Waterfront Working Group

Waterfront Working Group Meeting Agenda March 21, 2019 Room 24, City Hall 3:00pm to 5:00pm ************************************* 1. Welcome and Introductions: Jon Jennings, City Manager, Chair 2. Review Meeting Notes from Meeting 5, 3­7­19 a. Meeting Notes for 3­7­2019 3. Waterfront Working Group Memo for Meeting 6 a. Memo for Meeting 6 4. Working Group discussion of TIF Funding Priorities Working Group members are asked to review the previously provided TIF presentation and the attached memo and provide feedback for prioritizing use of Waterfront TIF funds in the year 2020 City Manager’s budget. a. TIF Presentation Overview of Portland Development Corporation Commercial Loan 5. and Grant Programs. As requested at the previous meeting, there will be a brief overview of programs currently available to assist businesses in the City through the Portland Development Program. a. Business Assistance and Loan Programs 6. Next steps a. Portland Fish Pier Deed b. Table of Zoning Issues, Approaches, and Status  Agenda 2 Waterfront Working Group Meeting 5 Notes - DRAFT 3-7-19 City of Portland Waterfront Working Group Meeting #5 Thursday, March 7, 2019 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Attendance: Working Group: Jon Jennings, Becky Rand, Mike Alfiero, Keith Lane, Bill Coopersmith, Willis Spear, Togue Brawn, Dory Waxman, Steve Dimillo, Cyrus Hagge, Charlie Poole City Staff: Bill Needleman, Jeff Levine, Christine Grimando, Greg Mitchell, Ethan Strimling, Greg Mitchell, Matthew Grooms Agenda: -- Welcome and Intro, Jon Jennings -- Review Meeting Notes from Meeting 4 and 3 -- Zoning Issues Continued from previous meetings Bill Needleman, Waterfront Coordinator, Matt Grooms, Planner, Christine Grimando Acting Planning Director -- Questions on Meetings -- Performance Standards -- Zoning Issues -- Next Steps Meeting Summary: There were two discussion parts to this meeting: Part 1) Continued discussion of zoning issues and clarification of the differences of opinion on nmouz restrictions/recommendations and ordinance language (as well as restricted use clarifications and recommendations). Additional restrictions or changes to the 55/45 marine/non-marine percentage rules currently in place were also discussed, including the option of a 70/30 marine/non-marine percentage option. John Jennings and Bill Needleman stated that they need to take working group conclusions regarding zoning issues to City Council, even though there is not unanimous consensus regarding restricted use recommendations and setback footage requirements. Specifically, mariners are concerned that certain language could allow future developers to take advantage of one-time exceptions (using an “it’s been done before” argument for non-marine use development) and that unoccupied space can be counted toward marine use in the 55/45 use split (marine/non-marine). John Jennings agreed to prepare a memo RE: Fisherman’s Pier based on discussion (notes follow). 1  Agenda 2 Waterfront Working Group Meeting 5 Notes - DRAFT 3-7-19 Part 2) Continued discussion/clarification of waterfront TIF zone. In Part 2, John Jennings stressed that City staff needs input/ideas/recommendations/suggestions from the Working Group regarding allocation of TIF funds. There was nearly unanimous support from PWWG that funds need to be allocated to dredging. Group agreed to submit additional suggestions. Discussion and Dialog of Meeting Part 1: Mr. Needleman acknowledged the receipt of a 2/14/19 Issues letter from the PWWG that included the group’s stand on Contract/Conditional Rezoning, NMOUZ 125/300 requirements, Permitted Uses, Building Footprint Size and Lot Coverage, Ground Floor/Exterior Space, 55/45 Compliance Determination, and Performance Standards. Mr. Needleman distributed a table addressing many of the above issues, which included the issues, approaches being considered to address the issues, the status of the issues and the next steps to be taken on issues The table is intended to be a summary of where the group stands from a status standpoint. It was agreed to approach the Planning Board with the 125 ft offset from Commercial Street with a 300 ft exception at Long Wharf. Issue: Contract/Conditional Rezoning - although the status is considered resolved, it is noted that there is not consensus on the resolution within the PWWG. It will be recommended to the Planning Board to eliminate the option for site specific zoning within the WCZ. It was clear from discussion that there is not a group consensus on changing the percentages from 55/45 to 70/30 or on marketing restrictions for vacant space. Bill Needleman agreed that the non-consensus of the Working Waterfront group on zoning restrictions and use percentages will be acknowledged to the City Council, although it appears to be a non-resolvable non-consensus. JJ: Does anyone disagree with BN on contract/conditional rezoning? SD: I thought when we went to the planning board meeting the questions of whether to keep the language in place or replace it. BN: I thought we were as close to a resolution as we were going to get The extent of non-consensus from the PWWG group will be reflected at Planning Board meeting Issue: Non Marine Use Overlay Zone: BN: The revised line leaves a significant majority of building within the overlay and the line bumps 25 ft from highwater 25 ft offset from high water. 125/150 doesn’t make much difference. Long Wharf offset is not resolved. 