolutely right, and I did speak with Diane earlier today, and she, Diane from the Y, and she did indicate that, like, that is part of the reason they are adding to theirs, because so many daycares closed during Covet, and that it is an issue for parents, so that, you know, that, you know, interesting enough. [43:19] Speaker J (unidentified): during covet it was a handful of child care facilities that decided right away to continue to offer child care during covid i'm not sure i can the why were two of those i believe it was not hilltop school panclas and parkside with the others and we were on calls together once a week and i share that with you in particular there's certainly still growing opportunity as we go through the process can you hear that dialogue council leonard i was just going to [43:53] Joseph Leonard: Have a general question, are we going to allow for public comment for this committee meeting? [43:59] Susan Deane: Do we have a number of people that wanted to speak? I think we could allow brief comments tonight where we haven't had a lot of public discussion on this. Do we still have people? [44:12] Susan Faloon: Do we, I don't know. [Susan Deane: You go look.] From the Y was going to join me, so I don't know if she's, I don't see a hand, but I. [44:26] Susan Deane: Don't think that portion is out. I want to hand up, see if I can make this work from here. Let me stand it actually up. Yeah, thanks. Why don't we allow her to speak prior to them just so we get a perspective from the law? Could you run it from the back yet? This won't, this isn't working. I think that's only most of them. Oh, you can miss. No, I think there's one in there. Okay, thank you. [45:31] Michael Beck: All right. [45:40] Daniel Carson: It looks like Dan, you're unmuted. Can you hear us? Right, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, I have a very raspy voice and I apologize. I'm just gonna have a hospital with pneumonia and with bronchitis, so I apologize that I am not there in person, but you don't want to see me right now. I just want to comment on a couple of things to answer Councilman Dean's question about the child care and the community needs assessment we did definitely showed that parents were not able to go back to work. Primarily it wasn't the school-aged children, the before and after school, it was primarily the early childhood education, and that's what caused us to double the size of our early childhood education program as well and to start as early as six weeks old rather than one year old that we start now and that definitely is an economic boost to be able to get people back into the to the workforce forced. I am a big supporter and clearly understand from somebody who has lived in an old,, old decrepit facility as the Y has been. So I clearly understand Tracy's needs for a new ice rink and a new before and after school center. And I support that 100%. What I cannot support is the teen center and the older adult center and the fitness center and the running track because those are all things that will be in the new y and i do worry about the duplication there. I also have to say that the what your feasibility study showed was that our feasibility study was absolutely right on and we did ours a couple of years before yours but we never came out publicly before you did your community needs assessment. Nobody knew what was going to be in the new y at all and that we didn't come out with that until i think two years after your feasibility study so i really think that what the what the feasibility study showed is that the y has done two feasibility studies now and if you put all three of those together r2 and the parks of rec it shows that there are needs in this community and that is how this y was designed. It does not mean that there needs to be duplication of all of these efforts so that would be of concern to me. I will completely support tracy see in the city on every effort to get the new ice rinks and the child care before and after school but I cannot support on anything else [48:58] Susan Deane: if we did take some of those out of facility how much would it change the price tag it sounds [49:23] Speaker J (unidentified): Like, it wouldn't be a substantial amount, wouldn't be a substantial amount. However, if those are the kinds of concepts, and we've had this discussion before when it comes to some of the dialogue, and there's an opportunity to reframe and re-message some of the things that we included, some of our feasibility studies, to remove those outwardly, the senior programming we're, we're doing now. We have a senior group that meets at our place two or three times a week. Bingo cards and just gather. So they were, they were one of the groups in particular that, so we're doing that. So that's the type of program we have been doing anyway. The teen center in particular that Diane referenced, much like the fitness piece, certainly there's an opportunity to reframe our building concepts as part of the messaging going forward. At the end of the day, the cost doesn't change a whole lot. The space needs for us are still the same. I [50:58] Susan Deane: do believe we have a couple of gentlemen who would like to speak. Why don't we do that now, so [51:02] Speaker A (unidentified): we can address our concerns. Okay, certainly. [51:09] Speaker L (unidentified): Let's break. 