Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
[0:00] Councilor Charlie: The Planning Board on the RV moratorium with discussions of how to move forward, as I understand it, and then the TIFF task force. I have no real details on that one, so I'm going to launch this.
[0:15] Councilor: Charlie, yeah, I think I'm going to, we'll send it off to Brittany. She's got incredible, and thank you to Brittany and Tracy and Andrew and Robert, put together a great deck on, you know, kind of next steps on the campground moratorium. I know there's some questions from staff, some options, and I believe we'll do a Q&A with the Planning Board, but I'll send it off to Brittany. Alright, good evening everyone. I think I can get this to work. I just want to say a little something at the beginning, which I wrote because public speaking is so great. We recognize that the campground moratorium has been difficult at times contentious issue for our community. At its core, this is about finding the right balance between protecting the rights of property owners and applicants while also protecting neighboring properties, neighborhoods, and the community as a whole. Staff is not here to advocate for one side or the other. Our role is to provide the Council with the objective information and outline the options available along with the potential benefits and consequences of each. Tonight we hope to get the Council the information you need to make a thoughtful and balanced decision about the best path forward. With that, we have pretty short presentation and then we'll open up the floor for Q&A. I do want to hold all questions till the end so that way you have, you know, so we basically have three options. So I'm going to present those options and then we'll open the floor for some discussion questions. So, the moratorium, you know, was passed for, you know, basically to allow for a staff under SANSA to evaluate existing regulations, identify regulatory and community concerns, review the zoning and performance and consider long-term approaches for development, specifically in rural zones. Staff has reviewed state and local regulations. We looked at the comp plan again. We also looked at performance standards for other cities and towns in Maine. So after our review, we have some findings. We believe we can strengthen some existing standards. We feel the moratorium language was a bit vague and it could have some clarification. We understand Council wants us to consider our broader rural land use review, which is in alignment with the Home Plan. We have found that regulations are equal to, or our ordinances are equal to or more robust than state standards in regards to campground performance standards. And then we do, we did briefly look at the rural zoning and evaluating, expanding to the three rural designations that the comp plan outlined. So, here are the three options staff has come up with. Option one, we believe, or, you know, option one, maintaining existing moratorium and then we fast track the review of section 806 in chapter 56 to look at it from, you know, creating a stricter buffer zone and that sort of thing and updating some language. language, just strengthening that a bit to help address some of those concerns. Option two is to rescind the current moratorium and replace with a moratorium limiting only new campground development. Patrick Lyons kind of gave us this idea to work with, so he has more information on this one when we get to it. I know he's not here tonight, but that's where we are. And then the third option is to rescind the current moratorium and replace it with a moratorium on all development in the rural zone until we're able to fully evaluate the rezoning of the rural zone. Just to go into a little bit more detail, keep the moratorium and update the standards. Staff has reviewed the standards, and there are only two areas that we identified as really needing some tweaking in the immediate future. Obviously all of our ordinances can be looked at and strengthened in a hundred different ways. It's very, you know, different perspectives come into play there. But for short term, there wasn't a lot of updating that Scott felt needed to happen to find that balance between land owner and the neighbor. For option two, I don't have too much more detail on this, but if it's a direction you want us to pursue, we will work with Pat to find a way to make this one happen with Billy. But basically it's saying replace the moratorium with one that only causes development on new campgrounds. There was a little bit of background information on this that I'll let Charlie speak to after. And then option three again, replace the campground moratorium with one that causes all new rural development to give the city time to review and really dive into zoning and figure out the best use for the best expenses there. And again, this one is a heavy lift, so a lot of work, a lot of expense. So definitely look at is the cost, time, and expense worth the outcome. We're happy to do a preliminary high-level view of this and present counsel with findings, but just know that this one is a lot more work to it than it might sound. And then this is just a review. I included some of the timelines. Option one, we're thinking two to three months. You might be able to expedite that a little bit, but where, you know, we have been working on the ordinance updates, we would recommend doing a planning board workshop if we're just updating, you know, the ordinance and moving forward. So that needs time. Planning board workshop has to go to planning board, their recommendation, and then council. We have to worry about timing between planning board and council for proper notification on that one. The second one would take a little bit longer because there's more research and time involved in figuring out the wording and what's legal and defensible. So that's more legal cost and more time. And then the third is a big, job. We would recommend hiring a consultant to do it properly. I believe the size of Ellsworth warrants that, especially with limited staff capacity. So that could be a lot more expensive and obviously take more time because proper public workshops or have to be done more, you know, task force and communities to get the public feedback to talk about it to really do it, do just this on the
[8:38] Planning Board member: third one that was to give you a perspective of people may not realize how large the rural zone is. The rural zone is just the relevant, it doesn't, doesn't include the drinking water zone, is 51 of the land mass. If you have the drinking water zone and it's like three quarters of the way and
[9:01] Councilor: drinking water is pretty much a rural zone, but it's the most restrictive. How
[9:08] Planning Board member: many square miles is that? Well, it's nice, it's half of a city and it's 97 square miles. Yeah, so it's almost 50 miles per mile small.
[9:22] Councilor: Any preliminary questions before and then we go on to the staff orientation. Option number three, get the timeline and that the cost is a lot, but do we even have, will we have to wait until the next budget season to pay for that? Yes. So it wouldn't be in this fiscal year. Unless you have it, cannot come out of the plan because I don't have the budget plan. Right. Okay. And
[9:52] Councilor Charlie: one other question you can address as you move forward, is there, I guess I'd be interested in looking at if we could do options one and two and if there's value in doing that. I see those as distinct trying to address specific issues versus the larger scale option.
[10:15] Councilor: Potentially, I think it feels like a lot of extra work for not much gain, because if you're looking, if you're looking to update those ordinances and move on, then you might as well update them for all of them and not just focus on one versus the other, I guess. Yeah, maybe I could chime in just for a, and I'd love to hear the planning board's perspective, too. I know we're going to get to theirs in a bit, but, you know, my own opinion is obviously in the one zone, and let's get it as quick as possible. But you know, also this process for getting to, I know not just with this but with a lot of these items, like a new work plan for the council, really thinking towards 2027, but also towards, this is kind of first on the list, especially with a new council, that what is like the policy direction before we start trying to prep all three options, but knowing that we at least enough meeting the bones of these things to get to that point where we can say, hey, it seems like the majority of the council wants to do one, and it seems like at least thus far everybody's in agreement that we should at least do one, is the place we're at now. Let's take a review of these exit regulations. Can we update the performance standards? It's really two and three that are, if we're gonna go down that path, we're gonna need to provide a lot more staff time and legal resources if three is going to be pursued, and we're really doing a full rezoning and potentially looking at these kind of rural residential areas is not in the mix, you know, that's that's that's a much longer process, and obviously relates to two. If it's gonna be that long of a period of time, you know, I know we talked in the last meeting that there might be unintended consequences here, and we had a very brief discussion on the existing campgrounds and should they be in the moratorium or should they be allowed to expand, and turns out there is one that was hoping to expand and was planning on bringing something forward sooner, so would we want to consider that to move forward quicker if we're going to do the third one? So there's a lot of considerations here, but I feel like really we did outline a process now that there's uncertainty back in the mix for how we can move this forward and get to like what is the majority will of the council from a policy perspective, and I know Brittany you'll give a good reference on what the staff's perspective is and obviously the planning.