2  Agenda 2 Waterfront Working Group Meeting 5 Notes - DRAFT 3-7-19 DEP might change it/other reasons to move overlay Fisherman’s Wharf/Chandler’s has 125 ft, but it diverts back to same line because of the existing nmouz water offset. Dimillo’s line (500) (the majority of Jay’s parking lot is Dimillo’s holding) -- 25 ft setback from water bumps the line Flatbread/Rira is over the water (grandfathered use) SD: Thomas block is also in B3? BN: Gilberts is in B3, Dry Dock is in Waterfront Central Zone MA: Flatbread/RiRa are in marine use only zone. BN: They came in under a different set of rules, they are a reflection of their time. MA: What happens if they were to leave? BN: Within 1 year of leaving they lose their grandfathered status -- which is true for any property -- it’s State law. The change from 150 to 125 doesn’t have a significant impact on existing structures. BC: I like the 125/300 -- a fish pier built for fishermen MA: Fish Pier parking for Pierce Atwood? BN: The lot serves 85 spaces for PA -- as an offsite commercial non-marine lot, it is already non- conforming, but it’s legal because it existed before current zoning ordinances. CG: Other Fish Pier restrictions? BN: In terms of development, ONLY development is support of seafood on Fish Pier. There may be ancillary non marine uses, but only marine development on Fish Pier. BC: My suggestion of a line change doesn’t change the existing buildings as they are now. DW: IF someone wanted to develop that property, it would have to be approved by Fish Pier board and that’s good. BC: Deadline of June 17 let’s move on JJ: We’ll put together a memo specifically on Fish Pier. SD: Let’s talk about my neighbors at Chandler’s Wharf. If they were here they would say they understand you (fishermen) didn’t like hotel project, but whatever gets built on the property will benefit 3  Agenda 2 Waterfront Working Group Meeting 5 Notes - DRAFT 3-7-19 wharves through TIF. I don’t see any problem with what they develop. If parking lots are built, ok. I know some in this group don’t want development, but it benefits everyone. BN: The only difference would be 55% marine use requirement, building heights would be the same. CP: They (the Dimillos) might need to do something on their property -- it seems we might be taking something away from the family. I find it hard to believe that vessel (the floating restaurant) will last forever. I hate seeing us arbitrarily pushing a line back that might hinder a public asset. KL: Here’s a family that’s opened up their property to the public -- this property is unique -- we have to look at it publically even though its privately owned. It’s an anomaly, but it’s special -- it’s dual purpose/ public/private. BC: You have to be in compliance with 55/45 -- would Steve’s place be entitled to any CEA money? I understand where Steve is coming from -- I’m putting that on the table -- this property is unique and I support 125/300 here. WS: The reason we got the referendum going is that in 2010 -- the fishermen saw there was a trend that had a negative impact on waterfront marine use . We accept 125/300 at Long Wharf, but no more. If one guy can get it why can’t someone else? It would be very easy for a developer to come in and say he’s (DiMillo) got it why can’t we? Extending to a 500 nmouz is too dangerous. To be safe 300 is the most. At another time we can talk, this is a transition period now. This is one of the biggest hot spots for development in America, and we need time to develop restrictions. Young fishermen want to buy waterfront and we need to make sure they can do that. We could lose winning lottery ticket. TB: Going from 125 to 300 was odd, but what you are saying about the property makes sense to me - if it stays at 300 but Steve wants to do something and you think it’s great, let’s approve it. BN: The mechanism to open is a rezoning, which is a higher bar conversation. MA: I am a little uncomfortable punishing the Dimillio family due to increased traffic -- this seems to be biggest issue we haven’t even discussed yet. How does accommodating Dimillo take into account traffic? We need to discuss traffic first. I don’t want to see the marina suffer because of traffic -- the marina is good business that everyone benefits from. BC: If Steve lost his boat and he needed to put new structure on the property I would be 1st to support it. JJ: There has been a good compromise from fishermen to go to 300 at Long Wharf -- I’ve heard everyone say they do not want to penalize the Dimillo family - 300 feet seemed to be comfortable compromise until the last meeting -- we do need to move on get a sense of the group... CP: I want to make sure door is not slammed closed for young people to buy property on waterfront. JJ: We feel comfortable going to the Planning Board with 125 and 300 (Long Wharf)-- does anyone completely disagree? (No) BN: I appreciate the manner with which this has been handled by everyone. 4  Agenda 2 Waterfront Working Group Meeting 5 Notes - DRAFT 3-7-19 Issue: 55% first floor and open area marine use requirement BN: It was brought up that marine use should be a condition for non marine use -- if you are going to have a non marine use you must 1st demonstrate a marine use within the structure KL: How does 70/30 work? BN: Same as 55/45. Language is written that 55% is required. Bill suggested that if you have vacancies and you do not have 55% marine use, you must show how you will have marine use in open space. Lobstering group suggests 70/30 for open space. BN: With the system now, if there is any change of use/tenancy it needs to be marketed to marine use for 60 days. If nobody bites, then owners bring evidence of marketing for marine use to the zoning authority that shows they tried to lease for marine use to no avail, but do have non marine tenant, which would be permitted if 55% of building is marine use or vacant. KL: What happens to remaining space in building? BN: Only 45% can go to non marine use -- you don’t get non marine use until you have compliance with 55% marine use. Either occupied or vacant and available BN: With 55/45 right now there is about a 5% vacancy rate -- this is not indicative of a wholesale problem outside of overlay. BN: issues 1 at a time -- for open spaces lobstermen suggestion of 70/30? BC: Is there a penalty for going over 55? BN: No There’s no requirement for non marine, only an allowance for non marine. JJ: We need a better understanding of 70/30. BN: Referring to Dimillos, outside of the Overlay. Right now 55% of this parking should be dedicated to marine use. Recreational berthing does not qualify as marine use. Neither does a floating restaurant. Right now your use is legal, (grandfathered) but non-conforming. If existing use continues uninterrupted, legal nonconformity would remain. But there is no ability to expand it (legal non-conformity), and if you abandoned use for 1 year, you would have to comply with 55/45.. If existing legal nonconformity was abandoned, property would be subject to 55/45 use restrictions. It’s very complicated to apply. We do our best, but it’s a bear. SD: If no restaurant, how could I develop? BN: 70/30 is same as 55/45, just different percentages. Commercial parking is not a legal use within the zone. Driveways are carved out, not part of the percentages. Percentages are based on leasable/usable space. 