January 19, 2021 Agenda

City Council Workshop & Meeting January 19, 2021 Agenda

This City Council workshop and meeting will be conducted in Council Chambers. The meeting will be broadcast as usual on Great Falls TV (cable channel 11) and on the City of Auburn YouTube channel.

Members of the public may watch in the Community Room, across from Council Chambers. If you attend and wish to offer public comment during the meeting, you may do so by speaking at the podium that will be located in the Community Room. Space is limited and members of the public are encouraged to “attend” via Zoom if possible.

Those who will be “attending” the meeting via Zoom and would like to participate in the public comment/public hearing portions of this city council meeting, please register in advance: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_BW60zD6NQ5a3yv5s31pJPQ

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

We will continue taking public comment in writing for those who are not comfortable attending a public meeting at this time, please send your remarks via email to: [email protected]. Your comments will be included in the meeting minutes.

5:30 P.M. City Council Workshop A. Form Based Code Expansion – Eric Cousens (20 minutes) B. City Ordinance Review – Phil Crowell (60 minutes)

7:00 P.M. City Council Meeting - Roll call votes will begin with Councilor Walker

Pledge of Allegiance I. Consent Items

1. Order 04-01192021 Setting the time to open the polls for all 2021 election for 7:00 A.M.

2. Order 05-01192021 Accepting the transfer of $4,535.00 forfeiture assets in Rem in U.S. Currency to the Auburn Police Department (Unified Criminal Court Docket No. CR-20-1787 David Cochran).

Page 1 of 2

3. Order 06-01192021 Accepting the transfer of $2,480.00 forfeiture assets in Rem in U.S. Currency to the Auburn Police Department (Unified Criminal Court Docket No. CR-20-1787 Lloyd Lyttle).

II. Minutes • January 4, 2021Regular Council Meeting

III. Communications, Presentations and Recognitions • Mayor Levesque State of the City Address • Council Communications (about and to the community)

IV. Open Session – Members of the public are invited to speak to the Council about any issue directly related to City business or any item that does not appear on the agenda.

V. Unfinished Business

4. Order 01-01042021 Approving the Packgen TIF District #26.

5. Order 03-01042021 Authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with FB Environmental Associates for the evaluation of ordinances applicable to the protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed.

VI. New Business

1. Order 07-01192021 Approving the liquor license for El tequila Restaurant located at 245 Center Street. Public hearing.

2. Order 08-01192021 Authorizing the reallocation $150,000 originally allocated for the Auburn Lewiston Airport main terminal parking lot to be used for the Eastside Aircraft Apron Reconstruction Project.

VII. Open Session – Members of the public are invited to speak to the Council about any issue directly related to City business or any item that does not appear on the agenda.

VIII. Reports (from sub-committees to Council) a. Mayor’s Report b. City Councilors’ Reports c. City Manager Report d. Jill Eastman, Finance Director – December 2020 Final Monthly Report

IX. Executive Session • Personnel matter, pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. Sec. 405 (6)(A) • Personnel matter, pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. Sec. 405 (6)(A)

X. Adjournment

Page 2 of 2

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: January 19, 2020

Author: Megan Norwood, City Planner II

Subject: Form-Based Code Expansion

Information: At the October 5th meeting City Council directed the Planning Board to make a recommendation on whether the City should expand the Form-Based Code (“FBC”) to several predominantly residential areas surrounding the City’s urban core. Due to the number of parcels involved and COVID-19 related limitations, staff chose to split up the neighborhoods being considered into three sperate public hearings. At the January 12, 2021 meeting, the Planning Board reviewed the Multifamily Urban District in the New Auburn neighborhood consisting of the streets from Riverside Drive to Ninth Street and portions of Broad and South Main Street. As a result of the public hearing the Planning Board has made the following recommendations: • Expand the T-4.2 Traditional Downtown Neighborhood, to replace the current zoning in the Multifamily Urban District in the New Auburn neighborhood consisting of the streets from Riverside Drive to Ninth Street and portions of Broad and South Main Street.

City Budgetary Impacts: None.

Staff Recommended Action: Council to consider the zoning ordinance changes recommended by the Planning Board and take necessary action.

Previous Meetings and History: October 5, 2020 – City Council Workshop, November 10, 2020 – Planning Board Meeting, December 8, 2020 – Planning Board Meeting, January 12, 2021 – Planning Board Meeting

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments: Zoning map.