134 Norway Road in Bangor was on the council from November of 2020 until November of 23. [51:21] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay, I can do that. [51:23] Speaker L (unidentified): This project now, well, let me start by saying that the parks and rec offers wonderful programs, and the child care issue, I don't think is an issue. I think the continuation of that with adequate space is a given from what the community would want. But the project that we see now is a long wish list of program options. It hasn't been sufficiently scrutinized, despite the consulting study. In the course of the original study, which was delivered in 2024. Through all the meetings of the Council, through the subsequent special committee on the future of the parks and rec facility, no groups have ever been asked to assess the cost implications as for what has been discussed. There's been no discussion of the community's willingness to absorb the taxes necessary to pay for this project. So we have a wish list with no financial discussion. If the people who had made the suggestions were also asked the question of are you willing to pay before this, you might have gotten a different answer from that. It's very misleading. There's a lot of great to have components in the way of looking at this, but the consultants essentially gathered together out of the wish list and restated it. It was had limited critical review. And I think what we have is a champagne taste project, which should be evaluated from a beer budget mentality. When it was presented to the Advisory Committee's report was presented in the summer of 25. It implied that there had been a great deal of coordination with the why and the parks and rec and the y were in agreement that clearly was not the case and the advisory committee I think was misled about how much collaboration there had actually been the August 11th council meeting this was all discussed it was clear that the y was not in sync and I came away from that meeting with the expectation that parks and rec and the city were going to revise the project take the space out, take the associated fees out, trim the project from its overall cost, which was estimated to be too high, and come back with a revised proposal. Clearly that has not happened. There's been time to do it. It just hasn't been done. The ice palace, as I would call it now, is a $25.580 million deal with nice amenities. That exceeds all of the money that the city spent on ARPA. If you think about that amount. The original project started out the total at the high end of $60 million. It's now at 74 million. Since the original study was done. The bond issue was $75 million. But the cost of the project bonds plus the interest over the life of the bonds as projected by the city manager are 136 million $936,000. That's not the 75 five million it's 136 million dollars that taxpayers will be asked to absorb the projected amount over the first five years is 15 million dollars that's an additional three million dollars of taxpayer payment on average per year added to the tax base that seems to be extreme the operating deficits for the current parks and rec facility was stated in the original proposal to be $144,849. The operating deficit in year one, in the June 2025 study, was stated to be $1,669,000. And that may or may not include under contracted services what was paid to the city to cover the bond issue but these are implications financial implications they go far beyond which has been disclosed to the public there's no transparency in the public disclosure there has been no open voice given to this and I think if the council recommends this go to bond issue it's essentially the community saying these are people we trust saying that this is a good idea and I think it's bad thank you welcome [56:14] Speaker A (unidentified): to the table my name is scott marty and I'm a citizen of [56:20] Speaker M (unidentified): Bangor and I'm, I really like the idea. Also, I want you to know that I do appreciate the idea. It's the cost, it's the humanitarian cost, and I just, I'm going to be much griefer. 75 million is a huge amount of money alone, let alone the add the interest to it. And what is this going to do to the people that are renting in Bangor? The landlords are going to raise rent substantially. Homeowners are going to be in jeopardy, and I know that we all see the homeless population out here. We all see it, but we've turned a blind eye. I've done it myself, you know, I absolutely have. We see it so often, we become desensitized to it. We had a man come in with frozen toes to our office just recently, and that's a tragic thing to see. And it's getting worse. We're going to put more people out on the street by increasing taxes. And I've heard that you want to, this wants to attract people coming to Bangor, right? Well, we're also going to attract more homeless is also to Bangor by doing this at this time, and the reason is because they can't afford it. And so my main passion here, and I have to be a little bit passionate, is that are we doing the humanitarian thing? Do we need more daycare? Absolutely. Does the Y have it covered? I don't know