Mahoney City Center Committee

Mahoney City Center Committee Tuesday, June 23, 2026 at 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, City Hall, 25 Cottage Rd, South Portland, ME Page 1. ROLL CALL 3 Reference Documents: Order Creating the Mahoney City Center Committee - As Amended 4-7-26 Mahoney City Center Committee Rules of Procedure - As Amended 11-19-25 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Minutes from the April 29, 2026 Meeting 5 The committee is being asked to review and approve the minutes from the 4/29/26 meeting. There was no meeting in May. Passage requires majority vote. Minutes - MCCC - 042926 DRAFT.pdf 3. PUBLIC COMMENT I Public Comment Part I is limited to 30 minutes, unless extended by a majority vote of the committee. Each speaker has up to three minutes to comment, and speakers during this part of the agenda cannot comment again during Public Comment Part II. Comments must be germane to the committee's work. 4. UPDATES/PRESENTATIONS A. Update from Owner's Representative and/or Design Team The committee will be provided with an update on progress since its last meeting from the project Owners Representative and/or the Design Teams(s). B. Update from Communications Subcommittee The subcommittee will provide the M3C with an update on its progress since its last meeting, if any. C. Update from Funding Plan Subcommittee The subcommittee will provide the M3C with an update on its progress since its last meeting, if any. D. Update from Public/Private Partnership Subcommittee Page 1 of 10  The subcommittee will provide the M3C with an update on its progress since its last meeting, if any. 5. ACTION ON OLD AND NEW BUSINESS A. Recommendations from the Public/Private Partnership Committee 7 On April 7, the City Council amended the Mahoney City Center Committee's (M3C) charge to empower it to explore alternative redevelopment arrangements for Mahoney, such as public/private partnerships (P3s), that could bring historic tax credits and other financial tools into the project. On April 29, the M3C created a P3 Subcommittee to engage with the development community and compile relevant information for the City to consider. The City then issued a Request for Information (RFI) to: 1) Gauge developer interest in partnering with the City on a redevelopment and adaptive reuse plan for the Mahoney City Center project, 2) Learn about "best practices" in structuring P3 arrangements, 3) Explore financing tools and incentives (e.g., historic tax credits, grants, etc), 4) Identify barriers and risks associated with such projects, and 5) Understand whether a P3 arrangement to redevelop the historic Mahoney building could be limited to the building itself or would necessitate additional site build-out to make the project economically viable. The City received four responses to its RFI and the P3 Subcommittee elected to meet with all four respondents during June to gather all relevant information. The RFI responses from these four firms can be found here. As noted in more detail in the attached memo from the subcommittee, many of the questions around development models, cost, design, etc. cannot yet be answered. As such, the subcommittee recommends that the City solicit proposals and identify a developer-partner to engage with exclusively to develop a project that delivers all (or most) of the City’s goals and priorities and determine what the cost of such a project would be. The agreement should be written to allow the City and Developer-Partner to progress to subsequent phases of design and construction once the City approves the project as conceived at the outcome of the due diligence period. The M3C is being asked to endorse this recommendation, which will then be sent to the City Council on July 7. Memo - P3 Recommendation 6. PUBLIC COMMENT II Public Comment Part II is limited to 30 minutes, unless extended by a majority vote of the committee. Each speaker has up to three minutes to comment, and speakers during this part of the agenda cannot have commented during Public Comment Part I. Comments must be germane to the committee's work. 7. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 10  Mahoney City Center Committee RULES OF PROCEDURE Adopted April 29, 2025 Amended October 28, 2025 The Mahoney City Center Committee (M3C) shall operate its normal business meetings under the following Rules of Procedure: Meeting Process • Unless specified otherwise, the committee shall follow the newest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO). While all members are expected to have familiarity with RRO, the Chair of the Committee shall be charged with interpreting and enforcing RRO. • The Chair shall run the meeting with assistance from the City Manager. The Chair will read each agenda item and then the City Manager or his designee will provide an introduction to the item. The Chair will then ask members if they have questions and, if necessary, ask for debate and then call for a vote. • M3C meetings shall be in-person by default. The M3C shall allow hybrid meetings when a committee member is sick (or caring for a sick family member) or when they are traveling. It is preferred (but not required) that committee members give advance notice prior to the agenda being published on the Thursday before the following week’s meeting so that the Google Meets link can be included on the agenda. Consistent with State law, if a meet is hybrid, members of the public may also participate remotely. Agenda Setting • Pursuant to the City Council Order creating the M3C, the Chair and City Manager shall set the meeting agendas. Requests for specific agenda items from non-staff committee members shall be reviewed by the Chair and City Manager, with the Chair making the final determination as to whether the item(s) is included. All requests for agenda item additions are due to the Chair and City Manager no later than noon on Tuesday prior to the following week’s meeting. Public Comments • Comment from the public shall be allowed at two points on