Standish council weighs public works impact fee, reviews town-owned land

[8:11] Council Chair (presiding officer): Good evening everybody. We're going to call this meeting to order. Well, I'll stand for a pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And then we just kick stuff off with a roll call. So I'll just go down starting left to right here. So. [8:39] Councilor (roll-call member): Whoa,, Ron here Watson here Thomas here to be streaming here then sent us an email that he is. Yeah. Great. Thank you. [8:57] Council Chair (presiding officer): So, new business or the business for tonight, I'd like to make a motion to amend the agenda. I'd like to move the discussion of the impact these and potential for public works facility fee. 1st, all in favor of amending the order. That's unanimous. Great. So who is here to discuss the impact fees? [9:18] Town staff / impact fee presenter: We all are for sure. But I'll start with a quick presentation and just a couple of things. Hopefully,, in the memo, it was clear that we're obviously here to discuss the possibility of a public board fee, which we for the, for our new facility, which we currently don't have. And again, in fact, these are there to pay, you know, they're assessed a new growth for capital improvements. Therefore, yeah, 1 of the questions we have to answer is. Is do we want 1 and what ends up being the percentage share versus existing residents versus new residents? So, again, existing fees and standish, and hopefully it was kind of clear that the comparison in the memo, the apples, the apples, different towns was very hard. It's a lot of the towns have different fees that are independent just like standish. But some are just hard to research and get into but again Standish has a public safety fee a rec fee open space fee a road impact fee which again varies by project and the Route 25 corridor which captures development putting traffic So, those are the existing fees, and again, just as a way to see what they measure and the reasons for them, open space wreck and public safety hit any, new dwelling unit through 25. Again, it's only for trips going into the corridor and the public works fee would be assessed potentially to both residential and non residential development. And the way that would be broken out, it would basically put in the ordinance how that would be broken out. I don't have that draft ordinance ready tonight, but it obviously will be put forward through ordinance committee and ultimately council decision. But, you know, basically you think of it, like, you know, a new dwelling unit would generate 1 primary trip. So they'd be assessed a 1 time fee of 2200 dollars or whatever. I said, 2210. Different commercial development but so different trips on the street so again but that would all be that would all be laid out in a table in the ordinance. Skip that slide, actually skip both of those slides. And again so what is a primary trip? It's basically the main reason that you leave the house. It doesn't doesn't count, doesn't count passed by or diverted trips, and we get those numbers out of the ITE, which is the for the traffic engineer's bible I think is the way to describe that so Again those numbers will go directly in the ordinance to capture whatever the fee would be for the use of that of that development. And this just gives you an example, you know, dwelling unit would be one per unit, so the fee would be the proposed fee would be 20 to 10 if you wanted to do the share that was proposed in the memo or another. You know if some another number was or another share was discussed, you know, that number would be lower or higher. A small office for example would generate two per thousand square feet. So that fee for them would be forty four twenty one. Different things like banks obviously generate a lot more trips. So banks would be much higher. I don't know if you had any questions about the open space side. I don't want necessarily want to spend time on the open space, but if you want to meet to go through the calculations on the existing open space fee, this is kind of how it's broken out. It's broken out by what we have now for. Town owned vacant land as kind of a standard, which is under 98 acres, excluding town hall, and you basically get a standard by dividing that by the existing population total. And then. You try to average a cost per resident or you know cost per acre, which is 17 to 1 to 8 1, that number was calculated in 24, so my goal is to look at that number this fall and see if that needs to be adjusted in any way. But so that's how you get the proposed is a current fee of $39,000, $38,000, $66,000 for open space, and the memo always suggested to cut that in half, but that's up for discussion. So again, the fees in other towns, again, these all should be asterisks, you know, I did the best I could with building permit fees. You got the impact fees on the left, building permit fees on the right, and a combined total. This research was mostly done in June, so it may, you