Lewiston Planning Board recommends cuts to FY2027 capital plan, defers zoning height changes

[0:50] Shanna Cox: Good evening and welcome. My name is Shanna Cox. I'm chair of the Lewiston planning board. I welcome all here this evening and call this meeting to order. Please [1:01] Zoe Littstrom: Michael Markup president. Penthea Burns here. Zoe Littstrom here. Lucy Bisson here. Shanna Cox here. Amy Smith here. Alex Pine here. [1:12] Shanna Cox: Thanks so much. I'd like to start just by recognizing with the roll call that we just did that we have had another full appointed member. So welcome Penthea Burns, fully, yes. And that we, I think we saw a recent note about this from staff, but that we do have currently two associate planning board members positions open as well as many other board and committee positions open within the city, and we would encourage residents to join us in your civic engagement on our, on our board or another one. But anyway, welcome to your full voting role tonight. Yeah, are there adjustments to the agenda? Yes. [1:51] Staff: There is. Staff would like to add under 5b of other business an amendment to the handbook. Okay, thank [2:04] Shanna Cox: you. Any other adjustments? No. Okay. [2:11] Speaker D (unidentified): Correspondence. [2:14] Staff: no although i did want to point out staff emailed out that there is a new planning board email list hopefully folks saw that email but i just want to remind you that when you reply to that list people can see your email address so while it may be a convenient way for us to have public provide comment to you i recommend that you just receive emails through that email and you don't reply to it does that make sense it mostly do you have any direction [2:48] Shanna Cox: that you'd like us to use when we are trying to reply? Because surely the instruction is not [2:55] Staff: spoken and do not speak. It's just a method of speaking. If you want to reply to an applicant, I would send it to staff and then, and then we can send it, or I mean if you want to directly with your personal email. [3:10] Shanna Cox: You are specifically speaking about when it's an email coming from an applicant. That's right. [3:15] Staff: Or any member from the public. Or the public. IF A PUBLIC WANTS TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE MIGHT START USING THAT AND SAY PUBLIC COMMENTS CAN BE SENT TO PLANNING BOARD AT LOUISSTONMAINE.GOV. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO REPLY TO THOSE COMMENTS. IT'S BETTER TO DO THE REPLYING IN THE MEETING SO EVERYBODY HEARS AND SEES THE COMMENTS. comments so it's best if you don't reply that way thanks and we can still use [3:42] Shanna Cox: that list to reply to the members on that list when we're talking about scheduling or clarifying an agenda item, for example. I think that's the only [3:50] Staff: Caution is just look and see who's on the email before you reply. If it's from staff, that's one thing. If it's from the public, that's another. Thank you, Alex did. [3:59] Shanna Cox: You have a clarifying question? Okay, excuse me. Okay, and I know that we have one public hearing tonight on our agenda, which is largely the capital improvement plan. Before we do that, I was wondering if Director Connor would like to address the board at all. I would thank [4:17] Staff: you, madam chair. Before you guys dive into the agenda tonight, I'd just like to address the removal of 240 Bartlett Street from your agenda this evening. I made the call to pull that item tonight because we realized there was a breakdown in our butter notification process following the cancellation of your last scheduled meeting. I want to be very direct with the board, this was my oversight. It turns out the department has been operating under an informal past practice regarding re-noticing that I simply wasn't aware of. Even though legal counsel has confirmed that we aren't technically required to send out new notices to the abutters, sorry, Director Connor, did you say are or aren't? Aren't we are we are not legally required to send out those new abutter notices, but technical compliance isn't the standard I want for the city. I'd rather have transparency and fairness to all of the abutters. So to make sure this doesn't happen again, I've asked Deputy Director Norton, as she's just spoken about to bring this up later on in new business. GAYLE JONES LATER. WE WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE THE WE WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE THE BOARD HANDBOOK AS A TRADITION BOARD HANDBOOK AS A TRADITION PERIOD TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T PERIOD TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. HAPPEN. IT IS A CONVERSATION TO TIGHTEN IT IS A CONVERSATION TO TIGHTEN UP. UP. WE HAVE 240 BAARLTLETT ON WE HAVE 240 BAARLTLETT ONíGEN DE IN WITH ALL THE NOTICESíGEN DE IN WITH ALL THE NOTICES SERVED. [5:46] Shanna Cox: So thank you very much. Yeah, can you remind us either now or in other business be what the standard is for the timeline of notice? So I know that for example, we moved a meeting due to snow and the city being closed, and I've been curious about what flexibility we have for rescheduling or putting a special meeting on the agenda to keep a commitment given notification requirements. So how many days and what are the venues it must be reported in? Do you want to answer the exact dates [6:18] Staff: Yeah, as far as the notices go, our practice has been that once we have a notice in the paper or in, you know, in a butter notice sent, people are on notice that the application is happening at a certain meeting. If city hall is closed, then people would just look to the website to see when it's rescheduled or call staff. And similarly, if they're here in person at that meeting and it's noted that it's either postponed or if it ends up being carried over to another meeting, they would hear about it. So that's how we've typically practiced. We haven't sent a new notice every time and put a new notice in the paper every time something changes. Can you, but what is the actual number of for the original notice? Oh, we have to mail it seven days before the meeting and then days or no, not business days, yep, just days, which is a little short depending upon how the mail service is working or not working, especially right now. Yeah, thanks. And then if we want to have a special meeting, we just have to notify the newspaper and, you know, put it on the website, do our best to get the word out, but there's no time frame by, you know, before that we have to have noticed, you know, at least 24 hours, but so we could have a special meeting with only let's say a couple days of [7:47] Shanna Cox: notice, right? Thanks. Okay, so we're going to begin with item number 4a, the planning board sending a recommendation to the city council on the Lewiston capital improvement plan, the LCIP. Can be accessed online, and I'm gonna start with the public comment period so that we make sure that's attended to before we move to board discussion. So I'm gonna open that up now. It's a three minute limit. If anyone was here, would invite you to move to the podium, announce your name and address, give it a second, see if anyone's in the wings waiting to come in, and seeing that there is none, I'm going to close our public hearing and move to board discussion. Welcome back to the capital improvement process, folks. At our last actual meeting, and this is to make sure that I am recollecting clearly and that we're starting from the same point, we had named our questions in the meeting, we were in tending to get written responses from department heads, and we were going to have a meeting to review those responses. Have Discussion and start that meeting with naming the top three items that we might recommend to council to be eliminated or reduced in the capital improvement plan given the outsized request versus bond amount. We did subsequently receive that information and cancel that meeting, which was kind of a buffer meeting, and so it brings us to today. We really are required to make a recommendation to City Council today, and so hopefully folks have been able to read the questions. I would start with saying was there any response that you really need clarified to the extent that Shelley by herself would be able to clarify it today before we move into starting with the areas of which we might have some common ground on recommending we cut? Seeing none, okay. What I'd love to do is a version of roll call with Zoe's help where each of us just names three items that we feel most confident about recommending to City Council to review or to cut from the recommendation for the capital improvement budget. Folks good with that? Great. I'm going to try to take some quick notes as we go. IS THAT WE CALL US OUT WILL YOU OKAY MICHAEL MARCOT NOT [10:23] Public commenter: EXACTLY AN EASY TASK TO DO, ESPECIALLY FROM WHERE WE'RE SEATED. WE'RE NOT IN THE DEPARTMENTS, WE'RE NOT THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND OF COURSE AS I SHARED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, 34 MILLION DOLLARS IS OUTRAGEOUS TO PUT BEFORE US IN THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN WE HAVE A DEBT problem in this community and a lack of economic development. I did make a few notes, however, anticipating not having to do this, so I would say the elimination of take-home vehicles, 5 million 246 226. Get intrigued by this item because I've been very supportive in the past last. Lisbon Street Fire Station Replacement Project, $7,041,687. Not sure why this is all being funded in the current fiscal year 27. Typically, this spans more than one fiscal year and could be broken out, but I'd flag that one as it's a large number. And the third, the third one I flagged for effect is educational space for growing enrollments. Ironically enough, when you add these three together, you're at $17 million roughly, which is half of the total of $34 million requested. Still nowhere close to getting to the limit of 80% or $6.164 million as the debt reduction my plan ordinance directs us to try to achieve knowing that it only takes one extra city council it to go to vote in favor and in past practices since 2009 usually when that is done it is done in grand style looking at the other four years in the LC IP which may or may not necessarily be part of this motion even if they know the City Council was to approve something well in excess of the six million dollar number, be facing the same issue next year and the year after before any of the numbers in the five-year plan seem to come back into a good zone, so those are my three for that practice, thank you. [13:12] Penthea Burns: Pentia Burns, thanks. I wanted to start by saying I was at the City Council meeting last week, I guess it was, and they had the report out on the audit, and one of the things that the auditor said, lots of really positive things about, and I appreciated that, and one of the things he closed with is do not defer maintenance, and so I was sort of like took that as a little bit of a mantra from myself in looking at these numbers. Likewise, I would just say I felt some, how overwhelmingly impossible it felt to cut the amount over that this proposal is, and feel a bit of longing for that to be done by people who really know the consequences of these cuts and to bring a different kind of proposal forward, so I just, I want to say that maybe just for the record, so in the spirit of what the auditor said, I didn't, I made a rule, I didn't want to touch anything to do with water, sewer, stormwater, some of the stuff where there was good match and a lot of the maintenance related stuff, and so grit in my teeth I pushed back on the education space as well and felt terrible about that, the take-home vehicles as well, either cutting or phasing that in some kind of way, I felt reluctant about the fire station although I was, I did look at it because of the how big the number is, but thought a lot about public safety, and so I had some reluctance about that, and so there was one on open spaces that is a much