5  Agenda 2 Waterfront Working Group Meeting 5 Notes - DRAFT 3-7-19 BN: Outside the nmouz - your 1st floor must comply, 2nd story can be completely non marine. SD: I don’t see a reason to change to 70/30. BN: Maine Wharf and end of Portland Pier -- 2 examples recent examples taking advantage of the full 45% non-marine – in and out of building . BN: If it’s been there, nobody is watching who goes in there. It’s allowed to be part of the general parking supply. JJ: We need to have a dedicated meeting just on parking. CP: Within X amount of commercial berthing, there could be dedicated space for loading/unloading and marine use needs for operating. JJ: I’d like to put this one on hold. Is there a way to come up with a solution to give the fishermen what they want? Let’s bring this up at the next meeting. BN: Is there any other discussion on marine use as a condition for non-marine use occupancy? SD: I don’t think it’s fair to property owners to go to 70/30.. BC: Keeping the space vacant would reduce the ability to take space from marine use -- it would eliminate the need for marketing. BN: The 55/45 is all about the1st floor -- upper floors are not subject to percentage use. CP: When we did this 10 years ago, the idea was to keep buildings full. BN: Right now I am not seeing a consensus for changing the percentages -- this should be reflected in the notes. BN: My recommendation would be that this group get comfortable with percentages and leave this as a non-consensus resolution. Issue: First floors marketed to marine use as a condition for non-marine use occupancy TB: First floors, Do you want us to put some boundaries on that? JJ: We do an annual report of anything significant that was done on the waterfront, and a comprehensive report every 3 years. End of Zoning Issues Discussion -- remaining issues will be addressed at a future meeting 6  Agenda 2 Waterfront Working Group Meeting 5 Notes - DRAFT 3-7-19 TIF Funding Part II - Greg Mitchell GM: Any feedback on doing a few things/higher investment projects vs. doing many projects at a lower investment level? Particular ideas? Small vs. big projects? Low value vs. high value? JJ: This is homework. SD: Put effort and $$$$ into new berthing for fishermen. Fishing boat berthing. GM: Berthing means dredging. SD: Not always. JJ: We don’t want to add more berthing at the fish pier because it might interfere with private piers. CP: I think dredging is a part of this discussion. MA: I agree with the dredging -- it’s going to open up a lot of berthing. BC: Fish are being caught -- boats are being turned away now because infrastructure is not there for all the large loads. I’d like to see TIF money available for the top of the water. JJ: Some type of loan program/grant program? BC: Yes. Money available to kickstart businesses by starting funds available to rent Charlie’s property GM: Program could be designed for that purpose JJ: Come forward with sheet of paper -- critically important to get this done soon budget has to get to council by april 8. JJ: Portland Development Corp. -- small business asking for loans/grants CP: Property owners face difficulty diving into infrastructure issue. JJ: In my conversation with DOT commissioner he showed that he knows it is on his agenda to figure out how to fund dredging. He understands the importance. I think we’ll see a lot of support from the new administration. GM: Continue to think about ideas and feed them back to us. Make a laundry list/large/small/medium... JJ: This can be anythings (small storage bldg. anything) so we can put package together to give to council Be creative. BC: How to support young people -- one idea was to charge the village supplement fee for any hotel room on Fore street -- reason: those people come to see the working waterfront again, we’re an important part of development of portland 7  Agenda 2 Waterfront Working Group Meeting 5 Notes - DRAFT 3-7-19 JJ: We agree/user fee/local options tax is a good idea, but taxing is a State issue ES: We have more support for this than ever, but it is still huge lift. BC: We are asking for support of a group JJ: We have 12 years of significant revenue ahead of us as part of TIF -- we don’t have authority to institute tax, that’s the state SD: Suppose I propose some development on Long Wharf, what percent has to be marine-use? DW: Is there a list of restrictions? (in the TIF program) BN: There is more of a list of what can be done. GM: We’ll recirculate that - recirculate the balance with commitments/balance. This is a a re-occuring pool every year. JJ: Greg, will you also send to the group info about Portland Development Corp? We also will do some work on parking and other conditions related to open space. Meeting ends. 8  Economic Development Department Memorandum Date: March 14, 2019 To: Waterfront Working Group RE: Meeting #6, March 21, 2019 • TIF program recommendations • Overview of Portland Development Corporation Commercial Loan and Grant Programs From: Bill Needelman, Waterfront Coordinator CC: Jon Jennings, City Manager Greg Mitchell, Economic Development Director Jeff Levine, Planning and Urban Development Director Christine Grimando, Planning Director Matt Grooms, Planner Jennifer Thompson, Associate Corporation Counsel John Peverada, Parking Manager Introduction: The following memo provides support for the continuing work of the Waterfront Working Group (WWG) at its 6th meeting on March 21. The Meeting 6 agenda will concentrate on prioritizing potential use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds. The February 7, 2019 Municipal Tax Increment