know, towns may have added other fees since then. I think Scarborough actually did add another fee since then, so it's even higher. But again, it's hard to compare apples to apples with some location dependent projects in every town, but these kind of give you an idea of where Standish is at with the other towns. I did assume that projects in other towns work hitting every fee, so this is like, you know, a project that was going to trigger all the things that I could find in the right-hand column. So again, this is just a, shows you the table if Public Works goes at 75-25 cost split and recreation gets halved, that kind of shows the new table on the left is what we currently have, and then on the right would be what potentially would [Councilor (public works facility advocate): would have so] again these are just our baseline and the road fee and the corridor fee added up together, so kind of shows you what each project generates in town, $62.81 for everything possibly, $11.686 for a project that would hit all the fees. So those are kind of, that's kind of quick. I'm happy to take questions, but the memo was suggested to bring in public works at 7525 cost share. And then have recreation table relatively unchanged. But again, all that's under discussion. If. If the overall fees increase, we can lower that share for Public Works, so it bumps it up where we can keep rec higher, anything that's on the table in terms of that. [16:19] Councilor (public works facility advocate): I'd like to say, as you know, I've taken you mostly all through this facility, and I hope that you see the need for the facility like I do myself, that this is like a savings account that we can use to pay debt reduction as an impact fee. It's not till we get the most amount of money. If the town were to vote to bond the money, the money can be used to make the bond payment every year with that. It's just, you know, we, you as a council can decide how to use that. But when we went through and talked with Ben, his recommendation was, let's just stick with the building because could we use it for impact of trucks or other infrastructure? Yes, we could, but his recommendation when I'm saying, Ben, that's a town lawyer. Sorry to say that was to stick with the 1 thing to let's keep it narrow, and that's what we need for infrastructure within the town. And, like I said, this is a savings account. We can wait till we determine to 1. it is. This isn't saying that we've picked a lot and we've picked the size of the building. This is about we went with conservative numbers to come up with this. What is the impact fee? So, like, when we look at them, when I say the moody load brought up by the transfer station, the estimate for that lot was like, 16M dollars for the total of what we're looking at, but we went with the other lot, but we're not saying that's it. That was almost a 11M dollar build to come up with. So we took the lesser the numbers with that. It can change over the time with that with what we decide to go with. This isn't saying that we've picked this lot and this is what we're going with. We went with conservative to try to say, let's start the savings account. Let's get this in place. So, when we're having this future building come in that they're contributing to it. I think we'll hear to talk a little bit, like, the general public has a certain cost to the building already to get it to what we're here about. And that's roughly about a 5Million dollar number. If I recall to that, like, the general taxpayers are responsible to get that too, but the future growth can be contributed to that. Whatever is beyond that number to get us there that the impact fee money can be used for. [18:34] Will Haskell, civil engineer, LJB Engineering: That 5Million dollars kind of a scale back project too. It wasn't. Correct everything that we [18:45] Councilor (public works facility advocate): tried to be conservative is where we're going with that. That to make it so we're not, you know, like,, Zach, I believe we could charge almost 20,000 dollars for what if we wanted to for that, but that's not realistic to keep. The town builders building in town and stuff like that. I mean, that's ultimately your decision on what you want to charge and that's why the 7525 came in that we stay within that guideline. We feel that would be appropriate for that. [19:11] Council Chair (presiding officer): I'll open up to if there's anybody from the public wants to ask questions 1st, and then we'll come to the council. Okay. No questions. Any anything from the council we want to ask questions. Yes. Go ahead. [19:26] Councilor (Lisa): Lisa, 50% of the public works is attributed to future growth. Why are we only allocating 25% just to a new growth and 75% to already here? [19:44] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Again, that was just that was just an example of what a policy decision that could be made. Right? Where did those numbers come from? Is it logistical? Is it logical or is it just something that we