Economic Development Committee

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DATE: June 5, 2018 (Tuesday) TIME: 6:30 – 7:30 p.m. LOCATION: Room 209 Portland City Hall 1. Review and accept Minutes of previous meeting held on May 15, 2018. 2. Portland Impact Fee Study – update for Committee discussion. Presentation by TischlerBise – Impact Fee Consultant a. See enclosed memo from Nelle Donaldson. 3. Public Hearing and vote to recommend to City Council Authorizing Discontinuance of Vehicular Easement and Retention of Pedestrian and Utility Easement along Lancaster Street between Parris Street and Hanover Street on the 82 Hanover Street Property and Accept a New Pedestrian Easement on 44 Hanover Street a. See enclosed Memorandum from Greg Mitchell and back up material. 4. Public Hearing and vote to recommend to the City Council Third Amendment to 178 Kennebec Street Purchase and Sale Agreement a. See enclosed Memorandum from Greg Mitchell and back up material. NOTE: Pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. 405(6)(C), the Committee may go into executive session to discuss real estate negotiations and provide guidance to staff. Councilor Justin Costa/Chair NOTE: No public comment will be taken on non-action items. Next Meeting: June 19, 2018. CITY OF PORTLAND/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPT./389 CONGRESS ST./PORTLAND, ME 04101/(207) 874-8683  Minutes Economic Development Committee May 15, 2018 NOTE: These meetings are now live-streamed, which can be viewed at this link: http://www.portlandmaine.gov/1695/Economic-Development-Committee These Minutes provide a record of those in attendance, general discussion taking place, and motions made. A meeting of the Economic Development Committee (EDC) of the Portland City Council was held on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 209 of Portland City Hall. Present from the Committee was its Chair Councilor Justin Costa and members Councilors Nicholas Mavodones and Spencer Thibodeau. Also present from the City Council was Mayor Ethan Strimling. Present from the City staff were Associate Corporation Counsel Michael Goldman, Assessor Chris Huff, Economic Development Director Greg Mitchell, and Senior Executive Assistant Lori Paulette. Chair Costa opened the meeting noting that the single item on the Agenda was postponed from the May 1 EDC Agenda. Item #1: Review and accept Minutes of previous meeting held on May 1, 2018. A motion was made by Councilor Thibodeau, seconded Councilor Mavodones to accept the Minutes as presented. Mr. Mitchell noted a revision to be made on p. 2, to replace “Denine Leeman” with “Trish McLellan”. Councilor Thibodeau made a motion to amend the main motion to accept the Minutes with this correction. Councilor Mavodones seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Chair Costs then asked for a vote on the main motion and it passed unanimously. 1  Item #2: Public Hearing and vote to recommend to the City Council proposed Portland Downtown Expansion. Ms. Gilbert said that since May 1, more outreach has been done to those affected by the proposed expansion and explained that outreach. She then explained that this proposed expansion started with the creation of PD’s 5-year strategic plan, now in its 4th year and another 5-year plan will be created, noting PD’s mission of a clean, safe, and vibrant Downtown. That mission is funded by the annual special assessment and other revenue and has benefited both property owners and the City as a whole, since 1992. Ms. Casey described the PD Growth Ad Hoc Committee and the outreach done as noted in the attached which she handed out at the meeting, as well as the Minutes from the April 10, 2017 Proposed Expansion informational meeting – also attached. Ms. Casey thanked City staff who have been so helpful in getting to this point between mapping out the expansion and the properties associated with that proposed expansion clarified. She then explained the expansion areas. Chair Costa noted that this Committee is making a recommendation on the expansion only, but said that there are pieces which go to the Council each year. Ms. Gilbert agreed, adding that the Master Agreement and Supplemental Services Agreement go to the Council each year, as well as the setting the level of the special assessment, which has been at $.92 over several years. At $.92, if a property is valued at $200,000, the special assessment would be $184 per year. Councilor Mavodones was pleased about the outreach that has occurred, but until someone is affected they may not pay attention and asked about any appeals process. Mr. Mitchell said that given this is his first expansion, he would need to confirm whether there is an appeal process. 2  Councilor Thibodeau thanked PD for their outreach for this proposed expansion. Constituents may ask what additional services they would get that they were not already receiving with tax dollars. Ms. Gilbert said that the City provides baseline services as outlined in the documents provided to the Council each year. The Supplemental Services Agreement provides for above and beyond that baseline, e.g., hauling out snow instead of it piling up. Exempt property owners, if in the district, do benefit as well. Councilor Thibodeau asked about future expansions and graffiti removal. Ms. Gilbert said that they may propose future expansions, but wanted to get this one underway and operational first. Graffiti removal cannot be done in the Winter, and it can be done on both commercial and residential properties. Councilor Costa asked if there were different assessments on residential and commercial properties, and it was indicated that the assessment rate had to be the same on all properties. Mayor Strimling asked if property owners in the expanded district were told what their assessment bill would be and how many owners were in that expansion area. Ms. Casey indicated that the notice advised that the proposed assessment rate for the expansion area is $1.06. Ms. Geren noted approximately 200+ owners in the expansion area. Mayor Strimling said that for the Council packet, it would be good to know how much each property owner would pay, and staff indicated this would be provided. There was then discussion about whether this should go to the Finance Committee and/or a Council Workshop. Historically, the annual documents are a City Manager sponsored item, going directly from PD to the Council. It was also noted during preparation of the annual documents that the City’s administrative costs under the Supplemental Services Agreement may not be fully reimbursed, with this to be discussed during FY2019. Whether this should go to the 3 Finance Committee and/or Council Workshop, this would be a discussion to have with the City Manager, Mayor, and Finance Committee Chair Mavodones. Chair Costa then opened the meeting for public comment. George Rheault of Bayside was disappointed with the expansion in that it did not include more area in West Bayside. He also questioned why the mill rate was not increased for the past several years. Frank Riley, President of Friends of Lincoln Park, supports the expansion and is pleased Lincoln Park is part of it. Lincoln Park has a lot of usage and history and has been fully restored to its origin in 1866. Amy Cullen of the Szanton Company, which owns 53 Danforth Street, and which 70% of the apartments are low income, did not think there was value for that property to be included in this assessment. Glen Ryan of CHOM supported the expansion, and noted PD’s involvement in many aspects of the downtown. Penny St. Louis, on the PD Board and who lives and works in the District, noted that PD has accomplished much in the past four years that she has been on the Board, bringing vitality to the area with a low budget. Kim Volk, PD Board Chair and Portland resident, said that she has worked in the downtown for over 30 years and is grateful for what PD does for the area. Seeing no further public comment, Chair Costa closed the public comment session. Councilor Thibodeau made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed expansion; Councilor Mavodones seconded the motion. 4  Councilor Thibodeau said that he would support the expansion, and looked forward to future expansions. Councilor Mavodones said that he is pleased to support the expansion and it is a sensible approach, noting to be sure residents know what is occurring. Chair Costa also appreciated the work done to get to this point. Regarding the boundaries and some residential owners on the borders, he asked about why they were included. David Packard, member of the PD Board, explained the rationale and noted there were a few residential properties in the District that will see its benefits. Councilor Costa said that with any expansion, there will be some concerns and further outreach is always good. PD does a great job, as well as partners with the City and other organizations on community issues. Chair Costa asked for a vote on the motion and it passed unanimously. Councilor Thibodeau noted that the State is looking at non-contiguous consumption of alcohol and food services, and also noted that the Sustainable and Transportation Committee will be looking at Fore Street closures for a few hours for outdoor dining. Regarding the employment disparity study, Mayor Strimling said that the Muskie School may have a proposal and this would be brought to the EDC at the appropriate time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m. Respectfully, Lori Paulette 5  PD Growth Ad-Hoc Committee Research, process and outreach • Weekly meetings • Research & data collection • Outreach and conversations • Public meetings (two hosted by PD) • Correspondence with property owners and residents • Meetings with key city staff • Committee and Board approval • Press Release from City of Portland • Economic Development Committee  Proposed Expansion Informational meeting minutes Thursday April 10, 2017 at 5:30pm Maine Historical Society Library, 489 Congress St. Board members present: Kim Volk, David Packard, Penny St. Louis, Trish McLellan, Sue-Ellen McClain, Megan Doane, Erik Urbanek Others present: Tracy St. Pierre, Margaret Broucek, Elise Loschiavo, Karen Foster, Richard & Stephanie Freund, Sarah Schindler Staff present: Casey Gilbert, Taffy Eaton Minute 1. Opening remarks were made by Kim Volk, David Packard and Casey Gilbert, welcoming all present and asking for introductions. Kim thanked Maine Historical Society for hosting the meeting and thanked all present for attending. Minute 2. Casey gave a Power Point presentation, outlining how Portland Downtown (PD) was formed, what PD does and the Board structure. The presentation included a map of the current footprint, the proposed expansion map and reviewed specific dollar amounts property owners could expect to be assessed. Minute 3. Casey reviewed Portland Downtown expenditures and activities:  Clean & Safe: Public Works crew, Graffiti Busters through Learning Works, seasonal Cadet program  Marketing & Events: Print map and directory, Pandora’s Winter Lights, street banners (beautification), Downtown Worker Appreciation Day, Summer Kickoff Weekend, Light Up Your Holidays, Police Awards Breakfast  Advocacy: Panhandling, Parking & Transportation and Sound Ordinance – PD sent letters to the City with ideas on how to partner with each other to effect change.  Partnerships: Partnering organizations, sponsorships Minute 4. Property Owner Q & A:  Is Residential graffiti removal included in PD services? o Removal on residential properties is included and property owners can submit through See Click Fix or call PD office and submit a request to Amy.  Who drives the mil rate fluctuation? The PD Board submits its annual budget to the City Council, which determines the mil rate.  Could organizations be merged for efficiency sake? Casey explained that there is thoughtful collaboration around economic development work between the City, Creative Portland, Visit Portland, Portland Community Chamber of Commerce, and Portland Downtown. It is a good conversation for the future.  Will property owners vote on inclusion? The City Council will vote on expansion – it’s a separate council item. Please come and speak at the meeting, talk to your Councilor, write or speak to a PD Board member if you would like to offer your support – or opposition.  What percentage of properties in the expansion area are residential vs commercial? 36% in current footprint are condos – there are fewer single family homes. Expansion could address the number of residential reps on the Board if needed. Could there be some allocation per unit? A tiered system is not currently permitted per Maine law. o Stakeholder Board positions were added a few years ago to be sure all industries are represented  Casey and Amy conduct regular inspection walks, which are documented through See Click Fix. The tracking and transparency of data is available to property owners if requested.   What happens with dead trees, missing bricks or trash along sidewalks? PD will take care of smaller issues in a timely manner or recommend for Capital Improvement Projects if the Public Works crew cannot take care of the issue.  What level of involvement would PD have in parks? As with all of our programs and services, we collaborate closely with City departments. The collective voice is strong and is a useful tool for advocating for improvements.  How much assessment revenue would be added to the budget with the expansion? Based on the taxable parcel list provided by the City Assessor: $67,000. There has been conversation between PD and the Public Works Department about the possibility of adding a staff person to the downtown team.  Casey suggested going to www.portlandmaine.com to sign up for our email lists for committees, which include agendas and minutes.  Glad to see we’re trying to work on noise. Casey further recommended talking to Councilor Belinda Ray. Minute 5. Casey thanked everyone for taking the time to attend. We will send notice of the City Council meeting and other opportunities for public comment. Casey adjourned the meeting at 6:30. Respectfully submitted, Taffy Eaton, recorder MEMORANDUM PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION To: Economic Development Committee From: Nell Donaldson, Senior Planner, Planning & Urban Development Department Date: June 1, 2018 Re: Impact Fee Study Update Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 I. INTRODUCTION In In late 2017, on the recommendation of the city’s recently- adopted comprehensive plan, at the request of the City Manager, and with the support of the Council’s Economic Development Committee, the city’s Planning Division began an investigation into the “potential of a more robust framework for assessing development-related impacts” in the city (Portland’s Plan, 67). The purpose of this exploration, as stated in Portland’s Plan, is to “generate additional funding [for facilities and services], while also adding clarity and predictability to existing [review] procedures.” This investigation began in earnest with staff research and engagement of a consultant with national experience in impact fee design. This Economic Development Committee meeting will provide an introduction to this consultant and to the scope of work for the Impact Fee Study. 2. WHAT ARE IMPACT FEES? Impact fees are charges paid by new development to fund the cost of providing municipal facilities to serve that development. This idea is premised on the concept that when development occurs, it can bring many benefits, but it also affects the existing infrastructure around it by adding more cars, bikes, and pedestrians to the streets, increasing sewer and stormwater flows into these city systems, and infusing additional visitors into the city’s parks and open spaces, which, in turn, require additional capital investment. As a result of this thinking, impact fees are widely used throughout the United States to assess the cost of new development’s share of growth- related infrastructure needs. Impact fees have been used in some communities in the United States for the past 50+ years. 3. WHERE ARE IMPACT FEES? Although impact fees are particularly common in states that have experienced rapid population growth in the west and south, they are found in the majority of states nationwide. Concord and Figure 1: Impact fee process Manchester, NH have impact fees, as does Burlington, VT. In Maine, 1 of 26 Economic Development Committee 6/5/18 Impact Fee Study: Introduction Table 1: Sample of Maine Communities with Impact Fees Transportation Sewer/Water Open Fire/EMS Schools Space/Recreation Brewer ⏺ ⏺ Brunswick ⏺ ⏺ Freeport ⏺ Gorham ⏺ ⏺ Lewiston ⏺ ⏺ Pownal ⏺ ⏺ Saco ⏺ ⏺ ⏺ Scarborough ⏺ ⏺ Windham ⏺ ⏺ York ⏺ ⏺ the legislature laid the foundation for impact fees with the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1987. In the time since, communities across the state have developed and implemented impact fee ordinances (Table 1). 