Financing Overview presentation from the Meeting 3 packet is attached as background for this discussion. As requested at Meeting 5, also attached to this memo are: • memos on the City’s commercial loan and business assistance programs; • the City deed for the Portland Fish Pier, describing limits on allowable uses; and, • and updated table of Zoning Issues and Approaches, showing the revised status of topics under discussion. Prioritizing TIF Funding: As described by Greg Mitchell, Economic Development Director, at Meeting 4, the 2020 Budget year assumes $1.4 Million in Waterfront TIF revenue. Of that figure, +/-$700,000 is previously committed, potentially more. Existing commitments include staff salaries, retiring bonds, professional services, the Merrill’s Wharf CEA, and new debt to pay for an extension of streets in the Eastern Waterfront. To be conservative, staff suggests that +/-$600,000 remains available 1 for allocation for the 2020 budget year; however, the City Manager stresses that it is prudent to consider reserving funds from these early years in the expanded program to allow the Waterfront TIF fund to grow in anticipation of making more robust allocations in future years. Use of Funds: The Waterfront TIF program constrains use of the funds to the following categories: • Pier and Wharf Structural Repair • Street Studies and Improvements • Pedestrian and Multi-Modal Circulation • New Publicly-Owned pier • Surface and Structured Parking • Utilities Infrastructure • City Staff Salaries • Environmental Improvements, Including Sea Level Adaptation • Dredging of Commercial Vessel Berthing • Dredge Sediment Disposal and CAD Cell Development • Workforce Training Fund • Professional Services Costs • Credit Enhancement Agreements • Local Match for Ocean Gateway Project Given the limited funds available for the current year, City staff recommends against spreading the funds between the full list above. In order to have a significant impact, staff recommends choosing a small number of projects that will address the greatest need(s) and have the greatest impact. The WWG conversations to date have stressed access and berthing as fundamental to the current problems expressed by the maritime community. Specifically, congestion on Commercial Street is a recurring issue that will need attention and investment. Also, as is noted in the meeting notes from Meeting 5, the need for pier dredging is clear and support for dredging appears strong among WWG members and the maritime community. Dredging berthing areas has the potential to reestablish lost berthing and vessel loading opportunities. Additional expansion of berthing has been explored on the Portland Fish Pier, and that remains a viable opportunity subject to direction by the Portland Fish Pier Authority. Staff Recommendations: Commercial Street Congestion: The Commercial Street Operations and Master Plan process will in the near future report short-term and long-term potential improvements to address congestion on the waterfront. While we cannot report out a list of recommended improvements at this time (such options are still under development,) we can be sure that all interventions on Commercial will cost dollars – certainly more than can be paid for through TIF funding alone. Staff recommends considering Commercial Street as a priority area for investment with 2020 dollars. 2 Dredging: The vexing and long-discussed problem of pier and berthing dredging has both short and long-term costs. Recent work by the Portland Harbor Commission, funded by EPA Brownfields grants, and disposal option evaluations for the City by Stantec, funded by MDOT, have identified the location, volume, and composition of sediments needing removal. The current process has also identified a feasible site for sediment disposal – a Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) cell located near the South Portland Coast Guard station. The potential costs associated with dredging and disposing sediments that compromise berthing resources within Portland Harbor (Portland and South Portland) will likely exceed $30,000,000. While TIF funding alone cannot carry such an extraordinary figure, TIF funds could provide needed short-term funding shortfalls to continue the chemical testing, engineering design, and permitting to allow the process to continue. Future TIF funds also have the potential to leverage much larger funds from state and federal sources, demonstrating a local commitment to the dredging effort. Private and public funds, contributed by pier owners, will likely also be needed as a tipping fee based on the volume of dredged sediments. Staff asks the WWG to consider prioritizing dredging as a use of 2020 TIF funds to allow continued progress toward improving access and addressing pollution in Portland Harbor. Berthing Expansion: In addition to Congestion and Dredging, WWG members may consider whether TIF funds may be used for the expansion of berthing at the Portland Fish Pier. Construction of berthing at the Fish Pier would be consistent with the mission of the facility and would expand the facility’s relevance to the lobstering industry. If the WWG suggests prioritizing use of TIF funds toward berthing expansion at the Fish Pier, staff will report this finding to the Portland Fish Pier Authority Board for further exploration. Concluding Remarks: The above recommendations are not intended to constrain the conversation or imagination of the WWG. Other priorities have merits and staff looks forward to hearing the thoughts and guidance provided at Meeting 6. Attachments: • Meeting 5 Notes, March 7, 2019 • February 7, 2019 TIF Presentation • Portland Fish Pier Deed, State of Maine to the City of Portland • Table of Zoning Issues, Approaches and Status, Draft, 3-14-19 3 Municipal Tax Increment Financing Overview Waterfront Working Group February 7, 2019 Presented by: Gregory A. Mitchell, Director Economic Development/City of Portland 1 What is Tax Increment Financing?  A public economic development municipal financing program, funded by property taxes on the incremental or increased new municipal assessed value generated by a development project. 