Bangor committee approves farm stand and storage code changes, cultural grants

[0:13] Joseph Leonard: We're live. Good evening everybody. This is another regularly scheduled meeting of the business economic development committee. I am the chair of this committee, counselor Leonard. Committee members are counselors Carson, Falloon, Fish, and Baller. We also have around the table counselors Beck, Walker, Dean. Sue's not here. We also have community economic director Ann Krieg and planning officer Anya Collette join us at the table right now. Our first item is going over proposed code amendments. Anya, would you like to take it away? [0:49] Robin Stanahan: So the first one on your agenda is about farm stands and allowing a new temporary use or not temporary use but accessory use for farm stands. We've heard about a need for having greater flexibility for this type of use in our code. Currently, we don't define them of the use and so in certain zones if somebody wants to do a farm stand type use they have to get land development permit approval which is kind of a high barrier for a small scale farmer. Also the requirement to pave their driveways and parking areas is also a pretty big cost barrier and we did talk with engineering about exempting this use in outdoor recreational uses from paving and they felt like that was a reasonable change. Typically the paving requirement for most projects is there for storm water quality issues but typically these types of parking areas would be very small so not really a big issue. So our proposed amendments for this use would be to create a new use and the accessory use section and provided that this use is 200 square feet or less an area so very small scale we would be exempting them from land development permitting. They wouldn't possibly still have to get building permits but that's a separate code item. We would propose to allow them in the front setback but they have to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the right-of-way which is in line with the temporary sales ordinance that we brought to you and then we propose to allow them in our rna neighborhood service district nsd and the urban service district usd and then again that payment requirement exempting them from that and possibly somebody could still have a farm stand that's larger in scale in other zones but it may require length element permitting or That might fall under the temporary sales ordinance. The difference with this is that it could be on the site permanently and not temporary, and it would be limited to crops that are grown on site rather than a separate location. So are there any questions on that? Is [2:56] Carolyn Fish: there anything that you can think of in non-food crops? I know that it did say excluding cannabis, but I mean hemp is coming to mind that you know we might, that could be a controversial product, but was there anything else that came to mind that could fall into that [3:16] Robin Stanahan: that we're not thinking of? You mean as far as like a problematic? Yeah, we didn't really hear of anything like that, and this was also, we do have our new draft land development for that staff are reviewing, and it didn't come up with that either. I don't know anything else. Yeah, cannabis is the main thing because it has its own set of regulations. We don't really have another crop [3:45] Daniel Carson: So for agricultural use, Counselor, and then Counselor, thank [3:52] Susan Faloon: you. Do you have any idea how many properties could be impacted by this? And then it's kind of a two-part question, but I guess I'm just thinking, you know, if this could impact a number of properties, could that cause any issues with traffic, adding these farm stands? I'm just thinking, you know, suddenly we have a lot of traffic slowing down to stop at these farm stands. Have those things been looked at? I'm just trying to think of what the potential impacts could be to neighborhoods. [4:31] Robin Stanahan: That's a good question. So it would impact quite a few properties, mainly because it's allowed in our RNA, although I will say farm sales are allowed in our RNA, but there's different provisions for them. And oftentimes those allowances in our RNA are for larger scale farm sales. So actually this particular use would have a smaller impact than the current farm sale allowances in our RNA. And then neighborhood service district and urban service district, there's not a ton of parcels that are in those zones, but this would technically be allowed on any of those lots. However, the requirement to have to sell only crops that are that are grown on the site would pretty much limit a lot of lots because a lot of thoughts and NSD and USD are very small and covered with buildings often, so they don't often have a lot of room to grow crops. And as far as traffic impacts, yes, we did think about that but because these are so small scale 200 square feet or less we didn't really feel that traffic would be a big impact when you start getting into larger square footage you know more things that you're selling than possibly that might be an impact any [5:49] Joseph Leonard: other. Oh, I'm just curious this [5:54] Wayne Mallar: non-food crops. So what I was thinking, I remember last year at the farmer's market there was an issue about breweries. Now how does this affect if you had a brewery? Can you see, because that would be, if they need a state license anyway, but have we thought, are limiting, preventing that use, or preventing the problem coming up? Well, it does refer to crops [6:26] Robin Stanahan: So I don't, I don't know that beer would really fall under that. Maybe if they were growing hops and then, oh yeah, crop, but that would be the hop itself, which is just flour basically. And yes, I mean, breweries have their own set of licensing. I, yeah, I don't know that would really fall under that, but we can eliminate it by saying, yeah, I mean, if you all feel like we [6:55] Wayne Mallar: should include that, we can include that. I know it was an issue over at the farmer's market about what they were going to do with it. The [7:03] Robin Stanahan: farmer's market is a little different though, because first of all, I mean, they're selling stuff that obviously wasn't grown on the site, it was grown in a different location. But farmers markets can include a lot of things that aren't necessarily the crops, you know. But I just don't want to get into a problem. Yeah, it's definitely a good point. You know, if we were to look at expanding the definition of farm stand to where they could sell value-added products, that's definitely something where we want to exclude, you know, beer or whatever maybe. But I'm just not sure it would fall under crops for this. But if council would feel better about having an exemption in there for that, for a cutoff [7:47] Daniel Carson: we can include that, Counselor Carson. And just in my reading of this, you know, food and non-food crops, like they wouldn't, this wouldn't even allow them to sell like things that they make from that [8:00] Robin Stanahan: Yeah, but it, you know, it is a good point. Actually, we may want to expand the definition to be value-added products, and then we can look at making sure that they [8:12] Joseph Leonard: don't sell problematic items. Do you think this is worth amending now, or just passing as is and then [8:20] Robin Stanahan: waiting to amend later? Definitely now. This is a workshop, so any edits you want to make right now [8:27] Joseph Leonard: Counselor Dean, well, similar to it, Council Carson said, what if somebody had homemade jellies and jams? I mean, that isn't a direct product, but it's related. So with that, if you found a stand that was selling that, is that against this, or would it have to be stated that it could not be a [8:45] Robin Stanahan: product like that specifically? As written, I think it wouldn't be included, but if we did expand it to value-added products, that would cover beer and beer products that aren't, yeah, because you [8:57] Susan Deane: can exclude like beer, wine, spirits, yeah. Are we all amenable to that change? [9:07] Michael Beck: I did this question just to make sure I'm hearing right. So we're saying that as written right now, the jellies would be allowed or would not be allowed? Because the way I'm reading it is it says that it's okay. I'm going to read the first part where it says for the sale of food or non food crops, okay, but later on it's saying that it has to be crops, yeah, with non food crops we were [9:30] Robin Stanahan: thinking of things like flowers, you know. [9:34] Joseph Leonard: Okay. Do you want us to vote on this one, or do you want to go to the next one and then vote on both of them? Or we should probably vote on this one, right? [9:44] Robin Stanahan: A vote on this one would be good. I did just want to bring it up for discussion. We didn't include it in this draft. We were thinking about more for the wholesale. Maybe we talk about expanding this to residential districts and maybe other commercial districts or institutional in case there's a type of residential use there that they have a guard and they want to sell from. We didn't want to tackle up with this because that would involve notifying everybody in all the zones, and we already have to do that with land development code update, so we thought we might want to tackle that then. If anybody has thoughts on that policy change now, although [10:22] Daniel Carson: that would be great to hear, we can know going forward. The only thing that comes to mind is I [10:28] Joseph Leonard: do see the future of commercial properties having more of a flexible use, and it might behoove us to tackle that sooner rather than later. That said, I don't want us to drag something that we clearly need right now. So if we want to event later, I think we will have to too, but personally I'm fine with as is for right now, if everyone else is. Councillor Peck? [10:55] Michael Beck: I'm not in the committee, but just food for future thought, the idea of you know expanding it so that residents could do it, I would be in favor of. I mean, times are tough, and if someone can make a few extra bucks selling stuff out of their garden, then I'd be