Economic Development Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2018-06-05

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