smaller number and feels like a feudal kind of thing to cut, but that's my third one. Thank you. [15:21] Zoe Littstrom: Zoe Lidstrom speaking for myself. I also feel the difficulty of trying to make this number smaller, especially considering that I fully agree that it's not great to defer for maintenance because it ends up being a bigger problem later. So with that being said, although I know that the police department is pushing very hard for the take-home vehicles, and I can see the sense of an upfront investment that will potentially save some amount of money in the long term, I would also push back on that one and try to see if there is a more creative way to get that funded rather than one upfront cost. I was to bring a couple of new things up. Despite the idea that we shouldn't defer maintenance, I was curious about possibly pushing back on the lighting upgrades for Lewiston public schools at 1.5 million dollars. Again, it's probably one of those things that's a cost savings in the long term, but if we're trying to cut a number down right now, that was a larger item, and I think maybe their current lights are still functional. I was also curious about the water division meter replacement, which is on page 95, at 500,000. It was suggested that more accurate meters will only increase our revenues because they will be more accurate, but it strikes me that perhaps that accuracy would be spread out over, maybe we earned more on some accounts and less on others. So that was my thought. So those are my three. Passing it on to Lucy Besson. Okay, given this a lot [17:24] Penthea Burns: of thought, and I listened to, I listened to the, I didn't listen to the city council meeting, but I watched the presentation that the police chief gave, and it makes a lot of sense except we don't have, let's say, 65 police officers, however many she's looking to get yet. So why do we need 65 vehicles now? We need to cut back on that. As much as I understand her logic and her reasoning, the vehicles help promote new hires and stuff, it doesn't make any logical sense that you have vehicles, that you buy 65 cars if we only have 60 officers. That five cars are going to sit there, and how long is it going to take to, you know, the fact that we have this car and send us up incentivize five more cops to join us. So that's one. My second one is, you know, I read a lot and I read the article in the newspaper this weekend from the superintendent, and what he intimated in that article to me is, how I read it was, that it's going to be administrative safe space at 287, not a classroom space. So I'm very much against adding more administration. I mean, I Understand that in this day and age we need more admin than we did when I was in school, but I, you know, if that space is going to be used for admin, then, you know, he needs to justify it better. So that's my second one. And this has to do kind of with maintenance, deferred maintenance and stuff. I had a question on the section of Ward one, everything behind CMMC Hospital, like where you live, and further back, the roads there are terrible. They haven't been touched in years. I went back several LCIPs. They were not on there. They're not in the five-year LCIP. There's a small section of Holland Street that is in 20 to 30. That is the only street that they're touching, and his answer was they have a policy and they, you know, a factor, and that's got to be wrong because I just kind of say something else but refrain because they haven't touched it in at least eight to ten years. That doesn't make any sense. Why is this neighborhood not touched, and yet in here we've got Delft Cliff Lane off of Montello and the, you know, the rich Sherbrooke, and not that area that, you know, they're going to put an overcoat, that's fine, but you know, you're, you're, you are neglecting a whole neighborhood, and I would like to see justification of why they're neglecting this neighborhood, and I don't even live there, but I think it's, it's terrible. So those are my three. What would I name the third one under? [21:00] Staff: Would that be street maintenance? Yes. So what is it that you want to delete out of street [21:06] Penthea Burns: maintenance? Street maintenance? Oh, like all of it? I want, no, I don't want to, yeah, I want to delete a whole heck of a lot of it and defer and reassign it to the streets, winter street and Spring Street and Summer Street and all of those streets in Riverside that are down there, Avon, that are terrible, that haven't been touched. And I understand that because we had the large development that was going to go where Pineland lumber a few years ago, this was going to, you know, the redevelopment of these streets was supposed to be part of that, but it didn't happen. Happen. So where's his formula, or is a public works formula to reevaluate that area, because this is not happening just because the developments not happening, the streets still need to be taken care of. Shelley, I appreciate that you're [22:03] Shanna Cox: taking notes but I think we'll aim to get some consensus for your full recommendation and the council can watch the video too yeah I think it's a really important note and I do wonder if the Avon Street development slash on development if you will [22:19] Public commenter: go ahead I could just chime in as a resident there so Riverside did get repaved this last year we actually a lot of the streets further closer to Main Street and further north on Main Street got repaved they were in really bad shape I think from what I remember with that project there were a lot of issues because of the grade crossings getting the railroad to cooperate and I think that my guess is that maybe has held up a lot of things in that neighborhood just because like our streets were a six month to a year behind schedule because of the grade crossings so right perhaps something will happen now but it's not the thing is it's not on the [23:06] Penthea Burns: schedule yep you know it isn't anywhere in the next five years none of those streets are mentioned and I understand you know grade crossings and stuff they have to deal with the railroad but that should be part of the factor yep it should be factored in and I just don't understand where their math is coming from it's not mapping well math or well there's there are yeah they have it isn't adding up he said no I was in agreement yeah you know I mean anyways okay [23:39] Public commenter: to the point that we're just talking about one thing that I don't see in the program is the last time any of these streets was done yeah because yeah some of us may be thinking that five to ten years ago should be done there are certain streets in Lewiston that haven't been done in 40 years we do have this nice PCI number that tells us what the grade is and maybe a little more I'm not sure if I missed it but a better description of what shim and overlay versus mill and field strip and pave mean because I'll notice that something that has a grade of 70 which is good as opposed to let's say 30 is a lower cost for shim and overlay so they're trying to protect that from getting further degraded and neat and become more costly right so I understand that but I'm not making an argument I'm just no I know we would probably be better informed if we had a column in here that said what year the last time these streets were done because some [24:51] Shanna Cox: People have been waiting for 30, 40 years. Yeah, well, if I could add to that dialogue, just for the counselors who might be listening, I would just name that with the riverfront island master plan that this board invested significant time and consideration into, that same neighborhood, and particularly those streets closer to the bridge and river, I think that's south, southwest, that would be south, yeah, right, south, in that neighborhood of Lewiston would be the prime areas for investment and redevelopment for housing close to the island point redevelopment, and so just planning thoughtfully about the future of that neighborhood as an asset, right, and we're [25:39] Penthea Burns: rebuilding the trails, we're going to re, you know, be connecting that section of trail to other sections of trail. If you want people to be, you know, trailing Zoe with your [25:53] Shanna Cox: permission, can I go last? Sure, that's fine. [25:56] Amy Smith: Amy Smith, thank you. I also prioritized taking care of the things that we already have over adding new things, and in terms of the fire station, again, the other thing I tried to understand is what things were already underway and sort of shovel ready, and that one looked like it's not really ready to go, and it's this big chunk all in one year, so I agree that could be adjusted. On the police take-home vehicles, I'm, it opened up a question in my mind as I look through all the other asks, and there are we own a lot of vehicles, a lot of equipment, a lot of vehicles, and across the five years there's there across police, public works, water department, fire department, sewer department, you know, there's about seven and a half million dollars of owning equipment, like buying equipment, and I have to wonder what's the operational cost of that too. And in general, when making capital decisions, I always want to see the operational expenses associated with each of those, which is very, light in here. I saw almost no OPEX associated with the CAPEX, which is sort of alarm bells for me. And so with the police vehicles, to your point, how many people do we actually have, I also wonder, I know that many municipalities actually lease their vehicles and then all the maintenance is included, and I just wonder how much due diligence has been done in terms of looking at that instead, so that's my remark on that. The other one also is the, you know, the five million for unspecified space in the schools [27:53] Shanna Cox: specified, and yes, we're going enrollment, correct, however, I didn't see a plan [28:00] Amy Smith: Associated with that just a dollar amount, and many of the other capital expenditures have very detailed descriptions of what and how they would use that. Not all of them, but many. And that's a big dollar amount to have no detail attached to it, yeah. [28:20] Public commenter: working backwards through the list I'd agree that the educational space for growing enrollments I looked at the comments we got back from the department head some of the questions that we asked weren't even answered in the responses and a lot of the I think a lot of the description I've seen around is sort of like well we need the money to make a plan and it sort of feels like we're being asked to do you know front the bill before we know what the bill actually will be for right and it seems pretty likely that this is heading towards admin space, and I think, you know, something that I've brought up a few times through this process being on this board is that, you know, there tends to be less information in terms of planning coming from the school department, and it's gotten a lot better, but this is a big thing that isn't really being, you know, it seems like there's definitely elements of having need here, but it feels like we're, we're kind of putting the plane together while we're taking off with it. So yeah, I would wanna reimagine what that looks like. I'm gonna jump on board with Lucy on street maintenance and sidewalk maintenance. I think they're extremely important. I agree that there are plenty of streets that are really awful in town. My street before it got repaved was really, bad, but it kept speeds down on the street, so like people weren't speeding and like, I don't know, it's short. I think my recommendation to make it concrete though for street maintenance is anything that is a dead-end street does not get paved, does not receive priority maintenance, because that's not something that benefits both people going through a neighborhood or, you know, down a block. It only really benefits the residents, and while they pay taxes and that's very important, it, you're only getting one use out of that street, you know, it's not providing connection. It's