4. HOW ARE IMPACT FEES USED? The uses of impact fees vary widely, depending on state enabling legislation, but in all cases impact fees may only be used to construct, expand, or replace infrastructure required to serve new development. Many communities use impact fees to address growth-related capital costs associated with roads, parks, water, and sewer infrastructure. Fire and police-related impact fees are also fairly common, as are school impact fees. In Maine, impact fees may be used for transportation projects, public safety facilities, sewer and water systems, parks and open space, and school improvements. Impact fees may not be used to pay for operations or maintenance, and may not be used to address existing deficiencies in these systems. 5. HOW MUCH ARE IMPACT FEES? Regardless of where impact fees are used, courts have established that there must be a rational nexus and rough proportionality between the type and scale of development and the fee imposed. Per guidance from the former Maine State Planning Office, “the expansion of the facility and/or service must be necessary and must be caused by the development; the fees charged must be based on the costs of the new facility/service apportioned to the new development; and the fees must benefit those who pay” (Maine State Planning Office, 4). Given these standards, in order for impact fees to be charged, a community must conduct an analysis that identifies growth-related infrastructure costs and apportions those costs to projected development, often by development type, on a square foot, unit, or per trip basis. The resulting fees must be established through a council-adopted ordinance that meets a series of state requirements around the provision of language to address the relationship between fees and growth’s share of infrastructure costs, the treatment of revenues generated from impact fees, timely use of impact fees, and refunds (Title 30-A MRSA §4354). As a product of the great variation in communities that have adopted impact fees, and the great variation in uses of impact fees, the amount of impact fees varies widely from state to state and community to community. A 2015 study of impact fees across the country by Duncan Associates, a national firm specializing in impact fee work, found that state-wide average non-utility (i.e. excluding water and wastewater) impact fees for single-family residential projects ranged from less than $1,000 in Arkansas to almost $25,000 in California (Duncan Associates). In New Hampshire, the study found total residential fees ranging from approximately $3,000 for a 3-br single-family home in Manchester to $5,000 in Concord. In Burlington, the study estimated a $5,000 fee for a 3-br single-family home. The same study found that fees across the country averaged approximately $6,000 per KSF for retail uses, approximately $4,000 per KSF for office uses, and approximately $3,000 per KSF for industrial uses. 2 2 of 26 Economic Development Committee 6/5/18 Impact Fee Study: Introduction 6. HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO PORTLAND’S CURRENT ORDINANCE? The City of Portland’s existing site plan ordinance allows the city to require mitigation “so as to be consistent with City Council approved master plans and facilities plans and with off-premises infrastructure, including but not limited to sewer and stormwater, streets, trails, pedestrian and bicycle network, environmental management or other public facilities” (City of Portland Land Use Code 14-526(c)1.a). Further, the city’s Technical Manual requires that developments that generate more than 100 passenger car equivalents obtain a Traffic Movement Permit (TMP) under the city’s delegated review authority. The issuance of a TMP includes a “summary of findings and recommendations for improvements and other impact mitigation measures” (City of Portland Technical Manual, 2). Under these regulations, the city negotiates mitigation on a case-by-case basis predicated on an analysis of impacts identified through the site plan or subdivision review process. As a product of this process, in some cases, developers make in-kind physical improvements, upgrading a traffic light or installing pedestrian signalheads and ramps at a nearby intersection. In other cases, developers are required to make financial infrastructure contributions proportionate to their impacts. These contributions are held in separate “infrastructure accounts” until they can be drawn down to pay for the improvement identified through the review process. Because this process is conducted on a case-by-case basis, it is neither as systematic or predictable as many would prefer. Further, the system often penalizes the “last one in,” whose development causes an intersection level of service to fail, rather than addressing the incremental impact of all prior developments. An impact fee framework for the City of Portland would establish a more predictable, transparent, and equitable way of assessing the impact of incremental growth on public facilities and services. An impact fee system would also provide the city with some measure of efficiency. 7. IMPACT FEE STUDY SCOPE & SCHEDULE In mid-2017, the City Council adopted Portland's Plan 2030, a new comprehensive plan designed to guide the city’s growth and change over the next ten years. Among the plan’s recommendations is a strong commitment to exploring new ways of funding our critical facilities and services, particularly as they are used by a growing number of residents, workers, and visitors. The plan anticipates future population and employment growth in the city and suggests an exploration of impact fees as a means of assessing capital costs associated with that growth. In August 2017, the Economic Development Committee met to review the impact fee concept (Attachment 1). With the support of the committee, and working with the Departments of Public Works and the Parks, Recreation, and Facilities, Department of Planning & Urban Development staff released an RFP for an Impact Fee Study in October of 2017. The purpose of the study, as written in the RFP, is to develop impact fee systems for multi-modal transportation infrastructure, parks and open space, and wastewater infrastructure. In January 2018, the Planning & Urban Development Department, with the assistance of DPW and the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities, hired TischlerBise, a consulting firm with national experience in impact fee design, to complete the Impact Fee Study. The study’s first step is to compile the data, including population and employment growth projections, that will serve as the foundation for the impact fee analysis. In late April, Tischler developed a final draft memo summarizing demographic and development assumptions for the study (Attachment 2). This memo was based on data provided by the Department of Planning & Urban Development, the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities, and includes discussion of population, development, employment, traffic, and wastewater usage trends in the city. 3 3 of 26 Economic Development Committee 6/5/18 Impact Fee Study: Introduction Figure 2: Impact Fee Study timeline The next phase of the study will determine capital facility needs and desired service levels for each of the three fee types under consideration. The study will explore various standard methodologies for deriving fees on a per unit, per trip, or per square foot basis and identify the most appropriate methodology for each fee type. The last step of the study will analyze projected funding and cash flow to understand the likely revenue stream and capital expenditures associated with the fees. Draft and final impact fee reports, including potential impact fee schedules, will be prepared. Ultimately, a draft impact fee ordinance, including fee structures based on these reports, will be presented to the Planning Board and City Council. 8. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Throughout the process, the Impact Fee Study will include a public involvement component designed to engage key stakeholders at major points in the process: A. Stakeholder Group – In mid-May, staff gathered an informal group of stakeholders for an introduction to the Impact Fee Study. This informal stakeholder group is meant to include a range of community members with a stake in the outcome of the study – from developers to neighborhood association representatives to those with a broad interest in economic development in the city. The purpose of the group is to provide feedback on major work products over the course of the study. At the May meeting, Tischler gave an overview of the study and the demographic and land use assumptions that will underpin the analysis in future phases. Subsequent workshops will address capital needs, fee calculation methodologies, and potential fees. B. Planning Board – Also in mid-May, the Planning Board met for the first of several workshops on the Impact Fee Study. This workshop, like the first stakeholder group meeting, focused on providing an overview of the study and presenting early demographic and land use assumptions. Subsequent workshops will address capital needs, fee calculation methodologies, and potential fees. Ultimately, the Planning Board will be responsible for reviewing not only the technical elements of the Impact Fee Study, but also reviewing ordinance language for potential adoption by the City Council. C. Economic Development Committee – Updates will be provided to the EDC at important study milestones. D. City Council – For impact fees to be implemented, the Council would need to adopt ordinance language, including a set of fees as generated by the Impact Fee Study. E. Other - A project website has also been developed (https://www.recodeportland.me/impact-fee-study/). This website will be updated over the course of the Impact Fee Study. Early engagement with both the stakeholder group and with the Planning Board has yielded important feedback, focused primarily on large questions around the city’s existing capital funding mechanisms and the economic implications of impact fees. Questions arising from these early meetings included: A. How would impact fees fit within the city's existing framework for funding capital projects? − How do we fund capital improvements for each of the three impact fee categories now? − What is our financial exposure with a plan-based approach to impact fees (i.e. the way we're thinking about transportation and wastewater projects), and do we have a funding strategy for filling any gaps? − What is our broader strategy for filling capital funding gaps in the city? − What happens if growth slows or we enter a recession? 4 4 of 26 Economic Development Committee 6/5/18 Impact Fee Study: Introduction − Can we quantify how development is/isn't 'paying for itself' with tax revenue right now? (and related, if developers are paying taxes, isn't this double-dipping?) What about the revaluation? B. How would impact fees compare to our current system of collecting mitigation? − Will it really replace the existing system? − Will it cost developers more out-of-pocket? − How much time and money will it cost the city to administer? Do we have the capacity for this? − How will revenues compare to what we're generating in mitigation right now? C. How will this affect the economy, housing choice, etc. down the line? − Who actually bears the cost of impact fees? − Will an impact fee have a negative impact on housing affordability? − Will an impact fee have a negative effect on the pace of growth and the city's economy more broadly? Continued discussion on these topics is expected at the next round of meetings on the study. 9. NEXT STEPS 1. Staff and the consultant to continue work on the needs analysis phase of the study; 2. Staff to schedule a second round of meetings with the Planning Board and stakeholder group to review work products and, ultimately, a draft impact fee ordinance. 10. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo to the Economic Development Committee, Jeff Levine, Director, Planning & Urban Development, 8/31/17 2. Draft Demographic Data and Development Projections for Impact Fee Study, Tischler Bise, 4/23/18 5 5 of 26  Att. 1 Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jeff Levine, Director, Planning & Urban Development Date: August 31, 2017 Re: Impact Fees One of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan is to look at a system of Impact Fees for the City as a way of both funding city infrastructure, and providing predictability for developers. This memo outlines what Impact Fees are, how they have been applied elsewhere, and a general approach to an Impact Fee system for Portland. What Are Impact Fees? Impact Fees are a systematic way of having new development pay for the infrastructure demands it creates. Cities that use Impact Fees choose certain types of infrastructure they feel needs to be improved and develop a baseline and needs assessment for each of them. Costs are developed for future needs and then assigned to new development as it comes in. When sufficient funds have been collected, the improvements are made. Often there is a feedback system in place – as improvements are made, a new needs assessment is conducted and the Impact Fee system is revised accordingly. Impact fees can be a logical and fair way to address public impacts of new development. Developers are able to plug a mitigation cost into their pro forma and plan for it, rather than having to negotiate mitigation and deal with the uncertainty of that process. The City is able to devote energy into implementing these improvements, rather than into extensive negotiations with each developer based on their documented impacts. Neighbors and community groups will know what projects in their neighborhood are being funded and more confidence that they will be completed. Commonly, impact fees are collected to mitigate impacts on transportation systems; parks & open space; schools; and stormwater/sewer systems. Costs are charged on either a square foot basis or on a per unit basis. For example, Concord, NH, has an impact fee for transportation improvements that charges $2,110 per new single family home, $1,449 per multifamily unit, and $1.70 per square foot of office space. Concord also charges a per unit fee for recreational facilities and for schools. 