Page 1 of 1

h t r

n Expand T-4.2 in Newi Auburn Area t S h s d a a T T-4.2MFU o y W r le r B S t MillS T-5.1 t Mi y ID llSt GB Rotar

F t A St if S on th n ers S d T-4.2 d Jeff t a ro ro s UR B co

t NB S g S g

l S ec i e i o H xt n n o h t d R m r t S r S S S i a n t n t R v F k i o n v e ld o u NB e r O o r M D s Se C id v T e en h D ) t ir t h d S r v t St t P S ( k l o r o h T E r GB t l F B l ig Expanded i r i h ft t h o th M S S St N r l l t t e i k S r M T-4.2 a S n B ho o r S t tS MFU ix g t th n i E St A h ig t n s h S N t ll v d a t i h i A t S n S G r W GB th t n S o d o ll a St rt o s a rr c ro B a o B C g t ry S a g k S e M i o ve R n o nt i C v R h e P St r i a s v t id e t o TenthS e r n t D S r

t S d a olsterSt ro B Lo B r v in A g g A n v ri o L ir ianDr C t Mar d S r l a l t i y S t UR k d S ic M a r o S r n B B h i

e a

r w M G r o e h e o n MFS t fi d e C u l dD o D o r o S r

t k S S t d t a S o r n B i a

h RR t u

60 Court St Proposed Change Area ID - Industrial RR - Rural Residential Auburn, ME 04210 Current Zoning MFS - Multi-Family Suburban UR - Urban Residential GB - General Business MFU - Multi-Family Urban T-4.2 - Traditional Downtown Neighborhood www.auburnmaine.gov NB - Neighborhood Business T-5.1 - Downtown Traditional Center Sec. 60.549. - Traditional Downtown Neighborhood T-4.2.

Illustrative View of T-4.2 (Spring Street)

Intent and Purpose: Traditional Downtown Neighborhood (T-4.2) The Traditional Downtown Neighborhood district is characterized by a small to medium sized buildings with smaller front yards and stoops in a more compact urban environment, and includes and traditional neighborhood sized storefronts. The smaller minimum and maximum building set-backs form a moderately dense street-wall pattern, diverse architectural styles and pedestrian friendly streets and sidewalks.

Characteristic Features

• More public and private realm interaction

• Front facade detailing

• Small front yards

• Bay windows

• Neighborhood scaled storefronts with large windows

• Frontage Fences

• Street Trees

• Moderate densities

(Ord. No. 04-03072016, 5-16-2016)

Sec. 60-549.1. - Building placement and configuration T-4.2.

Elevated Building Placement _____

Building Placement on Lot

PRINCIPAL BUILDING PLACEMENT:

Front Setback, Principal: 5 ft. Min/, 15 ft. Max (A)

(Corner Lot) Front Setback, Secondary: 5 ft. Min., 15 ft. Max. (B)

Side Setback: 5 ft. Min. (C)

Rear Setback: 10 ft. Min. (D)

Building Lot Coverage: 70% Max.

Useable Open Space: 10% Min.

Frontage Build-Out: 60% Min (along Front Setback, Primary)

Lot Width: 24 ft. Min, 120 ft. Max.

PRINCIPAL BUILDING CONFIGURATION:

Building Width: 14 ft. Min., 110 ft. Max. (E)

Building Height Minimum: 1 Story Min. (F)

Building Height Maximum: 3 Story Max. (F) (excluding attic story

(Ord. No. 04-03072016, 5-16-2016)

Sec. 60.549.2. - Building frontages T-4.2.

Common or Porch Yard Stoop Yard Frontage Storefront Type

BUILDING FRONTAGE Common Yard; Porch Yard, Stoop and Storefront TYPES: .....

Primary entry door is encouraged along ground story facade facing a BUILDING ENTRIES: primary street.

BUILDING ENVELOPE

ARTICULATION:

Residential - Windows and doors shall comprise a minimum of 25% and Ground Story Building maximum 60% coverage of the total ground story frontage facade. Frontage Facade: Commercial - Windows and doors shall comprise a minimum of 40% and maximum of 90% coverage of the total ground story frontage facade.

Upper Story Building Windows and doors shall comprise a minimum of 20% and maximum 40% Frontage Facade: coverage of the total upper story building frontage facade.

Residential - The ground storv elevation must be a minimum of 2 feet minimum and 6 feet maximum above the front yard elevation (average Ground Story Finished grade). Floor Elevation: Commercial - The ground storv elevation must be at a minimum of sidewalk grade to maximum of 2 feet. Frontage Facade Wall: Blank lengths of wall exceeding 10 linear feet are prohibited.

(Ord. No. 04-03072016, 5-16-2016)

Sec. 60-549.3. - External elements T-4.2.

Residential - A front yard fence a minimum of 2 feet and a maximum of 4 feet in Front Yard Fence: height is encouraged to maintain spatial edge of street. No chain link, vinyl, split rail, or barbed wire is allowed

Front Yard A vehicle entry way, as part of a front fence/wall, shall be a maximum width of 20 Fence/Wall feet; a pedestrian entry way shall be a maximum width of 6 feet. Opening:

No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies, bay Building Projections: windows, stoops and other architectural features shall encroach beyond the minimum front setback line.

Porches & Stoops may encroach upon the minimum front setback line by the Porch & Stoop following distances: Encroachments: Front Setback, Principal Frontage 5 ft. maximum. Front Setback, Secondary Frontage 5 ft. maximum.

Detached garages shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from any street right-of- Garages: way.

Driveways are encouraged to be on the secondary street frontage. Driveways shall Driveways: be paved and a minimum of 8 feet wide and a maximum of 20 feet wide.

Residential - Vehicle parking areas shall be located only on driveways or designated parking areas and shall not extend into the street right-of-way or sidewalk. Parking: Commercial - Parking shall be located to rear of the property to the greatest extent possible. Parking on a side yard is limited to no more than 60 feet wide or 40% of the lot width. Screening and/or street wall is required for parking areas along a street. Accessory Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from any street right- Structures: of-way and 5 feet from either side or rear property line.