not providing any sort of link. It's not helping build community necessarily. So that's number two, and then number three. So many things you could choose from, but I think, you know, comment on the police take-home vehicles. I saw the presentation. It makes a lot of sense. I've done fleet acquisition before. I get where they're coming from on this one. I think, yeah, scaling it based on hires makes a lot of sense. And then I also think, you know, it seems like our biggest need in the police department is people on patrol, and this plan includes admin, it includes detectives, and there was good justification given for giving those roles dedicated vehicles, but I don't, I think that gets us into the realm of that's nice rather than like this is actually really helping to solve a problem. One thing that I think didn't really get brought up directly is that it seems like most of the police forces around here have take-home vehicles, and so this is sort of like keeping up with the market, the job market around this community, so that's just a comment there. But the one I acts is the city, citywide wayfinding signs. That's just more of a spiritual thing than a than a money thing. I think, well, it would be nice to have wayfinding signs. I think focusing on sort of character of places, investing in places is more important at this point, and then, you know, sort of let the wayfinding come later, just because, yeah, you know, I don't think signage can make it easier to be in a place, but it's good to have a place that you want to be in the first place. Last [32:16] Shanna Cox: but not least, so for me, I am concerned foremost with the take-home vehicles. I'd like to echo what I've heard some of the other planning board members say, which is that we're not against our patrol folks having take-home vehicles. When I think about this as a executive of an organization that has to make capital decisions and think about this, sounds like a great pilot program, that there is good rationale to do, and I would like to see a financial request that's reflective of a pilot program. So if we think that we can fill ten open positions by making this a benefit, what is the cost of ten cars, and have we ever been able to fill ten open police vacancies in one year, and start with maybe scaling. So I just, I think there's a way to think about this program over a number of years, you know. I'm not gonna repeat everything that everyone else said, so, but that for me was the first one. The second one is the educational space for growing enrollment. The school departments doing a pretty good job getting out some information about two listening sessions coming up on the 25th and 26 and so i would encourage people to attend that like people at home and i would say those listening sessions are set to find the intention of what people would like to use parts of 287 main street for and so to ask for was it five million this year and then ten next year and then five the following year feels a little premature and if this number looked more like $500,000 for managing a public engagement planning design and architectural drawing process, then that would make a ton of sense, and all of these numbers could get moved out and next year's rationale could be more thorough, then that would be a really easy thing to support. But as it's written, I can't. And so that's my second one. I love our fire department. I've been on the planning board for, I think, seven years, and we've approved two, three, two full fire departments in that span of time, Main Street and the one that's going on Mollison Way it's [34:43] Penthea Burns: already a new name for a new street, yeah, it's open, and the one on near my house [34:50] Shanna Cox: yeah, but it replaced this about a straight one. I, for any fire folks who are listening in, to my recommendation, I grew up in an EMS family, we were a family of volunteer firefighters, we didn't have a full fire force in my very small town, and so I am grateful that we have people who are working and in a building just waiting to get called, and I appreciate that, and we have some great facilities and we have some facilities that need some work, but the pace of putting in new facilities and maintaining is a really rapid pace for a community of our size and a fire department of our size and i 'd really like to see either a good rationale of why we need this many facilities and this often in light of mutual aid agreements and our actual call volume how many fire stations we needed 60 or 70 years ago versus how many we need now when we have suppression systems and regulations and all of those changes to building code just leaves an open question for me and so fire would be my with the notes that I've taken, and frankly, with Alex sounding like he had three but actually naming four and making a commitment to wayfinding signs, I see you. I would just offer for your record and simplification, Shelly, that there was universal comment on take-home vehicles that we saw, and that we also saw you almost universal questioning of education space. And I would say if we broadened that to the school department lines, then Zoe slips back in and we're universal again. And so those two were areas that I think you could say both a second look at the school department's budget, specifically the education space for growing enrollments, as well as the take-home vehicles, were pretty unanimously of note for this board. The Lisbon Street fire station, street maintenance also had considerable commonality. I think if we'd had a top five, you would have seen those five come in pretty consistent. I would like to lift up what a number of planning board members said, and thanks for giving credit to the auditor for it and but one thing that we do spend a lot of time talking about every year that we do capital improvement is the way that we're maintaining that which we exist and already have, what we're putting into maintenance of those things. And then I would say of a lesser point this year, which I think is still worth calling out because I think it means maybe the city is doing a great job in this area because we didn't have much to say about it, this board historically has wanted to see some type of proactive investments in planning activities within departments. How are they planning for multi-year capital improvements? We're seeing that better than we have before historically. Shout out to the school department who gave us numbers for all five years this year, and in all of my seven years, that's the first time that the school department has proactively planned all five years, and I appreciate that. Some of what they're really naming in there is lighting maintenance. That number seems really high, but maybe I'm crazy. I'd love to see that more justified than page 85 did, so thanks for pointing that out, Zoe. It'd be great if that did lead to lower operating costs, and that kind of rationale and more description would be really helpful for the Planning Board, Council when they're making these considerations. But it is also nice to see consistently, and I'd just like to make a point to preserve that, which we've talked about previously, but the canal improvement, the canal improvements and the Riverfront Island Master Plan improvements, those are two areas where consistent investment year over year speaks to intentional economic development and planning. And so I just like to lift up they're like way to do a great job there city code and planning and economic development but the those are the areas in which we saw some universal comments for I'd also say I heard a little bit of this kind of individually and before the meeting really started but just the scale of the financial disconnect between what can be and should be approved according to our bond policy and what helps us be a sustainable planful thoughtful city that still provides good services and environments to our residents and businesses that the size of the requests are disproportionate to the size of our resources and that 's challenging for us for the council quite frankly for the people who live or work here on a business here and then I can't help but wonder I'm not going to name any particular departments but i can't help but wonder if part of why we continuously see numbers that are this significant is because this is the way the process works give us your big Wish list and then we're going to not give you the majority of it and if you give us 20 items then we're going to give you two and so give us your best 20 and every year we set ourselves up to fail as a community with that dialogue and with that approach and I would love for our newish city administrator to really maybe turn it on its head next year and to design a process and a budget that prioritizes staying within the bond goal and there and leads our directors and their staff to do so one Of the comment please [40:48] Penthea Burns: Appreciate the your last point in particular I just want to echo that one of the comments that I wanted to make when I was presenting my three and I forgot to do that was one of the I think it was the city administrator during one of our meetings made a comment about not being able to keep up with grant writing and so on and I would love to see some robust planning going into how do we do that how do we two things some kind of planning process or dedicated position that can look at grant opportunities as well as public private partnerships for things like signage and you know like so that could be built into the process that you were just longing for in the in this so [41:46] Shanna Cox: seven years of longing seven not just seven years of one Amy yeah and I just [41:55] Amy Smith: wanted to make one other comment it is a process comment is the other thing that's hard is we see this once a year and these snapshots and these projections but I don't feel like there's any transparency around the progress of the projects that get approved and funded and I am sure there must be some software system behind the scenes that tracks this or something but we say sure or no and then don't know we never know when stuff's gonna happen we never know when things get finished and I think it would really help the process a lot if people felt like the public was being kept informed of where this money is going and when and when we can expect to see tangible results from these investments yeah I would just put a footnote to that [42:43] Shanna Cox: and we've made this comment I know Mr. Marcotte and I specifically made this comment that there are years that we see a line for a department that says this is the most important thing it's a 10 million dollar thing please approve it there is no follow-on spending related to its 10 million this year and then the net and we say no and school the City Council says no and that item doesn't come forward and this so important absolutely vital thing appears on zero future capital improvement plans, and was zero important. And if it was very important, and they somehow found a way to put it into the operating budget, that was not conveyed to us ever. And that is part of what makes this feel like a game. And I think that's unfortunate, I think that's unfortunate for the council. Frankly, I think that's unfortunate for city staff who work for these department heads, who are putting these department budgets together, and it's unfortunate for the department heads, and certainly for councilors. So, yeah, Mr. Marcotte. [43:43] Public commenter: There's so much there to try to assimilate all at once. But you're right, man. I was thinking of the WASH facility, and I can't remember if it was there last year, and now I don't think it's in there this year. And did it happen? Well, if it happened, it would be nice to know that it happened, because a lot of times something is approved, goes through council, approved, it's borrowed for, but that accounts it's out there for two three years before that project gets done. For whatever reason it gets delayed, that's why we see on certain financial reports none encumbrances from past years that have been authorized