MANAGER’S REPORT
For Council Meeting
August 1, 2006  

      TO:  MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:  Terry St. Peter, City Manager
DATE:   July 28, 2006 

The first item on the agenda is a discussion of whether to submit to the voters in November an advisory referendum on whether to maintain the existing 75,000 square foot limit on commercial stores (other than the voter-approved higher square footage on Searsport Ave.) or to remove the limit, or establish a new one. 

Mayor Hurley asked that this item be placed on the Council agenda at this time, since the window of opportunity for submitting a referendum question is narrowing. Such a decision will have to be made during August to be in time for a November ballot.  

The Retail Review Commission, which has been meeting since the first of this year, recommends against having a size cap referendum, and that recommendation statement is included in this packet (green). Now the decision resides with the elected City Council. 

What the Council needs to consider is whether to submit such a referendum to the voters at all, and if so, what the wording should be, and what location(s) might be included. What probably is not a valid consideration is whether to defer a decision to another voting election period, unless it is understood that it will be at least two years later. 

This November election will be a major election, with the Governor’s office, Congressional seats, a U.S. Senate position, and all state offices on the ballot. Outside of a presidential election, this election should draw the most voters. Beyond this November, there is no election, until the 2008 Presidential contest, that will draw anywhere near the voter turnout. 

So, this discussion effectively will have to focus on whether to have a referendum ballot on “big boxes” at all, not when.  The Council clearly does not need a referendum, since it has the authority to 1. keep the present size limitation or 2. lift the present size limitation. However, the Council’s decision in that regard would be done in the face of two, possibly conflicting, public referendum votes, one advisory one which approved a 75,000 square foot limit city wide, and one mandatory one which raised the 75,000 square foot limit in one particular area—an area which most developers and community planners consider a poor location for big stores. Further, a Council vote to lift the 75,000 limit in commercial zones, while legal, would be contradictory to a previously held referendum vote.  A third, more clearly articulated, referendum question could give the Council guidance, if it so chooses. 

Referendum or no, the issue for the Council should be narrowed to land use considerations only, i.e., impact on traffic, noise, lighting, neighborhoods, and the like, as opposed to whether the community “needs” more shopping outlets, or different types, or even “wants” more. Governments, as political institutions, are not normally asked whether to decide whether there should be an additional car dealership, or bank, or even an additional grocery store. These are economic, private market decisions, not government ones. Government determines the “public” requirements, such as traffic plans, buffer zones, protection of water table and natural resources, and demands on public services. 

It is probably not necessary for the Council to make this decision Tuesday night. This item merely initiates the thought and debate process of whether to go forward, and, if so, how. The deadline for a decision, however, would be August 15, the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, unless you decided you wanted to call a special meeting sometime between the 15^th and the 31^st. 

I think the Mayor or someone should have a draft ballot question ready for discussion Tuesday night. 

11C. HarborWalk.  As you recall, some time ago the Council awarded an engineering contract to Milone and MacBroom, Inc. to plan the proposed walkway along the Belfast Harbor. This walkway would be funded from Tax Increment Financing funds, a large part of which was anticipated from the Stinson redevelopment project. While that project has been delayed, we do expect it to continue, in time, in one fashion or another. In the meantime, we should proceed with our own planning. 

Dave Bragg of Milone and MacBroom –and other company representatives—will be at the meeting Tuesday night to present information that they have gathered and discuss with the Council possible options for the walkway. This is a workshop-type discussion that is intended to give the engineering firm direction indicating the Council’s wishes on the nature of the walkway. Our goal is to develop a specific plan and a valid cost estimate so that we will be prepared to solicit a construction contract when the time is right. It will also be helpful to have a cost estimate to include in the TIF application currently being prepared. 

11D. Peirce School.  As we expected-- or feared-- in recent months, the lease for the Peirce School is coming to a close. We have been informed by the directors of the school, once called Walsingham Academy and more recently Peirce Christian School, that they have determined they don’t have sufficient participation to continue. I expect Board Chairman David Crabiel to be present Tuesday night to address the Council on this. 