put out there? Is there a reason behind those? The percentages they were suggested was because it would keep the overall impact fees throughout. You know, if that if public works came in at 7525, and we have the wreck that would keep the overall impact fee total roughly the same is where I was where we were going with what he's saying. [20:15] Councilor (public works facility advocate): This is 6281 to 6522. It's roughly no change to what we currently charge overall. [20:21] Town staff / impact fee presenter: All so that's where he or that's what yeah that was the reasoning kind of behind it again it's, you know, if it was 50-50 that I'd obviously bump that number up and then you just have to, you know, if you do that you just have to consider commercial development maybe generating more than one trip and so, you know, if they're generating 10 trips that's gonna add up quickly that's, you know, just so there's all things that you have to consider but yeah that was where originally when the 75-25 came was Just kind of keeping the overall cost around the same anybody else yeah attacking on that the 75-25 if we asked new construction to take a bigger piece of it when you say that would impact, you know, raise the numbers ballpark how much so the hundred percent of so twenty thousand wasn't quite accurate there I think a hundred percent if you wanted to charge a hundred percent to new development sorry let me just it would be 44 roughly 4400 wait me so that would probably bump it up to 8,500 with 9,000 base 20,000. No, so 75 gives you 2210. That would be so this is the town share. So I have 2210 times for right? So if it went to 50, it would double that on that. So this number, this column represents the improvements for future growth to be financed by the existing residents. So this will put 50 on the existing and 50 on new. And then if, so that would increase it to 4421 if it was a 50-50 split per trip. My thought on that is to keep our existing residents as close to where they are as possible. See where we can find ways to raise the other money, but I understand the balance better. [22:34] Councilor (motion-maker): well John I 'm fine with the residential side I'm worried about the commercial side that we're going to make it too expensive for any new businesses to come into town can we does it have to be the same percentages across the board [22:50] Speaker H (unidentified): for both commercial and residential? Well, when we talk about like percentage primary trips, did you see that in the column? Is that like in those numbers you [23:01] Will Haskell, civil engineer, LJB Engineering: you can, yeah, you can set those wherever you want. I think you want to set the trip rates based on a standard like ITE, yeah, but percent of primary trips, you can adjust that number from 100 to, you know, whatever you want. So you can lower this point, a medical office at 50 [23:24] Town staff / impact fee presenter: if you want it, or whatever you want. Okay, yeah, so we could, if you, if you were interested in that, we could definitely go 100% on residential and then look at commercial, commercialize different percentages. Yeah, I'd be interested in. And I know it's hard about seeing the table myself, but the table would lay out how many trips and what the percentage would be, and they don't have the exact number in the table. But we would, we would bring that to ordinance and actually back to council for. [23:52] Councilor (roll-call member): That's something that will, you just introduce yourself and where you're from? We have some new council that I'm not sure who. [23:59] Will Haskell, civil engineer, LJB Engineering: My name is Will Haskell. I'm a civil engineer at LJB Engineering, formerly Girl Plumber, the impact fee ordinance and some other things associated [24:23] Councilor (public works facility advocate): he's the municipal lead for [24:25] Will Haskell, civil engineer, LJB Engineering: the Department of Cards. That's correct, just [24:29] Council Chair (presiding officer): gonna second a second what Jen was saying. If we can kind of do something to encourage business growth and manage residential growth a little more, I think that's, it's no secret where my stance is on residential growth, so, and trying to encourage more business, so, but I don't have any other questions, just that kind of thing, a good number [24:50] Councilor (public works facility advocate): is 50 percent, so 50 for residential or more, or more, and then what was the reasoning other [24:59] Council Chair (presiding officer): than reducing sticker shock for cutting the wreck to 50 instead of 100? Was it just trying to [25:06] Town staff / impact fee presenter: get the numbers similar? Yeah, just, you know, in time to keep the overall impact fee total roughly the same. We brought in record 100% of new growth and not, we didn't make a, we didn't decide to put any on existing. [25:18] Councilor (roll-call member): I also had a conversation with Matt and he said, like, he loves the idea of land