but not issued. So if the project didn't go forward, it's not issued, but it's already approved and it won't be reapproved because it was already approved. Trying to switch gears and I'm not sure if I've really done [44:40] Shanna Cox: that one well. Just on that point as you prepare to switch gears is that was a philosophy of a previous finance department head and previous administrator, which might have made good financial sense, the ability to authorize it and then wait for the best financial position in terms to then actually issue the debt. And while that might be a really great financial PRACTICE, IT LEAVES US A LITTLE UNCLEAR ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL PRACTICE OF USING THOSE FUNDS. OR WHEN THAT DEBT WAS ISSUED, WAS IT THEN APPLIED TO A PROJECT THAT WAS SHOVEL READY? IT JUST FEELS A LITTLE WIGGLY AND HARD TO UNDERSTAND ON THE OUTCOME OR THE IMPACT OF THE BOND END OF THINGS. [45:23] Public commenter: THAT'S MAYBE WHERE IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE, LET'S SAY, NINE MONTHS IN, THE PLANNING BOARD IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE LC IP again. Three months later is to have some sort of graphic with all of these items. Yeah, you know whether they were approved or not, where's the progress of it, no did it get shelved, and then I did it get separated into different years, split out like let's say the fire station, because there is a program and for all for the three substations and the yeah the big one would be the last one. But shifting the gears likewise I did want to make a point about the maintenance and other people did make it that maintenance should not necessarily be deferred, but coming from the finance and accounting world you really don't like to see the words repair or maybe even maintenance when you're capitalizing assets that really should be done in the operating budget. I know a six million dollar number is not necessarily gonna fit into a operating budget, but there does seem to be one thing that's been left out the City Council and the years not near its close yet. As it nears its closed this information will become more available as to whether the city has a like to use the word profit, but where they have more money sitting there than [47:01] Speaker D (unidentified): The anticipated surplus there, we go a little less loaded than profit, yes it's [47:10] Public commenter: a unanticipated surplus, and hopefully it's unanticipated because this process should be designed to try to be as spot-on as possible, but if there's a surplus and there usually is no, some of that will be applied to some of these items. We don't know that right now, and that's where the maintenance items could benefit from that surplus, whatever the number became becomes to get it to [47:37] Speaker D (unidentified): as close to the 6.1 as possible. Yeah, thank you. I don't know if we have this planned in [47:47] Public commenter: to our process here, but you know we've talked a lot about cutting. Would there be an opportunity for all of us to mention maybe one that we're very excited about to send that as part of our [47:57] Shanna Cox: recommendation? Yeah, so I think the original request though, the which three would you cut, is certainly more instructive when this is the financial position of the what we're looking at, but the original request was to also consider up to three things that you would request council preserve, and so I'd, I'd love to hear that one to three items from folks who might or might not have remembered that particular suggested homework assignment, so don't feel like you're being put on the spot. We're going to run this one backwards and I'll call roll for you, Zone. We're going to [48:29] Public commenter: start at this end with mr pine did you see all of my green check marks no so the three that i'm very excited about i think the continental mill tiff is just super exciting you know it'd be great to see that i think you know we're bringing more people to the city hopefully we're bringing more housing means more tax revenue more stuff happening that's great i think the next one that i'm you know i'm gonna actually just we'll do two here self-serving both the sunnyside riverside trail extension and the Sunnyside Park renovations. Oh, that's not in that budget year, sorry. Sunnyside Park renovations is my second, part of the reason I moved to Lewiston is we have some really wonderful park spaces, natural spaces. I hear people talk so much about economic development. We gotta do this and we gotta do that. And in my view, when you look at the dollar amount associated with cleaning up a park or extending a trail, and you think about all of the people who can use it, young people, old people, middle-aged folks, from out of town, I think there's a really great case to be made in terms of financial efficiency for doing a lot of good with not a whole lot of money when it comes to park things and trail things. And then the last thing that I'd like to see preserved is the ADA upgrades to Lewiston Middle School and Montello. I've actually interacted with some folks who have had personal experience with this, and it has made their lives extremely difficult and uncomfortable and just miserable. So I think this is something that is really important to me that you know everyone can use these facilities equally thank [50:29] Amy Smith: you so mine is the river from island master plan which is all federal funds this year but then there's more money from Lewiston in the future I think that's just so important for the city the other two might seem boring but super important is I want the library to have its HVAC system and I would like the high school in the middle school to [50:55] Penthea Burns: have roofs Lucy are you ready whatever you want I really had not given that part too much of a plan but I do agree with the other members the riverfront implementation is very important and you know certain and the high school maintenance not just a high school but the school maintenance stuff the ADA and roofs this is something it's again maintenance as Penthi have mentioned that the auditor mentioned we need to keep up with the maintenance on our buildings because all of a sudden you know the buildings falling apart we need a new school a new whatever and it's because we just haven't kept up with the maintenance and unfortunately maintenance should not be in the LCIP in the capital improvement budget it should be operational and unfortunately we just don't have the funds for and whatever the library wants I am very [52:16] Zoe Littstrom: Much a library person. Thanks Zoe. I would echo Alex's statement about the Continental Mill TIF. I think it's, I mean, the old mills are such a part of Lewiston's history, and to turn them into something needed like housing is just, and I think we also saw around the opposition to the proposed AI data center that anything we can do to support like lifebringing kinds of uses of the mills is great, so that one is super exciting to me. I would also love to see Sunny Side Park renovations, and I know it's not this year, but the trail extension sounds really exciting too, so I'll then improvements of the school district bathrooms I think are very needed, speaking as someone who is close to someone who works in the school [53:15] Penthea Burns: department, the water main replacement, that having encountered that multiple times in my own life here, I am pleased to see that happening, this the roofs, new roofs on the schools, library HVAC as well, and that I agree with many of the ones that [53:44] Shanna Cox: others said too. Thanks Mr. Marco. Excuse [53:50] Public commenter: me sticking with the items that are being funded by the city and i'll come back to something after i mention my three continental mill tiff of course i mean that's why these tips are there to make sure that a project goes forward a project that will help create revenue generation for the city also the lowell street development tiff and kind of a group the mdot three east avenue bait street and locally administered state funding pedestrians whatever the imp stands for because obviously these three items are a very small share of the entire project, so that would be my three priorities. Speaking of the, what was it again, the Riverfront Island implementation, it looks like it's being funded by federal and state, [54:54] Shanna Cox: what the FS stands for, I think that was a congressional spending earmark for some of [54:59] Public commenter: the improvements, I mean, so anything that's being funded without any Lewiston dollars is a no-brainer, or 10 or 20 percent Lewiston funding would be a priority, and it's been said at least once during the first round, some of the items that obviously the planning board usually likes, and I think it's magnanimous of us to put this on the chopping block for the members who have the way for finding signs of the Kennedy Park and Sunnyside Park. But addressing two of these anyway, Kennedy Park and Sunnyside Park, these are things that could be applied for with that grant writer. There may even be naming rights in order to get a private investment rather than just a federal grant. There may be corporate grants are allowable or accessible I should say, especially if there's naming rights. [56:10] Penthea Burns: Cynthia did you want to add something? I just want to say this, like something like that so achievable that it would be, it would be smart to look at that kind of [56:19] Shanna Cox: strategy. I'm gonna take my liberty and be just a little bit sneaky and make my first item all the tips, since that worked for some of you. Didn't know that was allowed did you? Like how I did that? Yeah, and then my second would be all parks because that also makes sense to me, and then I'm, I'm in agreement on MDOT I think just in general, and to like kind of give some broad reflections to the tough task ahead for the council. I think oftentimes when we're, we planning board and the council are presented with this, you know, big book, it becomes very easy to look at it department by department and line by line, and part of what we lose when we do that is the value of what the spend is. It is not always the value of the dollars that are there, it's you know the opportunity cost of not doing it, as in deferred maintenance, but it is also the additional revenue that can come from making that investment. And I was really grateful that you called out a main water because there is, there is so much that we just assume and we don't question. You'll never hear us say please cut these basic water sewer lines, like we just trust that department, we trust that budget, and we know that those things are needed to keep life going for people who work, live, and own businesses here. But within that there is so much opportunity, like these two tips, to say that investment of tax dollars will have immediate and prolonged development benefit to the local economy, to the tax base, and to the quality of life because of what it will create that will have this kind of lasting benefit. And I think that's true with the parks. And so just a real kudos to be thinking from the lens of where do, what we approve to be bonded now, where is that an investment and not just an expense, and that's a very different way of kind of thinking about the whole of these numbers and not just each number. And then I just really want to double down on what Penn and Mike are saying, which is there is so much opportunity and it Takes, there's oftentimes a lot of complaints about investment in positions and salary and overhead and staffing, and the reality is to build relationships with the private sector who would very much believe in a park. You know, some of those parks are akin to businesses and into employers, or to large institutions that would have a vested interest in maintaining that park, or contributing to that park, or having naming rights in that park, and they're not just gonna walk in the front doors of City Hall and say, would love to throw some money at whatever you think you might need. You have to build relationships, you