[13:07] Councilor Charlie: And maybe related to this part of the conversation, it would be helpful for me, maybe for other members of the council who are here, to better understand when we have this issue before the council. There was code speak about maybe there's an existing campground that maybe is going to do an expansion. We have no information, and so we moved ahead with the one that we've got. I'm hearing second and third hand that there actually is something. So I love what on Reliance is trying to address with part two. I don't know what that was and whether we can have heard,
[13:56] Councilor: but not from. As far as planning is concerned, nothing has been submitted for an active project.
[14:04] Councilor Charlie: Have you had conversations? Are you aware of?
[14:07] Councilor: I'm only aware through secondhand information.
[14:10] Councilor Charlie: OK, so we're in the same world.
[14:12] Councilor: But the treehouse thing is underway, but not finished.
[14:18] Planning Board member: They currently have all of their permits. They pulled them all before the moratorium.
[14:24] Councilor: Okay, so they're pre-moratorium, so they're unaffected.
[14:28] Planning Board member: Yes, they've already been issued permits.
[14:31] Councilor: And the expansion of the timberland? No. No what? Oh, is the treehouse considered a campground too? What was your question, Charlie? The treehouses are considered a campground?
[14:50] Public commenter: I'd like to address that on email. In your definition, you define large-scale campground, which is not defined in Chapter 56. Large-scale campground, in your definition, differs a lot with what the campground that we're operating on right now. Hugely different. And item number three, moratorium on large-scale campground developments. The second sentence is, no person or organization shall develop or operate a large-scale campground development within the city of Ellsworth. Which, in my thought of that, is, by my count, seven large-scale cramp grounds in the city.
[15:34] Councilor Charlie: So we're operating is the problem there.
[15:37] Public commenter: You're shutting all those campgrounds down.
[15:40] Planning Board member: I haven't enforced it, but technically if somebody complained, I would have to shut down every campground.
[15:44] Councilor Charlie: So where does, so that language came from?
[15:49] Public commenter: It came from the moratorium.
[15:50] Councilor Charlie: I understand it's in the moratorium. I'm looking for what the logic was in including that word. We weren't involved. We weren't involved.
[16:00] Councilor: Well, somebody prepared that moratorium for us. We did not actually put those words together.
[16:05] City Manager: It was reviewed by legal counsel. Yeah, legal review. Yeah, legal review.
[16:08] Councilor: I don't know who actually drafted it, but these are good points.
[16:13] Councilor Charlie: And did legal raise issues on that? Again, I think it was discussed.
[16:17] Councilor: I don't think so. Certainly not the campgrounds versus large-scale campgrounds. When we were evaluating what we defined as campgrounds, it was the RV parks and maybe tent sites, but we weren't thinking along the lines of the treehouse project, which is... It was more of a glamp ground. Yeah, I don't know, like, yeah, I didn't, because it wasn't our beam, but
[16:50] Public commenter: Why would legal or whatever, the council, vote on something that you totally change? This is about the definition that we operate on. The definition section, Roman numeral 2, includes rental cabins and cottages, which is not included in the camp ground in Chapter 56. So you've now included Arbor Camp, which is the tree houses. Under the strict definition, interpretation of Section 3, that can't ground, large-scale hand-ground according to your definition, has to be shut down, as well as six other locations.
[17:42] Councilor: So that's why we apply a few strict... But it's shut down or can't expand? Shut down. Shut down. They can't operate. We didn't ask that clarifying question there during that meeting. The lawyer said that was not the case.
[17:58] Public commenter: It was written like that.
[18:00] Planning Board member: It was certainly written that way.
[18:01] Councilor: I thought it was talked about that he was going to change the way that was worded because it was addressed at the meeting as a question. I distinctly remember that conversation. It was like, oops, that's not what we meant. He was supposed to change it. When we're looking at our moratorium options, number one is fixing these little things so everything can run smoothly, and then getting better regulations in place in the actual campground section of the moratorium.
[18:42] Planning Board member: Yeah, option one is fixing the performance standards and then...
[18:45] Councilor: But also in the meantime, fixing the languages of this moratorium so we are not restricting That would be, that would be option one and two together if you take option one.
[19:05] Planning Board member: The idea, my option one is we fix the four standards to be better, to better address the issues that were there deficient, and then rescind the moratorium, right, so that it goes away, so that everyone can still operate, which
[19:21] Councilor: which was the goal to doing six months or less.
[19:23] Planning Board member: So option two leaves it in place for an undetermined amount of time, allows current... I think it would make those tweaks. Well, there's no reason to leave it in place if you're going to make the tweaks. So option two would be to leave it in place to have a larger goal in mind for rezoning or... That's right. Yeah, so two and three can kind of go together. You could do three by itself.
[19:49] Councilor: But three should be done separately because it is a bigger project. The comprehensive plan, though, suggested in several places redoing ordinances and land uses and this, that, the other thing. So it was big and comprehensive, and it sounds like three would simply be a part of, or could be, a part of that larger effort.
[20:14] Public commenter: Correct. Not a lot of them. Also with the comprehensive plan, there's several places in it that I mentioned recreationally. And campgrounds are recreational areas, okay? Whether you've got RVs or tent sites, people come here because they want to get back to nature and they want a big RV with a total of a Jeep Rubicon.
[20:38] Councilor: Yes, it points out finding the balance between the two.
[20:40] Public commenter: You've got to find, we've got to find the right balance to protect these rural residential areas we've got. And we've got to remember also, and also, Ellsworth is made up of multiple little communities. That's why we're so huge. You've got Bayside, you've got Joyville, you've got Happytown, you've got Wincampaw, Four Corners, McCormick, I could go on, Starville, Ellsworth Falls, North Ellsworth. Ellsworth. All these little villages all made Ellsworth to what it is. And I empathize with people who live in the subdivision. You've got to have good neighbors, you see what I mean? And I understand what the state says, we need to do away with this, crowd everybody all together, but we've got to find the right balance. Nobody wants to be built on each other's problems. We've got to have good neighbors.
[21:45] Councilor: So, I have a question about item 3. You say rescind the current moratorium and replace with a moratorium on all buildings. You're talking all development? Including the building of one and two family dwellings and that kind of thing? So what you're saying is stopping all building within the rural zones of the city of Ellsworth, period. That's a big deal.
[22:15] Public commenter: That's kind of like going nuclear.
[22:18] Councilor: That would be suicide.
[22:21] Councilor Charlie: We've only got four councillors, but we've got a good turnout from the planning board. Is anyone interested in option three?
[22:29] Councilor: No one's face? That would destroy Ellsworth's integrity across the board.
[22:36] Councilor Charlie: I would say that wasn't our intention when we were going through. And again, where this is a workshop, no decisions being made, or no votes being taken.
[22:46] Public commenter: What was your intention when you said that?
[22:48] Councilor: The intention was to look at the rural zone. I think when we were talking about it at Council, what I was questioning anyway was to look at our rural zones and ask, is this correct in how it stands from when they were done back in 2012? And if we needed to add the borough, residential, rural, commercial, right, so to look at that and in order to do that and not have the hiccup of a citizen group coming in here and having another project that is good and allowable but then having the effort of the citizens having something come in next to their homes like mining or something like that would you know upset them. I think that's why that's why this is being offered. However, I don't think me it's the cost and the time of it is really prohibitive and also stopping all building especially housing is yeah I don't like that at all. So did you put the moratorium on just to stop this RV park is that the reason you guys had that? Well the RV we it
[23:59] Councilor Charlie: It can't be for just one thing.
[24:01] Councilor: Well, we were voting on something two days in the future,
[24:04] Public commenter: and that's that, and Monday night, so see if that might be the reason why you guys came up with it.