preservation, but there's not a ton of land to preserve here. And then he was more concerned, like, I would like to have other things, but then those other things might not qualify. So, he said, like, I'd like to save some for a playground, but that isn't like a doable thing. So he was fine with cutting that number down. I think the other thing was, we didn't expect to get the tractor all in year. All in year 1. [25:46] Councilor (motion-maker): Yep, so I think it's fair to scale it back. Yep. [25:51] Council Chair (presiding officer): Any other questions or comments from the council as far as the impact fees. [25:58] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Yes, Jeff, let's see. Sorry. You've actually answered a few already. Already. Actually, I'm pretty good. I do have a general question here about just kind of where we are now. So somebody who bought 10 years ago, as opposed to a new one, that person who's been here for a decade, I mean, what percentage of their fees and their taxes are going for the public works and how would this change impact so this would only apply to new development it wouldn't capture that's why it's that's why we're having like that's kind of where the policy comes in about you know what falls on the existing residents versus what falls on new growth because these numbers are just going to be Going out to the new growth 10 years ago I'm pretty sure we just had a road impact fee I just started this a couple of years ago. Yeah. You know, these fees are pretty new. The rank and public safety fees are 20 to 24 so it's all pretty new. And, you know, I think I want to clarify some a question that you had asked it's at the time most of these fees are at the time of pulling of a building permit. [27:28] Councilor (motion-maker): So, if someone has owned land in town for 10 years, and now they're just deciding to build, they're going to be paying those growth if they, yes, if,. [27:38] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Whoever, like, I said, some of the fees coming in at the planning board stage, like, the corridor fee will come in at the planning board stage. Because that requires more work between, to figure that number out, but, if somebody's just doing a subdivision, they're going to, you know, they're going to get hit with the building. The building permit comes in. [27:57] Councilor (Lisa): Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Lisa. I think I agree with down the road here. I think I would like to see a higher percentage put on new resident because they're going to be the ones creating the traffic and a little bit less on incoming business just to make it more enticing. If you could work up a couple different examples that would be, it would be helpful to see it in like full table form. Yeah, I think I think I agree with that. Put a little bit more on the new residents coming in and to kind of curb that slightly. For now, we're not saying don't come in, we're saying it's going to curb it slightly and they're going to be the huge benefactors of all of the road work and the plowing and. [28:39] Councilor (public works facility advocate): All that stuff. To put it in terms of what I'm hearing, it's almost like a 50%. From the 25 for an increase to resident 50%, but a reduction. [28:48] Town staff / impact fee presenter: So, I can go 25 on commercial and 50 on resident. Because the resident, if the president goes to 50, it'd be 44, something per trip. [28:58] Councilor (public works facility advocate): You have to look at a single family, like, or do you want to see business around 1200, like, at 12 and a half, I guess is where I'm going again. [29:07] Town staff / impact fee presenter: It's hard. I know. It's hard. I can show you per trip cost. My other concern is. [29:13] Councilor (motion-maker): is whatever number we assign to residential is going to impact the ability of families to pass land along. So you have a family that's got 20 acres and now the kids are old enough to start having their own homes. And we wanna try and keep people in town, but now the kids have to account for these building permits. And so I think we need to keep that in mind as well, Because we're going to be pushing out our own residents. I don't know how you fix that. [29:50] Councilor (public works facility advocate): See, based on that almost like leaving the current 1 at the 25% and a 12.5 for that unless you want to see the residential higher than the current. [30:02] Council Chair (presiding officer): I think I think it might be good if we brought back several iterations. Yeah. Yeah, you know, and what that numbers actually look like at twelve and a half versus twenty five versus fifty versus seventy five, et cetera. I agree. [30:15] Councilor (Lisa): I bet I'm okay with cutting the parks in Iraq and open spaces. I'm okay with cutting that a little bit. So, lighten the blow and add it into public works. I think. [30:25] Town staff / impact fee presenter: I think public works is more important to myself if you put 75% on