2 Why is TIF Used?  To stimulate private sector investment and job creation Targeted industries Targeted locations  To Invest in Public Infrastructure and City costs (staff, studies, etc.) and additional specified uses.  Workforce Training.  Expand existing or fund new transit service capital costs (bus shelters, benches, signage, crosswalks, etc.) and limited operational costs (transit operator salaries, fuel, and maintenance).  To ‘shelter’ against adverse adjustments to State subsidies and County taxes based on total municipal valuation. 3 How Does TIF Work?  A municipality designates a specific geographic area as a municipal development tax increment financing district.  This “freezes” the base value of taxable property within the district (the original assessed value or “OAV”); TIF revenues derive from taxes on increased new property value above OAV.  Municipality adopts a development program describing authorized uses of revenue. 4 Establishing The TIF District TIF districts may be designated for a maximum of 30 years, and at least 25% of the district area must be:  Blighted  In need or rehabilitation, redevelopment or conservation;  Suitable for commercial uses or arts; or  Affordable Housing with 25% suitable for residential use. 5 Funding Mechanisms  Municipal Bonds  Municipality established a Development Sinking Fund for debt service requirements  Credit Enhancement Agreement  TIF revenues placed in a Project Cost Account for direct payment to company for authorized project costs  Municipal Economic Development  TIF revenues placed in a Project Cost Account for direct payment by municipality for authorized project costs 6 How Does ‘Sheltering’ Work?  With new investment, real estate valuation goes   As a result, state subsidies go  and county taxes go   TIF ‘shelters’ captured new value by excluding it from total municipal value reported to the state for the length of the TIF.  Portland ‘shelter’ value is estimated at 30 cents of every new property tax dollar. 7 TIF Approval Process (2 Steps) TIF Program - District Boundaries - Development Program - Financial Plan 1. Municipal or County Approval, followed by: 2. State DECD Approval for Commercial & Industrial Projects; OR Maine State Housing Authority for Affordable Housing TIFs. Credit Enhancement Agreements w/Project Developer then executed after above two approvals. City TIF Policy  Adopted New Council TIF Policy as of 11/20/2017  Credit Enhancement Agreements (CEA) – up to 20 Years With Average 65% Capture Rate  CEA Development Compliance with City Green Building Code and State Prevailing Wages Related to New Construction 9 Portland’s Experience With TIFs  Portland currently has 7 active Affordable Housing TIF Districts; 8 active Commercial TIF Districts with Credit Enhancement Agreements (CEA), including one CEA on Merrill’s Wharf; and 3 area wide TIF Districts including:  - Bayside  - Downtown Transit  - Waterfront 10 Portland Peninsula TIF Map 11 Waterfront TIF District 12 Waterfront TIF District Allowable Uses  Pier and Wharf Structural Repair  Street Studies and Improvements  Pedestrian and Multi-Modal Circulation  New Publicly-Owned pier  Surface and Structured Parking  Utilities Infrastructure  City Staff Salaries  Environmental Improvements, Including Sea Level Adaptation and Infrastructure Improvements  Dredging of Commercial Vessel Berthing  Dredge Sediment Disposal and CAD Cell Development  Workforce Training Fund  Professional Services Costs  Credit Enhancement Agreements  Local Match for Ocean Gateway Project 13 Past (Tax Years 4-1-2002 to 4-1-2018) City Uses of Waterfront TIF District Revenue  City Staff Salary and Fringe Benefits  Local Match for Ocean Gateway Project  Professional Services Costs  Waterfront Credit Enhancement Agreement (Merrill’s Wharf Redevelopment through 4-1-2027)  Past Average Annual Financial Allocation: $600,000 14 Waterfront TIF District Property Tax Revenue Projections (4-1-2019 – 4-1-2031) Tax Year TIF Capture Rev Notes: Est. (Millions) 2019 $1.4 1. Estimates include new development 2020 $2.0 value from projects under construction and planned. 2021 $2.5 2022 $5.0 2. Annual mil rate increase of $2%. 2023 $5.1 3. Annual property valuation increase of 2024 $5.8 1%. 2025 $5.9 2026 $6.0 4. City-wide revaluation will impact these revenue projections. 2027 $6.3 2028 $6.5 2029 $7.4 2030 $7.7 2031 $7.9 15 Union Wharf – TIF Case Study NOTE: No CEA Agreement in Place.  Original Assessed Value (base value): $616,430  City Total Assessed Value at Build Out: $3.58 Million  - Less OAV of $616,430  - Equals Increased Assessed Value of $2,963,570  Annual Average Property Tax Revenue from Capture of Increased Assessed Value (IAV) over OAV: 100% - $76,342; 65% - $49,622  Total Property Tax Revenue from Capture of IAV Over Remaining TIF Term (FY2019 through FY2032): 100% - $1,068,784; 65% - $694,710 16 Questions? Gregory A. Mitchell, Director Economic Development/City of Portland 389 Congress Street Portland, ME 04101 207-874-8683 gmitchell@portlandmaine.gov 17  Agenda 4 Businesss Assistance and Loan Programs Economic Development Department Gregory A. Mitchell, Director Revolving Loan Program The City’s Revolving Loan Program (RLP) provides commercial loans to Portland businesses to facilitate economic growth and job creation. Loans are made to all types and sizes of businesses, from the smallest establishment to the largest corporation. They range from as much as $250,000 to as little as a few thousand dollars. Businesses are encouraged to establish relationships with banks and credit unions, and to access conventional financing whenever possible. The City’s RLP is here to assist when there’s a financing gap or when businesses are not able to access conventional financing. Most RLP loans are provided as gap financing in which the City’s lending board, the Portland Development Corporation (PDC), partners with a lead lender (generally banks, credit unions and other community lenders). For start-ups and even existing businesses that cannot obtain conventional financing, loan assistance may be available, particularly through