Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-20 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes � I , BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE � October 20, 2004 Minutes ' Councilor Attendance: Palmer, D'Errico, Farrington, Greene, Tremble Staff Attendance: McKay, Bates, Barrett , Others: Vincent Franco 1. Vincent Franco - Downtown Development District ' Mr. Franco requested an opportunity to meet with the Committee to discuss the inclusion of his single-family residential property at the corner of � Summer and Cedar Streets in the Downtown Development District. He has reviewed the matter with staff without satisfaction, and continues to contend ' that his property should be excluded from this District and the additional DDD tax that is levied. ' Bates said this is this only Single family home in the Downtown Development District as a result of the waterFront area becoming part of the DDD. As a result, Mr. Franco was received an extra assessment on his properly. ' Franco thanked the Committee for its time. He has resided at this property since 1970. He is receiving a property tax assessment and now the Downtown Development District tax levy. He is being treated differently than other single- ' family residents of the City, and he feels it is grossly unfair. It also violates taxation laws in that taxes are to be applied in an equitable and fair manner. He was advised to appear before the Committee not because of any dissatisfaction , with City staff but to bring it before the Committee for review and resolution. Franco is assessed an additional $60.95 for the DDD tax levy for this current year. This assessment has been in place for 2-3 years. Farrington talked about ' the principle of the tax as opposed to the amount of the tax. He asked about the differentiation between residence and commercial. He also asked if the benefits , to the residential are less than those of the commercial owners and, therefore, do not justify as much tax. He asked if a single residential dwelling has more or less benefit than the other residential properties in the downtown area. , McKay said a similar issue arose several years ago; i.e. should downtown buildings with apartment units be taxed. At that time, the Council decided it was , a question of benefit to the owners from the DDD. He spoke of the benefits of the bicycle control providing additional securiry, public improvement activities such as improvements to Summer Street, and the waterfront. In Hamer's , memo to the Committee, the question was raised as to how to exclude a property from the District. The subject property is in the center of the District. , , , Farrington said it is not a question of multi-family housing but a single , family. He asked again if there is any justification to differentiate. � Speaking in general terms as to whether residents receive benefits from being in the DDD, Bates said there is a category of downtown resident owners , and the activities of the Bangor Center Corporation that contribute to the desirability of the properties in the downtown. Bates said the only distinction between Mr. Franco's home and other DDD residents is that his is a single family � home. Farrington indicated he sees no difference between a single family and a multi-family residence and, if one was exempted, others would follow suit. Barrett said that if a property is to be exempt that the existing district , boundary lines need to be re-drawn. D'Errico asked the differentiation between a condo and a single family home. Barrett said the only difference is the ' element of joint ownership. Palmer asked Franco what his goal is in this issue. Franco said it is a , matter of principle only. As an owner of a single-family residence in Bangor, he feels he is being treated differently than owners of single family residences ' elsewhere. He doesn't feel he receives additional benefits. Regarding the proposed widening of Cedar Street, he indicated problems when some area streets were recently shut off and tra�c was detoured to Cedar Street. , Palmer said the Council is reluctant to change the boundary lines of the Downtown Development District. He asked if there was some creative way to , handle it. Greene asked if the policy could be rewritten to exclude single family residences. Barrett said it is not allowable under State Statute. McKay said the only way to exempt the property is to re-draw the District boundaries and would , have to include the ceramic building on the corner of Main and Cedar Streets. Bates asked if a new ordinance could be created that would allow the city ?? to a single family home within a DDD. Barrett said the Bangor Center Corporation , Board of Directors would most likely oppose it. Barrett suggested that Bates speak with the Board of Directors to see if they can include something in their � budget that would reimburse Mr. Franco for the historical maintenance of his building as well as keeping it as a single family dwelling. McKay said the Ciry could see if there are services and improvements that could be provided to the ' DDD that relate to Mr. Franco's property. A motion was made by Councilor Farrington to deny the request of Mr. , Franco to abate the DDD tax and to seek other avenues of recognizing the unique situation of Mr. Franco's single-family residence in the DDD. The motion was seconded by Councilor Greene. ' , � ' , 2. Executive Session — Negotiations for Properly Disposition - Development Proposal Farm Road & Maine Business Enterprise Park — 1 M.R.S.A. ' § 405(6)(C) - (Confidential Memorandum provided separately) (Masonic Property Exchange) , A motion was made, seconded and approved without objection to go into ' executive session to discuss negotiations involving a development proposal received by the City for City property on the Farm Road and in the Maine Business Enterprise Park. The Committee deemed that Councilor Farrington, a , member of the Mason's, did not have a conflict of interest. The executive session ended. The Committee took no action. , 3. 6cecutive Session — Negotiations for Property Disposition - Development Proposal Union Street— 1 M.R.S.A. § 405(6)(C) - (Confidential ' Memorandum provided separately) (Slager Property Interest) ' A motion was made, seconded and approved without objection to go into executive session to discuss negotiations involving a development proposal received by the City for City property on Union Street. The executive session ' ended. The Committee took no action. , ' ' � , ' , , �