residential, that's going to be basically 6600 for. for a new residence, a new single family. [30:36] Council Chair (presiding officer): Which puts us about right in the ballpark, in the middle ground of all the other surrounding towns, without looking at the numbers again. I [30:50] Will Haskell, civil engineer, LJB Engineering: Was just gonna add that based on the, Zach has up here with the different communities, you can see that everybody kind of does it a little bit different. Some people increase their permit fees, the permit application fees versus their impact fees so there's there's different ways to there's a few assumptions that go into this calculate but think about that total number over there and how it compares to your neighbor. [31:38] Councilor (Lisa): Yeah I'd like to see a few more iterations before I could say which way I go percentage-wise. [31:48] Council Chair (presiding officer): Please, I'd like to see at least 3, maybe 4 options. I look at the consensus and kind of want to move in that direction, but I want to see better numbers. Yeah. [32:02] Councilor (Lisa): I do want to see public works get impact the stuff for this building. I want that to happen. I'm a big proponent. Of update in public works, it's just a matter of balancing it for coming new residents versus business. Great. [32:21] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Anything else before just before it was, sorry, Brandon. Basically, are you looking to see the total amount of the fees and standards if we were to say, you know, put 50 on residential. And do you want to see the overall number? Yes, the overall. All right. So comparison, you know, average 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom. With 1 set with a different, and then probably crack out the, commercial as well, because compared to a residential commercial be complicated. Yeah, it's, it's commercial. I can. Different uses generate different trips, but I can certainly put in some examples of grow banks and then retail things like that. [33:10] Council Chair (presiding officer): Great and anything else before we move on to the next agenda item. No, great. Thank you guys. So, let's go on to the reviewing of the tax owned and tax acquired properties, which is a beautiful pamphlet that we got here. Yes. Good job on that. And I personally was pretty shocked to see all the everything that we could get spoiled with this level. And again, just to kind of go over for everybody who's here as a reminder, this was kind of something that we asked for. So we can see what the tax town owns for properties, see what might be a best fit for public works and just kind of give us an overall better understanding of what we have to work with and what we actually do with them. [34:02] Town staff / impact fee presenter: So, is that yeah, so hopefully, obviously, we collected all the properties down into the. Except the ones I think we're currently selling. I currently went through that process, but these include most of the other towns. I mean, most of the other properties, if not all, I think we all here, I don't know if my computer is going to like, if you don't mind not cooperate on this 1. Because, yeah. Yeah, brand of memory in your book, I specifically wanted to talk about 722, 8, 3 and 8, 1, which are 3 properties up on Boundary Road. And 8, 1, 8, 1 is something that the town has, so that means that there's no tax acquired tax required. Limitations on that obviously you see in the memo that there's different you know requirements around tax quality property but the town has it to retain that for municipal use but again I brought this up at Economic Development last month that the town is kind of interested in using these three pieces as recreation, you know, together the 3 pieces are. About over 350 acres together. So it's a lot of land. Obviously, this would be a multi year thing. I guess our focus right now would be on 81, which is the piece that is furniture and is 25 acres or so, but the 2 pieces behind it are tax acquired. And we wouldn't have to go through the process of seeing how much we owe or how much is those back taxes versus what they can appraise for. I think the appraisal could be subtracted from eventually subtracted from what we. Oh, if there's any difference in the back taxes versus market value, so we might have to front that cost up front. Something that we need back and again, it's nice to have the open space impact the money, because that money is also eligible to used to buy back any excess proceeds that the land is worth versus back taxes. So that's something to keep in mind too. There's plenty of money in the open space line, but again, 8 1 doesn't doesn't have any of those requirements. It's there to kind of be used or to want to see what that was for that. Rather than selling it simply retain it for recreational use what eventually happens on that piece you know is a long there's going to be a process to find that out obviously I think you know another playground some fields things