micro loans. Loans from the City’s RLP can help to fund a wide range of activities. These include building construction and renovations, leasehold improvements, machinery and equipment purchase, working capital, purchase of an existing business, refinancing (if the project also includes a business expansion component at least 25% over the debt amount to be refinanced), acquisition of fishing vessels and marine related machinery and equipment, and acquisition of real estate. Fixed interest rates are determined by the PDC, the City’s lending board, on a case-by-case basis based upon a variety of considerations, such as anticipated job creation and retention, collateral, level of risk, credit worthiness, etc. Generally, interest rates are a point or two above the rates offered by the banking community. An overview of each of the loan programs within the City’s RLP follows: 60/30/10 Portland Business Program: • Loan of $50,000 to $200,000; • 60% lead lender (with possible guarantee from SBA or FAME), 30% City, 10% equity from borrower; • Flexible terms up to 20 years with a 10-year balloon; • Especially useful for projects between $250,000 and $500,000 for which the SBA 504 may not be cost effective; • May be used for working capital • No prepayment penalties.  Agenda 4 Businesss Assistance and Loan Programs Micro Business Loan Program and Creative Economy Loan Program • Loans up to $50,000; • Maximum loan term up to 7 years; • Prefer minimum private investment to Micro Loan dollar ratio of 1:3 (for example, $30,000 project: $22,250 Micro Loan, $7,500 borrower). Real Estate Development Loan Program • Loans up to $200,000; • Can be used to finance non-owner occupied real estate; • Minimum private investment to RLP ratio of 1:1, including minimum 10% equity investment from borrower; • Maximum loan term of 30 years with 10-year balloon, • Cannot be used for refinancing. Regional Economic Development Loan Program (FAME) • Loans up to $250,000; • Maximum loan term of 20 years with 10-year balloon; • Maximum loan amount relative to project cost is as follows: • Loans of $50,000 - $100,000 may not exceed ½ of the net new funds being provided; • Loans over $100,000 may not exceed 1/3 of the net new funds being provided. Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund • Loans generally not to exceed $200,000; • Maximum loan term of 5 years; • Funding for remediation/cleanup; • Competitive interest rates in the 3 to 3.5% range. (Funding is also available to cover the cost of Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments.) Applying to the City’s RLP requires the same materials that a bank would request, for example, historical financials, projections, tax returns and personal financial statements, along with business plans when the applicant is a new business. Applications can be accessed on line at https://www.portlandmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1556/Loan-Application?bidId= Please contact the City’s Business Programs Manager, Nelle Hanig, with any questions or to discuss a possible loan (756-8019 or nrh@portlandmaine.gov).  Agenda 4 Businesss Assistance and Loan Programs Economic Development Department Gregory A. Mitchell, Director Portland Business Assistance Program for Job Creation Program Description The City of Portland’s Business Assistance Program for Job Creation (BAP) provides grants up to $20,000 to new and expanding Portland businesses for the creation of net new, permanent full-time jobs for low/moderate income individuals. [Program funds are depleted at this time but additional funding is anticipated in July 2019.] Program Objectives  Job creation for low/moderate income individuals;  New business formation and existing business expansion;  Leverage private investment to support business growth;  Help new and expanding businesses establish credit;  Enhance the health and vitality of the Portland economy. Program Requirements/Eligibility  Create one (1) full-time job (at least 1,750 hours/year *) for every $10,000 of grant funding;  Applicant business location fits any of the following: In a low income area of the City; Within walking distance to one or more of these areas; or, Easily accessible from these areas via public transportation;  Net new job(s) created with the help of the grant is marketed to low/moderate income** individuals, resulting in at least 51% of these jobs going to this population. (For example, if two jobs are created to meet grant requirements, then both must be filled by low/moderate income individuals);  Job(s) is created within nine (9) months of signing a grant agreement;  Wage paid to new hire(s) exceeds Portland’s minimum wage . Financing Terms  Maximum grant: $20,000 per business.  Required Private Match: Equal to or greater than grant amount.  Private Match Sources: Private investment match includes at least 50% private equity. The remaining 50% may be a bank loan or a loan from the City’s Commercial Loan Program, if conventional financing is not available. For existing businesses, the 50% equity can include private investment made within the past 12 months. Application Review Criteria/Preferences: Criteria/Preferences(listed in no particular order): • Career Potential o Job training for new hire(s) in a marketable skill; o Potential for job advancement within the company or elsewhere. • Employer o Demonstrated need for grant funds to create job(s); o Private match exceeds grant amount requested; City of Portland - Economic Development Department - 389 Congress Street - Portland, ME 04101 - (207) 874-8683  Agenda 4 o Businesss Assistance Number of net new jobs exceeds one (1) per $10,000 of grant funding. and Loan Programs • Compensation and Benefits o Quality of compensation and benefits package (for example, wages, health, vacation, sick leave); Eligible Funding Activities 1. Equipment and machinery; 2. Permanent working capital, (e.g., inventory, furniture and fixtures, relocation expense); 3. Working capital expenses (e.g., rent, utilities, salaries, insurance); 4. Up to $1,000 for business consulting services (e.g., accounting, marketing, software training, legal