[24:08] Councilor Charlie: So others can address why it was gone towards before the vote. I wasn't there at the August meeting, but that was the idea. It was my understanding that we can't do more. I'm frustrated that we had this reviewed by legal, and thank you. Legal said the word operate. A
[24:46] Councilor: piece of information. Yeah, I mean, so I agree on three. I think there might be a four here, which is stick with the narrow moratorium on campgrounds, development moratorium, but also one that was originally not in support of a rescindment or replacement of anything. Thing. Based on my discussions with legal counsel, while I disagree with the moratorium, it was legally defensible and I didn't pick up on this that's going to offer a bunch of other things, but also part of my guidance was that we need to wait until planning board rules. We had that 45 day, I think, clause so we could iron out all the unintended consequences. And in some ways, that's what we're doing right now. This unintended consequences on a new campground development I thought was the only one. But I'll search back with legal very fast on that other one, John, on if it could be considered that way. Because that, to me, would warrant an immediate, let's bring something back to rescind and replace that does not include those. To me, the discussion at the meeting with legal counsel was that the moratorium is defensible. And really the conversation was around the existing versus new and some of those other things that we needed to look into. But I'll I'll fast-track that just to get some guidance on if we do need to rescind and replace with something, everything. I'd love to hear from the planning board a little more too on discussion I was hoping to have on some of those like the comp plan and allowing Having this in these areas, our current ordinances on campgrounds in terms of suitability, what your all thoughts were on that? A Couple of thoughts just throughout there, like the reason kind of campground came forward was because there was an application about it. And when we were looking at the campground ordinance in place it was apparent that it had a few lacking issues, especially if you compare the use of a campground and our definition of campground is very broad, it includes a lot of things and then you compare that to like the protections provided in the mobile home park ordinance it was apparent that they were Very different and that residences next to a campground had very few protections and those who would be next to a mobile home camp rent mobile home park would have a lot more afforded protections. So it was apparent that there was some deficiencies that were going to negatively impact existing homeowners. So that's why I think the evidence of trying to get campgrounds stopped until we figured out a better way. One thought comes to mind for me is that there were two things I'll say. I think campground is a broad term and like John said, now the word campground could mean these tree house things, it could mean tent camping, it could mean 40 foot long RVs coming and going in the night. They to me they should be separated into different categories of camping versus RV. They seem very different to me when it talks about the impact on the area the noise the lighting the septic the wells all these things are much more intense and RV use versus camping use. And so that would be my thought we need to really separate those two things and not just love them all together because if you lump them together you're making camping areas so restrictive it becomes impossible for them to do it And make a business savvy decision to do that and RVing. If you don't comply a lot of regulations, then the homeowners and neighboring properties are going to suffer the consequences. So like to me that seems a separate thing, but it also shows that now with the comprehensive plan in place and we have to utilize that in our thought process, because that's like point one in our articles and chapter that says you must include that as a comprehensive thought on all your processes. We may not just face campgrounds in a month or two. We could get an application for some other kind of project that the ordinance is outdated and no longer consistent with the betterment of elsewhere. So that's my thoughts. Do you have another category for glamping or like the tree houses or would you where would you kind of in my thoughts glamping from what I know of glamping, not that I ever have glamped, okay, but it's it's tense now. I don't know if they run on like a lot of generators. Good, so camping is typically a little quieter. People aren't typically doing that. So I don't know what I don't personally know enough about the glamping to make a decision on that. I just don't. I don't know, you know what
[30:10] Public commenter: they got going on some of the planned grounds that are extremely expensive.
[30:17] Councilor: What are their what are their impacts on their neighbors? I don't know. They're almost hotel like. I'm thinking of the KOA that new one down there in Town Hill. Yeah, when I worked on yeah, but they're almost hotel like. They're not year-round. What that points out those how difficult is to draw the line, yeah, between type A camping and type B camping, yeah, but the other one is not on the Surrey Road. Right,, right. No, but they vary. Right, yeah. Like a yurt with no frills versus whatever it is, the thing at Downhill. But the biggest thing of all of them is if you provide a big enough buffer between the use and the neighboring properties so that they don't impact, like the campgrounds we currently have in Ellsworth, which have huge expanses of woods between their use and their neighbor. And so they're not impacting. That's not actually the case. But when you start talking about what's, what can you do within the existing ordinance without changing the ordinance radically, you know, if you change some of these performance centers like change the distance between buildings that are ones that are on site and ones that are adjacent. They maybe used to be 50 feet, and now you could make it 100. That was the kind of change that you could do in option one. To make a quicker, faster day. Right. And the other part of that is if you had a whole list of those, which would be easy enough to come up with, I think, then you could make that change relatively quickly. And then if you felt that there were, you being the collective you here, still room for other modifications or so forth, you pick those up or that up when you do the comprehensive review of the entire ordinance. And then if the town gets hit with something else and you know three months from now you get an application for something that you look at it and you go well that ordinance is going to be the same kind a problem. That's right. You have to go through the list of allowed uses in a rural zone and say which ones do I want in there, which ones don't I have. But I disagree a little bit with what Lisa
[32:48] Public commenter: said, that our current campgrounds and if you go by the new definition of campground and I went through the city and found seven, you got Branch Lake campground, that's right within. It's a very thin, thrown ball distance of year-round houses. You've got Lakeside Cedar Cabins, which is up on Route 18. There's houses on either side. I was an abuttor for about five years, and so these campgrounds are not totally out in the middle of the wilderness.
[33:24] Councilor: And a lot depends on, too, who proceeded, who was there first, and I don't know on those. I don't know. No, but if you have existing homes and you want to put a new use, no matter what it is, I don't care if it's a campground or anything, that's a bigger impact than if you have an existing use, a campground or a car dealership or whatever, and you want to build your house next to it, that's your problem. But that's always the case. Yes. For all uses and all zones. Right. I mean, you're always going to have that problem. And that's our job. You can't make it go away. No, but that's our job as a client. Well, it's to ensure that the buffering, for example, is appropriate. Both as a class and then in this particular instance, you know, is the buffering that's being proposed adequate even though it's within the... Not just buffering, but the impact. No,, no, but yeah. Well buffering is easy to measure though.
[34:17] Councilor Charlie: So if we're looking to be helpful to planning staff on what do we do with this? It's the two things. It's the performance standards so that we know what we're talking about. Is that I
[34:45] Public commenter: think from the council's point of view, I mean, you talk about performance standards and there's pretty good performance standards in Chapter 56 for current cameramen. Could they be better? Anything could be made better. But I think we need some direction from the council instead of just saying, go take care of it and bring us facts.
[35:04] Councilor Charlie: So I had, you know, after the meeting, the council meeting, listening to folks who were talking and there were just a few people left in the room. And it was the wife of the property owner, I can't remember, his wife, and want to say to the neighborhood, we don't want to go through this again. So that's, I think, that to me was a really telling point. I wish that, I don't know how much of it, I remember the rule was 25 feet. They had agreed to 75 feet, but it wasn't really in writing anywhere.
[35:54] Councilor: It was proposed on the planning board, on the site plan.
[35:57] Councilor Charlie: So I'll say part of my frustration with this, too, And the most recent recordings were months old. I couldn't find any information about this. So I understood when the neighbors were saying, we don't know what's going on, we don't feel like they're responding to what we're doing. And I know that the website is one of many things that we don't have the capacity to bring 100% up to where it should be.