like that have been discussed but those are all that's all very early in discussion and up for discussion so again wanted to see full council support on that Economic Development [37:18] Councilor (roll-call member): Our committee supported it, but Zach, we, the idea we talked about it was your idea of maybe selling a chunk off of that and to help pay back those costs. Yeah, I did find out the appraisal. [37:30] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Could we, could get the appraisal money back on the, if we have to appraise the vacuum pieces, but we certainly could sell a chunk to finance any surveys or any engineering to go with how. [37:40] Councilor (roll-call member): We used to land, like is it a three or five acre zone? It's three. Yeah, so maybe sell off a three. [37:46] Town staff / impact fee presenter: 3 acre lot as a house lot, and then that would give us the money survey costs and the hiring of a landscape architect or something to. To kind of model what we wanted to see on it, but,. You know, we would try to solicit public input for that with a survey, see if they had any ideas for it, but obviously we want to see councils general support for it as well. [38:12] Council Chair (presiding officer): I'll just put this into perspective for anybody who might not know that is directly across the street from Steve Paul's elementary. Correct? Yeah. Correct. To the right a little bit a little bit. [38:22] Town staff / impact fee presenter: It's a, if you're on boundary road, it's where the little tip is, as you come around to the school, kind of where it starts. And, like I said, the town owns, I mean, the tax part pieces are, you don't have to go through the hoops a little bit. But if we can I don't think the cost is going to be that much versus back taxes versus what they're going to appraise for and we have we could use. [38:44] Council Chair (presiding officer): Impact fee money for that as well. So that's good. So your proposal is keeping 722, 8183 all for open space rec and recreational use areas? Yeah pretty much. 8183 would be the focus right. [38:56] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Now and see what we can do on that and then 722 and 8183 are the kind of bigger Your pieces that we can maybe have some brand new plans for the mountain division trails slated to go back on 722 at the back because that's where the railroad is. So that would tie in with that as well. Sorry, I don't have the map to join me to grab your mind. I can go grab it. Oh, sorry I mean, that's why the tax credit was in there to kind of show you that there are steps to retaining that land. But nothing like, I don't think I would eventually come back at some point with back taxes on those 2 pieces and see what they are. And then at some point, get an appraisal on them was a proposed timeline. [39:54] Council Chair (presiding officer): As far as, like, selling off the piece, or whatever we're going to do with it had. [40:01] Town staff / impact fee presenter: To sit down more on that 1, Brandon. I think we want to survey if we're going to split a piece off of that front parcel, we would have to survey it. I don't want to venture. I mean, venturing, I guess, anywhere from 3 to 6,000 dollars on that. Probably. Hopefully not on the lower side of that, but we would have to budget that money survey it because we would have to figure out. We want to make sure that deed for that piece would sell is right and we want to know what we have on that. Anything else from the budget that survey cost survey to see what I would like to see there and kind of go from there. [40:48] Councilor (motion-maker): 722 and 83 have you confirmed and you found an owner or do we need to budget legal fees to do that? [40:58] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Which I tried at 1 time, I think that counts is just a little sorry to be completed. I will check. I'll check on that, but I already made my attempts to send something certified to them. [41:11] Speaker H (unidentified): No, I didn't see the response. So. [41:16] Town staff / impact fee presenter: I believe that money would then go to the state. Have to be published in the paper and noticed and things like that but if there if there was a difference between appraisal and market value you know the market value that piece would have to go [41:28] Councilor (public works facility advocate): To the state can I ask a question just because I don't understand does the town have to buy the land above the market value and that will go to the state no basically you have to get the [41:40] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Appraisal I can show you what the land was worth at the time the town tax acquired it so for eight three and seven twenty two that would be 2007 the market they praise will have to tell us what the market what it was worth in 2007 and then we could subtract the taxes would have been paid since then from that if there's a difference if anything like 1970 and prior it's probably a wash