6 of 26  Impact Fees Memorandum to Economic Development Committee 8/31/17 Page 2 It is critical that any impact fee system be based on solid data regarding current and future needs, as well as meeting tests established by the U.S. Supreme Court related to the fees having a rational nexus to the development (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)) and have rough proportionality to the actual impact of the project (Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).) The American Planning Association has a policy guide on impact fees that provides a solid basis for thinking about their utility: “Impact Fees, when based on a comprehensive plan and used in conjunction with a sound capital improvement plan, can be an effective too for ensuring adequate infrastructure to accommodate growth where and when it is anticipated” Where Are They Used Nationally? Impact fees are used in a majority of states nationwide. A 2015 survey looked at 270 communities using impact fees as part of their development review process in 29 states and found the average impact fee for single family homes was $11,868 and the average impact fee for office development was $4,356/1000 square feet. 1 1 National Impact Fee Survey 2015, Clancy Mullen, Duncan Associates, Austin, TX 7 of 26  Impact Fees Memorandum to Economic Development Committee 8/31/17 Page 3 Impact fees are most common in Florida, Colorado, the southwest, and the far west. However, communities in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont use Impact Fees. Municipalities in Massachusetts are not permitted to charge impact fees for development, except in very limited cases. Only 10 states (including Maine) have specific state legislation authorizing the use of impact fees generally. In many other states, local governments have pursued impact fees, either through home rule authority or other mechanisms. Some communities similar to Portland have well established impact fee systems, including Concord, NH; Manchester, NH; and Burlington, VT. Generally larger cities have not implemented impact fee systems, although Chicago has an impact fee system for parks and open spaces. In Oakland, California, there is a proposed impact fee system that is a useful example for Portland, in that it is comprehensive in approach and does not tie the fees to specific improvements. Their zone approach is an interesting methodology for a densely- developed city. What About in Maine? Maine’s legislature authorized the use of impact fees in 1987 as part of an overall update to the state’s planning and land use laws. Title 30-A M.R.S. §4354allows cities to pass an ordinance to require collection of impact fees for a variety of uses, including wastewater collection and treatment; solid waste facilities; fire protection; transportation; and parks and open space. While public education is not listed as an explicitly authorized purpose, it has been accepted as another authorized use for impact fees in Maine. Several communities in Maine have adopted impact fees for a variety of uses. These include: • York, where they collect impact fees for schools, water, and sewer infrastructure; • Scarborough, where they collect impact fees for specific transportation improvements and for schools; • Gorham, where they collect impact fees for water improvements; open space and recreation; and schools; and • Saco, where they collect impact fees for wastewater improvements. What Types of Impact Fees are Used? As mentioned above, impact fees are used for a variety of public infrastructure needs. The most common fees are for: • Schools • Wastewater and Stormwater 8 of 26  Impact Fees Memorandum to Economic Development Committee 8/31/17 Page 4 • Water Supply • Transportation Infrastructure • Parks, Recreation and Open Space • Libraries • Public Safety Fees were traditionally charged at a uniform level for each use. More recently there has been some stratification of fees. For example, some communities charge school impact fees for homes with three or more bedrooms only, or charge a lower fee for smaller units. Similarly, some impact fee systems charge less or nothing for developments utilizing existing infrastructure, such as in a traditional town center. Source: National Impact Fee Survey 2015, Clancy Mullen, Duncan Associates, Austin, TX What Current City Policies and Ordinances are Similar to Impact Fees? As part of the City’s site plan review process, and as delegated by the state to issue Traffic Movement Permits (TMP) for the Maine Department of Transportation, mitigation is currently negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Applicants submit a transportation study, stormwater analysis, and other documentation outlining their estimates of the impact of the development on City infrastructure. Sometimes these studies suggest mitigation proposals, and sometimes they find that no mitigation is required. City staff and consultants review these studies and offer a response. As part of the process, a mitigation package is approved as part of the site plan approval and TMP process. 9 of 26  Impact Fees Memorandum to Economic Development Committee 8/31/17 Page 5 Sometimes the mitigation involves a physical improvement, such as a new traffic light. Sometimes they involve an in-kind contribution to a future improvement. These contributions are held in discrete accounts in the City system until sufficient funds have been found to complete these improvements. These contributions have some similarity to impact fees but are not as comprehensive. As a result, the City may have half of the cost of a particular improvement in an account for some time, but does not have the funds needed to complete that improvement. The current system, particularly for TMP’s, is based on a “first past the threshold” trigger. In other words, until an intersection fails, developers are not asked to fund any improvements. Once the intersection fails, the cost of addressing that failure falls to the developer whose project created that last increment of impact. While that can both help and hurt the same development, it creates conflict and is not as fair as an impact fee system that would have been collecting funds from developers all along. There is a limited form of impact fees in effect in Portland for projects that wish to reduce their parking requirement. This voluntary fee-in-lieu-of parking system in effect on the Peninsula in certain zones. That system, created in 2010, allows developers to pay a fee rather than provide some of their parking on-site. That fee goes into the Sustainable Transportation Fund and is used to fund transportation alternatives, such as transit improvements, bike parking, and sidewalks. While this ordinance has had some successes, it is very limited in scope. Similarly, the inclusionary zoning ordinance is based on a study that connects new housing development and affordable housing needs. At present City mitigation efforts are limited to transportation, sewer and stormwater, and, very occasionally, school impacts. There is no systematic process for funding mitigation for the other categories listed above. As part of the 58 Fore Street TMP, staff negotiated a pilot impact fee system for transportation improvements. That methodology worked well, though it was isolated in that case to improvements specific to that geographic area. What is the Process to Create an Impact Fee System? While it is tempting to simply create an impact fee system and implement it, there are several important steps that must be taken to establish the public policy and legal framework for an effective program. 1. A city should first complete a Comprehensive Plan or comparable document that establishes the planning goal of an impact fee system and, as much as possible, sets city goals for infrastructure baselines. The recently approved Comprehensive Plan does much of this work, as do other studies completed in the past few years, such as the Trust for Public Land parks and open space study. 2. The City needs to determine in what areas impact fees will be pursued. Currently Portland only seeks mitigation for transportation and stormwater impacts in most cases. The more areas in which impact fees will be implemented, the more 10 of 26  Impact Fees Memorandum to Economic Development Committee 8/31/17 Page 6 upfront work will be needed. The cost to developers will also be higher, but greater public benefit will be provided. 3. Those infrastructure baselines need to be refined and turned into a set of public improvements that will be needed based on expected development. The City’s Capital Improvement Plan does a good job at outlining these improvements, but it is fiscally constrained based on the City’s existing financial resources and bonding capacity. A more extensive list of needs, with estimated costs attached, will need to be developed. This can be very simple, as in the case of Scarborough where they simply sought to fund a few specific roadway projects, or more complicated. Alternatively, they can be comprehensive and address a number of impacts at once, as Oakland is doing. That would be our current recommendation. 4. An impact fee study needs to be completed to link these costs and project new development. While it is tempting to skip the study phase, this study is especially important given U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Nolan and Dolan regarding establishing a rational nexus and rough proportionality for impact fee systems. 5. The City needs to approve an impact fee ordinance with a fee schedule, and amend any other ordinances that may need changing to create such a system in accordance with 30-A M.R.S. §4354. 6. Staff needs to be educated on the new system, and educate the development and neighborhood groups on it as well, to ensure that everyone is familiar with the new process. 7. Staff needs to track the various accounts and complete the funded improvements when collections are sufficient. 8. The list of projects and fee structure will need regular revisiting and updating. At a minimum, this should be completed every few years. Ideally this work would be ongoing as part of the CIP process. What are our Next Steps? With the approval of the Comprehensive Plan, the policy basis is in place for next steps. The planned rewrite of Chapter 14 into an updated Unified Development Code is compatible with replacing the current process with a more systematic impact fee system. Our next step is to complete the nexus study that will document the rationale for the amount of the Impact Fees. Staff has completed a Request for Proposals for a consultant to complete that study with the $25,000 appropriated in the FY18 budget for this purpose. Planning has been working with Public Works; Economic Development; Parks, Recreation & Facilities, and other departments to prepare for this work. We hope to have a consultant selected in September and the nexus study completed this calendar year. We will then submit a proposed ordinance for Planning Board and City Council review. 11 of 26  DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTION MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine Att. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Helen Donaldson, City of Portland, Planning and Urban Development FROM: Carson Bise, AICP, TischlerBise Colin McAweeney, TischlerBise DATE: April 23, 2018 RE: DRAFT Demographic Data and Development Projections for Impact Fee Study As part of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on demographic data and development projections that will be used in the Impact Fee Study for Transportation, Parks and Open Space, and Wastewater. The data estimates and projections are used in the study’s calculations and to illustrate the possible future pace of service demands on the City’s infrastructure. Furthermore, the memo demonstrates the history of development and base year development levels in Portland. The base year assumptions are used in the impact fee calculations to determine current levels of service. The factors provide assumptions for the final impact fee model and, once finalized, this memo will become part of the final report and/or model documentation. This memo includes discussion and findings on: • Household/ Housing Unit Population • Current population and housing unit estimates • Residential projections • Current employment and nonresidential floor area estimates • Nonresidential projections • Current and projected daily vehicle trips • Current and projected wastewater flows Note: calculations throughout this technical memo are based on an analysis conducted using Excel software. Results are discussed in the memo using one-and two-digit places (in most cases), which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore, the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis). 1 12 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per household to derive proportionate share fee amounts. Housing types have varying household sizes and, consequently, a varying demand on City infrastructure and services. Thus, it is important to differentiate between housing types and size. When persons per housing unit (PPHU) is used in the fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. In contrast, when persons per household (PPHH) is used in the fee calculations, the fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. From the Maine Office of Tourism, the Greater Portland and Casco Bay region saw 5.4 million visitors in 2016. As a result, it is not just permanent residents occupying housing units in Portland. In response, City infrastructure and operating service levels are sized to accommodate not just permanent residents, but seasonal residents, seasonal workers, and visitors as well. Thus, TischlerBise recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Portland be imposed according to the persons per household (PPHH). Persons per household (PPHH) will be held constant over the projection period since the study represents a “snapshot approach” of current levels of service and costs. Based on household characteristics, TischlerBise recommends using two housing unit categories for the impact fee study: (1) Single Family and (2) Multifamily. Single family units include single family detached, single family attached, duplexes, and mobile homes. Multifamily units include structures with more than 2 units. Figure 1 shows the US Census, American Community Survey 2016 5-Year Estimates data for the City of Portland. Single family units have a household size of 2.38 persons per unit and multifamily units have a household size of 1.59 persons per unit. Additionally, single family units have a vacancy rate of 9.8 percent and are 70 percent of the housing stock in Portland. Multifamily units have a vacancy rate of 9.4 percent and are 30 percent of the housing stock in Portland. Figure 1. Persons per Household House- Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy Type of Structure Persons holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate Single Family Unit1 50,010 21,052 2.38 23,338 2.14 69.8% 9.8% Multifamily Unit2 14,542 9,149 1.59 10,098 1.44 30.2% 9.4% Total 64,552 30,201 2.14 33,436 1.93 9.7% Source: Ti s chl erBi s e a na l ys i s ; U.S. Cens us Burea u, 2012-2016 Ameri ca n Communi ty Survey, 5-Yea r Es ti ma tes [1] Incl udes deta ched, a tta ched, dupl exes , a nd mobi l e home uni ts . [2] Incl udes s tructures wi th more tha n 2 uni ts . 2 13 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine BASE YEAR POPULATION AND HOUSING UNITS Permanent Residents Along with the population estimate for residents in single family and multifamily units, the American Community Survey provides population estimates for those residing in Group Quarters (i.e. student housing and military residents). Found in Figure 2, the household population and group quarters are considered the City’s permanent population and in 2016 it is estimated that the permanent population was 66,627. Figure 2. Permanent Population, 2016 Type of Structure Persons % Single Family Unit 50,010 75.1% Multifamily Unit 14,542 21.8% Group Quarters 2,075 3.1% Total 66,627 100.0% Source: U.S. Cens us Burea u, 2012-2016 Ameri ca n Communi ty Survey, 5-Yea r Es ti ma tes Furthermore, in the recently published Portland’s Plan 2030 several population growth scenarios are played out. The comprehensive plan indicates that a medium-level growth scenario would result in a 2030 population of 71,374. As a result, for the impact fee study, by 2030 the City of Portland is forecasted to have a permanent population of 71,374. To estimate the City’s population in the interim years a straight- line approach is used. Figure 3 illustrates the growth in permanent population. In the base year, 2018, there is estimated to be 67,305 permanent residents in Portland. Figure 3. Base Year Permanent Population 5-Year Increments Base Year Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 Increase Permanent Population 66,627 66,966 67,305 67,644 67,983 69,679 71,374 4,747 Percent Increase 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 7.1% Source: U.S. Cens us Burea u, 2012-2016 Ameri ca n Communi ty Survey, 5-Yea r Es ti ma tes ; Ci ty of Portl a nd Pl a nni ng Depa rtment; Ti s chl erBi s e a na l ys i s Seasonal Residents & Visitors As mentioned, the impact fee study will be using a peak population of Portland because of the large tourism industry. It is assumed that City infrastructure and services are sized to serve a peak population not just the permanent population. In this case, two additional populations need to be calculated: seasonal and visitor. The seasonal population includes residents who have second homes in Portland and the seasonal labor influx during peak tourism months. The visitor population includes overnight and day visitors. 3 14 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine To calculate the seasonal population, the study assumes full occupancy of the housing units in the city. From the US Census data, in 2016, there were 2,286 vacant single family homes and 949 vacant multifamily homes. The seasonal population is calculated by multiplying the units by the corresponding the persons per household factor (PPHH). In 2016, there was a seasonal population of 6,950. Figure 4. Seasonal Population, 2016 Vacant Persons per Seasonal Type of Structure Units Household Population Single Family Unit1 2,286 2.38 5,441 2 Multifamily Unit 949 1.59 1,509 Total 3,235 2.15 6,950 Source: Ti s chl erBi s e a na l ys i s ; U.S. Cens us Burea u, 2012-2016 Ameri ca n Communi ty Survey, 5-Yea r Es ti ma tes [1] Incl udes deta ched, a tta ched, dupl exes , a nd mobi l e home uni ts . [2] Incl udes s tructures wi th more tha n 2 uni ts . The visitor population for Portland is found by first analyzing the state and regional totals. In 2016, there were 41.2 million visitors to Maine. The majority of the visitors came in the summer, resulting in the average daily number of visitors in the summer being 185 percent of the annual average. Figure 5. State of Maine Visitor Totals, 2016 Average Daily Percent of Season Total Visitors Visitors Annual Ave. Winter 5,615,670 46,156 41% Summer 25,328,066 208,176 185% Fall 10,230,660 84,088 75% Total 41,174,396 112,807 100% Source: Ma i ne Offi ce of Touri s m, 2016 Calendar Year Annual Report According to the Maine Office of Tourism (MOT), there were 5,360,000 visitors (overnight and day visitors) to the Greater Portland and Casco Bay Region in 2016. Results of the MOT’s visitor survey indicate that the Portland’s Waterfront was the top attraction for 33 percent of overnight visitors and for 30 percent of day visitors. The study will use a conservative method and use these percentages to allocate the regional visitor total to the City of Portland. In Figure 6, the City of Portland’s daily peak visitor population is calculated. The estimated total of overnight visitors to Portland is 745,800. The estimated total of day visitors to Portland is 930,000. As a result, the total annual visitors to the City of Portland is 1,675,800, or an average of 4,591 per day. Found above, during the summer statewide, the visitor population spike to 185 percent of the annual average. This is applied to the City’s average to calculate the daily peak season visitor total. As a result, in 2016, it is estimated that the City of Portland’s daily peak season visitor population was 8,473. 