[36:25] Councilor: We're working on updates to the website. All of the abutters get a letter that gives information about the process that says to reach out to the planning department if they want a copy of the packet. We don't have a way to host it online, so it is by request. And we have a hard copy in the office available whenever. So there are some mechanisms and regs. It would be great to have everything on the website, but we are not there yet.
[36:52] Public commenter: To Brittany's defense, too, keep in mind that going back maybe two years, the planning department has gone from two people to one people, Two people to one people. Two people to one people.
[37:03] Councilor: There were three there for a long time. I don't have a person to ask you, so.
[37:07] Public commenter: Yeah, when she took over, I knew. You what?
[37:09] Councilor: I've got half of Andrew now.
[37:10] Planning Board member: Yeah, we haven't made it officially yet, but Andrew is splitting time between code and planning.
[37:15] Councilor: So I have to ask him?
[37:18] Councilor Charlie: I understand that it's everybody. We're all dealing with a great work capacity, and yet here we are. Totally get it. But I can see that was a challenge. I couldn't get up to speed on it in time so getting back to like offering direction to the planning board what
[37:38] Public commenter: what are some of those things that you see in the ordinance right now that could be bumped up make it more regulatory make it stronger language and stuff because the moratorium I would I would rather see you guys come back, have your decision that helps me work through what could be changed. I don't know what the, you know, I need to know, do we need to make buffers bigger? Do we need to make considerations about the RVs? You've got trailers and then you've got motor homes, okay? Motorhomes, there's a motor vehicle sitting there for a long period of time. These people go to RV sites, they don't normally stay there. If you've never stayed in a camper on a rainstorm, you'll leave. The same way with a motorhome, it's got a motor in it. But that thing is going to be sitting there for a long period of time. And from the perspective of working on vehicles and equipment, things with motors and drive axles and transmissions, they leak. They leak a lot. Okay? They have problems. Man made it, 's going to break. So, and I'm all about making buffers bigger between the landowners, especially with RV parks. If you want to put an RV park in some place, you need to shroud that from your neighbors, okay? And be good neighbors. But it's like, so I'm in agreement with strengthening the buffers, okay? And, but is there any rule, existing rules that really need to be tightened up more? Do you want more clarification or tweaking it to make it different?
[39:51] Councilor Charlie: I'm going to interrupt for a minute. Brittany, is that your computer that might be doing feedback?
[39:55] Councilor: Or Charlie, is that you? I think your computer is giving us some feedback. I'll turn down my mics.
[40:02] Councilor Charlie: Thanks. And I think to what Pat's saying, can you outline what you see in those bullet points?
[40:08] Councilor: So, we have done a preliminary look through, and also keep in mind that campgrounds also fall under the Chapter 56, Article 6, which has its own slew of requirements that looks at everything from traffic to stormwater to all the heavy stuff. The campground performance standards supplement that review, so this is going above and beyond on what our traditional site plan requirements are. So looking at the ordinances we have flagged, the definition of campgrounds could be more in line with the state definition. So we could keep that language a little bit.
[40:50] Councilor Charlie: And will that help with the conversation we've had about attend versus?
[40:55] Councilor: No, the state does not differentiate between the two.
[40:58] Councilor Charlie: Do we need to or not? When we're talking about-
[41:00] Councilor: Well, currently, our ordinance does not. Campground is a business, public or private establishment operating recreational site for tents, campers, trailers, travel trailers, and other forms of temporary shelter.
[41:13] Councilor Charlie: So do we need a breakdown? I've heard that conversation here.
[41:16] Councilor: Do any other municipalities or cities in the state, did you find anybody who did separate out the meetings? There is at least one town that did separate out glamp grounds. I'll have to look back through my notes and see who. But the state, in their research, they have one definition for... Not the state, but just other... Because I know several communities have also done campground moratoriums. So at least Maloian... I know the guy over there. Honestly, when I looked through campground ordinances for other mean towns, there was like a dozen, maybe, that actually had ordinances, and a little bit less that had ordinances that were more than two sentences. It looks like Tremont just did one, and I don't know if there's any language that those campgrounds are reading in your sites. I don't know if they defined each of those. I'd have to do more research. That's not one of the things I was really looking at. I was more bringing in the definition to align with state standards like we've done with all the other definitions in this phase one pass.
[42:27] Councilor Charlie: That seems to make sense. It's still a question about whether we need subcategories depending on the performance standards. I think the performance standards are going to be different depending on the activity.
[42:38] Councilor: I mean, the state definition classifies anything over five sites as a campground. We define anything over two sites as a campground. So we can have more discussion on that to see if it is worth breaking it out. But given that we've had one campground in the last... We haven't had a campground go through except for this one since before 2012.
[43:04] Councilor Charlie: Let's talk that night about there's another one. And again, all the hearsay just confuses everybody.
[43:09] Councilor: They submitted an application in 2022, and it was withdrawn. And I have heard that it's in the works, but whether or not they come through or when they're ready to come through, I don't know. I have not spoken to the developer, and they have not reached out for the application with the planning office. And that's one of the areas that I will just try to read the tea leaves here. Year. Seems like everybody is in agreement on, you know, now that we're here, let's get a best in class moratorium, or sorry, ordinance and performance standards for campgrounds if we have to update definitions. We'll look at other, you know, Brittany, you've already started some of that work. Then there's now, at least in this discussion, John, I think you were cuing in on kind of what I'm most concerned with, which is like, what is the direction of the council beyond that if at all and then how do we go about servicing that with you know a four-person majority that could change or could not change and there'll be some version of a new chair lines is it ready for reelection so we can get some direction moving forward I will say John you know I just read the moratorium language I believe in terms of the tree houses is anything come from the tree houses or any other groups like that over the last 45 days because if it was more than 45 days ago we don't we don't we can't shut things down that's not allowed no
[44:42] Planning Board member: Charlie they pulled all their permits over a year ago
[44:48] Councilor: Okay so that we don't I don't think we have to worry about you know I'll double confirm with the old council that's not a legal opinion but in my review of this that's where like the 45-day clause is there, is you kind of only have that period of time when something is receivable.
[45:07] Planning Board member: I believe you're correct, John. That's what you were talking about.
[45:10] Councilor: Right, so hopefully that will be there, but I'll double confirm it's legal because that would put an immediate, like we gotta edit this moratorium. I think the other two directions, John, I think that I'm trying to figure out guidance on, and then also figure out the mechanism and how we get that guidance is, does the council want us to go further than that? Do they want to not allow this type of use in neighborhood, rural neighborhood areas like this? I know there could be a ton of complications with that and that really changes things. And then there's also the piece on, I didn't know before this meeting as well, that a campground owner was planning to expand. They noted their expansion plans and their chair lines thinks that should be considered and if it's going to take a long time to do this, that we should think about allowing this to move forward or not. To me that's like the big direction that I want to get from council. I know we can't do a SOTA workshop, I'm not asking for a vote, but how do we get there? Seems like folks are mostly in agreement on performance standards, it's given best in class but is that it we focus as much as we can on that or are we going to try to you know do a lot of rezoning and do a much longer form process or are we going to try to edit to allow folks that might have gone forward with an expansion so i'm just trying to think through the process and how we'd surface that direction right it seems like plenty i thought we made progress on that
[46:46] Councilor Charlie: the number three is off the table or sensitive we don't get that they can't operate because that was all that's not an issue and if it is an issue and somehow that was in error than we need to what I've written what I would love I guess to hear from you is again you've got your bullets here do you have clarity about what that rules what do you need and what is the planning board need from us because those bullets sound like what I was looking for and the tight timeline because people are waiting the neighborhood the campground owner they're looking for clarity and improved order [Councilor: right now verification] from us can you tell us what you have in mind for those so really it seems to
[48:08] Councilor: things the definitions to align state standards and then looking at the buffer and increasing that potentially requiring the privacy fence privacy a private on incompatible uses, but between, you know, when there is a residential and, or residential versus commercial, to strengthen that buffer, and then further discussion, obviously, with planning board and a workshop to kind of go through it more, see if there's anything else that really should be tweaked, because our ordinances, they're a strong foundation. They haven't been really touched a lot in the last 12 years, so this free-write thing is more of seeing where there are issues and bringing those small spots up to...