amenable to that. [11:12] Susan Faloon: Councillor Fluent and Councillor Carson. Thank you. I am just wondering about things like honey and maple syrup and where those fall, because they are, you know, they're not really something you make with multiple ingredients, but there is a process involved there too, so I'm wondering if where those fall and if that should be addressed. I think that would fall under food [11:37] Robin Stanahan: food crops, I think you can make that case, so okay, my question, or maybe it's a comment, but just I [11:47] Daniel Carson: was thinking that there's already state laws that govern the fact that people can grow and sell food off their property up to a certain dollar amount, right, they're not super specific though [12:01] Robin Stanahan: you know, and we also want to make sure, like currently, and this would be falling more in line with the state law because it would be allowing people more of that ability, you know, so I do think it's important that we are able to set our own local kind of guidelines or stipulations so we can kind of guide that sort of activity into something that's not going to have negative [12:29] Daniel Carson: yeah, and so but thinking along those lines, I'm interested in knowing if by not allowing this in residential zones, if that would have a conflict with the existing state laws. That's a good, it's been a while since I've read them, so I don't actually remember, but I remember, you know, I had conversations with people, right, it seems like people can do that up to a certain dollar limit. Yeah, this [12:58] Robin Stanahan: this conflict possibly i think we need to talk to legal staff about that more and it's definitely something we'll look into with the land development code update as a whole but yeah if you all feel good with this as written though we can move forward with this and then we'll definitely look into that going forward counselor fish allowing it in the [13:24] Carolyn Fish: residential areas, I just can kind of see, we really, you know, we don't see it yet, but we really, I think we need to have some clear from this, because I could see somebody buying products somewhere else and possibly claiming they've grown it, or like a permanent sort of yard sale, it wouldn't be, you know, goods, but it could be food of some kind, and in residential neighborhoods with the traffic and with code already having enough problems just trying to keep up with code, I don't know how we would kind of police it, monitor it, and I just think there's potential for a good idea possibly resulting in some headaches we might not realize yet. So I think I'd really like to see a very clear, very clear on the do's and don'ts and how it would be monitored. [14:18] Wayne Mallar: How do curiosity do if I were to sell jams or jollies I would have to be have my kitchen certified by the state correct well refer to food yes yeah it depends but if I'm selling If I was selling vegetables, I don't have to have a permit from the state, right? I thought the Department of Agriculture was... I know if you're selling flowers, you have to have a permit from the state. Yes. But not for food products. [14:58] Susan Deane: As long as it's not value added. Like it's just, you know, you're growing cucumbers and you put cucumbers on the table. [15:08] Wayne Mallar: Same thing with flowers if you're growing plants or flowers you have to have a state agriculture product to do that it [15:18] Robin Stanahan: Might be because they want to prevent invasive species from being grown just guess what I'm thinking I don't know yeah do we need to mention [15:27] Wayne Mallar: The fact that they have to have you know state licensing to do some things like sell food I know jellies and jams they have to have a kitchen approved right well there's quite a few uses [15:42] Robin Stanahan: In the code land of element code that do need state licensing and we don't always reference that just because it is its own thing just like we don't always reference that they need a building permit or something because it's kind of like they have to do it regardless [15:56] Wayne Mallar: Oh they're supposed to I'm just looking at liability if someone makes jam and it's a bad a bad batch of jam and everyone gets sick. Do we have a contingent liability if we don't require them to have proper licensing? [16:10] Susan Deane: I don't think so. It's their liability that they didn't [16:13] Daniel Carson: Get a license. Yeah. [16:17] Jennifer Guentherman: Jennifer, did you want to read? Hi, Jen Guentherman, Director. Yes, there are actually really important state licensure requirements for value-added food, which actually includes maple syrup and honey and so they need to have a commercial kitchen. This though is something that's often balanced with the state's food sovereignty laws which are also happening at the most local level. I'm not familiar yet with what Bangor's food sovereignty laws are. I think there is an important component here about liability. If you are in a farmers market, you actually have to oftentimes prove that you have special liability insurance to