Landscaping is encouraged but shall not extend into any street right-of-way or Landscaping: sidewalk. Street trees are encouraged.

Foundation Foundation plantings are encouraged but should be pruned and maintained with Planting: enough clearance from the building facade to encourage air circulation.

(Ord. No. 04-03072016, 5-16-2016)

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: January 19, 2021

Author: Sue Clements-Dallaire, City Clerk

Subject: Ordinance Review Process

Information: The Auburn Charter sec. 2.8 states “the city council shall provide for the review of the city’s charter and ordinances in their entirety at least once every 15 years”. Council recently completed the review of the City Charter and will now begin to review the City Ordinances.

Chapter 1 – no recommended changes Chapter 2 - ADMINISTRATION – • Sec. 2-58. - Time and place of regular meetings. – See proposed language • Sec. 2-59. - Order of business. See proposed language • ARTICLE IV. - DEPARTMENTS – discussion on which departments should be included • ARTICLE V. - BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES – discussion on adopting the recommendations presented by the Mayor’s Ad-Hoc. • ARTICLE VIII. - CITATION SYSTEM OF CODE ENFORCEMENT – being reviewed by city attorney and staff • ARTICLE IX. - REVIEW AND APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS – being reviewed by city attorney and staff Chapter 10 - AVIATION – being reviewed by the Airport Manager.

Chapter 12 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS - under review by staff

Chapter 14 - BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS

• ARTICLE III. - AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARDS AND JUNKYARDS – under review by city attorney and staff. • ARTICLE VIII. - JUNK COLLECTORS, PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND DEALERS – See proposed language. • ARTICLE XII. - MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE THERAPISTS – clarifying language needed for therapists. • ARTICLE XIV. - TAXICABS –discussion to eliminate taxicab regulations and discuss the impact of Transportations Network Companies. • ARTICLE XVII. - GARAGE, YARD AND BARN SALES – discussion about two free weekends prior to spring clean-up. • NEW Article XVIV – Licensed Facilities – See proposed language.

Page 1 of 2

Chapter 16 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT – See proposed language changes.

City Budgetary Impacts: None

Staff Recommended Action: Review and recommend changes

Previous Meetings and History: Charter review discussions October 5, October 26, November 9, November 30.

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments: Chapter 2 - ADMINISTRATION – Sec. 2-58. - Time and place of regular meetings. Sec. 2-59. - Order of business.

Chapter 14 - BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS ARTICLE VIII. - JUNK COLLECTORS, PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND DEALERS NEW ARTICLE XVIV- Licensed Facilities

Chapter 16 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Page 2 of 2

Current Ordinance

Ordinance Section: ARTICLE II. - MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DIVISION 2. - RULES OF PROCEDURE Sec. 2-58. - Time and place of regular meetings.

Current Language:

The dates and time of the regular meetings of the city council shall be the first and third Mondays of each calendar month at 7:00 p.m. If a regular meeting night falls on a legal holiday or the night before a legal holiday, then the stated meeting shall be held on the following Monday at the same time and place unless the city council shall, at the meeting held next prior to the meeting falling on the holiday or the night before the holiday, fix a different alternate meeting date. The place of such meetings shall be the city council chamber in the city building, hereby designated to be the regular meeting place, unless the council designates another meeting place. All meetings of the city council shall be open to the public, and may be continued to another location.

(Code 1967, § 1-3.7; Ord. of 1-12-1998; Ord. No. 01-01042016, 1-4-2016)

Proposed Ordinance

Ordinance Section: ARTICLE II. - MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DIVISION 2. - RULES OF PROCEDURE Sec. 2-58. - Time and place of regular meetings. New Language: The dates and time of the regular meetings of the city council shall be the first and third Mondays of each calendar month at 7:00 p.m. If a regular meeting night falls on a legal holiday or the night before a legal holiday, then the stated meeting shall be held on the following Monday day on Tuesday at the same time and place unless the city council shall, at the meeting held next prior to the meeting falling on the holiday or the night before the holiday, fix a different alternate meeting date. The place of such meetings shall be the city council chamber in the city building, hereby designated to be the regular meeting place, unless the council designates another meeting place. All meetings of the city council shall be open to the public, and may be continued to another location.

(Code 1967, § 1-3.7; Ord. of 1-12-1998; Ord. No. 01-01042016, 1-4-2016)

Reason for proposed change Regular Practice

Current Ordinance

Ordinance Section: ARTICLE II. - MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DIVISION 2. - RULES OF PROCEDURE Sec. 2-59. – Order of business

Current Language:

Sec. 2-59. - Order of business.

At every meeting of the city council, the order of business shall be as follows: (1) Consent agenda. All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. (2) Minutes not previously read and approved, of all preceding meetings. (3) Communications and recognition. (4) Open session. (5) Unfinished business. (6) New business. (7) Reports of the mayor. (8) Reports of the city councilors. (9) Reports of the city manager. (10) Open session. (11) Adjournment.