[48:57] Councilor Charlie: And the two that come to my mind in addition to this, there was the noise issue, and I wonder if our existing noise ordinance is sufficient, and we just need to make sure that 's there for them to know. And then lighting was another one that came up that night and I don't know what to do with it.
[49:15] Public commenter: it was also a concern about water
[49:20] Councilor Charlie: about water use
[49:22] Councilor: which was addressed so which was addressed by the applicant and we do have a robust you know groundwater like a groundwater analysis is required if we trigger the 2000 gallons per day requirement which initially well i can't talk about the application but So, but hypothetically, you know, that's addressed through the planning work process.
[49:50] Public commenter: Size of the, size of the sewage? [Councilor: Yep, that's addressed.] The leach field beds and stuff?
[49:58] Councilor: Because remember, we're looking at just the performance standards for campgrounds. The campground has to go through the major use site development criteria area which addresses all those things so there was another item too that is specific to campgrounds typically which would be the issue they have fires smoke so you know fencing and lighting and noise buffering and smoke is an issue that I think a lot of the residents were concerned about and if you have that I mean anybody can have a campfire in the backyard but if you're gonna have 50 people having campfires that's a little bit different it's a bigger impact it's a bigger negative result but I Just one thing, Charlie said something in it, and then it just, I was going to ask Robert, instead of looking at, you know, stopping all construction in a row in the rural zone, like you were saying, you know, even though 50% of our town is considered rural zone, is there sufficient other zones where campgrounds and RV parks and things of that nature could be placed with without worry to get them out of residential zone, and not just campgrounds, but other things that have great impact, instead of taking two years to reevaluate the residential zone and change it into three, we don't we
[51:27] Planning Board member: don't have anything called a residential zone, we have the neighborhood zone, they aren't allowed in the neighborhood zone, so this is so the rural zone, it's 51 of the parcels in
[51:37] Councilor: town are rural zone, right, is there sufficient land and zones in our town where people could put
[51:46] Planning Board member: other kinds of, the only other zone that we even allow campgrounds in is the urban zone, which
[51:53] Councilor: has more subdivisions, which is part of the reason why the residents were upset, because if you only allowed in an urban zone and the rural zone, they're so very different, and yet
[52:04] Councilor Charlie: we only have six high-intensity, what's that, what's the percentage of those two
[52:14] Planning Board member: combine, well i have to check to see how many parts of the urban, but the burgle zone is 51 percent, i'm just wondering, yeah, so can i borrow your map, no go ahead
[52:24] Councilor: so what would happen if you just said you're not in a rural zone you'd have a whole existing non-conforming, yeah but that's okay they're existing
[52:42] Planning Board member: So, it's a little hard to see over there, but you got a bigger one. So, the light green is the rural zone. Orange is the urban zone. So those are the only two zones we allow campgrounds in. I thought urban is the orange. No, urban is the orange.
[53:13] Councilor: And the green is the drinking water zone or what?
[53:15] Planning Board member: The dark green is the Branch Lake drinking water protection zone.
[53:19] Councilor: Which could be considered our rural conservation zone.
[53:22] Planning Board member: Yes, if we were to go the route of rezoning.
[53:27] Councilor: Yeah, and that's why just going over to Trenton, they've got three rural zones. they don't have a drinking water zone like we have so that's a little bit different but it did separate commercial from residential or neighborhood more
[53:43] Planning Board member: Right, but the distinction with Aaron's, with Trenton, or one there, any of the surrounding tenders, they're all rural. I mean, Trenton doesn't, the airport and that central corridor number three, but realistically the whole town's rural. We're not, and that's, that's why we, they all, their zones are rural, and basically our zones are
[54:11] Councilor: designed not to be rural. Do you feel like there's room for rural and one in elsewhere? I mean, it's
[54:17] Planning Board member: totally my opinion, but like, you know, backing up with that, with, you know, anecdotal evidence, is that this is the only time we've had an issue in the three years of this, and I think it's in here where I felt, or that I don't, I don't even feel like the zoning fails this year, but that anyone has felt that the zoning is really not living up. I think you could look at the courthouse
[54:38] Councilor: and make that same argument, because that was proposed for a rural zone, correct? And it's
[54:44] Planning Board member: actually, if you look at the map, it's actually in a neighborhood zone. Okay, it has some weird
[54:49] Councilor: overlay, correct, with that, but the courthouse is the state. I know they want, I know that was That's why the people came out. It's because it didn't feel like the spot to have that.
[55:03] Public commenter: The state can't put it on for a little while because they need a small room.
[55:07] Planning Board member: Yes, but that was the justification for allowing it where it was decided to go.
[55:12] Public commenter: People get scared when they hear the state. Special use.
[55:16] Councilor: Can I go back for one second? When you were talking about adding the fencing in, is it fencing for trees, or it's fencing and landscape, our buffer is supposed to be a dense vegetated, so it'd be an addition to the vegetation and would be a fence, yes
[55:55] Public commenter: it's a narrow lot. If you're trying to get 50 feet on each side, because the campsites were down. Say, well, instead of 50 feet, it's gotta be, keep in mind, I'll throw you a monkey wrench in that. If you did house lots, how many house lots, because there's some on land, how many house lots do you think you could put in that 55 acres? And he asked me, now, on those 30 lots, with new state standards, each one of those lots could have three houses. That's the point. Is that right? Yeah.
[56:58] Councilor: If you could get septic and water for all of those, that's the kicker, that's what it's about.
[57:06] Public commenter: There's not too many lots in Elk Grove. Those buffers, if I'm not mistaken, don't exist. You could cut every tree. It
[57:24] Councilor: would be a similar use to housing apps.
[57:27] Councilor Charlie: It is a decision to encourage housing. I want to bring this back to where we, the guidance we need to give tonight, even though I love these cuts. The idea that the
[57:49] Councilor: fire's spreading. We have a light ordinance. The requirements for the planning board projects for lighting is that it cannot encroach off of the property. So that's already addressed there. The state is moving forward with dark sky compliance, so we'll be seeing that kick through in a few years. And that hypothetically the applicant will put in cut sheets for any development project that they have on site. You can't really control what the RVs have, but I think they are leaning more towards dark sky compliance lighting. So that's like down casters and not directly in the neighbors.
[58:28] Public commenter: I don't think you have much lighting to begin with. No.
[58:31] Planning Board member: No, but what can you do if a camper, if they bring in spotlights? That would like, you know, hypothetically, if that were to happen, the light ordinance would take effect where they can't, yeah, they can't cast light onto a neighboring property. That doesn't mean that you can't, that you're not allowed to see the lights. That's not really feasible, but it's candle power can't leave the property line. So if I have a, I have a measuring device in my office, if they were to call and complain on Alton's Ave, hypothetically property, I'd go to their property line and I would measure the candle power. If I could get at least point one candle power, then that would, that would be a violation.