have to build trust, and that happens with people who work for the city who are reviewing grant opportunities or making written agreements with the private sector. And so just to be reminded, in part because that's part of the regular budget, you don't see people, they're not capital, but it is very much where some of your capital expenses can be mitigated. And so thanks to the Planning Board for a good clean process with [59:30] Penthea Burns: really clear recommendations, and we need an, we need an action, don't we? Yes. [59:34] Shanna Cox: And so I'll finish my thanks, which is, and thanks, because it is nice to see this board have consensus and to speak from a planful state and not just a react full state around what the full numbers are. So gratitude to all of you, and for the department heads for [59:54] Penthea Burns: mostly answering our questions. Who would like to make a motion? I'd like to make a motion pursuant to article 7 section 4e of the zoning and land use code to send a favorable recommendation for the city council's consideration of the adoption of the fiscal year 2027 Lewiston capital improvement program with the suggestions of deletions and acceptances of that we made during our [1:00:28] Speaker D (unidentified): discussions. Is there a second for discussion sake? Thank you. So we have a second [1:00:36] Public commenter: and discussion. Friendly amendment, I'm trying to process in my mind just making sure that everything is there, you know, because like last week I was not prepared to vote for this, but I like how the discussion went forward tonight. We had unfortunate events became a fortunate event tonight where we had the ample time to do it, and right from the beginning of the meeting and not after a stressful portion of a meeting. I'd like to add the word guidance as well as the deletions and acceptance, because I think there's some guidance in there as well. Okay, I'll accept that. Okay, so [1:01:15] Shanna Cox: a friendly amendment has accepted by the first and the second. So would you accept your own amendment [1:01:20] Speaker D (unidentified): Great, and like to hear what this looks like. Yeah, thank you. Other discussion? [Zoe Littstrom: In let's] call the roll. I'm hoping to hear, oh, from us, from the, I thought it was the, like, can we hear back from council, which we usually state, from the transcription of what those deletions and additions and guidance is actually? Do you want to share just kind of the high level of what you [1:01:47] Shanna Cox: caught, or are you planning on going back to the video for the details? I know there was a lot in [1:01:52] Staff: there. Both, but I think it's helpful to kind of summarize what it is, so let me just see somewhere in here. Shanna, you summarized things, I'm just looking for that. Yeah, I've got my little cheat sheet, crosshatch too. So you summarized the suggestions for deletions and also did for the preservation. Okay, so Shannon noted there was a universal comment on take-home vehicles. Most saw almost universal questioning of education space, with universal questioning on school department budget. The Lisbon Street Fire Station and Street Maintenance also had a number of comments. Shanna wanted to raise up the comment that we need to maintain what we already have and that this board has wanted to typically see proactive planning. Then you mentioned the school board and how the school budget is out five years. so I think that 's really the recap that I'm seeing in here let me take a stab at the [1:03:21] Shanna Cox: preservation recap for your recollection of notes, which is that there was a lot of agreement on the tips, parks, and MDOT, and that the summary version of that would look like this: planning board seeing the investment of leveraging expenses, what either leverages additional outside dollars by choosing to spend that money, or the investment of that expense creates the opportunity for future return on that investment with development, increased economic activity, and increased tax base. So that was tips, parks, MDOT, and a big shout out to the water mains that don't get enough attention but really keep life working, I think was also in there, Mr. [1:04:12] Speaker D (unidentified): Marquette, that helpful with the [1:04:16] Public commenter: three big items mentioned, fire station, take home vehicles, and educational space. Those were the three big ones. Yeah, if those get into the motion somehow, and maybe towards the end of it with the guidance, is to get as close to the debt reduction plan as possible. [1:04:36] Shanna Cox: Okay, would that require, I think I heard you ask for another amendment to the actual language of [1:04:42] Speaker D (unidentified): the motion? Yeah, that could be added into the guidance portion. Yeah, do we need the motion to [1:04:50] Shanna Cox: Be amended, or can we just be sure that the recommendations and guidance reflect that? [1:04:56] Speaker D (unidentified): And then the motion stands as already, like to have it spelled out, I think procedurally we [1:05:02] Public commenter: should kill this motion and redo the motion, because that was added in after discussion and after the vote was put on the floor. Yeah, I can appreciate that. Then call the [1:05:13] Speaker D (unidentified): roll. Would call the roll? Yeah, sure. That's what discussion is for. You can [1:05:20] Public commenter: actually change the motion during the discussion with an amendment. It can be a straight-up amendment, it could be a friendly amendment, it could be a [1:05:29] Shanna Cox: straight-up. Yeah, so I think maybe the only point of order issue with Alex's is phrasing was around the technicality of what we must do. It will be easier and cleaner to have a new motion than to potentially amend it, unless you would like to offer a full language of emotion [1:05:48] Public commenter: as amended. Well, I don't think it's harmful just to have the final phrase saying try to get as close as possible. We're not dictating how, we're just suggesting that our. Shall I offer a friendly [1:06:02] Shanna Cox: amendment? We'll see how we do. Sure. Would you let me take track? Okay, to make a motion pursuant to article 7 section 4e of the zoning and land use code to send a favorable recommendation for the City Council's consideration of the adoption of the FY 2027 Lewiston capital improvement program, with the specific recommendations from this board that cuts be considered from the take-home vehicles, the educational space and or the school budget, as well as consideration of the street maintenance and the fire station, that this committee further recommends the preservation of investments into both tips and parks, as well as any place where an investment will leverage additional dollars from other means, specifically calling out the MD ot areas for preservation. Would ask that the council reflect the guidance given throughout our deliberation sessions, including tonight's, and that specifically the council does its best to aim to the adherence of the debt reduction policy. Will [1:07:38] Penthea Burns: you accept that amendment? Did you write that down so [1:07:50] Shanna Cox: that you'll, we'll be able to make that motion again if we call roll on the [1:07:53] Staff: existing one? Oh, I don't type as fast as you talk. I was planning on getting that from the recording. Like I have pieces of it, I won't say it exactly the same twice. Yep. Okay, so I'm still gonna [1:08:05] Shanna Cox: ask you, would you like to accept that, or would you prefer a new motion? No, I can't [1:08:11] Penthea Burns: accept it as an amendment, because this is a new motion. You phrased it as a new motion. Okay, then I'm gonna [1:08:18] Shanna Cox: Ask that we call the role for the motion that's on the floor, Michael. [1:08:23] Public commenter: i'm just gonna say it 's not [1:08:26] Speaker D (unidentified): new, it's an amendment, it's not, I think procedurally at this point, which I very [1:08:31] Shanna Cox: rarely do, I'm just gonna call Robert's Rules of Order, and there is a motion on [1:08:35] Penthea Burns: the floor, I'm calling the roll to the original motion, the original motion [1:08:39] Shanna Cox: that's it, with its first friendly amendment, which was passed by burst both [1:08:43] Public commenter: first and second. I have a feeling it's gonna pass, and unfortunately I'd have to vote no because it's not going to include that language. Okay, so call the [1:08:55] Zoe Littstrom: roll please. Michael Marcotte, no. Panthea Burns, no. Zoe Lidstrom, no. Lucy Bison, no. Shanna Cox, no. [1:09:05] Shanna Cox: Amy Smith, no. Alex Pine, no. I'd like to propose a motion as I have just recently worded it, and this is recorded, is there anyone who will second it from the last time I said it, or must I say it again? Thank you. Are you good procedurally, Shelley, with that motion? Thank you. Any discussion on that [1:09:29] Speaker D (unidentified): motion, which is now on the floor? Mr. Marco, I'd just like to thank everybody. Yeah, thanks, I wasn't [1:09:36] Shanna Cox: expecting that, it's appreciated. I love that for all of us. Great, Zoe, call the roll. Okay, Michael [1:09:43] Zoe Littstrom: Marquette, yes. Panthea Burns, yes. Zoe Lidstrom, yes. Lucy Bison, yes. Shanna Cox, yes. Amy Smith, yes. [1:09:51] Shanna Cox: Yes, Alex Pine, yes. Well done, motion passes unanimously. Good team playing, everybody. All right, we now are going to move on to other business, and we'd like to start with item A, discussion on city council comments regarding article 11 amendments from the meeting held 2 3 20 26. [1:10:16] Staff: Okay, so you'll recall that we had a number of ordinance changes that went to the city council at their first reading in January. There were some questions raised by members of the board, the biggest question and the one that was kind of the lingering question was a concern about adding minimum building height in the NCB of 20 feet. Right now there is no minimum in that district. I passed out earlier this evening the answer to questions that staff had provided to the mayor and the council after that meeting, in advance of their second reading, and it also discussed their concerns in it. So really just summarizing, there was a concern by Councillor Nejean that ADUs would not have a height restriction on them, and more broadly he was concerned that height restrictions would reduce housing opportunities, and his particular neighborhood is in the NCB, or at least portions of it, and he cited a couple of, you know, buildings that are one story. So there was also discussion with Councillor Chittim about That and, you know, comments made that we shouldn't be restricting housing opportunities. Trying to see if there's anything else to point out on that. [1:12:07] Shanna Cox: Quick clarifying question, which just might be like a logistical one. I might just be out of the loop and catching up from a week away. The document that you're referring to is the memo to Mayor Chalene and City Council members from Shelley Norton dated January 27, 2026. Is that right? Yes. Okay, and on our agenda we're naming that the, there are comments made at the meeting held 2 3 20 26. Yes, so at that is gone and I have not seen or am seeing documentation from those comments in that meeting, and so I'm wondering if there's a bridge from the January 27th notes to what actually occurred February 3rd. Yeah, the [1:12:49] Staff: bridge is that those concerns they had at the first reading were brought back at the second reading, and they did not pass article 11. They passed all of the other articles and stated a concern that the changes in article 11, the rest of them they were very supportive of and wanted to see it back as soon as possible, but they didn't have the capacity to do like a line item veto of that one issue, so they did not make a suggestion to the planning board as to what they would want to see. So I think it was to come back to you. We love their full trust for discussion on whether you want to eliminate that entirely, you want to come back with and still want 20 feet or a different dimension. So that was