(Code 1967, § 1-3.7; Ord. of 1-12-1998; Ord. No. 01-01042016, 1-4-2016)

Proposed Ordinance

Ordinance Section: ARTICLE II. - MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DIVISION 2. - RULES OF PROCEDURE Sec. 2-59. – Order of business New Language: At every meeting of the city council, the order of business shall be as follows: (1) Consent agenda. All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. (2) Minutes not previously read and approved, of all preceding meetings. (3) Communications and recognition. (4) Open session. (5) Unfinished business. (6) New business. (7) Reports of the mayor. (8) Reports of the city councilors. (9) Reports of the city manager. (10) Open session. (1110) Adjournment.

(Code 1967, § 1-3.16; Ord. of 3-16-1998; Ord. of 1-16-2007; Ord. of 1-28-2008(01); Ord. No. 02-01202015, 2-9-2015)

Reason for proposed change The intent for the second open session was for a continuation of the first open session if the time required the council to move onto new business. The second open session is often used by a speaker who spoke at the first open session. The mayor can allow for the speaker to go beyond the allocated time or have the speaker come back to the podium after all other speakers have had a chance to speak.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

Current Ordinance

Ordinance Section: 14-2. - Definitions

Current Language: Secondhand dealer means any person who engages in the purchase, collection, transfer or storage for later resale, or who engages in the trading or selling, unless such sale is by auction of less than four days’ duration of any article, vehicle or material, or portion thereof, of which prior use has been made in any manner whatsoever. The term "secondhand dealer" shall not be construed to include pawnbrokers, junk collectors, used car dealers; nor shall it include any person primarily engaged in the retail sale of new and unused goods, who deals with used goods only incidentally, such as accepting such goods in trade as part of a transaction involving the sale of new goods, but only to the extent that such used goods are of the same type as the new goods sold by such person.

Proposed Ordinance

Ordinance Section: 14-2. - Definitions

New Language: Secondhand dealer means any person, company, corporation, or member or members of a partnership or firm who engage in the purchase, collection, transfer or storage for later resale, or who engages in the trading or selling, unless such sale is by auction of less than four days’ duration of any article, vehicle or material, or portion thereof, of which prior use has been made in any manner whatsoever. The term "secondhand dealer" shall not include pawnbrokers, junk collectors, motor vehicle dealers; nor shall it include or apply to: a) The taking in trade by a business of an item of a like kind to items which the business sells as new goods as the principal or substantial part of its business. b) The sale of secondhand goods at events commonly known as “garage sales”, “yard sales”, or “estate sales”. c) The sales or receipt of secondhand books, magazines, post cards, postage stamps. d) The sale or receipt of used merchandise donated to recognized nonprofit, religious, or charitable organizations or any school-sponsored association for which no compensation is paid. e) The sale or receipt of secondhand furniture. f) The sale or receipt of secondhand clothing and shoes. g) The sale or receipt of goods acquired exclusively via an internet sale. h) Federal firearms licensed dealers.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

NEW Definition

Dealers in secondhand precious metals (a) Dealer means a person who engages in the business of purchasing, selling, or acquiring through exchange secondhand precious metals.

(b) Precious metals means any item composed in whole or in part of gold, palladium, platinum, or silver, but does not include dental gold, unrefined metal ore, an electronic product, any part of a mechanical system on a motor vehicle or gold or silver coins or bullion.

9c) Seller means a person who sells or provides through an exchange secondhand precious metals to a dealer

Reason for proposed change

The proposed language change reflects current examples of businesses the police department interacts with regarding secondhand dealers and dealers of second hand precious metals.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

Current Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Sec. 14-222. - List of transactions; seller to furnish proof of identification.

Current Language: (a) Every person licensed as a junk collector or secondhand dealer shall make out, and have available for periodic collection, a legible and correct list, upon a format furnished by the police chief, containing an accurate description of all articles taken in pawn, purchased, or taken in exchange, the name, residence and date of birth of the buyer or seller other than the licensee, together with the correct and exact time when such articles were pawned or purchased, and the amount the item was sold for.

(b) Before recording the information required by this section, a dealer shall require reasonable written proof of the seller's identification in the form of a motor vehicle operator's license, military identification card, adult liquor identification card or similar item which confirms the person's identification by date of birth and by physical description.

Proposed Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Sec. 14-222. – Reporting Requirements

New Language: (a) Every person licensed as a pawnbroker, junk collector or secondhand dealer shall have available for periodic collection, a legible and correct list, upon a format determined by the police chief, containing an accurate description of all articles taken in pawn, purchased or taken in exchange to include; the make, model, any listed serial number, identifying markings, color, size or any other identifiable characteristics of the purcharsed item(s).The name, current residence and date of birth of the buyer or seller other than the licensee, together with the correct and exact time when such articles were pawned or purchased, and the amount the item was sold for.

(b) Before recording the information required by this section, a dealer shall require reasonable written proof of the seller's identification in the form of a motor vehicle operator's license, military identification card, a valid state-issued photo identification card or similar item which confirms the person's identification by date of birth, physical description and photograph.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

(c) All transactions of property purchased or pawned shall be uploaded within 72 hours of the transaction into an online database determined by the Chief of Police.