if the Y has it all covered or not, but it does appear to be tremendous duplicate of stuff, and to me it's just a sad state of affairs. And you city council is here to look after all the citizens of Bangor, all of them, even the homeless, even the homeless. So I'm asking you to, if you've got to spend money, let's fix that problem and then spend money on, you know, more fun things to spend money on. So that's brief, thank you. [58:22] Susan Deane: The frustrating thing here is we can't afford to do this, but we can't afford not to do this. So what else can we do besides this huge amount? Have you ever looked at a smaller version of this? [58:40] Speaker J (unidentified): So, as I've said, the original consultant, the original RFP was to renovate or replace. As we go through the process, we very well could be making some of those difficult decisions as actual costs start to come forward. We had discussed eliminating one of the sheets of ice, the feedback that we got from the junior black bear groups and the hockey groups that you folks have heard from the two sheets of ice are indeed needed the gymnasium space that's part of this is not in it's essentially absorbing what we do now all of our programming in the winter most of our programming in the wintertime happens in school gymnasiums when school part of a great partner that's that's my point just they have their own activities and programming so there was an original study phased options to it. The pro the entire project was gonna happen on the property. The maintenance building is a separate piece to that and I think in one of the schedules that we talked about that would come in one later phases of construction. As we talked about earlier we're at that critical point into how you started the question. We're not we're at a point where doing nothing is not necessarily an option that plan B that you asked about just isn't there. This concept of is consolidating and absorbing such what we're doing now spread out right facilities and using facilities that have I would [1:00:33] Michael Beck: say this so I can certainly back to they don't plan me I guess in my mind I was not thinking so much of how we patch up what we have. It was plan B for getting this done, or something like this done. Cause I look at the ice arena, for example, and I wonder, you know, what if you carve that piece away and say, okay, we're gonna do this separately. You know, because you see projects around the country where it's like $20 million or less to get two sheets of ice. Maybe not as many as many of these, they pull it up and they do it through partnerships with the Booster Club, with the nonprofit, and they get their own financing through that with a little help from the city who chips in, kind of like what we do with other funding stacks and we don't have to absorb the whole thing. Likewise with the child care if you know that's another big piece of this is that you know what if we built a facility just for that and found other ways to finance that or you know again looking at all of the daycare that closed you know I just look at that as an opportunity of how do we you know boost them and see if we can get folks to come back and open on each other. Can I get to this fails? I hate that the choice that this referendum is more or less a statement of values is what I'm worried about. We're saying if we don't do this, that we're saying that these things are important and we'll do nothing to watch the things crumble as opposed to finding other partnerships, finding other avenues to finance it that doesn't have to be on the backs of the taxpayers. What I'm looking for here. [1:01:58] Susan Deane: I think my perspective on this process is that council directed staff to do a feasibility study and that was completed and then empowered a committee a special committee to review that and make a recommendation to council and I think city staff has seen our role in that process to be to champion and usher that process for you to consider and that's sort of what you have before you is the end result of that council directed process with a recommendation before you to consider there's no plan b Because our role has been to usher that process to its completion. Certainly if you decide to not go with that special committee's recommendation, we will have to come up with a plan b, right? Because that will be our job as city staff, but up to this point our job has been to work this process that's [1:03:04] Susan Faloon: A flu thank you. In my mind i think like i mean i don't want to do nothing. I'm seriously concerned that if we put it out to bond as is it's not it's going to fail. I'm really concerned about that and then we've got to wait and that just sets us way back. What i would like to see would be a revised plan that's scaled back some and a more proactive approach now of getting some you know some commitments either in the form of sponsorships or grants like community block development grants, state level Program grants, foundations, you know, maybe a capital campaign, like I don't think we would have that up, but maybe some of the hockey folks, maybe even exploring some public private partnership models. I don't know if that's even been considered where, you know, maybe a private