kind of the discussion tonight was to see if staff and the board could get some direction going forward. [1:13:41] Public commenter: Thanks. I see Alex and then Lucy. I live in this neighborhood where this all came up. I see sort of two paths on this one. I don't particularly like the doing average height suggestion that Counselor Chittum suggested. We already have that for density in the neighborhood and it is so confusing to figure out what you're allowed to do because of that. I think my preference would either be we change the language to say the primary structure has to be 20 feet tall and that's my strong preference. I know Some of the buildings that are being talked about here that are shorter and they are out of place in that neighborhood and kind of a little bit of a waste of space, you know, that more could be done on that lot if it just had two stories. The other option would be just to eliminate it, just to make this simple, but my strong preference would be that we just include language that says primary structure has to be 20 and that way if an accessory structure like a garage or an ADU or an extension to the building gets put on that doesn't, that doesn't fall under that requirement, the largest mass on the property has to be 20 feet tall. I can't wait for many buildings with [1:14:59] Penthea Burns: steeples. I don't like the idea of not having a minimum because for the main structure because you're gonna get, you know, a squat little, you know, mini house or whether that's 10 feet tall or 12 feet tall and it's just not gonna fit in the character of whatever the neighborhood is. So I would, I would ADUS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I STILL THINK THAT AN ADU HAS TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO WHAT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOT JUST, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION OF THE AVERAGE HEIGHT OF THIS AND THAT, AND THE SAME THING WITH THE AVERAGE FRONT YARD, BUT I PREFER THAT TO NO MINIMUM AT ALL, BECAUSE we're gonna find ourselves with a squat little shed that's ten feet tall and [1:16:03] Speaker D (unidentified): it's gonna look like heck. Thank you. Other comments from the board? Zoe. [1:16:10] Zoe Littstrom: Actually just have some clarifying questions since I'm less familiar with the zoning at this point, so because it looks like counselor new jeans question was specific to ad use, but then it also looks like maybe in the NCB there is no [1:16:25] Shanna Cox: minimum height for any, which I think that's right, that we were now. Okay. Yeah. [1:16:32] Zoe Littstrom: Yeah, so the question would be whether it's sort of like, well, do we do a minimum height at all, or would it only be applied to the primary, or would it be applied to both? Those are over. It does feel like the largest question and there [1:16:45] Shanna Cox: was no guidance from Council other than not having a 20 foot on all structures. [1:16:52] Staff: Yeah. I mean, Councillor Nagine did mention 12 foot, 14 foot, I think I mentioned in there, looking at modular buildings. So that was, he also mentioned a desire to see mobile homes because they are an affordable housing option be allowed. And those would be one story. But if we are looking at this, staff has identified that right now, we wouldn't know exactly how to apply it in some situations where our current minimum building height doesn't specify whether it's a principal structure or all buildings. And we also have another issue that we want to bring some solutions for, which is the minimum setbacks and some of those districts, not the NCB but like downtown residential and so forth. You know, if you're building a garage, do we force you to put it up five feet from the right? So I think there's those accessory structures we need to consider how a lot is built out with multiple buildings, and we haven't really thought that through I think in the design standards. I [1:18:07] Shanna Cox: would like to question whether there is one more additional path than what Mr. pine has laid out for us which is that we provide recommendations to counsel for all amendments except for this one specific so we make their line item issue a non-issue by removing this while you do more due diligence and provide that would be my strongest recommendation is I'm glad that they liked so much of the work that we spent many meetings doing and please let them act on it and so my first recommendation firm we don't need a motion I think for this item and so maybe just a straw poll with thumbs from our planning board members. But what I would propose is that staff prepares a recommendation to city council that looks exactly like what was submitted previously minus this one item, so that they can act and that you can begin implementation with what's there already. And I'd like to straw pull that first and foremost, and then we can talk about what to do and give you guidance separately on this particular issue. So are folks feeling good about that proposal of like please counsel just work well? There would be no change, the existing ordinance would not be amended for this one item for the maximum minimum Heights, and the rest of the recommendations we made would go to [1:19:21] Public commenter: Council. So basically just resubmit minus this, and then we'll do this at some [1:19:25] Shanna Cox: future time. Scratch this one out, let them vote on the rest, because the council didn't have the ability to do a line item veto, so they were stuck essentially rejecting all of our amendments because of this one item. And so my proposal is for them to receive all of our recommended amendments, except for this one item, so that they can approve it as a package. Mr. Marcotte? Now I'm confused. [1:19:48] Public commenter: Yeah. There were five items before the council? Did they reject them all? [1:19:54] Shanna Cox: No, they wanted to accept everything and just had concerns with this one minimum height issue, but because of the way the recommendation came to them of all of the amendments that we've done. [1:20:07] Staff: This was one agenda item, article 11, yes, so article 11 was voted down, but within article 11 there were a number of changes, and this was one of those [1:20:18] Public commenter: changes, and they were happy with the rest of the changes, just not that one. [1:20:22] Shanna Cox: That's right, yeah, so your thumb on this, quite frankly, the majority of thumbs on this would allow the council to reconsider all of the article 11 amendments that we proposed except for this one maximum height issue, so that they could approve and start operating with all of the other suggestions that we made, and that we can figure out what the fix is for this separately without holding up the rest of the work, that fix [1:20:46] Speaker D (unidentified): would necessitate another public hearing, correct? Yeah, yes, and so we would probably bring it back [1:20:52] Staff: with other ordinance changes that we're going to be working on this spring. It would buy us some time, if you will, to kind of wrap that into other things so it's not a standalone. Yeah, and in the [1:21:03] Shanna Cox: interim, people could do on their lots what they could already do on their lots. We're not proposing anything changed, and that's real fundamentally the point. [1:21:11] Public commenter: Doesn't the council have the right to make changes when it's sent up to the [1:21:15] Staff: council, minor in nature, and so the interpretation of admin was that this was significant enough, so it was not something that could be sufficient [1:21:28] Speaker D (unidentified): up, sufficient enough to, yeah, so or you could make a motion. Yeah, so I guess my [1:21:37] Public commenter: question is just a procedural one, and for the record, you know, I was proposing two pathways on solving their particular concerns. No, I'm aware, not the motion, okay, the way you said it sounded [1:21:48] Shanna Cox: like, well, because yes it was, and here's two pathways, and I'm saying yes, and there's a third [1:21:53] Public commenter: pathway. Got it, okay, yeah, not specifically on. So what I'm wondering is, do we, do we have to like go back and redo the motion because we already sent our recommended, like what I'm wondering is like, is this sort of solving a problem where we're gonna have to do public hearing anyway to like [1:22:14] Shanna Cox: Resend this back up so my procedural answer would be as this arrives in under other business does not require a motion or a public hearing, that our discussion can provide the appropriate staff input for the staff to put in a council packet an updated red line of changes to amendments to Article 11 that will exist exactly the way they did as we recommended them and as the council liked them without any changes to this one item within Article 11. [1:22:47] Public commenter: But we don't need to revote on that no going up your two pathways will require [1:22:52] Shanna Cox: a public hearing and a vote and will happen procedurally at a different time [1:22:55] Speaker D (unidentified): with other amendments to ordinance changes yeah here's another wrinkle [1:23:00] Public commenter: Because I got a call as to why I voted no yeah and then I went back to the minutes that's where I asked about the minutes being posted in December and such we voted the whole package all five items as one vote went to the council as five separate items probably procedurally it needed to be done that way article by article and they voted four of them up and one of them they did not so the idea of we could actually reconsider article 11 I'm not sure how you do that when we had one vote yeah I'm not for the entire [1:23:39] Speaker D (unidentified): five set or six that whatever it was yeah so I feel like you've gotten some [1:23:45] Shanna Cox: consensus from this board on recommending that council consider our [1:23:51] Staff: changes separate from the maximums I think so although I didn't really see a straw poll like I saw one person with a thumb and then later a thumb okay I didn't see yeah great so straw poll and keep your thumbs up so that Shelly can [1:24:06] Public commenter: get a count so the council would approve article 11 as it was sent to them with the understanding that it would come back to us and they would get what [1:24:20] Staff: they're looking for I 'm not hearing that right so I think our intent was that we would probably come back with a public hearing to the planning board at a future meeting and then it would go to council and it would be whatever you decide tonight so in this case perhaps it's the removal of a minimum height or if it's something else this is what i was trying [1:24:47] Speaker D (unidentified): to get to yeah so it sounds like whatever so then our straw poll is really support for you to take an action of which we'll see later anyway and none of it goes to council yeah great so this is a thumbs up to have the public hearing for the item i think it's really technically a thumbs up [1:25:02] Staff: To give guidance to staff, or if you want to go one at a time and just say, "I'm fine with removing the minimum for now and revisiting it later," or, "No, I want to keep the minimum in." I mean, I think we just need a consensus as to the, I think what you're hearing from at least two of our planning board [1:25:18] Shanna Cox: members is what that consensus will create for action next, and that's where there's a lack of clarity. Do you want to offer more clarity on what would happen next after we give you that [1:25:28] Staff: recommendation? Yeah, it's what I just said. I think we would be coming back at a future meeting for a public hearing and for the final language for a recommendation to city council, and then it would go to city council. So whether it happens on February 23rd or March third, it would be soon, sorry, March 9th, it would happen in the next, you know, few weeks here, that we would try to come [1:25:51] Shanna Cox: back with the amendments. I'm just going to get ahead of some clarity because I think you got most of the way there, Shelly, but you're short just a little bit, which