[59:17] Councilor: Projects are afraid and that was, that was also one of the things, because that you said about the security, that you know that if you found that there was a, that was one of the other issues that was greatly addressed was where do the people who are residing around there take their complaints to, and our particular ordinance didn't have a lot of need as far as what the applicant had to provide. Did they have to provide security? Did they have to provide 24-7 contact? I know in that particular application it was just a phone number would be given. You know, I would say that applicants that say things like, well, we'll give you a phone number, that's not the same as saying, you know, we're going to have some form of contact, because in a hypothetical situation when they say things like, it's up to EPD to take care of, that's the point we don't want. We don't want to have any more complaints going to the Ellsworth Police Department and costing our city anymore. No more complaints to Robert. He's got enough. So have something in the ordinances for any campgrounds or any future things that we do to ensure that there's a criteria for point of contact for any concerns, complaints, violations. What do you watch out for? Like a road maintenance plan or a stormwater management plan? We started putting them in the marijuana things. There is a paragraph for campfires, by the way, and a paragraph for management, and a bunch of other ones. There's 13 different performance standards for this sort of thing. So my question is, you pointed that out, is it council's will that they want each and every one of those looked at? And if they do look at it, how much are they supposed to tighten it up and so forth? Because we do have to, you know, there's a balance between too much government oversight and, you know, people's rights.
[1:01:22] Councilor Charlie: Well, I think this is an opportunity to refresh, update this ordinance if there were 13 components to it. I would assume you've already looked at them to see where there might be issues.
[1:01:35] Councilor: Yeah, when I look at campfires right now, it's pretty vague. Lots of things are vague. I'm sure. Not to worry. So maybe, yeah, more protections for the neighbors there and also fire safety.
[1:01:55] Planning Board member: The definitions and everything are usually fairly vague. It allows for enforcement to have leeway to be able to do what needs to be done or...
[1:02:05] Councilor: Until they're too vague and then... Well, exactly. Well, at one of the local campfires, for example, a campfire is a campfire, whether it's in your backyard, my backyard, or the backyard of an RV, you really can't... Yeah, but it is a good point that when I...
[1:02:18] Councilor Charlie:...the height of the flames, because at 20 foot 12...
[1:02:21] Councilor: Yeah,, but all I'm saying is that the campfire rule probably needs to be consistent wherever one could have... But it is a good point that, like, now we have a property that could have 50 campsites going at the same time versus I guess next door the houses could all they can even have more and all 50 houses on some hypothetical streets could also happen to say nothing of the RVs that are parked in the back yard so the last thing that I want to raise is there was talk about
[1:03:01] Councilor Charlie: transportation and the RVs on the roads, but DOT has expertise in this, and they deem that.
[1:03:10] Councilor: There's a state-aid road, we have zero say, our street ordinance does not apply.
[1:03:16] Councilor Charlie: So it feels like that's along with the other things where you said water usage was covered, sewage was covered. Yeah. The other things that...
[1:03:26] Councilor: I would note on this one, I think Sarah and I talked about this. I don't even think this has triggered like the state's threshold for traffic for measuring recumbent weather and other issues. Yes, it's starting to be close to, you know. A lot. Yeah, that was one of the things in the moratorium on that, some of the environmental effects, small scale housing as well.
[1:03:53] Councilor Charlie: We've got two conversations going on. So Rick. Sorry. No, I know it's hard for you.
[1:04:00] Councilor: No, all I was saying is that some of these issues were raised. There was some hyperbole involved there in terms of the traffic impacts and things like that.
[1:04:09] Councilor Charlie: There was heightened concern. I hear that.
[1:04:11] Councilor: Heightened concern. Do you want to get that perspective from someone who knows traffic? No, I just did.
[1:04:17] Councilor Charlie: So, let's get back to what you all are looking for. Direction. So, have you got what you? The only thing I can see for Charlie, beyond of course supporting you all, is that clarification that operated on, and if we do this in two to three months, then we're not impinging on anyone who theoretically in the future might come forward with a,
[1:04:50] Councilor: does that address concerns? Go ahead, Charlie. I think that's exactly it, Nancy, and you know, I think we'll, as a staff, just plan to come back, you know, in Brittany's timeframe as soon as possible with those performance standards working with the planning board etc we're not I think at this time going to prep any further more large-scale long-term moratoriums based on zoning and you know pretty complicated changes there I think if we were going that route I would definitely want to consider some of the existing campgrounds that have expansion plans and honestly this current person has already got a lot of time and effort into this project as well pretty quickly but if we're moving towards updated performance standards and that's the direction of the new council, then we can move forward on that track. Obviously, with a lot of public input, engagement. And if the conversation on this needs to be a moratorium for a longer period of time until there's a full rezoning, which doesn't sound like there is here, but until there's a fully convened council, and obviously a lot more input into this performance standard update, we'll kind of take that as our current March to Orders, and if the Council wants us to look elsewhere, we'll look at other things.
[1:06:16] Councilor Charlie: I know when I voted for it, this was my intention, what you're looking at now. Marina, you haven't said anything. Did you want to say anything?
[1:06:24] Councilor: All my concerns have been addressed. My goal was just to get some time to actually figure out the ordinance and make sure that any projects would have been done right.
[1:06:41] Public commenter: No, I put in my piece on making a move, whatever move that we need to do to make it stronger and more clear for the planning board and the applicants. More so for you, the board, because you've got to look at the law. You have to apply the law. We are the ones that back you up, like making things clearer than mud.
[1:07:14] Councilor Charlie: And the one thing I'm curious about as you go forward is will you see a need for categories of campgrounds? A two pop-up tent campground is very different from...
[1:07:30] Councilor: Even for that it does complicate it a little bit, but we'll explore that and talk about it. I want to have a planning board workshop in October, and then we can hash out some details amongst us, and then we'll vote to recommend a planning board at the November planning board meeting, and then we'll come to council in December. That's mostly due, unless you want a special meeting to expedite it or something, but due to public notice requirements, we can't hit both meetings in November. I think the only reason we do something special or quicker is if, once I review it as legal, there's any effect on existing, but barring that, especially if we're going to be moving pretty quickly as performance standards.
[1:08:17] Councilor Charlie: Thank you. I'll just add, if we wrap up, this is the only, the second time Planning Board and Council has met together, and I hope there are opportunities to do more of this in the future.
[1:08:37] Councilor: More than you could ever want. I don't know. You don't know how many I really want. It's just a...
[1:08:57] Public commenter: Hearing, I keep hearing from people, we got the state standard is this good, let it be for benefit all the other places, this is different, good morning tiger, more buffers.
[1:09:14] Councilor: For the gray area and lots of discussion. I can't do one thing fully, I gotta do both. You gotta screw up more than once? Exactly. Multi-faceted screw ups. I'm excited to get to the zoning. Oh good! It's a huge undertaking and you're going to piss off half the people that make Happy Weekend?
[1:10:34] Councilor Charlie: And it'll be the different half each meeting.
[1:10:39] Councilor: We're getting used to that now.
[1:10:41] Public commenter: I'm going to show you a prime example of an issue about zoning.