the agenda: 1) at the start of each meeting after Roll Call and Approval of Minutes, and 2) as the last item of business before Adjournment. All comments must be germane to the M3C’s scope of duties. • Members of the public shall have up to three minutes each to comment during these two comment periods, however, if a member speaks during the first comment period, they shall not be permitted to speak at the second comment period. However, the Human Rights Commission shall have up to ten minutes during one of these comment periods when they have an item to bring forward. • The first comment period shall be limited to 30 minutes. Any member of the public who still wishes to speak after 30 minutes has elapsed shall be able to speak at the second public Page 3 of 10  comment period at the end of the meeting. By majority vote, the M3C may extend the initial comment period beyond 30 minutes. • Public comments shall not be allowed during any other agenda item. • If questions are asked at meetings during either public comment, committee members shall endeavor to answer after that comment period is over. • The Human Rights Commission shall be allowed up to ten minutes to speak during public comment. Email Communication • A single City email address will be established for the committee, with communications sent to this address being forwarded to the email addresses of all committee members. Senders shall receive an automatic reply providing a link to the Mahoney project page on the City website and noting emails will generally not be responded to. • Members may reply to emails from the public so long as they cc the M3C email address when doing so. • The City Manager (or his designee) may provide procedural information about meeting dates/times, upcoming agenda items, where more information can be found about the project, etc. If a member wishes to further discuss an issue arising from an email, they may request that the Chair add the item to a future agenda. Page 4 of 10  City of South Portland Mahoney City Center Committee MEETING MINUTES April 29, 2026 Meeting called to order at 6:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. ROLL CALL Committee Chair Mike Hulsey, took roll call. Voting Members Present: Sharon Ames (Dist. 3), Maryann Brown (Dist. 1) Erin Callison (Dist. 4), Mike Hulsey (At-Large), Casey Oaks (Arts/Theater Rep), Kris Rosner (At-Large), Michelle Sullivan (Dist. 5), Jessica Walker (Councilor), Kevin Davis (Library Director), Shara Dee (Communications Officer), Scott Morelli (City Manager), Josh Reny (Asst. City Manager), and Non-Voting Members Present: Anthony DiLuzio (Owners Rep), Craig Piper (Design Team – SMRT), Adam Yothers (Design Team – SMRT) Voting Members Not Present: Brian Clark (Dist. 2), Tracy Bissonnette (Youth Sports Rep), Richard Matthews (Councilor), Don Hopkins (Facilities Director), Ellen Sanborn (Finance Director), Julie Rosenbach (Sustainability Director) Non-Voting Members Not Present: Dan Ahern (Police Chief), Phil Selberg (Fire Chief), Adam Troidl (Owners Rep) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from March 24, 2026 Meeting. Motion to approve by Maryann Brown, Seconded by Sharon Ames For - The majority of the committee voted to approve the minutes. Against - none Abstain – none A recording of this meeting and past meetings can be found here. PUBLIC COMMENT I No public comment UPDATES / PRESENTATIONS A. Update from Owners Representative and/or Design Team(s). Anthony from Colliers Project Leaders briefly reviewed the current status of the project contracts for site assessments and investigation. Limited this month: All testing is on hold. Page 5 of 10 SMRT – All further design is on hold B. Update from Communications Subcommittee Shara Dee provided the M3C with an update on its progress since its last meeting. On hold C. Update from Funding Plan Subcommittee Mike Hulsey shared that the subcommittee met on April 1 to discuss proposing a request for Information (RFI) for Private Public Partnership (PPP). That this would provide an exploratory opportunity to educate the committee. ACTION ON OLD AND NEW BUSINESS A. Creation of a Public/Private Partnership Subcommittee At a recent workshop, the City Council provided guidance for a Public/Private Partnership Subcommittee of the M3C be formed to further explore options related to a public/private partnership for the Mahoney property. They further requested committee chair Mike Hulsey chair this subcommittee. M3C is being asked to vote to create this subcommittee (as required by City Council's Policy on Boards and Committees), to include the scope and membership, which the committee will need to define on Wednesday evening. Council also supported the issuance of a Request for Information (RFI), so that any developer interested in speaking to the subcommittee about public/private partnerships could do so. Chair Hulsey and Asst. City Manager Joshua Reny will provide more details on the RFI. Committee discussed sub-committee purpose and membership. Membership: Sharon Ames, Josh Reny, Brian Clark, Casey Oaks, and Mike Halsey (chair) Councilors Scott and West (non voting) Ex-officio members. Motion to approve by Mike Halsey, Seconded by Michele Sullivan For - The majority of the committee voted to approve the minutes. Against - none Abstain – none PUBLIC COMMENT II No -End of Public Comment- ADJOURNMENT Motion Scott Morelli, Seconded by Josh Reny For - The majority of the committee voted to approve. Against - none Meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m. Page 6 of 10 ​ To: Mahoney City Center Committee From: Mahoney P3 Subcommittee Date: June 17, 2026 Subject: Review of RFI and recommendations On April 7th the City Council amended the Mahoney City Center Committee's (M3C) charge to empower it to explore alternative redevelopment arrangements for Mahoney, such as public/private partnerships (P3), that could bring historic tax credits and other financial tools into the project. On April 29 the M3C created a P3 Subcommittee to engage with the development community and compile relevant information for the City to consider. The City then issued a Request for Information (RFI) to: 1.