I expected that we might have in time for this Manager’s Report a letter of interest from another school group, but I do not have it at this writing. I am sure we will hear from them Tuesday evening. 

That may be one option for consideration, depending on the details of that school group’s proposal. 

Another possible, and desirable, use would be to convert the building into a professional office building. This of course would require a zoning change. But this use likely would have no or minimal impact on the neighborhood, so it is a notion that should not be dismissed totally. 

Some quick background on this notion: because of inadequate office space in Belfast, we have witnessed the loss of jobs from this community, particularly to the recently renovated former Nautica building in Rockland. In fact, that Nautica building illustrates what can be done to retain and/or attract jobs. They have converted that former manufacturing facility into first class office (and, in their case, retail) space and are in the process of filling it up. 

When we had the police station, before renovation, we were approached by the state to use the second floor for their offices. We agreed and were well along in our negotiations when the state, because of a shortage of funding, had to back off. We were able to proceed to lease the space to the U.S. Coast Guard and to Mid-Coast Mental Health Center. The state, with new funding, came back interested in renting space again, and we had to tell them we didn’t have any. They did not find adequate space elsewhere in Belfast in the private market, and I think many of those offices ended up in Rockland. 

That’s history. What can happen in the future, I don’t know. I am merely pointing this out because we never know when there are new opportunities. 

I did have some interesting discussions about this during my day-long board/staff outing for EMDC on Thursday. We discussed some possibilities, both for office usage and perhaps as an economic enhancement facility, and agreed to continue to explore possibilities. 

I do not know at this point what the best recommendation for a new use, or lease, or sale, of the Peirce School should be. I do think we need to be aware of all of the options and possibilities as we proceed with our deliberations. 

Obviously, we’ll talk a lot more about the facility Tuesday evening. 

11E. Summer Festival. This is the first year in –how many?—that Belfast has not had a major summer festival, such as the Broiler Festival or the Bay Festival. If we want something in the community next year, we should commence talking about it now. 

I hope that some representatives of the Belfast Bay Festival organization can be present Tuesday night and that we may look at having representatives of various city departments and other groups for an initial planning session for another year.

11F. Footbridge Celebration.  The successful completion of the footbridge restoration is approaching, and I know that the Council, and other folks, wants to have a celebration and dedication of this restored footbridge. One of the items for the celebration would include operating fireworks off the footbridge. That will take some money. We have been talking about re-allocating funds in the current budget to do that. We have $10,000 budgeted for an engineering analysis of widening a section of the Robbins Rd. I doubt it will take that much at all. The Council could vote to authorize that money to be used for fireworks (estimated at $7,000) and other items for the bridge ceremony. Those other items would include items for sale, with the proceeds being used to replenish part of this account, so that some engineering study for the Robbins could still be conducted.  

11G. Committee appointments.  As you know, there is an opening on the Business Development Committee. Former Councilor and current state representative Walter Ash Jr. has expressed interest in this committee (see letter, goldenrod), and is being recommended by Councilor Roberts.  

11H. Personnel Policy amendment. You’re familiar with this one since it was introduced at the last Council meeting. This is first reading, with a public hearing and second reading, scheduled for the next Council meeting. 

11I. Emergency Management Ordinance. Same as above. 

11J. Waiving deed restriction.  In 1987, the city sold a parcel of land in the then Industrial Park to Kenneth Nickerson to be used as Larrabee Bros. plumbing supply. The owner now wishes to sell off a section of that land, and the Business Development Committee has agreed to the sale. The deed, however, contains a restriction that says, “The herein described premises may not be subdivided.” 

That provision may have had some value when the lot was sold in the industrial park, but now, almost 20 years later, it has no meaning to the community. In fact, it is probably counter-productive: preventing the land from being sold would hurt the owner, and it would hurt the city since there would be no other use occurring on the land. So, it seems the appropriate thing to do is to ask the Council to vote to waive the deed restriction. 

That’s all I have for this report.