Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-11 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes , BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE � August 11, 2004 Minutes , Councilor Attendance: Palmer, Cashwell, D'Errico, Farrington, Greene , Staff Attendance: McKay, Barrett, Bates Others: John Rohman, BDN reporter ' 1. Review of Draft Municipal Cultural Plan , Rohman expressed kudos for the draft plan that has been developed by , City staff. He said a number of communities, specifically Lewiston, Auburn, and Portland, have a piece that is part of a cultural plan but none address the issues that Bangor has tackled in broad base with this piece. , Staff has taken the cultural plan as part of its comprehensive plan. The cultural plans ties in with the creative economy concept which has been promoted by the Governor and which was discussed at the Blaine House , Conference in May of 2004. It states that an active vital communiry, specifically a downtown community, is key to economic development for any type of growth in a creative economy sector. Rohman referred the ' draft plan citing a municipal development district known as the Bangor Center Management District as Bangor's arts and cultural district. ' Rohman indicated it is very significant in that it creates a physical boundary area that can be capitalized on with other groups; i.e. the State, EMDC. Farrington asked if the municipal downtown district is the same ' as the Bangor Center Management District. Rohman said he suspects there will be the same boundaries and it will be called both names. As an art district, the Ciry can capitalize on the art dollars from the groups such , as the Maine Arts Commission. Referring to the section dealing with a strong collaboration with the University of Maine, Rohman said the ties have become stronger with the University of Maine Museum of Art. ' Rohman had met with Robert Kennedy, who has been named Acting President of the University of Maine, who wishes to maintain the strong relationship and ties. Rohman then talked about the section dealing with ' collaboration, partnership and criteria. Being on the Arts Commission, Rohman has noticed a difficulty in trying to quantify the success of a ' particular initiative and then to justify its continuance in future years. Rohman suggested incorporating some level of ineasurement on what a group says they will do and what they actually do. As an example, ' Rohman said if a group wants to do a weekly Twilight series on the waterfront and seeks financial backing from the City Council, the Council � , ' ' then needs to ask the benefit to be provided to the community. The promoter might estimate 200 in attendance. There needs to be a tmeasure in place to be certain of the attendance number. Cashwell asked about the section dealing with commissioners asking if it was limiting in terms of required credentials. He thought there might be an individual ' who does not have art experience but may have broad experience in fundraising. Bates said it includes but is not limited to the listed areas. ' Rohman said the Arts Commission has the same criteria in some ways but also has members at large. Rohman suggested Bangor might consider two members at large that do not come from the same set of criteria. Cashwell suggested the commission be made up of at least 4 with defined ' requirements, 2 with an interest in the area, and 1 City Councilor. � Bates expressed apologies for her late attendance. Taking into account the comments expressed, she said the plan could be revised accordingly and then presented to full Council for its approval. It would first require ' the Committee's recommendation. Farrington commended Bates for her excellent work in putting the plan together. Regarding the recommendation section, specifically the annual appropriations, Farrington ' said that previous concern has been expressed to commit a level of appropriation. He said he is reluctant to set an amount and said that a ' process should be in place to see what is available each year. Bates said she had thought about this, and she did seek the advice of the City's Finance Director. Bates said that the commission would be advising the ' Council on an amount to set aside. She also talked about building up a reserve in anticipation of worthy future projects. Farrington asked if the Council would set an amount each year during the budget process or on a , percentage basis. Bates did not recommend a percentage. Regarding the reserve, Farrington asked how often Bates felt the commission would not spend what was granted each year. Bates said it would depend upon the ' commissioners. Greene said the plan states that staff will chose an annual appropriation and the amount budgeted is established during the overall City budgeting process. He asked when the groups would appear ' before the City; i.e. the budget process. Bates said the commission would be a year-round working group with subcommittees. The commission , would come to the Council during the budget review process. Groups should be coming to the commission with their formal requests on a quarterly basis. Cashwell asked if other groups; i.e. The Folk Festival, ' Bangor Symphony, etc., would go through the commission. Bates said there would be hvo subcommittees. One's primary task will be to review funding requests and would be making a recommendation to the Council. ' Cashwell asked if the annual contribution should be in the context of a five-year plan. Bates agreed that it needs to be more specific in the plan under the Cultural Advisory Commission section and duties of the ' � � commission. During the most recent budget deliberations, Farrington � said Council had spoken of having Ciry department presentations being � made in December rather than in the spring of the year and he hoped that the commission would provide input to the Council during December as well. Greene said there should be an education vehicle put out by the , City to interested groups asking them to work more in advance. Bates said it could be done and suggested a distinct funding calendar. D'Errico said he interprets clear Council control over the commission's ' recommendations in the draft policy and he felts very comfortable with it. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the , Municipal Cultural Plan with the previously discussed recommendations to the full City Council. Palmer asked that the funding aspects be clarified prior to it going to the ' Council level. He also recommended the plan should be reviewed by the ' Finance Committee. Bates agreed that the Finance Director should be given the opportunity to review the plan with the Finance Committee. A motion was made and seconded to recommended approval of the , Municipal Cultural Plan via the Finance Commi ttee. F a r r i n g t o n a g r e e d with D'Errico's statement that within the plan there is a check and balance , i n p i ace and that the plan doesn't need to go to the Finance Committee. Cashwell agreed with Farrington that it is contained in t he p lan bu t wi t h the Finance Committee meeting prior to the next Council meeting that it ' wouid be a prudent step to hear the Finance Director's interpretation of the logistics of the plan. Palmer feels this item needs further discussion in terms of the financial portion. Paimer asked if further discussion was , needed on the motion to place the plan on the Finance Committee agenda. Without objection, the plan will be referred to the Finance ' Committee and then on to the fuli Council. 2. Review of April 10, 2003 Request for Proposals for Development of , Penobscot Riverfront Development Project to determine if it complies with recent direction of the City Finance Committee regarding RFPs. McKay said a detailed RFP was issued in 2000. Qualifications were first , requested and reviewed and then went through the process of soliciting proposais. In 2003, the City issued the April 10"' RFP which was scaled , down from the information requested in the 2000 version. Concept plans were not required as part of the proposal process. In reading through the scaled down version of the RFP, McKay feit that perhaps it did meet the � requirements and guidelines that were provided to the staff by the Finance Committee two weeks ago. Staff also reviews RFPs with the � � ' ' Committee prior to issuance. When issuing RFP's in 2000 for the waterfront, there were 36 acres of property, several different elements, ' and a lot of information was requested from the developers. In 2003, staff understood that a large amount of detail should not be requested, ' and the information required was scaled back. The City did not require that plans be submitted with the proposal, but did request information from the developer in terms of who they were, where they were located, ' their building experience, etc. in order to have enough information to determine that they had a good concept of their proposal and that it was something the City would like to see developed. Proposals were received ' and, if the Council wanted to further consider them, additional information was requested from the developer leading to eventually developing a development agreement. In response to Palmer's question, McKay said ' this covered the entire waterfront, but the City indicated it would review any proposal even if it didn't encompass the entire waterfront. In terms of housekeeping, Palmer asked that waterfront be changed to riverfront. ' In speaking about the current RFP, Farrington asked how many of the 10 points were included. The 10 points were established at the last BED meeting. McKay said the RFP issued on April 10, 2003, has the essential ' information the Council and Committee would need to determine if they want to proceed with the proposal received. From that point on, , additional information could be requested. At the Finance Committee meeting, it was requested that the developer be identified, residence, the type of proposal, their experience, not a lot of investment or in-kind � monies required by the proposer. The current RFP covers the guidelines suggested by the Finance Committee more than the RFP issued for Union Place. Each RFP is tailored for each different development. McKay ' solicited comments from the Committee members as to how they feel the RFP can be further improved. Palmer suggested this item be carried into another meeting in order to give the Committee an opportunity to review ' the document. Farrington agreed. His concern with the RFP process to date is not with the technical part but with, whether it is perception or reality, that the City has a double standard. Whatever is decided on, at ' the minimum, the City has to require all proposers to follow the guidelines. Cashwell suggested a statement"your application will be t taken seriously if we can check off the following portions, etc." and "you are absolutely required to comply with the following." "Failure to comply will cause the proposal to be rejected." He thinks that a scoring sheet or ' checklist for a proposal received would eliminate potential problems or conflict. A motion was made and seconded to table this item to the next BED Committee meeting agenda with a concept for an adequacy checklist. � McKay said he would prepare a generic RFP which will incorporate the comments made at the Finance Committee and this evening's meeting. ' ' � 3. Executive Session — Land Disposition Negotiations —Baldacci / Forsley , proposal - 1 M.R.S.A. § 405(6)(C) Negotiations for the disposition of ' publicly held property. A motion was made and seconded to go into Executive Session. , A motion was made and seconded to go out of Executive Session. A motion was made and seconded to reject the RFP as has been ' submitted. ' ' , , , � , , , � ' I 1 