operator would co fund something. And then exchange in exchange for a revenue sharing or a lease agreement or something. I'm just throwing some ideas out there but just you know sort of like some things that we have in place going into it so that we know we've got you know x number of dollars in that we're not going to need to finance all of that and put that on the backs of taxpayers like in my mind that's what I would want to see. I know, like Diane told me, when I spoke to her earlier, from the Y, like they, were able to like, they're probably not going to owe any money on their facility because they were so proactive and doing that. And I don't know that we can get there, that would be great. But, you know, I think doing more of those things to offset this would be really, helpful and would also you know let the taxpayers know that you know there is you know other work and that we're not just relying on them for this [1:05:16] Speaker J (unidentified): And those are all I'm sorry okay those are all opportunities to pursue for sure and the concept and that it's a much smaller scale is already happening so certainly going forward we had the discussion early on with our bond attorneys about the ability to do those kinds of things we didn't want to limit our ability to do those kinds of things [1:05:55] Susan Deane: Any other questions [1:06:00] Susan Faloon: This might be a question it might be a little early for this question but when I was reading back through the plans this building you know there could be an opportunity for solar on this building have there been any studies done on like what that could mean as far as offsetting I can imagine that the energy costs in this old facility are crazy have there been any studies done to figure out how much energy savings we could potentially see so the consultant and the [1:06:34] Speaker J (unidentified): Feasibility study didn't include that option those kinds of real opportunities would come through an engineering design phase so when you're actually knowing what potential power needs would be the heating needs would be and how much solar could be energy could be generated from the rooftop feasibility study wasn't built to do that it was built to provide the concepts and some of the concepts you we could explore going forward like solar panels so [1:07:09] Susan Deane: Unfortunately I don't think we can come up with any definitive answers because there's so many questions and we've already had a first reading we need to decide whether we're moving this on to Council for a full vote so even if we make a motion in second and it doesn't necessarily mean that we are in agreement moving forward it's an agreement that we will bring into full Council but there's still so many questions that I think we all have so it's it's a difficult one because it's way over the Line I mean even if we said it was 50 million I think we would all say my [1:07:44] Speaker J (unidentified): Goodness, that's a lot of money. Yes, no, I agree. I agree with all that. I agree with, we agree with all that. As far as some of the things we've talked about here tonight, I think the original, we go back to the original recommendations of the original feasibility study that didn't include a committee. That might just, some of these another discussion pre-council, but something to consider next Monday night. And as I shared with Council Balloon about the solar power feasibility study requested by the council, certainly did what it was supposed to do in coming up with concepts and potential recommendations and estimating construction costs as much as a feasibility study and [1:08:43] Susan Deane: just to be clear on sort of the procedure, this will be on for a second reading no matter what. It will just be accompanied by a committee recommendation. Okay, so it will be on the agenda. So do we need a motion on this or it's already been, you should vote a committee recommendation and that will be included on the order, but it will appear on the agenda regardless of that, right? And we cannot change it at this point. This is how it is until we, unless we don't, if we don't pass it then we can revisit. If you do not pass it then you can revisit it, certainly. And if we pass it 's as is, this is that's, that's right. So what does everyone think? The [1:09:40] Michael Beck: mindset of wanting to revisit the process, I mean, I guess one of my original rejections last year and kind of still follow me today, like just feel like not enough was done to take the number one recommendation, which is the private public partnerships, and getting the response from the Black Bears and just seeing what's possible now that I didn't get to see last year. I think there's something real that can be done there that significantly reduces the burden, still gets the ice, and it's just something in the community we can all be proud of and we did together as a community. That's just where I'm at right now. I want to see new ice. I just, that cost and it's just hard to say that to the taxpayers and you know so many of them investing in it when many families have reached out to me and said the location and the bus routes and all that makes it difficult to participate if they wanted to, you know, and I hate to put that burden