cover if somebody has a bad batch of something. So these are other pieces. So yes, if you were to sell jam or jelly anywhere, typically that goes through an inspection process, such as meats as well. I don't know how that balances against anything or food sovereignty policy. So I was getting a little nervous back there talking about processed foods, because that is actually [17:27] Robin Stanahan: especially raw milk, all those things are major public health concerns. So maybe we don't, for now, include value-added products until we talk some more about patients. Counselor Beck, [17:42] Michael Beck: you had a comment. I was just going to say that for those people who want to do all of those things, they just rent one of the 50 slots, the central kitchen, yeah, and learn [17:51] Joseph Leonard: how it all works. Please sign up now. That's right. All right, so for clarification, we're taking out a value-added amendment out, and we're going back to the original proposed amendment ordinance. I'm sorry. Any other thoughts or comments on this? If not, I'll take a motion. So can I get a second by Councilor Malheur? We will need to do a roll call vote. Councilor Faloon? Yes. Councilor Fish? Yes. Councilor Carson? Yes. Councilor Malheur? Yes. That will be a yes. All right, moving on to temporary storage. [18:41] Robin Stanahan: So this proposed amendment would make a couple changes to the temporary storage ordinance. The first one is to add a new use called seasonal storage. A need has been our attention for having storage units that might be placed in a location for maybe the summer or the fall, and they would remove that, you know, for the rest of the year, and then replace it year after year. It doesn't really fall neatly immediately in our temporary storage ordinance, so we're proposing to add that as a separate piece, but apply most of the provisions that apply to temporary storage units, in addition not allowing them in residential zones or flood hazard areas, and then limiting them to being placed on the site for 180 days. So that's one section that we're proposing, and then additionally, we're looking at changes to temporary storage itself. Currently, we require temporary storage units to go to Board of Appeals for approval, which is pretty unusual. We don't really require that for any other uses in the code. So we are proposing to change that to a certificate of occupancy. And then also removing some subjective standards for that use, like aesthetic impact, and then also removing the requirement for screening, which is pretty much a permanent fixture or something that's supposed to be temporary. And let's see, we also were proposing to remove the requirement to show hardship, because that didn't exactly make sense for this type of use. And then also removing the requirements not circumvent event building area limitations if we have another standard in the same section that says that they can't exceed the building walk coverage maximum, so it's basically doing the same thing. We do still keep the requirement that they again not exceed the building walk coverage maximum, that they're not intended as a permanent or long-term use, they would still be limited to being on a site for two years total, and then also that they're not used for advertising or research. So are there any [20:56] Wayne Mallar: Any questions? Yeah, I'm confused. Not that it's a surprise, but the storage units are now, what's the time frame they can sit? [21:09] Robin Stanahan: So for a temporary storage unit that's going to be on a lot year round, they could be there. We'll keep the provision in there that they can be there for a year, and then they can apply for an extension for one more year. That's it. What is it now? [21:22] Wayne Mallar: It's the same thing. I thought there was, if I put a storage unit it on a lot I thought it was six months and then you had to apply it to the no it's a [21:34] Robin Stanahan: year it's that's not changing for this so it's a year initially and then you apply for the one year extension and then we would be adding this additional seasonal use where it could be there year after year but it could only be on a site for 180 days at a time so [21:49] Wayne Mallar: they have to remove it and bring it back yeah because we have many of those that are sitting out there now that have been there for years well they're probably in violation I'm sure they are [22:03] Susan Faloon: thank you can you explain a little bit what when these are used and what they look like I mean are we talking like a storage building or a trailer or a dumpster or all of the above [22:20] Robin Stanahan: no it would be like a trailer or like often times please connex boxes I don't know if you know what that looks like but it looks kind of like something that would go on the back of a tractor trailer or something smaller than that [22:35] Susan Faloon: even okay kind of that same look and these are used mostly for businesses [22:42] Robin Stanahan: Yeah, people use them for different things. Some businesses will use them, and actually one example is out at the Bangor Mall. There's a