​ Gauge developer interest in partnering with the City on a redevelopment and adaptive reuse plan for the Mahoney City Center project 2.​ Learn about "best practices" in structuring P3 arrangements 3.​ Explore financing tools and incentives (e.g., historic tax credits, grants, etc) 4.​ Identify barriers and risks associated with such projects, and 5.​ Understand whether a P3 arrangement to redevelop the historic Mahoney building could be limited to the building itself or would necessitate additional site build-out to make the project economically viable. Click here to see the RFI document and the responses received The City publicly advertised and distributed the RFI and received four responses. The P3 Subcommittee elected to meet with all four respondents over the course of two weeks to gather all relevant information. The subcommittee met on June 9, Page 7 of 10 June 11, and June 17 to meet with each respondent and discuss the information it gleaned from those interviews. The city met with Developers Collaborative, Great Falls Construction, Barrett Made, and FD Stonewater. Each of the four respondents had a breadth of experience with P3s, collaboration with government clients, commercial redevelopment, and historic preservation, and shared relevant projects they completed that are comparable to Mahoney. Through these discussions, several key pieces of information and feedback were echoed by the respondents. Headlines 1.​ Mahoney is a tremendous asset and the City has a great opportunity to create a lasting, meaningful, and beneficial project for the community by working with a developer-partner who has experience with such projects. 2.​ A P3 approach would open up several financing opportunities, the most impactful being the federal and state Historic Tax Credit programs. Those programs could potentially pay for up to 30% of the overall project cost. Development Models 3.​ There are countless ways to structure a P3 under a variety of ownership models, but one likely scenario may involve the City conveying ownership of the Mahoney building to a developer-owner-operator with a long-term ground lease, and in turn the developer would provide space in the redeveloped building to the City through a long-term lease arrangement. At the end of the lease term, the Mahoney Building could revert back to the City or the City could have options to reclaim ownership. A financially feasible project may also include private entities utilizing space in the building or on the site. 4.​ Terms of the agreement could be structured in a number of different ways to meet the City’s goals. This could include reducing upfront costs to the City (i.e. needing a large bond) and allow the Mahoney redevelopment project to realize the value of tax credits and other incentives. The structure of a lease-purchase arrangement would have inherently more flexibility than if the City were to bond the project. For example, a lease could be front-loaded to accelerate debt repayment, or back-loaded to defer costs. At the end of the term of the agreement, the City could reclaim ownership of the building for as little as $1.00, or perhaps there is a balloon Page 2 of 4 Page 8 of 10  payment for the developer’s residual equity in the property. As explained to the subcommittee, there can be a lot of flexibility in any partnership agreement to address the needs and priorities of both parties. 5.​ Several of the respondents stated that although the Mahoney site as a whole has incredible development potential, a P3 arrangement is viable even if limited to the historic Mahoney building area of the property. Adjacent development could help with project economics, but it is not required to move forward with redevelopment of the building itself. Project Management and Oversight 6.​ P3-type projects are best managed through a small project team working directly with the developer-partner. This should include regular check-ins with a committee and/or City Council coupled with public outreach to keep the community engaged and informed. The most effective project team should include City staff, and may include representation from City Council and/or the MC3 Committee. However, this would not be a committee; the small team would be the developer’s primary point of contact day-to-day, and able to work through technical details of the project. 7.​ All of the respondents were comfortable with an “Open Book” financial and management approach in which the developer-partner shares detailed cost and financial information with the City throughout the project. The idea is to create full transparency and allow both sides to make decisions based on actual costs and performance rather than fixed assumptions. This approach would allow easier negotiation through the design process and provide the City more control over the costs it’s willing to incur. 8.​ P3 would be helpful to leverage specialized experience with redevelopment of a large historic building such as Mahoney, allowing project management to be overseen by the developer-partner, and spreading risks across the partnership. Next Steps 9.​ Many of the questions around development models, cost, design, etc. cannot yet be answered, and it is recommended that the City identify a developer-partner and commit to a due diligence period to fully investigate all options and opportunities. Page 3 of 4 Page 9 of 10 10.​The P3 Subcommittee is recommending that the City solicit proposals and identify a developer-partner to engage with exclusively to develop a project that delivers all (or most) of the City’s goals and priorities and determine what the cost of such a project would be. The agreement should be written to allow the City and Developer-Partner to progress to subsequent phases of design and construction once the City approves the project as conceived at the outcome of the due diligence period. Page 4 of 4 Page 10 of 10