is you would bring back language that looked exactly like we'd proposed in the city council light minus the minimums, should you hear that from us in a moment, and that would then be reviewed, public hearing, and then sent to council, assuming that we recommend it, and that specifically the action steps related to minimums or not would come before this board with a different public hearing with new amendments to other ordinances in the spring. So what we'd see next is quick action around just getting this language struck from what we had recommended and still moving forward to council. Yes, can you tell me again what language is being struck? Specifically the language of height minimums and NCB. [1:26:42] Staff: So it's on the dimensional chart right now. In the NCB column there is no minimum height, and we added 20, so we would be taking 20 off. Oh, I thought the [1:26:57] Public commenter: other way around. I thought there was no minimum and that was the concern of [1:27:00] Staff: council. There was no minimum and now we are adding a minimum and they are concerned that you can't build a one-story structure now with this new [1:27:10] Speaker D (unidentified): change because our minimum was 20 because there was no man's the new [1:27:16] Shanna Cox: minimum is 20. And when we proposed a minimum of 20 feet, which they considered and were concerned with and rejected all of our changes based on that one concern because they could not, so they're [1:27:28] Speaker D (unidentified): looking to put the 10, 12 foot little shed back there. I think our next discussion will be about [1:27:35] Shanna Cox: What we think they're looking for and what we'd recommend, but I'd like to get this one out of the way. Yeah, so a thumbs up right now. I'm going to try to summarize all this in one spot. A thumbs up right now, or you can simply say I support moving our recommended changes to article 11, with the exception of any minimum and NCB, to move forward for a public hearing and revisiting. That would be our first step. So okay, Lucy, can you give us a thumbs on this particular proposal? Great, so I think you have majority support on that. Is that what you need for the first part of this [1:28:17] Staff: discussion, Shelly? Yes, that is. I do want to point out, because I may not have specified that it was two members of the board who spoke about this concern. There wasn't a lot of discussion from other members of the board, and there was discussion. Oh, I'm so sorry. Oh, that's very different. Yeah, yep. So while they all voted article 11 down, they didn't all speak on this topic, so I don't know as we had a clear consensus of all of their thoughts on it, so I just want to point that out. So like there's still a chance that it could [1:28:57] Public commenter: come back, because there's something else in article 11 that some of the other [1:29:01] Staff: council, no, I'm sorry, that's not what I meant about when we're talking about the concern about adding a minimum height and the desire to see housing of any shape or size, but just how just we need housing. That was a viewpoint that was stated by one counselor, and there was some discussion and support by another counselor, but I don't remember there being a lot of discussion among the rest of the council. While they all unanimously did vote it down, but I think they voted it down to come back to planning board for rework, so I believe that were you to send it with no minimum, that they would want to pass those things and understand that future changes would be coming. Don't have a [1:29:44] Shanna Cox: crystal ball though. Thanks. Can I take a quick stab, because I think you are still needing some guidance on what staff might do to address minimums for a future discussion. Are you looking for some of that, or would you prefer to prefer to bring information to the board for a future discussion, and do you not [1:30:03] Staff: want us to discuss it unless the board has some clear guidance tonight? I'm happy with us putting a pin in this for a couple months and we'll come back and discuss it at a [1:30:12] Shanna Cox: Future workshop, I have one item I'd love to leave you with, okay, which is I think the challenge specifically that I heard a number of planning board members say, and that felt like it was echoed with city council, and that even staff is identifying as an issue, is the lack of differentiation between primary structure and accessory versus accessory dwelling structures. And so like I think about the, you know, 10 foot shed that bikes and the snow blowers sit in, and I don't want to see that be two stories either, right? And I do think an ADU that is housing somebody might want to address some of Lucy's concerns, and I don't know if it also should hit the 20, right? Maybe it's three quarters of the minimum height for an accessory dwelling unit, but I think that any work that you might do or research that you might look at how other communities are handling this, particularly with some of the other changes we've been required to put in from the state legislature, is to differentiate between primary structures and accessory and accessory dwelling structures with no recommendations and Heights or anything like that but I think that fundamentally part of the rub is we're using new structures in new ways and new language to describe that some of the older language we have in our ordinances doesn't really capture and that 's gonna become more problematic not less any good fix will fix that too great amendment to the handbook which was an additional adjustment to the agenda and is now other business 5b, okay. And just for clarity, are you looking for feedback on the small item halfway through the page we were presented this evening, because [1:32:06] Staff: we procedurally be able to approve it? Yeah, so at the organizational meeting in January you made a motion to approve the planning board handbook, and tonight we're bringing a one son two sentence edit to the section on a notice to a butters that we're proposing and looking for the board's thoughts on, and if you want to support it, a motion to support that amendment. Well [1:32:37] Penthea Burns: I think it's great that we make a clarification that we now have a specific, you know, that if the meeting is canceled like the snow meeting two weeks ago, that you don't have to send out notices to the abutters, and I think it's it's always good to clarify, and I would be willing to make a motion if that's what we need to do to do the handbook with this agent with this adjustment. [1:33:11] Shanna Cox: Second, you can't second the motion that hasn't been made yet, but I'm gonna come [1:33:15] Penthea Burns: to you right so we can have discussion first yeah thanks mr. [1:33:24] Speaker D (unidentified): Marcotte and then mr. pine and then myself I do not agree with this because [1:33:28] Public commenter: Because if you're a next-door neighbor and you got your notice and the meeting was canceled for whatever reason, you may not be computer literate, maybe elderly, whatever the case may be, and you have no idea when that meeting is being rescheduled, in a two-week period or a month away. way so I don't agree with that change it's underlined is everything above currently in the correct it is okay so the affected definition is already there Alex so two things one I'm I'm assuming that the first notice has a So, you know, please contact Shelly if you have questions about this item or something like that. [1:34:23] Staff: Yeah, we have the website and the phone number for the department as well as either my email address or Craig's or someone in the department. [1:34:32] Public commenter: So like there is a way that, you know, if someone's like, OK, I think the meeting has been canceled, they can contact you and you would be able to say, hey, we've rescheduled the meeting for this day. and then the second one which I think is you know out of turn for me normally but there should be a comma after canceled right we all think so it's gonna add you know beat Zoe and Lucy to the punch here [1:34:59] Zoe Littstrom: I would suggest maybe this language could be in the original notice so that it's specifically [1:35:28] Penthea Burns: giving people instruction to do in the event of a meeting being canceled yeah which wouldn't change anything that would approve for [1:35:37] Shanna Cox: language tonight but would be a procedural point for practice mmm Amy you're the only person hasn't spoken yet I'm happy to let you go first okay my so I actually have a substantive issue and I'm grateful for the comma as well I think the way I read this and the language that's there above, I agree with this and to Mr. Marcotte's point, I think the, or contact staff or folks who don't have access to a computer or are less comfortable with technology can pick up an old-fashioned like ding-a-ding, -a-ding phone and call the city and say, hi, Shelly's name or Craig's name was on the bottom of this notice. I went to City Hall, the doors were locked, I know it's snowing, I don't know what happened. They can have a human interaction that tells them what to do and what the date is, and even request a, let's say they did it the morning after the snowstorm and the city staff hadn't figured out the next date that this was gonna fit on, it could certainly leave a message with Shelly and say, please call me when you do know that date, and I bet your staff would follow up. My concern is actually kind of a step beyond that. So what happens if the item, if not, if the meeting is not canceled, but if the item is like tonight. So we had an item that was supposed to be on the agenda tonight. The abutters notice went out, I'm not sure when, and probably said that it's gonna be tonight, and it's not canceled, and so yeah, it's, it's been postponed and or even rescheduled at this point. I think we have a date for when that's gonna be, and so how does this language also address that? I'm not convinced it does. I know that you spoke to it a little bit when you know, Mr. Conner was in the room, but it does feel like even if somebody was sitting here right now who had hoped to comment on the on the mosque hearing and we didn't know that the date was going to be today, it just feels like whatever this language is should address that proactively. What, even if it's, and for you know, for folks who are concerned or have an item they'd like to speak to that in a butters notice has gone out to, should that item be tabled? It is the expectation of the abutter to have been at the meeting that it was tabled and to follow up individually or whatever, because you're essentially putting the onus on the person who would like to be engaged in this public process to figure out how and when it's being rescheduled. And I think we should just be naming like what happens in the other scenario, which specifically was tonight. I just love that language to be in there as well, mostly to add the level of clarity that I think you're trying to [1:38:18] Speaker D (unidentified): add. Yeah, that's helpful. Mr. Pine, what would that be then? Mr. Marcotte, my [1:38:26] Public commenter: apologies, would that just be captured by saying in the event that a meeting is canceled or an item is postponed, yeah, additional butters notices will not be [1:38:38] Shanna Cox: said. Can we just make that, I know maybe not all of the original authors are in the room, but can we just make that suggestion tonight to deal with it? Great, so when we make the motion we'd be naming, can you catch that in your topographical errors that we're going to come to? Which one? The language in the event that a meeting is cancelled comma [1:38:58] Penthea Burns: or postponed or an item is postponed yeah comma [1:39:05] Shanna Cox: and then the rest of the language. Mr. Marcotte, thanks for your patience. [1:39:10] Public commenter: I think there's another particular area that needs a slight grammatical correction as well, but I guess I've already always assumed that notice to abutters was a radius of distance. Reading this now where we have a definition for affected versus abutters, meaning that