[1:12:22] City Manager: But you know we're gonna look at tonight is what I'd love to bring to the council on some agenda, but what I'd love to bring to the council this month, because it's been several months since, first of all, this the creation of a TIF committee, we call it, back in March was approved at the same time that the applications were approved to be submitted to DCD. So we've had permission from the council to create a TIFF committee, and people have been coming, developers have been coming and asking when we'll have everything ready to roll, but there are a few things that need to happen first. Any council people? So one of them is that we need committee guidelines, which is the first thing that you'll see here in the guidelines under number four, under number four of the first page. There you'll see membership, and this is the committee shall consist of seven members appointed by the city council reflecting financial, economic development, planning, business, and community expertise. So ideally for this coming meeting council would appoint five of the seven, leaving the last two Ellsworth resident slots open so that then residents can submit letters of interest, and then the newly appointed council, five of them, would go through those letters and come back the following month to council and recommend the top scoring ones are the ones most qualified, and then if council in the November meeting, and I know it could be, it's new, you know, that's the risk we're running here with the transition, right, but at that point if five have been appointed and they're their standard kind of offices, right, as the finance director, community development director, a planning board member, so we would have that by the council meeting, someone from the planning board that everyone would agree is the most qualified from the planning board to be on the tip mini, and then from City Council as well, City Council would have to put forth a liaison that they everyone feels is qualified to be on there, and there's agreement from EDDC. In their last board meeting Michelle Beale was the one identified with the most interest and experience, so she would be the one for EDDC, and then again the last two would, we have a few weeks to collect letters of interest and then come back to the council with the recommendations, and if council appoints those folks and we have a full committee to then start looking at developer applications. So first we need this would need to be approved, the guidelines, and the appoint the appointments of those First five slots of membership for the October meeting, we could at the same time going on through the little packet approve the policy and procedures so that's already in place, and both the policy procedures and the guidelines can be amended every three years or sooner as needed. So this would just be a starting document so that everybody can get to work and they have, these were taken from Waterville, Freeport, Augusta, and I'm blanking on the other one that's not too far. It's near Lewiston. They do a lot of tips there. Auburn. What's it? That is very close to Lewiston. So I feel very good about these. I feel like they're a good combination and they were all very similar. And then the last thing I wanted to reference, which could also just be as part of the packet that is voted on to get everything started, is the application packet. The first one is just a summary. It's just a cover sheet pretty much of the person. And I printed these back to back just to save paper. But the cover sheet would just be the summary of whoever's applying. But then the full application is appendix two. And as you'll see, it goes into more detail about the company structure, the names of the officers, the principal owner name. And then the disclosure is them pointing out or identifying the public purpose that will be met by the incentive, and then company goals looking at job creation and wages, employment goals. Continued on the other page, you have to identify the occupational cluster that, and again we can as part of the scoring you take this and measure it against the comp plan and against our city goals, and that's part of what the TIP committee does, but then it comes back to council with recommendations saying it gets scored really high in these areas that we're looking to incentivize development, and then yeah, then there's a checklist. The appendix three is the checklist, so go down through that, and again this is, this is what the TIP Committee would do, but it's looking at that they've demonstrated financial support, that they're not just asking for a CEA because they can, but they actually need it to be able to close on the deal that they're working on and to be able to make it work, and that they have financial capacity to finish the project if this CEA is granted. Then we look at how much anticipated tax value would come from the project, how many new jobs be created and at what wage level, and then we make sure that they the developers compliant with all state and local statutory regulatory guidelines, and then there goes then there's still a whole list of TIF policies that need to be met. So it's it's a robust application and it is a you know that's why we need the TIF committee. This shouldn't just be done in my opinion by staff and it was created with the new TIF districts very specifically the we put a couple of things in there that pushed more authority back on council i guess but you could say not only to establish this tiff committee but that every year the two tiff districts council would decide up to what percentage would be sheltered up to 100 and that could change every year to year and anything that's not spent from that so let's say that you say year one we're going to turn on these fifth districts 100 but if the city doesn't spend that sheltered amount it goes back to the general fund automatically. It's a protection i think from the accusations that doesn't feel to me like it's true maybe some places but that it's just a slush fund that we want to build up right that's it's saying no we're going to whatever council decides is the appropriate amount that's taken that percentage we have a development plan that allows us to use it in very specific ways and what's not spent goes back to the general plan so but this allows us to move into incentivizing developers to come to ellsworth and according to our comp plan to our goals for affordable housing workforce housing whatever we want to see developed we can we have
[1:19:54] Councilor: very specific criteria that allows us to score it yeah i thought that you couldn't just spend so what we if we put it into the general fund then it could go to anything even if it's not TIF eligible is that right so if we shelter it if we take
[1:20:16] City Manager: let's say it's a hundred percent of both new TIF districts so whatever that is that goes into a dedicated account and then we can only use it for the development plan allocations whatever is allowed in those districts but let's say in that given year, even though we want to use it for infrastructure and put it toward the Bayside Road, but that is delayed and we weren't able to disperse those funds for the Bayside Road, the way it's set up now it goes back into the general fund and then it can be used as general fund money again. And then we lose that
[1:20:48] Councilor Charlie: Tax benefit or the benefit of this tied to state. It goes back to the general fund we're forfeiting. I got it.
[1:21:03] City Manager: But that, so that again, keeps it from becoming what some have called a slush fund, where it just builds up and builds up, and we have all this econ dev money that's sitting there and not going
[1:21:12] Councilor: back to the general fund. Which is kind of what we have. Well, not a slush fund, but that's what has been happening. Is that right?
[1:21:20] City Manager: The Beckwith Hill, it still is a little bit unclear to me how that was set up, if it went back. I don't think it automatically went back to the general fund, but I don't know prior to my time how that was reported to the state. I'm really not sure. We could go back and look at the audits, but I know moving forward, and we could always amend the TIF language for it not to revert back to the general fund because we do lose that benefit, that shelter. But I think at the time when we were creating them it felt like that was the way we could provide some protections for this to be received as a viable mechanism without taking too much money from the general fund if it was needed
[1:22:03] Councilor Charlie: back in there you know what I'm saying and I think that the TIF funds there wasn't a lot of discussion of using them until recently because I think like everything else an abundance of caution to make sure that like do we have a plan is their strategy now that we've got staff in place so letting it sit while we you know the reveal that's had to happen in the city staffing infrastructure to get the caliber we've got now we're ready to deploy that's my sense of any and
[1:22:36] Councilor: This committee should also help me make best use of their time by just yes being a objective so trusted in their
[1:22:52] City Manager: Public meetings not you know it's not public comment necessarily but it is public open to the public so there's transparency about what's being discussed and I feel really good about that I think there's just it makes sense to not have just staff making these decisions or bringing them to council to make decisions also though I think with all the good work that Sarah has done on the SIP plan. And Reagan, in her final presentation, did a really nice outline of short and middle term goals for that, where we already know where to plug in this money. Like, if council, and my recommendation will be for council to allow up to 100% to be captured in the new districts, because early on, it doesn't even bring in much money. Like, the central corridor is only like 37,000 projected
[1:23:42] Councilor: For the year, which is much.
[1:23:43] City Manager: Much so it allows us to start collecting that, and then we know exactly like Bayside Road offsetting the debt service there, like we know exactly where it's going to go. So I don't think it's there's any problem with the with this very comprehensive set plan in place that is that it's going to just not be used, and that allows us to use that instead of general fund. It's it's awesome, but the biggest thing I think the kind of the urgency or I guess just to let the developers know that we have a plan. In place since I keep telling them it just needs to go to council, we need to get the committee set up, and then we can start review taking and reviewing applications. I've been saying that since June, you know, so I just keep getting kicked down the road, and I would love even though I know there's month next month is a month of transition with council, but if we can in October at least get the first five of the seven appointed, then we can get the ball rolling and really start taking.