Reason for proposed change

The proposed language reflects the current practice utilized by the Police Department and Pawnbrokers, Junk Collectors and Second Hand Dealers.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

Current Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Sec. 14-223. - Receiving articles from minors, thieves.

Current Language: No one licensed pursuant to this article shall purchase or receive any article from any person under the age of 18 years without the written consent of such person's parent or guardian, or from a person known or suspected to be a thief or a receiver of stolen property.

Proposed Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Sec. 14-223. - Receiving articles from minors, thieves.

New Language: No one licensed pursuant to this article shall purchase or receive any article from any person under the age of 18 years without the written consent of such person's parent or guardian, or from a person known or suspected to be a thief or a receiver of stolen property. An original copy of the written consent must be kept on file with the dealer and available for inspection.

Reason for proposed change

The proposed change in language reflects the application of best practices regarding Pawn Transactions

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

Current Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Sec. 14-224. - Retention of articles purchased.

Current Language: (a) Articles purchased by anyone licensed in accordance with the provisions of this article, excepting pawnbrokers, shall be retained by such licensee in the same condition in which they were obtained and in an accessible place where such articles can be examined and inspected for at least 15 days before they are disposed of.

(b) No pawnbroker shall sell, destroy or alter any property pawned until it has remained in his possession for the duration of time as required by this article, unless forfeited in writing by the customer.

Proposed Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Sec. 14-224. - Retention of articles purchased.

New Language: (a) Articles purchased by anyone licensed in accordance with the provisions of this article, excepting pawnbrokers, shall be retained by such licensee in the same condition in which they were obtained and in an accessible place where such articles can be examined and inspected for at least 15 days beginning at the time the transaction has been entered into the approved online database. (b) No pawnbroker shall sell, destroy or alter any property pawned until it has remained in his possession for the duration of time as required by this article, unless forfeited in writing by the customer.

Reason for proposed change

The proposed language reflects the current practice.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

Current Ordinance

Ordinance Section: New Ordinance Proposed

Current Language: None

Proposed Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Section 14, Article XIX

New Language:

ARTICLE XIX. - DAY TREATMENT CENTERS/LIVE-IN TREATMENT CENTERS

Sec. 14-701. - Purpose.

The city council recognizes that day treatment/ live-in treatment centers are a valuable component of our health care system. The city council finds that with the reasonable and necessary siting restrictions listed herein, there remain sufficient suitable areas within the city to site these treatment centers. Licensing of these facilities will enhance community relations with the providers of such centers and will establish lines of communications with them. Licensing of these facilities is appropriate and consistent with the city's policies and practices to review and license business activities that impact its citizens. The licensing is not meant to duplicate the licensing done at the state level pursuant to state law and rules but to provide separate and additional requirements as necessitated by the above findings.

Sec. 14-702. - Applicability.

This article shall apply to any day treatment/ live-in treatment center that is located within the city.

Sec. 14-703. - Application requirements.

All applications for licenses under this article shall be filed with, and in a form satisfactory to, the city clerk. Such application shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) Name, address and contact information including a phone number of the applicant and all other persons having a legal interest in the center, property, and the individuals hired by the applicant to manage operation of the facility, if any.

(2) The location of the premises for which a license is sought by identification of city tax map number and street address.

(3) The dimensions and acreage of the property upon which the center is to be located.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

(4) A copy of an approved site plan, drawn to a scale of 50 feet or less to the inch, that contains the following information:

a. The boundary lines of the property for which a license is sought.

b. The location of all existing and proposed buildings and structures.

c. The location of all existing and proposed parking areas and walkways and any other site improvements.

d. The location and characteristics of all vehicular entrances and exits serving the property.

e. The signature of the chairman of the city planning board after a finding by the board that the site plan meets the requirements of city building and zoning regulations.

(5)A site location map at a scale of not greater than one inch to 100 feet showing all adjoining residential uses and any schools, churches, family day care homes, small day care facilities, day care centers and public parks and playgrounds.

(6) A detailed description of the proposed day treatment/ live-in treatment centers to include the following: population to be served, client services, staffing requirements, security provisions, hours of operation, anticipated parking demand, peak hour traffic, identification of other required licenses, etc.

(7) Identification of any other approvals required the city, by any state agency or department or of any federal agencies.

Sec. 14-704. - Review procedure; conditions of approval.

(a) License applications for day treatment/ live-in treatment centers shall be filed with the city clerk or designee and the clerk will order a background check from the police department for the applicant, individuals with a legal interest in the facility and any individuals hired to manage operation of the facility. The license application with the background check will then be reviewed by the city clerk or designee to determine if the application is complete. If the application is not deemed complete, the license shall be denied. If the application is deemed to be complete, it shall be scheduled for a public hearing before the city council.

(b) The city council may impose conditions on the approval of any license application under this Article to ensure compliance with the provisions of this article or any other provision of law. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) That the applicant provides documentation to the city clerk or designee of the receipt of all approvals required by any federal or state agency or department pursuant to federal or state law prior to clinic operations.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

(2) That the applicant provides documentation to the city clerk or designee of the receipt of any approvals required by any city board pursuant to this Code prior to the issuance of any license under this article.