assistance); 5. Leasehold improvements, renovation, reconstruction, or restoration of vacant, under-utilized or deteriorated space; building modifications to enhance accessibility to elderly or handicapped persons. (Construction projects must comply with Davis Bacon federal labor standards.) Ineligible Activities a. Refinance existing debt; b. Down payment for other financing; c. Use of grant funds for activities, (e.g., purchases of equipment and supplies), commenced or completed prior to program funding approval and prior to signing a grant agreement. Basic Program Qualifications • Business must be located within the City of Portland; • Applicant cannot owe outstanding property taxes, fees, or judgments to the City, and property must be free of all City liens and encumbrances. Application and Approval Process The City’s Economic Development Department is responsible for administration of the Business Assistance Program for Job Creation, with guidance from the Housing and Community Development Division. Eligible applications are analyzed by an underwriter and then presented to the Portland Development Corporation (PDC) for its review. The PDC has final decision-making authority in approving applicants for grant awards. Further information and applications can be downloaded at http://www.portlandmaine.gov/556/Business-Assistance-Program-for-Job-Crea or contact Nelle Hanig at nrh@portlandmaine.gov or 207-756-8019, City of Portland - Economic Development Department - 389 Congress Street - Portland, ME 04101 - (207) 874-8683  Portland Fish Pier Deed State of Maine to the City of Portland KNOll ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That, the STATE OF !1AINE, acting by and through its Governor, on recocmcndation of the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation, under and pursuant to the provisions of 23 M.R.s.A. 0 Section 4206, in considc-ation of One Dollar ($1.00) and oeher valuable considerations paid by the CITY OF PORTLAND, a Municipal Corporation located at Portland, County of Cumberland and State o£ Maine, the receipt whereof it does hereby acknowledge, does hereby remise, release, bargain, sell and cqnvey and quit-claim unto the said CITY OF PORTLAND, its right, titla and interest in and to a certain lot or parc:cl of land situated on the southeasterly side of Commercial Street, in Portland, County of Cu~berland and State of Huine, bounded and described as follo1<s, for as long as said lot: or (_ parcel is operated as a public fis~ pier Eor thc"purposc of landing or processin~ shellfish, finfish or other natural products of the sea or for other activitias di:·ectly related to the purpose of landing or- processing shcll!::Lh, fir:fish ol:" nacural products of tho sea including fueling, loadins or sellln3 these 2roducts, to wit: Be3inning at: a poinc in t:-w souche'"''terl.y siJo line of Cot1lmercial • Street in said Portland, at the no::-th·..;estorly corner of lane now owned by Armour and Cocqa:~y as descri!;ed i.n a d(!ed Erom Fr01nkl in Real Esc ate C'?mpany to ~ai:.l .\roour ilnd C.:J":pany, dated .-\p~i 1 26, 1913 and recorded J..n chc Cu:noerlilnd County R.egu:r:ry of Deeds J.n Book 1008, Page 120; said po~n~ ~ls0.~ci~3 Che sa~e point dnscribod 1 11 a deed from ProprietorR ot ' ,l.O~ ~nnrt to Armour and Co~panv datctl l·!arch 1981 <tnd to bEo .·.,cc,:le..'. in ::he CL:;::berlar1d Count? R<~Jistry of Deeds. 3!+ -/~7'-~0 0 11 Thence Sa :::., alcn~ s::i.~ .• \r . . ll)U~. :ln~ Co:npuny L.:lnd on~ hundred four :wcl Sl.:.::ty-t::reo hu:l:::-eJt:-Js (l()!,.tJJ) feec CJ <l point:; TI1cnce N. 55°-03'-~JO" C. fi:ty 1:~.J ~:lr<'·-~ t.-,nch;; (50.3) fu<!t to the ' southerly tine of lund ilG'.-1 or [cr:lL'~:ly ol ~obcrt J. Levine Truste'e o[ Levine Real 2stnte Trust, as 1esc:-ibed in a deed to sal~ Tru 9 c fr::>::~ Poultry Process in.:;, Inc., dnt:cd Sc~te:Jbcr 30, 1930, ,1 nd  Portland Fish Pier Deed -2- State of Maine to the City of Portland -~corded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds~ Book 4673, Page 2; Thence S, 34 °-5 7' -00" E. four hundred s i:x: and forty-seven hundredths (406 .4 7) feet along the southwesterly line of land now or formerly of Robert J, Levine, Trustee of Levine Real Estate Trust and said line extended to a poinc, said point being twenty-five (25) feet 'outheasterly of the five story brick building on said Real Estate Trust Property; Thence N. 55°·03' -00" E. one hundred forty-five and four hundredchs (145.04) feet along the line described in a conveyance to said Robert J. Levine, Trustee of Levine Real Estate Trust to a point, said point being on a line established by extending the south\-testerly line of land of the Proprietors of Union Hharf (Union ~1arf Property) southeasterly; Thence continuing on said line extended on a course of S. 35 °-2 9' -00" E, seven hundred eleven and forty-nine hundredths (711.49) feet to the Harbor Comoissioners Lina in Portland Harbour; Thence S. 42°-00'-00" W. alon3 the cun·bo::- Co:nmissioners Line about three hundred sixty-six (366) feet to the northeasterly edge of Browns ~arf, so-called; tence southeasterly along the northeasterly cd3e of said Browns -.narf said line being about ri~ht anJl8& to last described line, about'one hundred eleven (111) feet to the southeasterly end of-said w'harf; Thence southlvcsterly along the sout\~east~::ly end o[ said i3ro~ms ifua rf abou c one hun tired sixty -seven ( 16 7) fee 1: to the sou t:nves ter 1 y ed~c of said Wharf; Thence northwesterly alon;; c:1e souc::·.,us::o::ly ec!:;e of saicl :Jrowns Wharf about one huncred seven (107) :eot to a point in the Harbor Commissioners Line; Thence S. 42°-00'-00" H. about: ona hu:-td-::ed Corty-thrcc (143) feet to a point~ said point being on a l~~e being t~c extansiorl of the nor:theasterly line of the Unit2ct Sc:~r.:0s Gov\~r:tncnt (occupied by the: U.S. !laval Reserve) in a soLt::h,~:.\:>::2~·ly cih:ccti_aa; Thence N. !+7°-46' -00" \1. alon:; s:\ic'! extended lin'' and the northcasccrly line of land of chu satd llr1itcd Staces Gnvern~cnt, ten hundred twcn~y-ttarec and fifty-twa hun<lrodchs (1023.52) feet to 3 point:. in th:.J southe~•~terly line cf Co~ilGI~rci.:.1l St!."'Cet; '['hence L'!. 