motorcycle school out there, and they use these, I guess they're trailers. They're kind of like the storage unit thing, but they actually use it to store their goods for the business, and that's one of those more seasonal uses, I believe. [23:04] Joseph Leonard: So okay, thank you. Yeah, Council Dean, what is the setback? I'm just trying to think in the neighborhood, if you had something that was really visible, if you're taking out the aesthetic portion with the setback that we use. Yes, a lot of times it's in the backyard, nobody sees it anyway, but if you're changing some of them. [23:32] Robin Stanahan: There's actually, oh, we did say for the seasonal storage unit that would not be located closer than 10 feet to a property line. The current temporary storage ordinance actually doesn't have a setback, but if you think that we should add one, we can, we can do that. [23:52] Joseph Leonard: I'm not, maybe I'm. [23:54] Daniel Carson: Just bring it out, just throwing it out there. Well, that was actually one of my collections. [23:59] Joseph Leonard: That I had written here was what do we do if that storage permit like blocks a neighbor's view or like gets right on their property line? So to buttress her point, I think that's an appropriate issue to bring up. Any other thoughts or comments? Yes. [24:20] Daniel Carson: What would it look like if, you know, we once this is in place, just because now I'm picturing somebody deciding that they want to get us right, we really intend to have the temporary, right, is there what like do you see any interplay between that? What if I went and did this and then I said actually I changed my mind, I. [24:48] Robin Stanahan: Need to be, you know, what would that look like, that process? Well, they both would require co, so I think it would just be a matter of going to code and saying, you know, I want it actually for this time period instead, and they would have an expiration date on that, and then they would. [25:01] Daniel Carson: Have to remove it by that date, or a follow-up question would be is there any way that this gets tagged on to the, you know, the other one that, you know, through doing both one after the other, you could end up with a storage unit that exceeds the goal of the temporary? Do you mean. [25:24] Robin Stanahan: I'm trying to envision that. So are you saying if somebody did a seasonal and then after 180 days they wanted to do a temporary and get like another year? I don't think code would, I don't think that would pass the straight test with code. I think it would be like no, you're only. [25:42] Daniel Carson: Limited to another, you know, up to a year. So I was picturing that, you know, somebody doing the temporary and then, you know, or the other, or the other way around, doing your 180 days and then, oh, a year, and then any other. [25:59] Joseph Leonard: thoughts or comments on this item okay so I guess if we're all amenable to the changes that councillor dean brought up and myself brought up but I don't [26:17] Robin Stanahan: even know that was an amendment that was required well to adding a 10-foot setback yes okay perfect [26:24] Joseph Leonard: So I will look for a motion on that amended item. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. We will need a roll call vote. Councillor Faloon? Yes. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Malheur? Yes. Councillor Carson? Yes. That'll be a yes. Fine, thank you so much. We will now be moving on to community development block grant a consolidated plan overview, and we will be waiting for Robin Snicky to join us. Good. [27:07] Robin Stanahan: Evening. Hi, my name is Robin Stanahan. I'm the community development officer for the City of Bangor. I am just giving you a final update about our consolidated plan. It is going to be coming back before this council actually the meeting after the one that's listed in your memo, so instead of on the 8th it will be coming back on the 22nd. I believe this is because we actually extended the public comment period by another few weeks. So according to the memo, it says that it's available to view online until June 8. We've actually extended that to June 20. And then we will also be doing an additional workshop within that time, but we have not scheduled that yet. And the reason that we decided to do all of these with extending the deadline for the public comments as well as scheduling another workshop is because we'd like to see if we could get some more comments. So, you know, if you're interested in going on to the City of Bangor's website, we have all of the chapters are listed individually as links, and you can go in and you can look at those. We also have physical copies of the plan located at the library, here at City Hall, a couple other locations around. town and you're able to submit comments online via email or physically or by telephone. We also have been working with the school district. This consolidated plan year is kind of unique in that we've been working with the school district and the high school kids have been working with us on the consolidated plan and they both created