4 15 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine Figure 6. City of Portland Peak Season Visitor Population, 2016 Overnight Visitors to Region 2,260,000 City's Proportion of Region 33% Overnight Visitors to Portland 745,800 Day Visitors to Region 3,100,000 City's Proportion of Region 30% Day Visitors to Portland 930,000 Total Annual Visitors to Portland 1,675,800 Average Daily Visitors 4,591 Peak Season Multipler 185% Daily Peak Season Visitor Total 8,473 Source: Ma i ne Offi ce of Touri s m, 2016; Ti s chl erBi s e Ana l ys i s The study assumes that the visitor population will have a positive relationship and follow the permanent population’s growth. From 2016 to 2018 there is a 1.02 percent increase in permanent population in Portland, this is applied to the visitor population to calculate the base year total. It is assumed that during the peak seasonal period the City’s seasonal population (seasonal residents and workers) occupies the vacant housing units. As a result, the seasonal population is calculated based on housing growth, described in the next section of the report. In 2018, it is estimated that the peak population for the City of Portland is 83,250. Figure 7. Base Year Peak Population Base Year 2016 2017 2018 Peak Population Permanent 66,627 66,966 67,305 Seasonal 6,950 7,168 7,386 Visitor 8,473 8,516 8,559 Total 82,049 82,650 83,250 Source: Ti s chl eBi s e a na l ys i s Base Year Housing Stock To understand the housing growth in the City of Portland, the building permit data from the last five years is collected, Figure 8. Over the past 5 years there has been an increase of 1,435 housing units in Portland and, on average, there has been 33 single family and 254 multifamily housing units constructed annually. It is assumed this trend will continue and the averages are used to project housing development in the City of Portland. Figure 8. Permitted Housing Units 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Average Single Family 26 53 23 38 26 166 33 Multifamily 168 97 187 611 206 1,269 254 Total 194 150 210 649 232 1,435 287 Source: City of Portland Planning Department 5 16 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine By examining parcel data provided by the City with a GIS (Geographic Information System) software, the base year housing stock is estimated in Figure 9. In total, 56 percent of the housing in the City of Portland is single family and 44 percent multifamily. Consistent with the City’s Land Use Code, single family units include single family detached, single family attached, duplexes, and mobile homes. Multifamily units include structures with 3 or more units. Figure 9. Base Year Housing Stock (Housing Units) Base Year Housing Type 2018 % Single Family 21,047 56% Multifamily 16,575 44% Total 37,622 100% Source: Ci ty of Portl a nd GIS Da ta POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS Illustrated in Figure 10, by using the projections from Portland’s Plan 2030 for permanent population, a growth of 3,391 residents is projected by 2028. The seasonal population is assumed to grow with housing development. The vacancy rates found in Figure 1 are assumed to hold through the projection period and the seasonal population is found by combining the estimated vacant units with the corresponding PPHH factor. Lastly, to project the daily peak visitor population growth, the annual percent increase in permanent population is applied. Overall, there is a peak population increase of 4,279. Of the total population in 2028, 81 percent is permanent, 9 percent is seasonal, and 10 percent is visitor population. To project the housing unit growth in Portland, the five-year annual average of building permits is used (see Figure 8). Over the ten-year projection period, the housing stock in the city is estimated to increase by 2,870 units (88 percent multifamily units). Figure 10. City of Portland Annual Residential Development Projections Base Year Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Increase Peak Population Permanent 67,305 67,644 67,983 68,322 68,661 69,001 69,340 69,679 70,018 70,357 70,696 71,035 71,374 3,391 Seasonal 7,386 7,432 7,478 7,523 7,569 7,615 7,660 7,706 7,752 7,797 7,843 7,889 7,934 457 Visitor 8,559 8,602 8,645 8,688 8,731 8,775 8,818 8,861 8,904 8,947 8,990 9,033 9,076 431 Total 83,250 83,678 84,106 84,534 84,962 85,390 85,818 86,246 86,673 87,101 87,529 87,957 88,385 4,279 Housing Unit Single Family 21,047 21,080 21,113 21,147 21,180 21,213 21,246 21,279 21,313 21,346 21,379 21,412 21,445 332 Multifamily 16,575 16,829 17,083 17,336 17,590 17,844 18,098 18,352 18,605 18,859 19,113 19,367 19,621 2,538 Total 37,622 37,909 38,196 38,483 38,770 39,057 39,344 39,631 39,918 40,205 40,492 40,779 41,066 2,870 Source: Portl a nd's Pl a n 2030; Ti s chl erBi s e a na l ys i s 6 17 of 26  DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTION MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA The impact fee study will include nonresidential development as well. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s web application, OnTheMap, there were 65,203 jobs in Portland in 2015. The education, health care, and social assistance services accounted for the largest percentage of the total (26.2 percent). Figure 11. Employment by Industry Sector, 2015 Industry Sector Employment % Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 18 0.0% Utilities 395 0.6% Construction 2,015 3.1% Manufacturing 2,714 4.2% Wholesale trade 2478 3.8% Retail trade 5,302 8.1% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 2,065 3.2% Information 1,529 2.3% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 8,114 12.4% Professional, scientific, mgmt. , admin., and waste mgmt. services 11,893 18.2% Educational services, and health care and social assistance 17,057 26.2% Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services 7,354 11.3% Other services, except public administration 2,475 3.8% Public administration 1,794 2.8% Total 65,203 100.0% Source: U.S. Cens us Burea u, OnTheMa p 2015 The fourteen industry sectors in Figure 11 have been compiled into four industries: Retail, Office, Industrial, and Institutional. The City of Portland’s employment is pretty well dispersed between the industries, with Institutional and Office accounting for the highest percentages, Figure 12. Figure 12. Employment by Industry, 2015 Industry Jobs % Retail 12,656 19% Office 24,011 37% Industrial 9,685 15% Institutional 18,851 29% Total 65,203 100% Source: U.S. Cens us Burea u, OnTheMa p 2015 Since the breakdown is for 2015, a projection is necessary to estimate the job totals for the base year. To estimate the current employment in the City of Portland, employment projections from Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) are used. Based on employment projections at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, PACTS forecast an employment increase of 27.5 percent from 2014 to 2040. The annual percent increase of the PACTS projection is used to calculate the employment growth in Figure 13. The breakdown by industry in Figure 12 is then applied to total increase to calculate the growth in each industry. In the base year, it is estimated that there are 67,270 jobs in Portland. 7 18 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine Figure 13. Base Year Employment Base Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 Employment Retail 12,656 12,790 12,923 13,057 Office 24,011 24,265 24,518 24,772 Industrial 9,685 9,787 9,890 9,992 Institution 18,851 19,050 19,249 19,449 Total 65,203 65,892 66,581 67,270 Source: Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS); TischlerBise analysis Base year nonresidential floor area for the Retail, Office, Industrial, and Institutional industry sectors are calculated with GIS parcel data provided by City staff. In Figure 14, there is a total of 35.3 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in Portland with all sectors accounting for at least 20 percent. Additionally, the figure lists the City’s land use categories used to determine the floor area of each industry. Figure 14. Base Year Nonresidential Floor Area Nonresidential Industry Sq. Ft. % Land Use Categories Retail 9,816,540 28% Multiuse Commercial, Retail & Personal Services Office 9,317,766 26% Office & Business Services, Communications, Commercial Condos Industrial 7,224,665 20% Manufacturing & Constr., Multiuse Ind., Transport., Warehouse, Wholesale Institutional 8,909,498 25% Charitable, Government, Scientific Inst., Religious, Other Exempt by Law Total 35,268,468 100% Source: City of Portland GIS data Furthermore, an analysis of inflow/outflow of employment is available through OnTheMap. Shown in Figure 15, 72.5 percent of the jobs in the City of Portland are filled by those living outside of the city. Figure 15. Inflow/Outflow of Employment Jobs (2015) % Residents Working in Portland 17,958 27.5% Non-Residents Working in Portland 47,245 72.5% Total Employment in Portland 65,203 100.0% Soure: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap, 2015 NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS To project nonresidential floor area, square feet per employee factors from the Institute for Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation (2017) are used. To estimate the factor for Retail the Shopping Center factor is used, for Office the General Office factor is used, for Industrial the Manufacturing factor is used, and for Institutional the Hospital factor is used (Figure 16). 8 19 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine Figure 16. Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Land Use Factors ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Land Use Unit Per Dmd Unit Per Employee Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 130 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 3.37 2.91 1.16 864 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 4.24 0.61 na 320 Motel room 3.35 25.17 0.13 na 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581 540 Community College student 1.15 14.61 0.08 na 550 University/College student 1.56 8.89 0.18 na 565 Day Care student 4.09 21.38 0.19 na 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.64 2.91 2.28 438 710 General Office (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping Center (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 Source: Tri p Genera ti on, Ins ti tute of Tra ns porta ti on Engi neers , 10th Edi ti on (2017) Found in Figure 17, job growth over the next ten years is projected to follow the PACTS’ annual percentage increase forecast. In total, 6,890 new jobs are projected. Each industry sector is projected to have an increase over 1,000 jobs with Office topping the four with an increase of 2,537 jobs. To project floor area, the square foot per job factors are applied to the corresponding job totals. Over the next ten years, it is projected that there will be a growth of 2.8 million nonresidential square feet in the City of Portland. The Office and Institutional industries are projected to have the largest increases in floor area, both over 700,000 square feet. Figure 17. Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Base Year Total Industry 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Increase Employment Retail 13,057 13,191 13,325 13,458 13,592 13,726 13,860 13,993 14,127 14,261 14,395 1,337 Office 24,772 25,026 25,280 25,533 25,787 26,041 26,295 26,548 26,802 27,056 27,309 2,537 Industrial 9,992 10,094 10,197 10,299 10,401 10,504 10,606 10,708 10,811 10,913 11,015 1,023 Institution 19,449 19,648 19,847 20,046 20,245 20,445 20,644 20,843 21,042 21,241 21,441 1,992 Total 67,270 67,959 68,648 69,337 70,026 70,715 71,404 72,093 72,782 73,471 74,160 6,890 Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 sq. ft.) Retail 5,572 5,629 5,686 5,743 5,801 5,858 5,915 5,972 6,029 6,086 6,143 571 Office 8,342 8,428 8,513 8,599 8,684 8,769 8,855 8,940 9,026 9,111 9,197 854 Industrial 6,280 6,344 6,409 6,473 6,537 6,602 6,666 6,730 6,795 6,859 6,923 643 Institution 6,876 6,946 7,017 7,087 7,158 7,228 7,299 7,369 7,439 7,510 7,580 704 Total 27,070 27,348 27,625 27,902 28,179 28,457 28,734 29,011 29,288 29,566 29,843 2,773 Source: Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS); City of Portland; TischlerBise analysis 9 20 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION Residential Trips A customize trip rate is calculated for the single family and multifamily units in the City of Portland. In Figure 18, the most recent data from the American Community Survey is inputted into equations provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to calculate the trip ends per housing unit factor. A single family unit is estimated to take 7.6 trip ends on an average weekday and a multifamily unit is estimated to take 3.6 trip ends on an average weekday. Figure 18. Customized Residential Trip End Rates Hous ehol ds (2) Vehi cl es per Vehi cl es Si ngl e Mul ti fa mi l y Tota l Hous ehol d Ava i l a bl e (1) Fa mi l y Uni ts HHs by Tenure Owner-occupi ed 23,000 12,312 680 12,992 1.77 Renter-occupi ed 17,976 8,740 8,469 17,209 1.04 TOTAL 40,976 21,052 9,149 30,201 1.36 Hous i ng Uni ts (6) => 23,338 10,098 33,436 Pers ons per Hous i ng Uni t => 2.14 1.44 1.93 Pers ons Tri p Vehi cl es by Tri p Avera ge Trip Ends per (3) Ends (4) Type of Hous i ng Ends (5) Tri p Ends Housing Unit Si ngl e Fa mi l y 50,010 154,055 30,926 202,330 178,192 7.60 Mul ti fa mi l y 14,542 33,220 10,050 39,892 36,556 3.60 TOTAL 64,552 187,275 40,976 242,222 214,748 6.40 (1) Vehi cles a vailable by tenure from Ta ble B25046, 2012-2016 Ameri can Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. (2) Hous eholds by tenure and units in structure from Ta ble B25032, American Community Survey, 2012-2016. (3) Pers ons by units i n s tructure from Table B25033, American Community Survey, 2012-2016. (4) Vehi cle tri ps ends based on persons using formulas from Tri p Generation (ITE 2017). For single family housing (ITE 210), the fi tted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72). To a pproximate the average population of the ITE s tudies, persons were divided by 286 a nd the equation result multiplied by 286. For mul tifamily housing (ITE 221), the fi tted curve equation i s (2.29*persons)-81.02. (5) Vehi cle trip ends based on vehicles a vailable using formulas from Tri p Generation (ITE 2017). For single family housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.93). To approximate the average number of vehi cles in the ITE studies, vehicles available were divided by 485 a nd the equation result multiplied by 485. For mul tifamily housing (ITE 220), the fitted curve equation is (3.94*vehicles)+293.58 (ITE 2012). (6) Housing units from Table B25024, American Community Survey, 2012-2016. Residential Vehicle Trips Adjustment Factors A vehicle trip end is the out-bound or in-bound leg of a vehicle trip. As a result, a standard 50 percent adjustment to applied to trip ends to calculate a vehicle trip. However, other adjustments are necessary as well. Figure 19 calculates the adjustment for Portland residents that commute outside of the city to work. According to the National Household Travel Survey (2009), home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of “production” trips, out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, utilizing the most recent 10 21 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine data from the Census Bureau's web application "OnTheMap”, 49 percent of the City of Portland's workers travel outside the City for work. In combination, these factors account for 8 percent of additional production trips (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.49 = 0.08). The total adjustment factor for residential housing units includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (8 percent of production trips) for a total of 58 percent. Figure 19. Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters out of the City Employed Portland Residents (2015) 35,405 Portland Residents Working in the City (2015) 17,958 Portland Residents Commuting Outside of the City for Work 17,447 Percent Commuting out of the City 49% Additional Production Trips 8% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 58% Source: U.S. Census, OnTheMap Application, 2015 Additionally, Portland has viable alternatives to a vehicle for commuting, so a factor needs to be included for residents that choose not to drive to work. According to Fort Hill Infrastructure’s City of Portland Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront, 16.9 percent of commuters throughout the city chose either to use transit, bicycle, or walk to work (Figure 20). The study found an even higher percentage of alternative commuting within the downtown. When calculating vehicle trips, the factor of 16.9 percent is applied to the trip end factors for housing units. Figure 20. Alternative Mode of Commuting Transit Bicycling Walking Total Alternative Commuting 3.1% 1.6% 12.2% 16.9% Source: City of Portland Parking Study , Fort Hi l l Infra s tructure, 2017 Nonresidential Trips Vehicle trip generation for nonresidential land uses are calculated by using ITE’s average daily trip end rates and adjustment factors found in their recently published 10th edition of Trip Generation. To estimate the trip generation in Portland, the weekday trip end per 1,000 square feet factors highlighted in Figure 21 are used. To estimate the trip generation for Retail the Shopping Center factor is used, for Office the General Office factor is used, for Industrial the Manufacturing factor is used, and for Institutional the Hospital factor is used. 11 22 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine Figure 21. Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Land Use Factors ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Land Use Unit Per Dmd Unit Per Employee Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 130 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 3.37 2.91 1.16 864 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 4.24 0.61 na 320 Motel room 3.35 25.17 0.13 na 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581 540 Community College student 1.15 14.61 0.08 na 550 University/College student 1.56 8.89 0.18 na 565 Day Care student 4.09 21.38 0.19 na 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.64 2.91 2.28 438 710 General Office (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping Center (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 Source: Tri p Genera ti on, Ins ti tute of Tra ns porta ti on Engi neers , 10th Edi ti on (2017) To calculate vehicle trips, the standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to Office, Industrial, and Institutional. A lower vehicle trip adjustment factor is used for Retail because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience store is not their primary destination. In Figure 22, the Institute for Transportation Engineers’ land use code, daily vehicle trip ends, trip adjustment factor, and alternative commuting factor is listed for each land use. Figure 22. Daily Vehicle Trip Factors Vehicle Adjustment Alternative Land Use ITE Codes Trip Ends Factor Commuting Residential (per housing unit) Single Family 210 7.60 58% 16.9% Multifamily 220 3.60 58% 16.9% Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Retail 820 37.75 38% - Office 710 9.74 50% - Industrial 140 3.93 50% - Institutional 610 10.72 50% - Source: Tri p Genera ti on, Ins ti tute of Tra ns porta ti on Engi neers , 10th Edi ti on (2017); Ci ty of Portl a nd Pa rki ng Study, Fort Hi l l Infra s tructure 12 23 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine VEHICLE TRIP PROJECTION The base year vehicle trip totals and vehicle trip projections are calculated by combining the vehicle trip end factors, the trip adjustment factor, and the residential and nonresidential assumptions for housing stock and floor area. Found in Figure 23, in the base year, residential land uses generate 105,856 vehicle trips (38 percent) and nonresidential land uses generate 169,755 vehicle trips (62 percent) in the City of Portland. Through 2028, there will be an increase of 23,007 daily vehicle trips in Portland with Retail, Multifamily, and Office development being the three largest contributors to the increase. Figure 23. Total Daily Vehicle Trip Projections Base Year Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Increase Residential Trips Single Family 77,096 77,218 77,339 77,461 77,583 77,704 77,826 77,947 78,069 78,191 78,312 1,216 Multifamily 28,760 29,200 29,640 30,081 30,521 30,962 31,402 31,842 32,283 32,723 33,164 4,404 Subtotal 105,856 106,418 106,980 107,542 108,104 108,666 109,228 109,790 110,352 110,914 111,476 5,620 Nonresidential Trips Retail 79,934 80,752 81,571 82,390 83,209 84,027 84,846 85,665 86,483 87,302 88,121 8,187 Office 40,626 41,043 41,459 41,875 42,291 42,707 43,123 43,539 43,955 44,371 44,788 4,161 Industrial 12,340 12,467 12,593 12,719 12,846 12,972 13,099 13,225 13,351 13,478 13,604 1,264 Institutional 36,855 37,233 37,610 37,988 38,365 38,743 39,120 39,498 39,875 40,252 40,630 3,775 Subtotal 169,755 171,494 173,233 174,971 176,710 178,449 180,188 181,926 183,665 185,404 187,142 17,387 Grand Total Trips 275,611 277,912 280,213 282,513 284,814 287,115 289,415 291,716 294,017 296,318 298,618 23,007 Source: Tri p Genera ti on, Ins ti tute of Tra ns porta ti on Engi neers , 10th Edi ti on (2017); Ti s chl erBi s e a na l ys i s 13 24 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine BASE YEAR WASTEWATER USAGE Water and sewer account data has been provided by the Portland Water District and the City’s Public Works Department. With the database, residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional wastewater usage is calculated. Additionally, with account data, the wastewater usage of an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is calculated as well. The ERU is the estimate of the daily average wastewater usage from a household with a water meter that is 5/8 inches. In the impact fee calculate, a capacity ratio factor is applied when calculating the wastewater usage and resulting impact fee for developments with larger meters. Base Year Estimates Shown in Figure 24, on average there is a total of 5.7 million gallons per day of wastewater flowing through the City’s sewer system from these four development types. The majority of the wastewater flows from residential development, but commercial development creates a significant demand as well. Figure 24. City of Portland Daily Wastewater Usage, 2018 Base Year Development Type (gals/day) % Residential 2,933,364 52% Commercial 1,998,656 35% Industrial 542,244 10% Institutional 187,205 3% Total 5,661,470 100% Source: Ci ty of Portl a nd Publ i c Works Depa rtment Equivalent Residential Unit The wastewater component of the impact fee study will use the wastewater flow calculated for residential units that have a water meter of 5/8 inches to represent the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). To calculate the ERU, the wastewater account database is filtered by active residential accounts that use the City’s sewer system. Additionally, the database is further limited by only year-round accounts. These accounts are occupied households that reside in Portland permanently. Year-round accounts are approximated by accounts that have activity every month. Illustrated in Figure 25, there is an average of 61 hundred cubic feet (HCF) of wastewater per year from a year-round active residential account flowing into the City’s sewer system. That equates to an average of 126 gallons per day, rounded. Figure 25. Equivalent Residential Unit Meter Size Total Water Active Annual Average per Annual Average Daily Average (inches) (HCF) Accounts Account (HCF) (gallons) (gallons) 5/8 866,230 14,134 61 45,846 126 Source: Ci ty of Portl a nd Publ i c Works Depa rtment; Ti s chl erBi s e a na l ys i s Note: Provi ded da ta mea s ured wa s tewa ter tota l s i n hundred cubi c feet (HCF), equa l to 748.05 ga l l ons 14 25 of 26  DRAFT DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MEMORANDUM Portland, Maine WASTEWATER PROJECTIONS To project wastewater flows, is it assumed that the average consumptions will stay consistent. As a result, the wastewater from residential accounts will increase at the same rate as the projected housing units and wastewater from nonresidential accounts will increase at the same rate as the projected floor area for the respective industry. Over the next ten years, a total increase of 500,000 gallons per day is projected. Residential and Commercial land uses accounting for the majority of the increase. Figure 26. Wastewater Projections, Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) Base Year Total Development Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Increase Residential 2.93 2.96 2.98 3.00 3.02 3.05 3.07 3.09 3.11 3.13 3.16 0.22 Commercial 2.00 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.08 2.10 2.12 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.20 0.20 Industrial 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.06 Institutional 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.02 Total 5.66 5.71 5.76 5.81 5.86 5.91 5.96 6.01 6.06 6.11 6.16 0.50 Source: Ci ty of Portl a nd Publ i c Works Depa rtment; Ti s chl erBi s e a na l ys i s 15 26 of 26  Economic Development Department Gregory A. Mitchell, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Economic Development Committee FROM: Greg Mitchell DATE: May 30, 2018 SUBJECT: Authorizing Discontinuance of Vehicular Easement and Retention of Pedestrian and Utility Easement along Lancaster Street between Parris Street and Hanover Street on the 82 Hanover Street Property and Accept a New Pedestrian Easement on 44 Hanover Street I. SUMMARY The Planning Board approved the 82 Hanover Street Site Plan on May 17, 2018. The Site Plan proposed certain improvements to be located in the Lancaster Street right of way (located between Parris and Hanover Streets), which was discontinued as a public street in the 1980s, but still includes a public easement for vehicular and pedestrian access as well as a utility easement. The Planning Board approved the site plan, conditioning the proposed improvements in the Lancaster street right- of-way on the discontinuance of the easement and the applicant providing a 10-foot wide public pedestrian easement to provide midblock pedestrian permeability. The 10-foot wide pedestrian easement will be located on the 82 and 44 Hanover Street property line – 5 feet on 82 Hanover Street and 5 feet on 44 Hanover Street. See attached drawing. The 30-foot wide utility easement will be retained and will restrict development activity within the utility corridor. II. AGENDA DESCRIPTION On October 2, 2017, the City Council approved the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Tom Watson Watson & Co., LLC (“Purchaser”) for its purchase of approximately 1.25 acres of land located at 82 Hanover Street for the purchase price of $2,350,000. See attached Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Purchaser then submitted a Site Plan application to the Portland Planning Board, which was approved on May 17, 2018. All site plan improvements proposed for the Lancaster Street right-of- way were conditioned upon the discontinuance of the public easement and the applicant providing a 10-foot wide public pedestrian easement to provide midblock permeability. The 10-foot wide pedestrian easement will be located on the 82 and 44 Hanover Street property line – 5 feet on 82 CITY OF PORTLAND/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPT./389 CONGRESS ST./PORTLAND, ME 04101/(207) 874-8683 Hanover Street and 5 feet on 44 Hanover Street. See attached drawing. The 30-foot wide utility easement will be retained and will restrict development activity within the utility corridor. The approved Site Plan and project includes adaptive reuse of the 1940's Department of Public Works building with retail, restaurant, bar/eatery, brewery, fitness center, office space, and the following improvements: 39 newly paved parking spaces with landscaping, new concrete sidewalks, street trees, and lights along Parris and Hanover Streets. The site plan also includes outdoor seating areas within the Lancaster Street right-of-way and a 10' wide public pedestrian easement to provide midblock permeability. III. BACKGROUND It has been the long-term goal to sell this and other Public Works Bayside properties per the Year 2000 Bayside Vision. To support these property sales, the City Council approved the acquisition of property along Canco Road which has been and continues to be redeveloped to support the relocation of Public Works operations from Bayside and other City Departments. The subject property has been used for Public Works plowing operations. IV. INTENDED RESULT AND OR COUNCIL GOAL ADDRESSED The intended result would be the discontinuance of vehicular access along this portion of the former Lancaster Street in order to allow for the development of the property as proposed by the developer and acceptance by the City of an easement that will retain pedestrian rights of access. The discontinuance and new pedestrian easement will help facilitate the sale of this property to support mixed use development in Bayside, while continuing to provide a pedestrian easement in this area. It also supports the Council’s long-term goal to sell Public Works Bayside properties to support Public Works relocation out of Bayside. V. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact on amending the right-of-way easement. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS AND BACKGROUND Staff supports amending the right-of-way as the amendment would continue to provide pedestrian access and utility access. VII. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that, pursuant to 23 M.R.S.A. 3026-A, the City Council discontinue the public easement and accept the new pedestrian easement using the following process: EDC Process The EDC hold a public hearing on this matter at their June 5, 2018 meeting and vote to provide a recommendation to the City Council. CITY OF PORTLAND/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPT./389 CONGRESS ST./PORTLAND, ME 04101/(207) 874-8683 City Council Process Discuss the proposed easement discontinuance (associated with 82 Hanover Street) and new pedestrian easement (associated with 44 Hanover Street) at their public meeting on June 18, 2018 and vote to order the discontinuance and acceptance of a public easement as outlined above. Because the discontinuance is only of the public easement, there are no current abutters other than the City, and this is being done at the request of the purchaser, no damages are needed. If the Council so decides, an Order of Discontinuance must be voted on and then posted in the City Clerk’s office for no fewer than 10 business days. Proposed Motions accomplishing this will be included in the back up materials. Thereafter, on July 16, 2018 (which is more than the required 10 business days from the vote on the 18th), the Council would hold a public hearing, with opportunity for public comment, on the Order of Discontinuance. If, on June 18th, the purchaser has provided an easement to be in held in escrow pending the sale of the property as recommended by the Planning Board, staff recommends that the Council approve the Order of discontinuance after the July 16, 2018 hearing. If the Council approves the Order, the Clerk will record a certificate in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds. The discontinuance will become effective on the day the certificate is recorded VIII. LIST ATTACHMENTS - 82 Hanover Street Purchase and Sale Agreement. - Drawing No. EX-01 showing the portion of the Lancaster Street Easement (between Parris and Hanover Street) and the proposed location for the new pedestrian easement. CITY OF PORTLAND/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPT./389 CONGRESS ST./PORTLAND, ME 04101/(207) 874-8683  . b. The Buyer shall pay the remainder of the Purchase Price to the City by wire transfer (or as otherwise reasonably requested by the City) at closing. 