17°-06'-.10" C:. thi:ty-~i,·c :ln ..l fifteen hundrt!dths (35.15) feet along th2 sout~2asc~rt; l~~c of c~~m8rcial Street;  Portland Fish Pier Deed .• .. State of Maine to the City of Portland -3- ' . TI1enca N. 21°-52 '-00" E. t\vO hundred ninety-nine and ten hundredths (299.10) feet along the southeasterly line of Commercial Street; Thence N. 25°-22'-00" E. one hundred eishty~four and tHcnty-four hundredths (184.24) feet along the southeasterly line of Comoarcial Street; ·· Thence N. 27°-51 1 -OO" E. one hundred si:<taen and sixty-four hundredths (116.64) feet along the southeasterly line of CoQmcrcial Street; · Thence N. 31 °-07' -00" E. forty-six and forty-six hundredths (46.46) feet along the southeasterly line of Commercial Street; ,. Thence N. 36°•49' -00" E. thirty-nine and ninety-eight hundredth~ (39.93) feet along the southeasterly line of Commercial Street; Thence N. 40°-22' -00" E. fifty-five and thirty-seven hundredths (55.37) feet along the southeaste.rly line of Commercial Street to the point of besinning. The herein described parcel of land c.:ont;lins about 14.578 acre:,~ and was acquired by Notice of T~ki:1'~, I'::nprir.!tors of Union '.v'harf, et a.l, to State of Ho.ine, recorded April 1, 1981 in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds in Book 4759; Paae 119. This conveyance is subject to the ri;3hts of Portland ~.Juter District as acquired by deed of the StilC\J of O!ni:-~e <.luted i!al:'cb 30, 1983· and recorded in the Cu::Jberland County I\c;gistry o£ Doeds in Jook 6142, Page 57. Being a certain lot or parcel <)f land as .<:hmm on the Dao.:1rt:mcnt of Transportation Property ~lap fo:- ?o::t:L!nd :>ish ?iot" dated· J.'lnuary 1901, on file in the Office of the ~aLne Dup.:1rtment of Transpor.tat: ion ac Augusta, File 1~o. 3 -2')8 and recorded in the Cumberland County Rczisny of Deeds in Plan lloo}: 137, P.:1;;e 34. Titis deed docs not convey the risht~ hel,J by the Staca, includinn :i;;ht:s. the State h~ld7 in tr.usc for. tho c:u::>lic,, in the S~lb::lt:1rt;ed"and lnterttdal lands wtthLn the oou~carLcs ot the aoove dascribed lot or parcel of land. The ri~ht, title and interest canvuved bv chis d~ed shall aucornatic.J.lly cevert to the~ sc~·1ti..1, ~.·it::o~t: ·thu · ni:lccssity or rc-t'~ntrv · oc no tic~, ::;houl.i and ~•hun :;:-t,~ l,)C - ·.)1' p;ltc:el is no lont>0c used ~ . or · opurnccJ ns a public fislt pair tor tho purpose of lnnjinJ ur procc~!sin1; sh~llfi!.ih, finfish o"C' ut~1er natut~:.tt producc5 oi thH ~ea or cot· vtl1tn- accivitie£ direccly rcl.J.tc>d to the puroosl.l of Lu1din!' n~ procc.:ssin~ shellfish, finiisn or ot~cr n.:1Cural p~oduct3 of cha' ~ .... u.:_u·-a, includia3 fuolict;, lua.Jin~ t)!;' scll:~l~~ these pt:ocluct!-:.,  Portland Fish Pier Deed State of Maine to the City of Portland { I TO HAVE A.'{D TO ltOLTJ the same, togethet" wic:h all the privilages and appurtenances thereunto belonging to the said CITY OF PORTL9ND. IN \HTNESS I<HE:u:oF, I, Joseph E. Brennan, Governor of the State of Maine, have caused the name and great seal of c:he State of Maine to be hereto affixed this ninth day of September, in the year of our nine hundred and eishcy-chrce. STATE OF ~lA.DIS . ! _, ,~ By -:---'-·r-...:"'.;;·~~!··.•·...:··.:.(-"-:...;~;>_-;;.:·~:::<-:::!·':.:"':!.':.::-..~:::·:;::.__Gave rno r ,. / / Affixed By_.4~/ , / / ./~,~'··-·------- ( /9eputy Secrcta~r of 3t~te S"!'.\TI:: Or"---HAI:~E ) ( ,.£..... ;/ <;f COi.HHY. OF KE~HiEflEC) .ss. -----·~!~,...:~~~~.. ·...:·~"~;~(-:_1__~----· 1933 Per~onally appeared tha above n~:ned Jo~•:•pn r::. IJr.-.nn:ln, ~overnor of tha State of Haine and ac!<no:~.. lcd~ ed th::: .--:b:Jve in!) tru~un c to be his freu act and deed in his said c'tp.s.::ic:: ;lnd tht~ frea act ;tnJ duad E the State o£ 1-!aine. 0 ~.":.;.-~ .. --'\ !J .... - . J - ( . .:c~' Waterfront Working Group Summary Table of Zoning Issues, Approaches, and Status DRAFT 3-14-19 Zoning Issue Approaches Under Status Next Steps Consideration Contract/Conditional Eliminate option for site specific Resolved. The WWG Staff to recommend Rezoning zoning within the WCZ will likely not have to Planning Board complete agreement on elimination of the tool Non-marine Use Revise line to 125 ft offset from Nearly Resolved. The Staff ready to Overlay Zone Commercial St with 300 ft at WWG will likely not have recommend to Long Wharf complete agreement. Planning Board Fish Pier and Long Wharf unresolved. 55% first floor and Separate open areas from first Under discussion. WWG discussion open area Marine floor. Percentages discussed by Use Requirement Lobstering group suggests 70/30 WWG on 3-7-19. Several split for open areas WWG members Require marine use occupancy expressed support for the as a condition for non-marine status quo occupancy First floors marketed Eliminate the requirement, General agreement, Staff ready to to marine use as a subject to agreement that the recommend Marine/N-M use split has been needs confirmation elimination to condition for non- adequately addressed at future meeting Planning Board marine use occupancy Strengthen the requirement Not much support Marine Use Replace with annual report of General agreement, Staff ready to Inventory “significant development.” Add recommend to needs confirmation Planning Board periodic broad “assessment of the marine economy” at future meeting Parking Some issues to be covered with Not yet discussed Needs a dedicated the Performance Standards meeting Permitted Uses Restricting some uses from areas Not yet discussed WWG discussion subject to marine use requirements (outside of more permissive Overlay areas) Performance Combine NM parking, functional Not yet discussed WWG discussion Standards utility, and Marine/N-M compatibility standards under a single standard. Create a submission requirement for an “access management plan” Suggestion to limit pier edge occupancy by Non-Marine uses Lot Coverage, Suggestion to limit both Not yet discussed WWG discussion Building size Enforcement Likely, no ordinance changes, Not yet discussed WWG discussion but will explore better reporting and education Non-zoning issues to be addressed separately