[1:24:40] Councilor Charlie: Applications in December, yes to all of that advice on bringing it to council. Please in your memo link to the tip documents of the tip web page so that we remember where to find all of the information that's there, and then also So, because I think this is the first time that credit enhancement agreements are gonna be part of a hearty discussion for the council, a really good explanation as to what they are. It is a different, it's different from TIF. They might be more, I can't think of the right word for it. There's a different level to it that we wanna make sure you're ready to answer questions and you have information ahead of time.
[1:25:32] City Manager: I'll try to think of some scenarios, and I'll have to think, because I mean, there are four, at least four developers who have approached us, and so I could, without naming names or going into specific projects hypothetically, I could present some scenarios where, in all cases, they would have, there is a gap, a funding gap that they're trying to meet, that a CEA would, they could take that to the bank, and it would seal the deal.
[1:25:59] Councilor Charlie: And really being able to give that outline of why is giving tax dollars to a private developer a good idea, and being able to really lay that out, people may agree or disagree, but at least to have that basis of understanding. I'm ready for folks that's.
[1:26:21] Councilor: Gonna be the contentious piece, what the CEA, yeah.
[1:26:27] Councilor Charlie: And again, a lot of it is just trying to understand why is this not a giveaway. How do we avoid it being a giveaway that it has to be for public benefit and the project wouldn't help, wouldn't happen without it, all of that. I think it's going to be really important to highlight that. I want to throw a thought into the membership. And because the tips are about investing in the future, I'm not aware of any committees or commissions where we have a youth member. And I see that this goes down to 18, but that's not really youth, so if you would think about
[1:27:05] City Manager: Seems useful to me. I don't think they can vote, like it can't be part of a formal city committee and vote if they're not 18, but I don't know where that comes from. That was in all of the tip policies that I looked at, but I can go back and see where that came from, but they could be non-voting members, that would be like an advisory member, yeah, or just like I have a seat but not
[1:27:29] Councilor Charlie: Being able to vote, and I like that advisor role because they're the ones that we're building this for and making sure that the city's a kid who's growing up here and from away, but let's focus at least from here, a kid who's here, right, what is it gonna take for you to want to stay and raise your family here, jobs, a place to live, a cool place where I can enjoy myself, interesting, so I would, I would encourage you to, think about that as well, so that if it's not a voting member, it doesn't like we can
[1:28:03] City Manager: We can add that and it and keep the seven, but just add a, think of what we call it, like a, yeah, an advisory, a youth advisor, right, a seat for a youth advisor.
[1:28:16] Councilor: And so my one thing with that though is what would be the, I noticed it says a three-year term, but trying to think of, I don't want to, like, I'm just trying to be very considerate of that, because I could see maybe not on enterprising 15-year-olds having an interest, but that would be at most three years before they would, in theory, age out.
[1:28:51] Councilor Charlie: It's a really good point, but the rules could be different for youth advisors. We could put an annual appointment.
[1:28:56] City Manager: You could put a little asterisk and then have down that would be advisories.
[1:29:00] Councilor Charlie: Otherwise, we'd need a 15-year-old.
[1:29:01] City Manager: No, that's a really good distinction, though. I think it could be an annual. And they could renew up to three years maybe or something like that, but they wouldn't be tied to three years. Or maybe we just want to say one year so we can cycle more people in, I don't know.
[1:29:17] Councilor Charlie: Try it and see what works. Yeah, I'd love that. Anything else in prep for the November meeting for this? I
[1:29:32] Public commenter: think we get this on because we've got a bunch of licenses that are coming through. And we're not going to do anything with cannabis until December, right?
[1:29:48] City Manager: Is that right, Charlie? Cannabis is December?
[1:29:52] Councilor: Yeah, December is likely the kind of decision point for council, assuming that everything else goes pretty smoothly process-wise.
[1:30:02] Public commenter: There are some, you know, obviously there's some people that are not really big fans of TIFF, but if you set these rules in place that they be used, because, like you said, you couldn't find any really strong guidance on the TIFF that we already had. It's a good tool. It really is. I've seen it work in a small town. And it was to bring, enhance, help this business expand more. And it brought good paying jobs to the area. So it's also helped the housing. Right. Absolutely.
[1:30:48] Councilor: We could. They don't need it anymore.
[1:30:52] City Manager: Part of what I'll explain to you real quick is that you'll see in the application that it says TIF slash credit enhancement agreement. Yeah. Because a developer could come and if it's what their project is not in the TIF, like the 150 units, right, that are still, that have been approved but there's a financing gap there. Behind the bowling alley. Oh. Yeah. Yeah. So that's not in our TIF. Our tip currently so that developer could come and say I want a tip just for that project and they would be evaluated in the same way because it's still it's a tip slash credit enhancement agreement the city has to apply for another very small tip and again Augusta Auburn some of these cities have so many tips they
[1:31:35] Councilor Charlie: do this to developers we're nowhere near our we're nowhere at the comment no so
[1:31:40] City Manager: So, but then that's a whole other evaluation.
[1:31:42] Public commenter: We have to be very judicial about that. Yes. Because we do have issues that we need to, we're still waiting on the finance. Yeah. You know what I mean?
[1:31:52] City Manager: I do. But 150 units goes a long way in helping to sell the houses.
[1:31:56] Public commenter: I agree, but it's a double edged sword. One side might be a little duller than the other, but they've got double edges.
[1:32:05] City Manager: But the council could come back and negotiate the recommendation. Let's say the developer said I want 100% for 10 years, we say you get 50% for 5. So there's a lot of negotiating that can happen. But we don't want it to be so, we want to encourage the applications so we have something in front of us that we can negotiate.
[1:32:25] Councilor: In writing, it's one of those things of a rough draft, a rough first draft is better than nothing at all. Exactly. I'm excited to hear that people have been reaching out to you. I know. Yeah, that's great. It's really good news. There's a lot of housing.
[1:32:40] City Manager: Great. There's one that's infrastructure. It's kind of like... And it's not the Beals app one. It's another one that... Or just kind of looking at, like, I have funding for the construction of the actual place, but it's like so many feet short of where the water and sewer end. So would the... You know, we have to think creatively, but that's, again, part of the committee's work, is to bring some recommendations to council and then council can say well have you thought about this or what about that you know there was a story in
[1:33:09] Councilor Charlie: the BDN last week about Freeport all of a sudden having these huge housing projects come in because they have done their ordinances and zoning work and it's like now it's ready and I feel like we're there with the TIF as a huge piece of one of the tools that we've got to encourage yeah I miss
[1:33:29] City Manager: It's a learning curve, of course, because we haven't really done CEAs aside from affordable housing for Leonard Lake and Oriole Way. And they've been in place for a little while, not too long, and they're very straightforward. There's nothing really complicated about them, so this is a different thing. So that's why we need the cooperative policies in place.
[1:33:46] Councilor Charlie: All right. There are no members of the public here for a comment. We have staff hanging in because they love to be here. Oh, look at her. She has a worth of work. That is a genuine smile.
[1:33:57] Councilor: I think we'll talk more tomorrow, you know, about TIF and the, thank you, Twyla, for all the new districts you passed, Lightning Fast, and kind of the options, I think, you know, there's some big public policy questions about housing, about investment, you know, the city really hasn't used this tool in the housing space yet, so I'm really excited about this committee being formed, and getting some better direction here if this is going to continue to be a big public policy push for the City Council this is probably our most effective tool to go after those areas