3. TITLE AND DUE DILIGENCE. a. Due Diligence Period. Subject to extension as set forth in Paragraph 3(b) and (d), Buyer will have from the Effective Date of this Agreement until 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on the day that is sixty (60) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement (the “Due Diligence Period”) to complete any survey, environmental review and title examinations, and to undertake such other investigations, testing or inspections as Buyer shall deem appropriate. b. Property Description. The property description contained in the deed will be a survey description based upon a Boundary Survey performed by a Maine Licensed Surveyor to be obtained by the City (the “Survey”) which will more specifically describe the property shown on Exhibit A hereto (the “Premises Description”) in form reasonably acceptable to the City and Buyer. The Premises Description will be distributed to the parties hereto at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the Due Diligence Period. If the Premises Description is not received by City and Buyer at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, the Due Diligence Period shall be extended to a date thirty (30) days after it is received. The parties will agree on the final Premises Description prior to closing. If the parties cannot agree upon the final Premises Description prior to closing, then Buyer shall have the option to (1) terminate this Agreement and obtain a refund of the Deposit (after which neither party will have any further obligation or liability to the other under this Agreement) or (2) waive the approval provision and close. c. Financing Contingency. Buyer shall have from the Effective Date of this Agreement until 4:00 PM Eastern Daylight Savings Time on the day that is sixty (60) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement (the “Financing Period”) to obtain a commitment for commercially reasonable financing acceptable to Buyer, provided, however, if the Due Diligence Period shall be extended, then the Financing Period shall be extended to expire on the same date as the expiration of the Due Diligence Period. Buyer shall take timely and commercially reasonable steps to secure such financing. If Buyer does not obtain a financing commitment acceptable to Buyer within the Financing Period, Buyer may terminate this Agreement by notice in writing to City, or may elect to close under the Agreement despite the lack of such commitment. If Buyer so exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, then the City shall refund to Buyer the Deposit, if previously paid, without interest, within ten (10) days after receipt of Buyer's termination notice, and neither party shall have any further obligations or liabilities under this Agreement except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. Any termination notice sent by Buyer with respect to this Agreement may merely state that Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement, shall have no formal requirements, and shall be immediately effective. 2 2 of 30  . d. Title, Survey and Environmental Objections. In addition to the Survey described above, the City agrees it has caused a Phase II Environmental study of the Premises to be performed. Buyer will have until the end of the Due Diligence Period to deliver to City any written objections to title, environmental, or survey matters that Buyer determines materially affect insurability of title at standard rates, or the use of the Premises, the value of the Premises, the cost of development of or cost or feasibility of construction on the Premises. Objections not made prior to the end of the Due Diligence Period will be deemed waived; provided, however, that objections pertaining to matters of record first appearing after the end of the Due Diligence Period may be made at any time prior to the closing. If the Survey and any environmental study (including, without limitation any Phase II Environmental study) are not completed and distributed to the parties at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, the Due Diligence Period will be extended to a date thirty (30) days after the date upon which the later of the Survey or any environmental study to be completed and received are completed and are received by Buyer and City. e. Option to Cure. In the event of a title, Survey or environmental objection by Buyer, City will have the option, but not the obligation, to cure the objection and will notify Buyer of its election within ten (10) business days after receipt of the objection. In the event that the City elects to cure the objection, it will have sixty (60) days from the date of the notice of election, or such other reasonable time as the parties may agree, to cure the objection. In the event that the City does not elect to cure the objection, or, having elected to cure the objection fails to timely do so to Buyer’s reasonable satisfaction, Buyer will have the option to (1) terminate this Agreement and obtain a refund of the Deposit (after which neither party will have any further obligation or liability to the other under this Agreement), (2) waive the objection and close, or (3) undertake the cure of such objection at its own expense (in which case it shall have 60 days to do so). f. Deed. City shall convey the Premises to Buyer at the closing in fee simple by a municipal quitclaim deed without covenant. Title shall be good and insurable title at standard rates, free and clear of all encroachments, liens and encumbrances except (i) easements consented to by Buyer; (ii) easements for utilities servicing the property, (iii) City ordinances, and (iv) real estate taxes not yet due and payable. Buyer further acknowledges that the deed shall contain a restriction stating that in the event that the Premises or any portion thereof shall be exempt from real and personal property taxes, by transfer, conversion, or otherwise, then the then-owner of the exempt portion shall make annual payments to the City in lieu of taxes in the amount of the lesser of (a) the amount of property taxes that would have been assessed on the exempt portion of the real and personal property situated on the Premises had such property remained taxable, or (b) such other target percentage as may be approved as part of a city-wide PILOT policy that may be in effect at the time taxes are due on such property. Such restriction shall also confirm that Buyer and its successors and assigns shall possess and be vested with all rights and privileges as to abatement 3 3 of 30  . and appeal of valuations, rates, and the like as are accorded owners of real and personal property in Maine. 4. INSPECTIONS. a. During the Due Diligence Period, Buyer and its employees, consultants, contractors and agents shall have the right, at Buyer’s expense, to enter on the Premises at reasonable times in order to (i) inspect the same, (ii) conduct engineering studies, percolation tests, geotechnical exams, environmental assessments, and other such studies, tests, exams, and assessments, and (iii) do such other things as Buyer determines, it is sole discretion, to be required to determine the suitability of the Premises for Buyer's intended use (collectively, the “Inspections”). The City acknowledges that such Inspections may include the digging of test pits, which the City hereby approves. b. Buyer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City against any mechanics liens that may arise from the activities of Buyer and its employees, consultants, contractors and agents on the Premises, except those arising from labor or materials furnished at the City’s request. c. Buyer shall exercise the access and inspection rights granted hereunder at its sole risk and expense, and Buyer hereby releases the City from, and agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless against, any and all losses, costs, claims, expenses and liabilities (including without limitation reasonable attorney fees and costs) (collectively, "Damages") suffered by the City on account of any injury to person or damage to property arising out of the exercise by Buyer of its rights hereunder, except to the extent that such Damages result from the act or omission of the City. d. Buyer shall cause any contractors, consultants or any other party conducting the Inspections to procure automobile insurance, if applicable, and general public liability insurance coverage in amounts of not less than Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) per occurrence for bodily injury, death and property damage, listing the City as an additional insured thereon, and also Workers’ Compensation Insurance coverage to the extent required by law; the forms of all such insurance to be subject to City’s Corporation Counsel’s reasonable satisfaction. e. In the event that Buyer does not purchase the Premises, Buyer agrees to either return the Premises as nearly as reasonably possible to its original condition after conducting the Inspections, or, at the City’s option, reimburse the City for any material physical damage caused to the Premises in connection with the Inspections; provided, however, the City hereby acknowledges and agrees that the term "physical damage" does not include any disturbance of any pre- existing environmental contamination on the Premises caused by such inspections, nor any studies, tests (including test borings or pits), exams, and assessments, and that Buyer shall have no obligation to clean-up, remove or 4 4 of 30  . take any other action with respect to any pre-existing environmental contamination disturbed thereby. f. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that it is a condition to Buyer's obligations under this Agreement that the results of the Inspections be acceptable to Buyer in its sole discretion. If the results of such due diligence are not acceptable to Buyer in its sole discretion Buyer may terminate this Agreement. If Buyer exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, then the City shall refund to Buyer the Deposit, if previously paid, without interest, within ten (10) days after receipt of Buyer's termination notice, and neither party shall have any further obligations or liabilities under this Agreement except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. Any termination notice sent by Buyer with respect to this Agreement may merely state that Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement, shall have no formal requirements, and shall be immediately effective. 5. REAL ESTATE TAXES, PRORATIONS AND TRANSFER TAX. Buyer shall be liable for all real estate taxes beginning as of the start of fiscal year following the closing and continuing thereafter. Because the Premises is currently owned by the City of Portland, which is exempt from real estate taxes, no taxes were assessed or will be due for any portion of the current fiscal year, and no taxes will be prorated at the closing. Any utilities for the Property shall be prorated as of the closing. The Buyer’s one half share of Maine real estate transfer tax shall be paid for by Buyer in accordance with 36 M.R.S.A. § 4641-A. City is exempt from paying the transfer tax pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 4641-C. The recording fee for the deed of conveyance and any expenses relating to Buyer’s financing or closing shall be paid for by Buyer. 6. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. In the event that Buyer defaults hereunder for a reason other than the default of the City, City shall retain the deposit as its sole remedy. In the event City defaults under this Agreement, and if Buyer is not then in default hereunder, Buyer shall have the right to pursue specific performance and the City agrees it shall not invoke any sovereign immunity defense nor any defense based upon its status as a City, municipality, body politic or the like, but Buyer at all times may elect in substitution therefor, as its sole remedy, the right to a return of its deposit. 7. RISK OF LOSS. The risk of loss or damage to the Premises by fire, eminent domain, condemnation, or otherwise, until transfer of title hereunder, is assumed by the City. The Premises is to be delivered in substantially the same condition as of the date of this Agreement unless otherwise stated. In the event City is not able to deliver the Premises as stated, Buyer may terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the Deposit without interest, and neither party shall have any further obligations or liabilities under this Agreement except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, or Buyer may elect to close hereunder and receive an assignment of any applicable insurance proceeds payable to the City relating to such loss or damage. 8. PROPERTY SOLD “AS IS, WHERE IS.” Buyer acknowledges that Buyer will have an opportunity to inspect the Premises, and to hire professionals to do so, and that Premises will be sold “as is, where is” and “with all faults.” City, and its agents, make 5 5 of 30  . no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy of any statement as to boundaries or acreage, or as to any other matters contained in any description of the Premises, or as to the fitness of the Premises for a particular purpose, or as to development rights, merchantability, habitability, or as to any other matter, including without limitation, land use, zoning and subdivision issues (other than City’s agreement to obtain subdivision approval as set forth in Paragraph 10 of this Agreement) or the environmental, mechanical, or structural condition of the Premises. Acceptance by Buyer of the Deed at closing and payment of the purchase price shall be deemed to be full performance and discharge by the City of every agreement and obligation contained herein except as expressly set forth herein. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNIFICATION. Buyer covenants and agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, obligations, settlement payments, penalties, assessments, citations, directives, claims, litigation, demands, defenses, judgments, costs, or expenses of any kind, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’, consultants’, and experts’ fees incurred in investigating, defending, settling, or prosecuting any claim, litigation or proceeding, that may at any time be imposed upon, incurred by or asserted or awarded against Buyer or the City and relating directly or indirectly to the violation of or compliance with any federal, state, or local environmental laws, rules, or regulations governing the release, handling or storage of hazardous wastes or hazardous materials and affecting all or any portion of the Premises, except to the extent that such a claim results directly from the City’s release, handling or storage of hazardous wastes or hazardous materials on the Premises. This duty to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless shall be included in a covenant in the deed and shall run with the land conveyed and be binding upon Buyer’s successors, assigns, and transferees. 10. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSING. It is a condition precedent to Closing that: a. The City shall obtain in form reasonably acceptable to Buyer the removal of the restrictions limiting development of or use of the Premises or otherwise burdening the Premises (hereinafter the “Deed Restrictions”) stated or described in the deed to the City from the State of Maine dated September 26, 2005 and recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds in Book 23202, Page 38. b. The City shall obtain Subdivision approval by the City of Portland Planning Board, in order to obtain approval for the creation of the parcel which constitutes the Premises, unless the City as Seller and Buyer agree, such Subdivision approval is not required (hereinafter the “Subdivision Approval”). In the event the City is unable to obtain Subdivision Approval and the removal of all the above Deed Restrictions prior to the Closing Date, as defined below, then the Buyer may either (1) extend the Closing Date set forth in Paragraph 11 by a time period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days to permit the removal of the Deed Restrictions and the approvals to be obtained or (2) elect to terminate this Agreement either prior to the scheduled Closing Date or prior to the expiration of any extension period based on an 6 6 of 30  . extension as provided above. In the event Buyer shall elect to so extend the Closing Date, the City agrees to pursue the removal of the Deed Restrictions and Subdivision Approval. If Buyer shall elect to terminate this Agreement then the City shall refund the Deposit, if previously paid, without interest, and this Agreement shall be terminated and neither party shall have any further obligations or liabilities under this Agreement, unless the parties mutually agree to extend this Agreement. Buyer acknowledges and agrees that the City is acting as Seller, and not in its regulatory capacity, in connection with this Agreement. The delivery to Buyer, and acceptance and recording by the Buyer of a deed to the Buyer of the Premises, will evidence conclusive and final consent by the Buyer to the waiver or completion of all these conditions. 11. CLOSING. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. The closing shall be held at the offices of Buyer’s counsel at a time agreeable to the parties on or before the day that is the later of five months after the Effective Date of this Agreement or thirty (30) days after the later of (i) the expiration of the Due Diligence Period; (ii) the deadline for the City to resolve any title, Survey or environmental objections; or (iii) the date to which Buyer elects to extend the Closing Date under Paragraph 10 (the “Closing Date”). At the Closing: a. City shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to Buyer a municipal quitclaim deed conveying to Buyer good, and insurable title (at standard rates) to the Premises, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except as otherwise set forth herein. b. Buyer shall deliver the balance of the Purchase Price to the City by wire transfer (or as otherwise reasonably requested by the City); and c. Each party shall deliver to the other such other documents, certificates and the like as may be required herein or as may be necessary to carry out the obligations under this Agreement, and for the Buyer to obtain owners and lenders title insurance in form reasonably acceptable to Buyer and to Buyer’s lender. d. Buyer shall deliver evidence, reasonably satisfactory to City’s Corporation Counsel, that the entity receiving title to the Premises is in good standing under Maine law, and that the individuals acting with respect to the Closing and executing documents on behalf of Buyer are authorized to do so. 12. BUYER’S POST CLOSING OBLIGATIONS; ESCROW AGREEMENT. Buyer agrees as follows: a. Buyer agrees at Closing to deposit $115,000.00 to be held in escrow (the “Escrow Account”) pursuant to an escrow agreement in form mutually acceptable to Buyer and City with a mutually acceptable escrow agent. 7 7 of 30  . b. Buyer agrees to commence development of the residential project generally depicted on the plans that are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, and which project was presented to the City’s Economic Development Committee on July 19, 2017, and which shall specifically include at least twenty-three (23) new dwelling units at Buyer’s property at 104 Grant Street (The “Residential Project”), within twelve (12) months after closing; provided, however, that Buyer shall be entitled to modify the Residential Project by increasing the number of residential units, modifying the size and layout of such units, or minor, non-substantive changes. Buyer shall also be entitled to modify the Residential Project in a manner deemed reasonably necessary by Buyer to obtain City Planning board, City Council or any other municipal or other necessary approval; provided, however, that such modifications shall not reduce the number of new dwelling units below 23 unless the City’s land use ordinance only permits a smaller number without material modifications to the Residential Project as proposed, in which case the Residential Project shall include the maximum number of dwelling units allowed at 104 Grant Street without material modifications to the Residential Project as proposed. c. Buyer’s commencement of the Residential Project development shall be effected by Buyer or its successors, assigns, or transferees submitting a site plan review application (an “Application”) for the Residential Project within 12 months after the Closing under this Agreement. d. Buyer agrees to commence development of a commercial project at the Premises in substantially the form depicted on the plans that are attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, and which project was presented to the City’s Economic Development Committee on July 19, 2017 (the “Commercial Project”), within twelve (12) months after closing. the Commercial Project shall be deemed to be "substantially in the form depicted on the plan attached as Exhibit C" if it proposes to include (or is constructed to include) a) multiple commercial tenant(s) which may be of varied types including retailers and others, b) rooftop decks, and c) if reasonably feasible within the existing space available, open spaces/common areas available for public use. The Commercial Project may also be modified in a manner deemed necessary by Buyer to obtain City Planning board, City Council or any other municipal or other necessary approval and the Commercial Project, if otherwise "substantially in the form depicted on the plan attached as Exhibit C" shall, notwithstanding any such modifications, continue to be so considered. e. Buyer’s commencement of the Commercial Project shall be effected by Buyer or its successors, assigns, or transferees submitting an Application for the Commercial Project within 12 months after the Closing under this Agreement. f. If Buyer does not submit Applications for the Commercial Project and the Residential Project (including any modifications as described above) within one (1) year of Closing under this Agreement, then $10,000.00 shall be released 8 8 of 30  . from escrow to the City’s Housing Trust Fund, and until both Applications have been filed, an additional $10,000.00 shall be released from escrow to the City’s Housing Trust Fund each ninety (90) days thereafter. g. Additionally, Buyer shall commence construction of the Residential Project and the Commercial Project by the later of the date that is thirty-six (36) months after Closing under this Agreement or one hundred eighty (180) days after final approval of the Projects (including, without limitation, final decisions in all applicable municipal or judicial proceedings) and the expiration of all applicable appeal periods (the “Construction Start Date”). Buyer agrees to diligently pursue all approvals for both Projects. If Buyer fails to commence construction of the Residential Project and the Commercial Project by the later of the Construction Start Date, then $10,000.00 shall be released from escrow and to the City’s Housing Trust Fund, and until construction on both Projects is commenced, an additional $10,000.00 shall be released from escrow to the City’s Housing Trust Fund each ninety (90) days thereafter. Within thirty (30) days after the commencement of construction of both Projects, the remaining balance of the Escrow Account shall be released to Buyer. If no Closing takes place under this Agreement, the Buyer shall not be required to fund the Escrow Account nor make any payment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, in the event that Buyer fails to commence construction of both Projects within 5 years from the Closing Date, the entire remaining balance of the Escrow Account shall be released to the City’s Housing Trust Fund. h. City hereby agrees that despite the references in this Agreement to Buyer as the developer with respect to the Residential Project and the Commercial Project, that the two projects will be undertaken by two different Limited Liability Companies (“LLCs”) to be formed or corporations to be formed which will be assignees of Buyer, and the City hereby consents to the same and to Buyer’s assignment of its rights and obligations under this Agreement to any such LLC's or corporations, provided that Thomas Watson will be a manager or co-manager of any such LLCs and President or Vice President of any such corporations. i. The provisions of this section shall survive closing. 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire and complete Agreement and understanding between the parties and supersedes any prior agreement or understanding, written or oral, between the parties with respect to the acquisition or exchange of the Premises hereunder. This Agreement cannot be amended except by written instrument executed by City and Buyer. 14. NON-WAIVER. No waiver of any breach of any one or more of the conditions of this Agreement by either party shall be deemed to imply or constitute a waiver of any succeeding or other breach hereunder. 15. HEADINGS AND CAPTIONS. The headings and captions appearing herein are for 9 9 of 30  . the convenience of reference only and shall not in any way affect the substantive provisions hereof. 16. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, administrators, successors and assigns. 17. TIME. The City and Buyer each confirm and agree that each of the time periods set forth herein are essential provisions of the terms of this Agreement. 18. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be construed in all respects in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of Maine. All parties hereto hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court for the County of Cumberland in the State of Maine, for all actions, proceedings and litigation arising from or relating directly or indirectly to this Agreement or any of the obligations hereunder, and any dispute not otherwise resolved as provided herein shall be litigated solely in said Court. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining provisions hereof. 19. NOTICE. All notices, demands and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of service if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, or on the first business day after mailing if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given by first class mail, postage prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, addressed to the recipient at the addresses set forth below. Hand delivery to the City Manager’s office shall be effective as personal delivery to the City Manager on the date of delivery. Either party may change addresses for purposes of this paragraph by giving the other party notice of the new address in the manner described herein. FOR THE City: City of Portland ATTN: City Manager 389 Congress Street Portland, ME 04101 With a copy to : The Office of the Corporation Counsel at the same address. FOR Buyer: Mr. Thomas Watson Tom Watson & Co., LLC 104 Grant Street Portland, ME 04101 With a copy to: William H. Leete, Jr., Esq. Leete & Lemieux, P.A. 511 Congress Street, Suite 502 Portland, ME 04101 20. SIGNATURES; MULTIPLE COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties in separate counterparts. Each counterpart when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and 10 10 of 30 12 of 30  EXHIBIT B BAYSIDE RFP TOM WATSON & COMPANY PROPOSAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 23 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 104 GRANT STREET, PORTLAND MAINE 13 of 30 104 Grant St- Current Use PORTLAND, MAINE 14 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 104 GRANT STREET JUNE 01, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE NL Y O R I NT ion 1 VIEW LOOKING WEST ON GRANT STREET E SS P struct R Con N.T.S. O G PR Not for RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 15 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 104 GRANT STREET JUNE 01, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE 104 GRANT STREET - SOUTH ELEVATION 1 N.T.S. NL Y O R I NT ion E SS P struct O G R Con PR Not for RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 16 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 104 GRANT STREET JUNE 01, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE 1st Floor 104 GRANT STREET BUILDING AREA FIRST FLOOR AREA (13,500 SF) COMMUNITY ROOM 1,130 SF MANAGEMENT OFFICE 643 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 1 1,228 SF UNIT - 2 1,030 SF UNIT - 3 815 SF UNIT - 4 711 SF UNIT - 5 958 SF UNIT - 6 934 SF UNIT - 7 990 SF UNIT - 8 1,024 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) 23 PARKING SPACES - TOTAL UNIT - 9 1,228 SF UNIT - 10 1,030 SF UNIT - 11 815 SF UNIT - 12 711 SF UNIT - 13 958 SF UNIT - 14 934 SF UNIT - 15 990 SF UNIT - 16 1,024 SF FOURTH FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 17 1,228 SF UNIT - 18 1,030 SF EGRESS UNIT - 19 815 SF CORRIDOR UNIT - 20 1,645 SF UNIT - 21 958 SF UNIT - 22 1,024 SF COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT UNIT - 23 990 SF MECH ROOM TENANT OFFICE 1,130 SF ENTRY / 643 SF BUILDING TOTAL = 40,320 SF LOBBY NOTE: ALL SQUARE FOOTAGES CALCULATED USING OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS AND CENTERLINE OF SHARED WALLS GRANT STREET 0 4' 8' 16' 32' PROJECT NL Y TH NORTH OR O EN I NT ion TR U R S P struct E S R Con O G PR Not for 104 GRANT STREET - FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 1/8" = 1'-0" RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 17 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 104 GRANT STREET JUNE 01, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE 2nd Floor 104 GRANT STREET BUILDING AREA FIRST FLOOR AREA (13,500 SF) COMMUNITY ROOM 1,130 SF MANAGEMENT OFFICE 643 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 1 1,228 SF UNIT - 2 1,030 SF UNIT - 3 815 SF UNIT - 4 711 SF UNIT - 5 958 SF UNIT - 6 934 SF UNIT - 7 990 SF UNIT - 8 1,024 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 9 1,228 SF UNIT - 3 UNIT - 7 UNIT - 5 815 SF UNIT - 10 1,030 SF 990 SF 958 SF UNIT - 1 UNIT - 11 815 SF 1,228 SF UNIT - 12 711 SF UNIT - 13 958 SF UNIT - 14 934 SF UNIT - 15 990 SF UNIT - 16 1,024 SF FOURTH FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 17 1,228 SF UNIT - 18 1,030 SF UNIT - 19 815 SF UNIT - 20 1,645 SF UNIT - 21 958 SF UNIT - 8 UNIT - 6 UNIT - 2 UNIT - 22 1,024 SF UNIT - 23 1,024 SF 934 SF 1,030 SF 990 SF UNIT - 4 BUILDING TOTAL = 40,320 SF 711 SF NOTE: ALL SQUARE FOOTAGES CALCULATED USING OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS AND CENTERLINE OF SHARED WALLS 0 4' 8' 16' 32' PROJECT NL Y TH NORTH OR O EN I NT ion TR U R S P struct E S R Con O G PR Not for 104 GRANT STREET - SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 1/8" = 1'-0" RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 18 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 104 GRANT STREET JUNE 01, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE 3rd Floor 104 GRANT STREET BUILDING AREA FIRST FLOOR AREA (13,500 SF) COMMUNITY ROOM 1,130 SF MANAGEMENT OFFICE 643 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 1 1,228 SF UNIT - 2 1,030 SF UNIT - 3 815 SF UNIT - 4 711 SF UNIT - 5 958 SF UNIT - 6 934 SF UNIT - 7 990 SF UNIT - 8 1,024 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 9 1,228 SF UNIT - 11 UNIT - 10 1,030 SF UNIT - 15 UNIT - 13 815 SF UNIT - 11 815 SF 990 SF 958 SF UNIT - 9 UNIT - 12 711 SF 1,228 SF UNIT - 13 958 SF UNIT - 14 934 SF UNIT - 15 990 SF UNIT - 16 1,024 SF FOURTH FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 17 1,228 SF UNIT - 18 1,030 SF UNIT - 19 815 SF UNIT - 20 1,645 SF UNIT - 21 958 SF UNIT - 22 1,024 SF UNIT - 16 UNIT - 14 UNIT - 10 UNIT - 23 990 SF 1,024 SF 934 SF 1,030 SF BUILDING TOTAL = 40,320 SF UNIT - 12 NOTE: 711 SF ALL SQUARE FOOTAGES CALCULATED USING OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS AND CENTERLINE OF SHARED WALLS 0 4' 8' 16' 32' PROJECT NL Y TH NORTH OR O EN I NT ion TR U R S P struct E S R Con O G PR Not for 104 GRANT STREET - THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1 1/8" = 1'-0" RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 19 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 104 GRANT STREET JUNE 01, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE 4th Floor 104 GRANT STREET BUILDING AREA FIRST FLOOR AREA (13,500 SF) COMMUNITY ROOM 1,130 SF MANAGEMENT OFFICE 643 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 1 1,228 SF UNIT - 2 1,030 SF UNIT - 3 815 SF UNIT - 4 711 SF UNIT - 5 958 SF UNIT - 6 934 SF UNIT - 7 990 SF UNIT - 8 1,024 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 9 1,228 SF UNIT - 19 UNIT - 23 UNIT - 21 815 SF UNIT - 10 1,030 SF 990 SF UNIT - 11 UNIT - 17 815 SF 958 SF UNIT - 12 711 SF 1,228 SF UNIT - 13 958 SF UNIT - 14 934 SF UNIT - 15 990 SF UNIT - 16 1,024 SF FOURTH FLOOR AREA (8,775 SF) UNIT - 17 1,228 SF UNIT - 18 1,030 SF UNIT - 19 815 SF UNIT - 20 1,645 SF UNIT - 21 958 SF UNIT - 22 1,024 SF UNIT - 22 UNIT - 18 UNIT - 20 1,030 SF UNIT - 23 990 SF 1,024 SF 1,645 SF BUILDING TOTAL = 40,320 SF NOTE: ALL SQUARE FOOTAGES CALCULATED USING OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS AND CENTERLINE OF SHARED WALLS 0 4' 8' 16' 32' PROJECT NL Y TH NORTH OR O EN I NT ion TR U R S P struct E S R Con O G PR Not for 104 GRANT STREET - FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 1 1/8" = 1'-0" RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 20 of 30  EXHIBIT C CITY OF PORTLAND BAYSIDE PROPERTIES TOM WATSON LETTER OF INTENT TO PURCHASE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. LETTERS OF INTENT TO PURCHASE (IN SEPERATE PACKET): a. 82 HANOVER STREET b. 44 HANOVER STREET c. 56 PARRIS STREET 2. DESCRIPTION OF INTENDED USES 3. TOM WATSON BIO 4. 82 HANOVER a. STREET SCAPE-1 b. STREET SCAPE-2 c. ARCHITECT RENDERING d. INTENDED FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT- FIRST FLOOR e. INTENDED FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT (WITH ROOF TOP DECKS)- SECOND FLOOR 5. LANCASTER COURT- ARCHITECT RENDERING 6. 44 HANOVER a. ARCHITECT RENDERING b. INTENDED FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT 7. 