(3) That any screening and or other requirements imposed by the city council pursuant to the provisions of this article or by the planning board upon site plan and special exception review, shall be installed, completed, and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any license under this article.

Sec. 14-705. – Licensing Fees

A. 1-5 Clients $100.00 Annually B. 5-15 Clients $150.00 Annually C. 15-50 Clients $200.00 Annually D. 50-100 Clients $250.00 Annually

Sec. 14-706. – Additional Charges

The purpose of this section is to provide administrative and civil remedies against responsible persons who allow or fail to prevent recurring police calls for service.

Any Day Treatment Center or Live-in Treatment center that creates an undue burden, within a 30-day period, on the Auburn Police Department will be subject to the following addition charges:

A. There is no charge for the first two calls for service within a 30-day period. B. Third and fourth calls for service: $30.00 service charge per occurrence. C. Fifth and Sixth call for service: $50.00 service charge per occurrence. D. Seventh and subsequent calls for service: $100.00 service charge per occurrence.

Sec. 14-706. - Annual meetings with the police chief.

A minimum of one meeting per calendar year will be conducted at the center to allow the applicant and city staff the opportunity to discuss issues with the police chief or designee. The purpose of the meetings is to establish a good working relationship between the police department and the owner and operators of centers.

Sec. 14-707. - Location criteria.

Applicants for licenses must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city council that all the standards contained in this section are met, in order to approve a license to operate day treatment/ live-in treatment center.

Sec. 14-708. - Nonconforming facilities.

Any day treatment/ live-in treatment centers in lawful existence on the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived may remain in operation in its present location.

Ordinance Review Form – Charter

Review 2020

Secs. 14-709—14-722. - Reserved.

Reason for proposed change

The high call volume and demand for public safety resources these facilities require has created an undue burden on the City of Auburn. The need to assess additional fees and charges is similar to that of the Alarm Billing process that has already been implemented.

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

Current Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Chapter 14 – Business Licensing

Current Language 1:

Sec. 14-26. - Compliance with state and local law and rules required.

(b) (3) Rules relating to the Administration and Enforcement of Establishments Licensed by the Health Inspection Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Maine Center for Disease Control Prevention, Division of Environmental Health Inspection Program 10-144 CMR Chapter 201, last Amended on October 7, 2012. Current Language 2:

Sec. 14-658. - Application procedure.

(e) Application and license fees. All applications must be submitted with a $500.00 fee. If an application is approved, the following license fees must be paid before the city will issue a license:

Proposed Ordinance

Ordinance Section: Chapter 14 – Business Licensing

New Language 1: Sec. 14-26. - Compliance with state and local law and rules required.

New Language 2:

Sec. 14-658. - Application procedure.

(e) Application and license fees. All applications, including renewals, must be submitted with a $500.00 fee. If an application is approved, the following license fees must be paid before the city will issue a license:

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

Reason for proposed change Updated Reference to State Standards and clarification on fees when Marijuana Licenses are renewed to avoid future disagreements on the intent.

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

Current Ordinance

• Chapter 16 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT[1]

Footnotes:

--- (1) ---

State Law reference— Maine Emergency Management Agency, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 701 et seq.; local civil emergency preparedness programs, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 781 et seq.; local disaster emergency plans, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 783; state search and rescue plan, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 850; emergency proclamations, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 742; designated emergency telephone numbers, 25 M.R.S.A. § 2932; emergency location of local governments, 1 M.R.S.A. § 761.

• ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL • Secs. 16-1—16-18. - Reserved. • ARTICLE II. - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM • Sec. 16-19. - Established; duties of council and manager.

(a)There is hereby created an emergency management agency in compliance and conformity with the provisions of 37-B M.R.S.A. § 781, referred to in this chapter as the emergency management agency.

(b)The manager shall be responsible for the agency's organization, administration and operation. The manager may employ such permanent and temporary employees as he deems necessary and prescribe their duties.

(c)The council shall advise the manager and the emergency management director on all matters of civil emergency preparedness, review the existing operational organization to ascertain the agency's ability to cope with its responsibilities, and accept or reject, after public hearing, such rules and regulations submitted to it under section 16-21.

• Sec. 16-20. - Emergency management director.

The manager shall appoint a director who shall coordinate the activities of all departments, organizations and agencies for civil emergency preparedness within the city, and maintain liaison with other emergency management agencies and public safety

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

agencies, and have such additional duties and responsibilities as may be prescribed by the manager.

State Law reference— Appointment of municipal agency director, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 782.

• Sec. 16-21. - Administrative and operational regulations.

The emergency management director shall prepare, under the direction and control of the manager, such policies as may be deemed necessary for the administration and operational requirements of the emergency management agency. All policies must be approved by the council prior to becoming effective. The council, after public hearing, shall accept, amend or reject such policies.

• Sec. 16-22. - Proclamation of emergency.

(a)The mayor or the manager shall have the power and authority, after consultation with the council, to issue a proclamation that an emergency exists under conditions specified in 37-B M.R.S.A. § 742. The proclamation may declare the fact that an emergency exists in any or all sections of the city. If the manager is temporarily absent from the city or is otherwise unavailable, the next person in the city who would serve as acting manager shall have the authority to issue an emergency proclamation. A copy of such proclamation shall be filed within 24 hours with the clerk.