and the town can just use that link because the amount of taxes they owe versus what it would have appraised for Is probably more so it's just because these were For the next part, 20 years ago wasn't that does [42:21] Councilor (motion-maker): Town water go down boundary? [42:28] Councilor (public works facility advocate): That was for a portion of the portion of it. Does it go to the school? Yeah, it goes, I don't know how much further it goes past the school goes down to the Australian bridge. Nature's way part of nature's way, I believe, but then they stopped because they needed a pump station. There's also a future development proposed in the area where they'll have to put in a pump station because they're. It's just in the beginning stages, nothing firm, but they're working on that. [42:59] Town staff / impact fee presenter: That's a closed system up there too, so it's basically a well system they have up there. I know the capacity screen limited. Yeah, I think it does run past. [43:10] Will Haskell, civil engineer, LJB Engineering: When they put in that development, it was, it was right on the edge of being enough volume. Yeah. [43:27] Council Chair (presiding officer): Any other questions from the council about this? 1, anything from Tony right [43:36] Speaker I (unidentified): here, please. So, question about the land across from the school. Is that directly across from the school? And it goes to that's a better way to explain it. Where is the old French download? Okay, French town road is an old road. It goes out to the railroad tracks. Where is the railroad tracks to that? [44:06] Speaker H (unidentified): At 722, so this, is the lot that we own. This is 1 of the tax acquired lots behind it. Are we going to do anything with this? The tracks are back here. Are we planning on doing anything with this? I think maybe we want to acquire. [44:21] Speaker I (unidentified): Well, I think someone should be aware of what kind of wetland that is about 50% well, if not more than that quite a bit more than that. And that's probably why the person gave up on paying taxes. They never could do anything with so making plans to use something that you're not going to be able to use. We're just going to have it for hiking trails. Okay. Okay. I'll tell you this. When I was a kid, we were told not to walk out there because people back in the day would come up missing because that mud out there is black mud and it's like quicksand. And all the old time has told us as kids, don't go out there because you might not come back. And it is that bad. I went way steep one time and I didn't know how I was going to get out of it. But I'm just saying it is that bad out there. So, before you make too much future plans and big hope, I hope you guys look into it before we do it. I see hate to say it on the public works, but the building we've had 2 designs already on the building. And now we're looking to another 1. how much money are we going to invest in having people engineer stuff and it just falling on wasted money. So hope we look into it before we do stuff. Thank you. Tony anybody else? [45:41] Council Chair (presiding officer): Is there any other council of questions or comments on this these 3 properties? [45:47] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Okay, Kelsey go over now is there so it seems to be general support for this and obviously it's not going to happen overnight, but some will continue to talk about internally and. They want to see some happening 1 1st, the only property I was going to mention was the middle of the property, which I don't know the math. [46:09] Councilor (public works facility advocate): It's the piece that's, 824, which [46:22] Council Chair (presiding officer): they brand name was it 824? I think. 470 Middle Road. Yeah, this [46:30] Town staff / impact fee presenter: is, I mean, I, the town doesn't have any specific, plans or anything. It's just probably the, it's probably out of the out of the whole inventory book. Book it might be the most valuable piece of town in Lando most valuable piece of land in town so if there was you know like I said I don't I don't really know the town everybody discussed [46:54] Councilor (public works facility advocate): much internally it's goes through to two town roads in the town section I mean my ideal not that you like this word Brendan ideal for development but as far as value wise I would concur with that is the most valuable [47:13] Town staff / impact fee presenter: And if the town did decide to have a council to decide to sell that. You know, they think there could be stipulations on what could go on it. That's always part of part of the sale, but it is, it is a flat piece of acres on 2 roads and it's relatively dry as well. So. So, I just wanted to mention that piece, but other than that, these are, you know, this is just kind of an inventory of everything the town has. There's a couple of pieces in here that are small. I believe. I didn't I had them unknown in the status table up front 24, 