56 PARRIS STREET a. ARCHITECT RENDERING OF PROPOSED 23 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING b. INTENDED FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT (1 THRU 4) 8. 104 GRANT STREET a. PICTURE OF CURRENT USE b. ARCHITECT RENDERING OF 23 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING c. FLOOR LAYOUTS (FLOORS 1 THRU 4) 9. 117 LOFTS: THE SCHLOTTERBECK & FOSS BUILDING (NOW A 56 UNIT APARTMENT BLDG) a. EXTERIOR PICTURES b. PICTURES OF APARTMENTS AS THEY ARE TODAY 21 of 30  DESCRIPTION OF INTENDED USE 82 Hanover o Relocate Port Property Management headquarters to 82 Hanover from 104 Grant Street in Parkside o Bring in retailers/partners who will contribute to the community as well as the economy o Open spaces/commons available for public use o Leverage large rooftop for decks and greenspace to add comfortable density to neighborhood o Creates opportunity for construction of 23 units on Grant Street and eliminates an office/warehouse that sits in the middle of the Parkside residential neighborhood 44 Hanover o 16 separate spaces all with autonomous access to the street. o One Central Space of over 3,500SF for a public/communal user like pub, café, eatery o Glass OHD to promote openness, and allow for artists and artisans to combine retail display space to their work space. Promote marketplace environment o Affordable/accessible to the creative community at under $1,000/month. Lancaster Court (between 82 Hanover & 44 Hanover) o Commons/courtyard space open to public for public use o Available for outdoor recreation including farmers market and small music venue for tenants and managers to promote work/events.  Display and value public art and communal aesthetic enhancements • Cobble stone street • Trees/landscaping • Fountain/water wall 56 Parris Street o 23 2 BR 2 Bath units  Unique product to Portland  Create product for families (2 bathrooms) or multiple roommates (making it affordable)  At 23 units, 4 stories high it is scaled to the other buildings in the neighborhood 22 of 30 Tom Watson & Company Thomas Watson (207) 252-0358 June 22, 2017 Thomas Watson founded Port Property Management in 1993 with his father Jack who later sold his half of the business to Russell Pierce (Tom’s brother-in-law). Tom and Russ have had a successful partnership for the last 17 years and currently employ 41 full time employees, most of whom call Portland their home. Port Property manages over 1,300 apartments and commercial spaces in Portland and South Portland, the bulk of which are on the Portland peninsula. All of the properties are owned by Port Property related companies. Tom graduated with a B.A. from Stanford University in 1985 and received an MBA from Boston University in 1992. He lives in Portland with his wife Judy and their 3 children, all of whom attend Portland Public Schools. 104 Grant St. Portland, Maine 04101 23 of 30 Phone: 207-761-0832 Fax: 207-761-8048  BAYSIDE RFP TOM WATSON & COMPANY PROPOSAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 82 HANOVER STREET, PORTLAND MAINE 24 of 30 82 Hanover Street- Streetscape, #1 PORTLAND, MAINE 25 of 30 BAYSIDE RPF-82 Hanover Street- Street Scape, #2 JUNE 16, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE VIEW LOOKING SOUTH EAST ON PARRIS STREET O NLY 1 N.T.S. R I NT ion E S S P struct OG R Con PR Not for RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 26 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 82 HANOVER STREET-Rendering MAY 11, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE NL Y VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ON HANOVER STREET O 1 R I NT ion S P struct N.T.S. E S R Con O G PR Not for RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 27 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 82 HANOVER STREET-First Floor JUNE 12, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE EGRESS STAIR KENNEBEC STREET LOBBY UP TENANT 6 6,073 SF UP ELEVATOR TENANT 1 FIRST FLOOR 10,718 SF TOTAL = 15,475 TENANT 5 PARRIS HANOVER 3,332 SF STREE STREET T H NO RT PROJECT TR UE NORTH 0 4' 8' 16' 32' TENANT 2 4,220 SF TENANT 4 6,719 SF S EGRES DOR CORRI TENANT 3 4,587 SF EGRESS STAIR PATIO 1 FIRST FLOOR CONCEPT PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0" RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 28 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - 82 HANOVER STREET- Second Floor JUNE 12, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE EGRESS STAIR ROOFTOP TENANT 6 LOBBY DECK DN ELEVATOR TENANT 1 SECOND FLOOR DN 4,757 SF TOTAL = 15,475 TENANT 1 DECK TENANT 5 DECK H NO RT PROJECT TR UE NORTH 0 4' 8' 16' 32' TENANT 4 DECK EGRESS STAIR 1 SECOND FLOOR CONCEPT PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0" RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 29 of 30 BAYSIDE RFP - LANCASTER COURT JUNE 21, 2017 PORTLAND, MAINE VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON PARRIS STREET 1 N.T.S. O NLY R I NT ion E S S P struct OG R Con PR Not for RYAN SENATORE ARCHITECTURE 30 of 30  UP PIPES UP BIKE STOR MECHANICAL ROOM AGE UP UP JAN. HANOVER STREET UP ACORN ENGINEERING, INC UP RICAL ELECT M ROO UP UP UP UP  Economic Development Department Gregory A. Mitchell, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Economic Development Committee FROM: Greg Mitchell, Economic Development Director DATE: May 31, 2018 SUBJECT: 178 Kennebec Street Purchase and Sale Agreement – Possible Amendments I. One Sentence Summary Ross Furman, the buyer for 178 Kennebec Street, and Nathan Szanton, his development partner, are requesting a change to the agreed upon residential portion of the Proposed Development Project from a mixed income affordable housing project to an elderly affordable housing project due to State of Maine Housing Authority Program funding selection criteria changes, and this change of Project scope requires an Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement Section 12. II. Background Original Project Scope On October 2, 2017, the City Council authorized a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Ross Furman. Mr. Furman’s proposal, with Nathan Szanton as a partner, included ground-level retail and/or artist studio space, and approximately 50 units of housing on the upper floors. The housing would be rental – a mix of studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom apartments, with an expected income mix targeted at 35% market rate, and 65% affordable (aimed at those at or below 60% of the area median income). The subject property has been used for Public Works for parking purposes. Revised Project Scope The revised scope includes, as with the original scope, ground-level retail and/or artist studio space. The housing has been revised from 50 units of housing on the upper floor to 46 units of housing; from 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom apartments to all 1-bedroom units set aside for households who head of household is aged 55+, with an income mix targeted for this development at 22% market rate and 78% affordable (aimed at those at or below 60% of the area median income). CITY OF PORTLAND/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPT./389 CONGRESS ST./PORTLAND, ME 04101/(207) 874-8683  III. Intended Result of Council Goal Addressed The intended result would be a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Project scope in the Purchase and Sale Agreement to 46 units of housing, all 1-bedroom units set aside for households who head of household is aged 55+ with an income mix targeted at 22% market rate, and 78% affordable (aimed at those at or below 60% of the area median income). IV. Financial Impact Amending the Purchase and Sale Agreement does not have a financial impact, as the purchase price for the property remains the same at $250,000, in addition to future new taxes from the proposed development. Provisions are also included to ensure future payment of property taxes in the event of non-profit ownership. Buyer will provide the City with environmental indemnification and be responsible for any site environmental remediation costs. V. Staff Analysis Staff supports the revised Project scope and proposed Third Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Section 12. It is noted that the First and Second Amendments to the Purchase and Sale Agreement were time extensions, with the Second Amendment extending the deadline to close as March 31, 2019, to coincide with the Buyer’s seeking Low Income Housing Tax Credits. VI. Recommendation Staff recommends that the EDC vote to forward the proposed Third Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Attachments Attached are the following documents for your information: - Proposed Third Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement; - Project Summary from Maine Workforce Housing, LLC; - Purchase and Sale Agreement for 178 Kennebec Street dated October 10, 2017; - First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated March 13, 2018, extending the property closing deadline to April 13, 2018; and, - Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated April 12, 2018, extending the property closing deadline to March 31, 2019. CITY OF PORTLAND/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPT./389 CONGRESS ST./PORTLAND, ME 04101/(207) 874-8683  THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made as of the ___day of _______________, 2018, by and between the CITY OF PORTLAND, a body politic and corporate located in Cumberland County, Maine (“Seller”) and ROSS Y. FURMAN, an individual having a mailing address of Box Two, Portland, Maine 04112 (the “Buyer”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into a certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated October 10, 2017 as amended by a First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement dated March 13, 2018, and a Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement dated April 12, 2018 (collectively, the “Agreement”) with respect to certain real property located at 178 Kennebec Street, Portland, Maine; and WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer wish to amend the Agreement as provided herein: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows: 1. The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting from section 3(a) of the Agreement the words “the day that is forty-five (45) days after the date of this Agreement” and replacing therefore the words “January 31, 2019,” meaning and intended hereby to fix the Due Diligence deadline under the Agreement to on or before January 31, 2019. 2. The first sentence of section 12 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: Within twelve months after closing, Buyer shall commence development of the project generally depicted and described in Exhibit B1 (which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) as presented to the City’s Economic Development Committee on June 5, 2018, and specifically including ground floor retail and/or artist studio space, and, on the upper levels, at least forty-six (46) one bedroom rental units for households whose head of household is at least 55 years of age, no less than 75% of which shall affordable to households at or below 60% of the area median income (the “Project”). 3. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and the parties hereto ratify the terms and conditions of the Agreement. 1 Exhibit B attached hereto replaces the Exhibit B attached to the original Agreement.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Buyer have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives or officers, as of the date first written above. WITNESS: CITY OF PORTLAND _________________________________ By: ________________________________ Jon P. Jennings Its City Manager WITNESS: _________________________________ By: ________________________________ Ross Y. Furman ________________________________ Approved as to Form: City Corporation Counsel’s Office  a/o 5/31/2018 Maine Workforce Housing, LLC 482 Congress Street, Suite 203 Portland, ME 04101 Project Summary Maine Workforce Housing is applying for $400,000 in City of Portland HOME funding in this application, to fill a gap for a project at 178 Kennebec Street. Project Team The principals and staff of Maine Workforce Housing have successfully developed nine (9) mixed-income housing projects in Maine and New Hampshire over the last fourteen (14) years. These properties, the oldest of which has been open since 2004, have never had a single year of operating deficits. All of them are 100% leased with long waiting lists. We are working with Ross Furman’s team to incorporate housing into their multi-phase development of the block. The first phase includes the area closest to Kennebec Street. It includes ground-level retail and/or artist studio space with 46-51 units of housing on the upper floors. The housing will be rental; all 1-bedroom units, set aside for households whose head of household is aged 55+. We’ve included a concept floor-plan of Phase 1. The site has some unique advantages for residential development: • The City has identified the Bayside neighborhood as a priority for redevelopment. Kennebec Street is a prominent street in Bayside, and street-level retail will dovetail well with surrounding buildings. • A mixed-use residential/retail building will bring new residents to live, work, and shop in Bayside, reinforcing the urban fabric and adding new vitality to the core of the City. • The site is within walking distance of a variety of services and destinations for daily living (e.g., banks, library, schools, etc.) as well as employers and public transportation. • The site is within steps of a major park (Deering Oaks Park). Yet, it is also just a minute from an entrance to and exit from I-295, a highway that takes residents throughout Maine. We expect the income mix targeted for this development will be 22% market rate, and 78% affordable (aimed at those at or below 60% of the area median income), creating economic diversity both in the building and in the neighborhood. Our attached proforma shows a mix of 22% market rate and 78% affordable. If construction costs come down from the conceptual estimate included in our application, this mix may shift slightly. As a business model, we find a more even mix of low-income and market-rate renters is more acceptable to renters and neighbors. The residents will be a mix of people, incomes, and occupations in Portland. We expect the tenants in income- restricted units will include retired people on social security and also those with jobs at the lower end of the wage scale. The market-rate units are likely to also include retired people, and also professionals who are downsizing from larger homes. This project, like all of our projects to date, will be completely non-smoking. Smoking will be prohibited both inside units and in the interior and exterior common areas of the project. This will be outlined both as an addendum to each lease, and also stated in the House Rules. Our Resident Services Coordinator will have materials on tobacco cessation programs available to residents. The project incorporates smart growth, affordable housing, green building design, brownfield redevelopment, downtown revitalization, urban outdoor recreation, and alternative transportation. Amenities We propose to provide our residents with the following amenities:  Heat and hot water included in rent  Community room with kitchen  Coin-operated laundry facility  Wireless internet throughout the building at no extra charge;  Resident Services Coordinator on staff;  Telemedicine room Resident Services Coordination Our RSC’s mission is to foster an environment in which elderly persons and people with disabilities can live independently and remain in their communities. As this project is proposed to be elderly, and with the Portland Shelter set-aside requirement, we are proposing to increase the number of hours an RSC is on the property. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, as administered by MaineHousing, requires one (1) hour per week for every five (5) low-income units, or six (6) hours in this case. We would schedule an RSC for twelve (12) hours – double what is required. Our experience in other properties with a Homeless Preference has given us an appreciation for the staff levels needed onsite. This is reflected in our operating budget which is part of this application. Transportation The site is wonderfully located for service by public transportation. The METRO bus system, with scheduled service all over downtown Portland and connections to the neighboring cities, stops 2/10 of a mile from our site. Photos and Renderings We urge you to look at the set of photos of the site and “before” and “after” renderings, found immediately after this Executive Summary. They convey information about the project which simply cannot be expressed in narrative form. Thank you. 2