and administered a survey this year on consolidated community development consolidated plan issues. So you will actually get a full report from those students in the coming weeks. And then finally I just wanted to say that our CDBG allocation committee has met a couple of times to talk about what the different allocation recommendations would be and the different external funding requests that have been received and we've included in your packet sort of an overview of what some of those suggested revenue and expenditures can look like until you get the final recommendation from staff as to what projects we would like to put forward for you and you will also receive that on June 8th as well. Do you have any questions? [30:08] Michael Beck: answer back so on the proposed budget allocations that are in here now under section two looks like the lion's share of this is going into housing one way or another affordable housing well as the residential rehabilitation process and the reason why I bring this up is this what is any of this year going to go to playgrounds and street paving and sidewalking at this time we have not [30:39] Robin Stanahan: allocated any funds toward infrastructure projects. However I do know that there is some interest but no formal request from our public works has been received at this time. Okay. [30:55] Michael Beck: And so can my other next question about the housing is, you planted a seed when you were here last time. And I think it was what section 108 program? Yes. And you know, cause I look at where the money's coming from and the fact that there's a quarter of a million dollars here from program income. And you mentioned before that at one point we're making more than that in income. How would council begin a conversation [31:20] Robin Stanahan: About possibly doing that again with the having that kind of program income. Yeah, so we actually have been at that last meeting when I talked about the section 108 program. This committee gave me authorization to move forward with getting more information from HUD, kind of getting those initial steps to talk about what we could do with that kind of basically advance on our CDBG funding. And so we did have one meeting with them to talk specifically about, well, here's an idea. And that was one of the questions that they asked us, well, how would you use this funding? And I said, well, as you can probably imagine, the City of Bangor could use it any number of ways. We just want to see if we can make sure that there's something that will line up really well. And so in that particular vein we can either identify a project specifically and use money toward that goal or secondarily as we suggested in that meeting is that we could use it as a loan pool and we could put money out for developers for that gap financing and then that would essentially create a revolving fund. This section two in the proposed budget here actually does that a little bit because our current program already has a revolving feature for our rehab loans but those are individual Homeowners paying back on their own loans. That other piece was investors coming in and getting a loan and then paying those back. So it would supercharge two different types of development. One would be yourself in your home and your own renovations, and then another might be a much larger project. Project. That being said, those types of things are what really spurred that type of the $600,000 in program income. And it actually kind of created that engine just for more development to be happening. So again, it exists, but we can just ramp it up by doing more of that type of activity, if that makes sense. [33:43] Michael Beck: It does. And that excites me because I look at the fact that we've got all those pre designs you know it's almost like a one-two punch of not only we have the designs but also let's help you with the finance and I think there's a lot of [33:55] Robin Stanahan: opportunity there that I'm excited about. I will say that in this here, so the residential rehabilitation loan program and the affordable housing development lines, one of them includes a request that we had put in that is not CDBG funding. So that is a request for local funding for the quality housing provider program. So I just want to be clear about that. All of this in this budget includes one piece of local funding that was requested. That being said though, those are the types of things that can go and be shuffled back into that revolving loan feature. So yes, exactly. And having the rehab technician on staff to be able to do that is what's going to have you know, instead of being able to do one a month, we are able to do it a little bit more often. [35:00] Joseph Leonard: Other questions or comments? I just want to say thank you for updating us on this. You're only looking for feedback at this [35:15] Daniel Carson: point, or do you need action on this right now? I don't need any action, just feedback and just [35:20] Robin Stanahan: helping to get the word out to make sure that people know that they can be, you know, they can stay engaged, they can read the