11, 12, 17, 53. A, these are small pieces that are mostly surrounded by water district land, I believe. [48:06] Councilor (public works facility advocate): So, the town, I would be in the targeting chip with the water districts here. Here's some pieces of land that the town has, if that ever came up once frontage right on 35, I mean, like, we talked girl Palmer is also looking at this in their feasibility study. But there's talks of form emergent form and wind emerging fire chiefs coming up shortly and they're doing away with certain fire stations. I don't know what I'm not saying North Gorms and disappear with that. Maybe an ideal spot for a fire station right on 35 over there for that area. I'm talking about a central station. I'm just you're talking. I mean, Tasha, we're, we've been trying for the last 2 years to try to do something right next door to here. Andy Sheamus owns that. I spoke to him again today because Tasha spoke to me about it today. And it's a very tough sale because as you know, we are out of land here. What's called impervious area to expand. We can't make this building bigger without doing drastic measures to our stormwater management plan here without having other open land and space to be a part of that here. [49:21] Councilor (roll-call member): And we can, we can't get any land that way. So that's the only piece. And a few years ago we tried and we, I think there was a death. We never, we never went through with the sale of that. [49:33] Councilor (public works facility advocate): So, Seamus is considering a trade, perhaps of land. We showed him the time I've given him the book saying, what can we work out for a deal? Like, and that was his suggestion. Wasn't it? Not sell it to us. [49:51] Will Haskell, civil engineer, LJB Engineering: Yeah, that was started like, 6 years ago. [49:57] Council Chair (presiding officer): Negotiate so, of these that you have in this book, I think our main purpose was to see if there's anything else feasible for public works building. Was there anything that piqued interest? [50:08] Councilor (public works facility advocate): So, as I've discussed, the only thing that I would keep my interest is if we could do something right here, I really don't want to get further away from the sand salt building. I would just build store, do everything from say, from here. Could we, if we could get this land, it would work. Is it that's is that what's best for the town and is so it's for how many acres? 2222 acres. I believe. [50:41] Council Chair (presiding officer): Okay, was there any discussion needed for about this stuff? Nothing this time. Okay. Thank you. [50:52] Town staff / impact fee presenter: Good job. That's great. You might counsel. Do you mind keeping these books? I'm going to keep any thank you. [51:01] Council Chair (presiding officer): And was there any other discussion needed on the discussion of retaining tax required properties? Because that was kind of all in 1 there, right? Yeah, no, I think it was just there to just to get an update inventory with the best thing. And just to talk about a point there on boundary road, then that was our entire agenda. Is there any other items that go over? [51:20] Speaker I (unidentified): See, nothing sure this is their time other items your other tonight for coming up with the land we're talking about off the middle road or near the middle road is that 1 of the roads that you're considering is the middle road? Where is the 2 roads? What are the 2 roads? No road in the pocket trail? Is that middle road? You said it just continue now or what is it now? What is the status on it? It's in the connection to the part that is town maintain town road, but still it's on the lower end. And it's not on the district. Okay. It's right here. No, I just I wanted to make sure I wasn't on something that maybe closer to the little watch it or something like that. Closer to the town. Okay. And about the fire station over in towards Wyndham, I said this to John before. I believe we need something like that for all the people that live in. Off the white bridge road that pay high taxes and stuff like that, for them to wait for an ambulance coming from here or from Steve falls is a long wait for them. And I think those seniors and people over there should be considered. So, if that ever came up, or I would like to see the town staff 1, where do we stop it now with Gorham? So, I think 12 hours a day or I'm not sure that we already do that. We have a partnership. We have our equipment there and I an engine is there. Yeah, that response to rescue. Yeah. So we, already have a partnership over there, but I just, I would like to see, I think those people deserve it as tax payers deserve just as much. That kind of call and fire control and everything, just like anybody else in the time of standard issue. Thank you. [53:07] Council Chair (presiding officer): If there's nothing else, then wants to make the motion to make a motion to adjourn 2nd,, all in favor of German. Great job, Doug. Thank you.