in this particular case, I know that Mayotte Sausage is an abutter, the one across the street, Leonard's Territory, is an abutter. Not sure. [1:39:47] Shanna Cox: Actually, Mayotte- Armand's is not an abutter. [1:39:50] Penthea Burns: Mayotte is not an abutter because there's the mirrors building between- [1:39:55] Shanna Cox: Yeah, technically it would be diagonal. Although maybe not by the property purchase, I guess there's extra wrinkles [1:40:03] Public commenter: there I don't want to dive into at this point, but and of course two other properties nearby, I'm not sure what the facility name is, it's further up Bartlett Street on the right, and of course then there's the Italian bakery across the street. I don't know if there's directly across any abutting or maybe diagonally, but then if you're the next one up and your Melanson's, you're simply affected. No, you're not gonna butter, therefore you don't get a notice. I'm [1:40:38] Shanna Cox: gonna just help you out there. The second half of the first sentence says staff shall notify a budding and affected property owners. It's the very opening paragraph, so while they're defining a budding and affected, I think you could read this alternatively, Mike, to say and if you live on the other side of town, you better found it on the website because we didn't have to notify you. But for everyone who's affected, which looks like this, and everyone who's a budding, which looks like this, we will make sure you're notified and [1:41:10] Public commenter: right, I guess that was my misunderstanding. I thought the def the difference in the two definitions were excluding the affected, because obviously you can be affected by additional TRAFFIC UP AND DOWN FROM BIRD STREET TO ADAMS STREET. THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT. AND JUST FOR THE GRAMMATICAL AT THE TOP, PROCEDURE FOR NOTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT TWO AFFECTED SHOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE ABUTTERS AND AFFECTED. SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS BEING DONE WITH THE COMMA FOR CANCEL POSTPONED AT THE BOTTOM. BOTH OF THOSE WOULD SHOULD BE IN THAT FIRST LINE UNDER C NOTICE to a butters if it's including both the butters and affected, so we could have [1:41:56] Staff: that redevelopment to a budding and affected, I think that needs to get [1:42:04] Public commenter: Repeated throughout the rest of the text, there's some other spots where, you know, use one term or use the other term. I could just add a little clarity. So where else is it that I'm getting this idea of a radius distance of notification going out? So is it a different category and it's not the word [1:42:25] Speaker D (unidentified): abutters in that case? The third paragraph down, that the word [1:42:31] Shanna Cox: affected shall be defined to mean any property not sharing a common physical boundary but upon probably another but upon whom the proposed development would have impact as determined by the planning and code enforcement department director [1:42:43] Public commenter: designated. Because I know in years past, especially big, the bigger the project, when it seems as though when people who were not about it but they were definitely affected, there would be getting the notices. I mean I [1:42:59] Shanna Cox: think that reflects good staff leadership and decision-making where that particular segment names that it's determined by the planning and code enforcement development director. It doesn't mean so, you know, small modification to a garage, like, a might not really trigger for eight properties away, whereas putting in a shopping plaza that has, you know, significant recommended daily trips and might affect three different light signals in the area. [1:43:30] Public commenter: Oh, that's what I was thinking. [1:43:32] Shanna Cox: I think staff is probably proactively saying we better notify everyone within a half mile radius that might be affected by that because certainly we'll hear about it if we don't. And so far that's worked out really well, showing consistency there. [1:43:45] Penthea Burns: The gender and project on Charles Street, those ones, they notify everybody and his brother pretty much. [1:43:58] Staff: I can tell you what we actually do because you guys are conjecturing. Keep us guessing. We notify a 300 radius for all projects. So we're required to do a certain 300 feet, so we're caught from the property line of the parcel being developed, so we're required to do that I think by first subdivision, and we just do that consistently for all projects because it'd be too complicated for staff to do differently for different things. Mike [1:44:32] Shanna Cox: you're getting your radius but that's what they use. Yeah, that's why, that's why [1:44:35] Public commenter: I didn't see that language here. It's not, and of course the word affected them [1:44:39] Staff: seeing for the first time, so that kind of threw me. We, it's unusual that we go beyond that, but we have in a few cases. Yeah, good chat. So right now I think [1:44:52] Shanna Cox: we're going to Zoe for some grammatical updates. Yes, so just with the [1:44:59] Zoe Littstrom: Sentences to be added, we'll start there first. So there was additional wording that was added, so it's in the event that a meeting is cancelled or an item is postponed, comma, additional butters notices will not be sent. That's what I had. Should it just say notices because additional notices? Yeah, okay, that works. That removes one of my things with the apostrophe there. And I would note that though cancelled is not necessarily technically misspelled, cancelled with one L is more common if you care about that so much. Keep up with a change times, ma'am. And I do have just a few other suggestions for the rest of that whole thing if I could just go through them if we're on it, and it shouldn't take too long. Would people be okay with that role? But also [1:45:53] Shanna Cox: please make those changes on your physical piece of paper and leave it with Shelly for later follow [1:46:00] Zoe Littstrom: This is more so for the record, I guess, for the folks at home. So in the first sentence for projects requiring planning board review and approval, sorry, actually we're going to [1:46:13] Shanna Cox: make a start right there at the top where we've recommended the addition of abutting. [1:46:19] Zoe Littstrom: Procedure for notification of development to abutting and affected property owners. That's the title. Then the first sentence. We do not need the commas offsetting in writing. We can just say, shall notify abutting and affected property owners in writing of the specific nature of the development plans. Great. Second sentence, change which to that. The word abutting shall be defined to mean any property that shares a common physical boundary, et cetera, et cetera. Please also excise the comma after the word. The word abutting. We don't need that comma. Same change on the third sentence. The word affected, we don't need a comma after word. And I think that takes care of everything, and I'm happy to leave my copy with you, Shelley. Well done. Thank you. I am looking for a motion [1:47:12] Shanna Cox: maybe from Lucy in a second from Penn on accepting these changes as recommended. I [1:47:17] Penthea Burns: would like to make a motion that we accept the changes grammatical and procedural to the section C notice to abutters. [1:47:31] Shanna Cox: Of the planning board handbook. [1:47:33] Penthea Burns: Of the planning board handbook, yes. I'd like to second that motion. Well done. [1:47:40] Shanna Cox: Any discussion on this item? Call the roll. [1:47:45] Zoe Littstrom: Michael Marcotte. No. Penthea Burns. Yes. Zoe Littstrom, yes. Lucy Bisson. Yes. Shanna Cox. Yes. Yes. Amy Smith. [1:47:54] Shanna Cox: Yes. Alex Bein. Yes. And for a fun update in 2026, we did a little background and we only have historically asked why somebody has voted no, specifically when that item is going as a recommendation to city council to further clarify for the record of why that no vote was placed in city council or quite frankly a minority vote should that ever be kind of flip-flopped. And thus we won't be asking why somebody has voted no unless that discrete set of circumstances arises. So I'd move to reading of the minutes a motion to reconsider and adopt the December 22nd 2025 minutes and adopt the January 12th [1:48:32] Penthea Burns: 2026 draft minutes which we've surely seen. I would like to make a motion to reconsider and adopt the December 22nd meeting minutes. Oh, do you want me to get, do both? I was, oh, you're trying to separate them. I tried, I thought it would be separating them would be the ideal way to do it. Second. [1:48:53] Shanna Cox: thank you discussion on the december 22nd no minute call the role michael marcotte are we 're voting to reconsider yes specifically the december 22nd 2025 minutes yes [1:49:10] Zoe Littstrom: A Pentia Burns? Yes. Zoe Littstrom? Yes. Lucy Bison? Yes. Shanna Cox? Yes. Amy Smith? Yes. Alex Pine? Yes. [1:49:19] Penthea Burns: I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the minutes for the January 12th [1:49:24] Shanna Cox: meeting. Second. Thank you. Any discussion on those minutes? No. [1:49:31] Public commenter: Question though. Sure. All we did was reconsidered the 12th, 22nd, right? We [1:49:36] Penthea Burns: reconsidered and voted on and accepted them and accept. Yeah, well I thought it was one motion at a time. Well it was a motion for the union and then a [1:49:49] Shanna Cox: motion for the 12th. I would go one step further which I think is what you're inquiring about and that the procedural issue our board had experienced was recommended to be resolved by [1:50:00] Speaker D (unidentified): reconsidering those minutes and adopting. I saw that and that's why I voted yes because I thought [1:50:05] Public commenter: we were just only reconsidering. I didn't know that we were voting them in at the same time, but I'd like to come back to another business item because things happen a little too fast [1:50:17] Shanna Cox: where we got here. Okay. But there is currently a motion on the floor. Did you have anything related to that for discussion? No, I did not. [1:50:24] Public commenter: Could you call the roll, please? We did receive a copy of that. Yes, we did. Okay. Michael Marcott? Yes. Penthea Burns? Yes. Zoe Lidstrom? [1:50:33] Shanna Cox: Yes. Lucy Bisson? Yes. Shanna Cox? Yes. Amy Smith? Yes. Alex Pine? Yes. I believe that you would like to go back to other business and [1:50:42] Public commenter: Another business item. Yeah, what, you know, I was saying right before, none of the minutes, I didn't really have time to formulate my thoughts, but so well you mentioned that usually people are asked why they voted no on certain things that go up to council, and you weren't going to ask on this one. Anybody does have the right to give input if they want to see their thoughts in the minutes, and in this particular case I'd like to make sure that my thoughts are recorded, that I don't believe that not notifying one of the abutters on the occasion of a cancellation or postponement is in proper order for respect of the people who are buttered, butters, and affected, and with respect to the 20 December 22nd minutes, because I did go back to those minutes trying to find my thoughts, and it simply said that I shared my opinions, but the opinions weren't there, and that was on something that went to council, so it's all interconnected, and that's why I wanted to put that out there. Thank [1:51:58] Shanna Cox: you. Motion to adjourn. Is there a second to Luci's motion? Second. Thanks. All in favor, aye. Have a great night. We'll see you back on February 23rd. Yep, love council with capital improvement. Thank you so much. I'd like for the record to note that this was here without a cover when I got here. I didn't do it. [1:52:25] Public commenter: You had a highlighter? Yeah. I don't know that it's not mine, [1:52:28] Shanna Cox: but if it's the mayor's, I'm not messing with it. Well, it's mine. [1:52:33] Public commenter: I didn't do it.