plan, let us know what they think. Any final thoughts from [35:33] Joseph Leonard: from either yourself or Ann? Yes, Councilor Betz. [35:38] Michael Beck: Just a question about the kids involved. So are they actually gonna come in person and present it? That's the goal. Good, okay, that's exciting. [35:47] Robin Stanahan: Yes, absolutely, yeah. [35:49] Joseph Leonard: All right. All right, thank you so much. Okay, we'll be moving on to the cultural mission spring grant program. [36:02] Susan Deane: In your packet, the recommendations from the Cultural Commission on their grant program this year. I don't know how you want to do this, but I can walk through each application just generally. [36:20] Joseph Leonard: If you want to. I think that's fine. I mean, I don't think I don't think we're going to go into the weeds of every single one, but if anyone wants to I'm obviously amenable to that, but would you like to walk us through each [36:31] Susan Deane: one? So yeah, I mean, I'll just read through them and then sure, that's fine. Even at the application from the main chapter of the American Institute of Graphic Arts, they're going to be doing a banger exhibition of the main poster show. So the recommendation they asked for 1250 and that was the recommendation. Bangor Ballet had asked for $5,000 to production and operations and the amount recommended was $1,510.30. They're using every last cent that they have in their spring budget. Bangor Beautiful had asked for $5,000 for a mural on the property at 2 Hammond Street, and the amount recommended was the same, $1,510.30. And then Bangor Community Theater had asked for funds to put on a production, and the amount requested was $2,000, and the amount recommended was $1,000. The Bangor Historical Society, for their America 250 50 of them this year they're asking for 2225 and that was the recommendation from the commission and then lastly the applicant was main academy of modern music for their banger rocks program they had asked for five thousand dollars and the amount recommended was fifteen hundred dollars so the total amount requested was twenty thousand four hundred and seventy five dollars and the total amount recommended is what's remaining in their budget at eight thousand nine [38:17] Daniel Carson: hundred ninety five dollars and sixty cents thank you for that any follow-ups yes council carson just make the comment that i appreciate in this round not seeing anybody applying for funds to purchase light assets that they can write off initiation any [38:41] Joseph Leonard: other yes counselor back there's [38:43] Michael Beck: a question about how it works with the grant you know for example bangor valet asked for 5 000 but they only got 15 10 30 cents how did that work did they have to you know agree that hey we're going to come up with the rest of the money elsewhere before they accept it from us or i think [38:59] Susan Deane: in you know if you could help me out just to make sure i say this right but in the application we do say you know if you don't have the full funds yes and they do all have [39:14] Robin Stanahan: additional funding none of these grants fully fund any of these projects this is just what we are able to give this is what also our requirement is for what they're able to apply for 5 000 is the limit so they do have in the actual applications also their match information as well as additional [39:39] Susan Deane: funding information I don't have yeah it did include their full application so you can see what the what they provided the commission yes [39:49] Wayne Mallar: councillor beller this is grant money that was put aside for 2026. okay it doesn't affect the budget for next year no this is current risk [40:00] Susan Deane: school year funds well if [40:05] Joseph Leonard: no one has any other questions and there's no other information from staff or committee members i'll be looking for a motion on this item we have a motion in a second we have to do a roll call vote counselor falloon yes counselor carson yes counselor mallard yes counselor fish yes and i'll be yes i'll move on to full council thank you so much i'll be looking for a motion to go into [40:40] Daniel Carson: executive session pursuant to one MRSA 4056c, acquisition of real property or development. Have a [40:51] Joseph Leonard: motion have a second we'll do a roll call vote counselor balloon yes [Susan Faloon: Sorry, you're] going to counselor mallard yes counselor carson yes counselor fish yes lbs they're in executive session you're live okay we are back from executive session i'll be looking for [1:03:21] Daniel Carson: a motion. I would move that we moved to the court council recommendation to extend the option for Bangor Housing Authority at Main Ave for 90 days. [1:03:39] Joseph Leonard: I have a motion and I have a second. This will need a roll call vote. Councillor Faloon? Yes. Councillor Malheur? Yes. Councillor Fish? Yes. Councillor Carson? Yes. I'll be a yes. All righty. That is going to conclude the Business Economic Development Committee meeting. It is 7.09 p.m. Stay tuned. We have government operations.