(b)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, when consultation with the council would result in a substantial delay in an effective response in alleviating or preventing an emergency or disaster, the mayor or the manager is authorized to take whatever actions are necessary to prevent the loss of life and property in the city.

(c)The mayor or the manager and/or the emergency management director shall be responsible to submit a full report to the council of actions taken under this section as soon as the council can convene.

• Sec. 16-23. - Emergency powers of officials.

(a)During any period when an emergency or disaster exists or appears imminent, the mayor or the manager may promulgate such regulations deemed necessary to protect life and property and to preserve critical resources within the purpose of this chapter. Such regulations may include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(1)Regulations prohibiting or restricting the movement of vehicles from areas within or without the city.

(2)

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

Regulations pertaining to the evacuation of persons from any hazard-stricken or threatened areas of the city.

(3)Regulations necessary to abate, clean up or mitigate whatever hazards exist.

(4)Such other regulations necessary to preserve public peace, health and safety.

(b)The mayor or the manager or the emergency management director shall be authorized to request aid and/or assistance from the state or any political subdivisions of the state and shall render assistance through reciprocal mutual aid agreements to other entities or political subdivisions under the provisions of 37-B M.R.S.A. §§ 701 and 784.

(c)The mayor or the manager or purchasing agent may obtain vital supplies, equipment and other properties found lacking and needed for the protection of health, life and property.

(d)The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this section will terminate with the official termination of the emergency/disaster event.

• Sec. 16-24. - Emergency operational plan.

(a)The manager will cause to be prepared an emergency operational plan for the city, which shall be submitted to the council for approval. Amendments to the emergency operational plan shall be submitted to the council for approval.

(b)It shall be the responsibility of all municipal departments and agencies to perform the functions and/or responsibilities assigned and to maintain their portion of the emergency plan in a current state of readiness. The emergency operational plan shall be reviewed periodically by the mayor or the manager in conjunction with all department heads and the emergency management director.

State Law reference— Disaster emergency plan, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 783.

• Sec. 16-25. - Civil emergency preparedness forces.

The civil emergency preparedness forces of the city shall be the employees, equipment and facilities of all departments, agencies, boards and commissions suitable for, or adaptable to, the activities of emergency management, and in addition shall include all private volunteer personnel, equipment and facilities contributed by or obtained from private volunteer persons and organizations.

• Sec. 16-26. - Immunity from liability.

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

Immunity from liability shall be as set forth in 37-B M.R.S.A. § 822.

• Sec. 16-27. - Compensation for injuries.

All members of the civil emergency preparedness forces shall be deemed to be employees of the state when engaged in training for or on duty and shall have all the rights of state employees under the workmen's compensation act as specified in 37-B M.R.S.A. § 823.

• Sec. 16-28. - Right-of-way of personnel and equipment responding to emergency.

Personnel and equipment required to respond to an emergency or disaster shall have the right-of-way over all public ways and roads, and anyone failing to grant such right-of- way shall suffer penalties as specified under 37-B M.R.S.A. § 828.

• Sec. 16-29. - Violations.

It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any of the provisions of this chapter or the regulations or plans issued pursuant to the authority contained in this chapter, or to willfully obstruct, hinder or delay any member of the emergency management organization as described in this chapter in the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter or any regulation or plan issued thereunder.

• Secs. 16-30—16-46. - Reserved.

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

Proposed Ordinance

• Chapter 16 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT[1]

Footnotes:

--- (1) ---

• ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL • Secs. 16-1—16-18. - Reserved. • ARTICLE II. - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM • Sec. 16-19. - Established; duties of council and manager.

(a)There is hereby created an emergency management agency in compliance and conformity with the provisions of 37-B M.R.S.A. § 781, referred to in this chapter as the emergency management agency.

• Sec. 16-20. - Emergency management director.

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

State Law reference— Appointment of municipal agency director, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 782.

• Sec. 16-21. - Administrative and operational regulations.

• Sec. 16-22. - Proclamation of emergency.

(a) The mayor or the manager shall have the power and authority, after consultation with the council, to issue a proclamation that an emergency exists under conditions specified in 37-B M.R.S.A. § 742. The proclamation may declare the fact that an emergency exists in any or all sections of the city. If the manager is temporarily absent from the city or is otherwise unavailable, the next person in the city who would serve as acting manager shall have the authority to issue an emergency proclamation. Any proclamation of emergency shall be valid for no longer than thirty days, at which time the manager may either renew, modify or terminate the proclamation. A copy of all such proclamations shall be filed within 24 hours with the clerk.

(d) When the manager, as outlined above, is satisfied that a disaster or civil emergency no longer exists, he or she shall terminate the emergency proclamation by another proclamation affecting the sections of the City covered by the original proclamation, or any part thereof. Said termination of emergency shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk.

• Sec. 16-23. - Emergency powers of officials.

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

(1)Regulations prohibiting or restricting the movement of vehicles from areas within or without the city.

(2)Regulations pertaining to the evacuation of persons from any hazard-stricken or threatened areas of the city.