on them. I just want to revisit this from the beginning of how do we get the community to partner with us to get what the community needs? We [1:10:51] Susan Faloon: Have additional concerns or questions for city manager. I think, I think, I like it. I think I've raised all my concerns, but I mean, I have that, I'm just super concerned that it's gonna fail if we try to pass it as is, that I do think that we need to spend more time on this. I would really love to maybe talk in our, you know, when we have more of the council here, maybe in our workshop on Monday even we [1:11:26] Susan Deane: can talk, but until we do another study, we don't know what we can do, you know, I mean, we can talk and talk, but we don't know what we can cut or what, but that would be in savings until we, right, totally revisit it. I almost feel like we have a large project that we have that we just talk about, but until it has to go somewhere else, because our authority's on it. [1:11:49] Susan Faloon: I know, we have to make a decision. Sorry, I'm just continuing to talk here, but I feel like maybe we do need another, like, I don't know, feasibility study or like a community needs assessment, because like, you know, things have changed from like, I don't know when that was done, but things have changed. And now there's more out there about what exactly the Y is doing, so it might look different now, yes [1:12:24] Michael Beck: there's a question, the open house or the public hearing [1:12:27] Susan Deane: rather, is that happening before the second vote? That happens just like sort of like a amusement license, so it happens at the vote, so we'll get to hear from the public before we vote [1:12:40] Michael Beck: Yes, okay, can we make a motion that's neither for nor against, just to say if we discussed it, like we're acknowledging the discussion? I mean, I really would be interested to hear what the whole council has to think about the public come down they have to say, like that really is going to be [1:12:59] Susan Deane: what cements it for me. So my understanding is that the procedural rules do not accommodate a neither for nor against vote, it either needs to be a yes or no, but you can preface it by saying we're moving this for discussion, or I think that's probably a good idea, we need to look [1:13:22] Joseph Leonard: forward in order to discuss it further. I mean, I was just going to vote yes on it just to move it forward, just so it's the most, it's the least confusing aspect, but I, if we are going to vote on this Monday night, I will be planning on voting no for it in its current state. If you want, I can even make a motion, obviously that would be great, yeah, I'll make a motion that [1:13:47] Susan Deane: We recommend let's go forward. So second, we have a second. Any doubt? Then we will bring this forward to council for further discussion. May I ask a question of the folks that are still here? Is there anything for Monday that you would like us to prepare for you, or do you feel like you have what you need from us and it's just hearing [1:14:11] Speaker I (unidentified): the public input for me [1:14:16] Michael Beck: it's just the public. Okay yeah, because I really want to come down to the class like this. Yeah, I'm so thankful that staff brought forward the numbers because it happened so fast last time we didn't get a chance to get the number. This time we know, so the public's gonna have a chance to say yeah I can afford this, yeah, or no I can't. Speak to that piece of it because I know that's that's the tough piece is you know we all agree that we need the facility, it's just you know what can our persons bear [1:14:44] Susan Deane: And I would like to know it seems like the most immediate need is the arena, and if we were to just go ahead with an arena while we're in such dire straits, what would the cost of that be? Is it still the 25 million or is it some, it could be 35 million because obviously it costs more money to do less work when you have the same footprint. So maybe we need to know what that would cost, or perhaps we could do just one rank and down the road at another rank again. I know that adds cost down the line but gone down this path before but we can show you discuss it at the workshop because everyone's concerned with [1:15:28] Speaker A (unidentified): the big price tag. Understood. Anything [1:15:33] Susan Deane: else? Just [1:15:36] Susan Faloon: well just no just to answer her question like I don't I don't think I know I'm sorry I had a ton of questions tonight but I've been saving them all off you know I don't think there's anything that I've asked for that you could deliver by Monday so probably not anything [1:15:54] Susan Deane: else on this subject and anything else from finance [1:16:00] Speaker D (unidentified): else I'll be sending out the schedule pretty soon for the budget workshops. Good I'll be coming soon thank you [1:16:12] Susan Faloon: about the budget after this time I believe. No I'm just going to say FYI I will be gone that week of like whatever school vacation is in April so like just for like planning so we're to save your questions for the next yeah when I come back I don't have 1 million questions [1:16:35] Susan Deane: It is 6 33 I believe finance is adjourned