(3)Regulations necessary to abate, clean up or mitigate whatever hazards exist.

(4)Such other regulations necessary to preserve public peace, health and safety.

(c)The mayor or the manager or purchasing agent may obtain vital supplies, equipment and other properties found lacking and needed for the protection of health, life and property, without following the normal purchase or formal bid procedures.

(d)The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this section will terminate with the official termination of the emergency/disaster event.

• Sec. 16-24. - Emergency operational plan.

State Law reference— Disaster emergency plan, 37-B M.R.S.A. § 783.

• Sec. 16-25. - Civil emergency preparedness forces.

CHARTER REVIEW | 2020 Ordinance Review Form

• Sec. 16-26. - Immunity from liability.

Immunity from liability shall be as set forth in 37-B M.R.S.A. § 822.

• Sec. 16-27. - Compensation for injuries.

• Sec. 16-28. - Right-of-way of personnel and equipment responding to emergency.

• Sec. 16-29. - Violations.

• Secs. 16-30—16-46. - Reserved.

Reason for proposed change

The changes reflect best practices in Emergency Management. COVID has shown that the typical use of emergency proclamation (days) may not be practical in all situations but it is important that proclamations be reassessed at least monthly based on the current conditions.

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: January 19, 2021 Order: 04-01192021

Author: Sue Clements-Dallaire, City Clerk

Subject: Setting the time for opening the polls for 2021 Elections

Information: State law requires the Municipal Officers to set the time to open the polls for elections. The polls must be opened no earlier than 6 a.m. and no later than 8 a.m. on election day, except that in municipalities with a population of less than 500, the polls must be opened no later than 10:00 a.m. It is recommended that the polls open at 7:00 A.M. in Auburn for all 2021 elections. Opening the polls at 7:00 A.M. is consistent with past practice in Auburn and it allows additional time in the morning for people to have an opportunity to vote.

21-A §626. Polling times The following provisions apply to polling times at any election. 1. Opening time flexible. The polls must be opened no earlier than 6 a.m. and no later than 8 a.m. on election day, except that in municipalities with a population of less than 500, the polls must be opened no later than 10:00 a.m. The municipal officers of each municipality shall determine the time of opening the polls within these limits. The municipal clerk shall notify the Secretary of State of the poll opening times at least 30 days before each election conducted under this Title.

City Budgetary Impacts: Minimal – the cost for Election workers to start one hour early is under $100.

Staff Recommended Action: Recommend a motion to set the time for opening the polls for all 2021 Elections to be 7:00 AM.

Previous Meetings and History: N/A

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments: Order 04-01192021

Page 1 of 1

ORDER 04-01192021

City Council Order IN CITY COUNCIL

ORDERED, that the City Council hereby sets the time for opening the polls for 2021 elections to be 7:00 AM.

Holly C. Lasagna, Ward One Timothy B. MacLeod, Ward Two Stephen G. Milks, Ward Three Brian S. Carrier, Ward Four Leroy G. Walker, Ward Five Katherine E. Boss, At Large Belinda A. Gerry, At Large Jason J. Levesque, Mayor Phillip L. Crowell, Jr., City Manager

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Meeting Date: January 19, 2021 Order: 05-01192021

Author: Jason D. Moen, Chief of Police

Subject: Transfer of Forfeiture Assets – David Cochran

Information: In August 2020 members of the Auburn Police Department completed a drug investigation and subsequent arrest of David Cochran. He was apprehended in possession of 23.7 grams of cocaine base and $4535.00 in U.S. Currency. Cochran was arrested for three counts of Aggravated Trafficking of Scheduled Drugs T17-A Sec. 1103- A.1.A. (CLASS B) and one count of Refusing to Submit to Arrest or Detention (CLASS E)

City Budgetary Impacts: The State of Maine, Office of the Attorney General, seeks to transfer $4,535.00 U.S. Currency to the Auburn Police Department. Funds will be used for ongoing K-9 expenses.

Staff Recommended Action: Vote to accept the transfer of $4,353.00.

Previous Meetings and History: None

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments: *None

Page 1 of 1

ORDER 05-01192021

City Council Order IN CITY COUNCIL

ORDERED, that the City Council hereby accepts the transfer of $4,535.00 forfeiture assets in Rem in U.S. Currency to the Auburn Police Department (Unified Criminal Court Docket No. CR-20-1787 David Cochran).

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Meeting Date: January 19, 2021 Order: 06-01192021

Author: Jason D. Moen, Chief of Police

Subject: Transfer of Forfeiture Assets – Lloyd Lyttle

Information: In August 2020 members of the Auburn Police Department completed a drug investigation and subsequent arrest of Lloyd Lyttle. Lyttle was apprehended in possession of $2,480.00 and two ounces of cocaine. Lyttle was arrested for two counts of Aggravated Trafficking of Scheduled Drugs T17-A Sec. 1103-A.1.E.1 (CLASS A), Falsifying Physical Evidence T17-A Sec. 751-B.1.A (CLASS E), Refusing to submit to Arrest or Detention T17-A Sec. 751-B.1.A (CLASS E), and Violation of Conditions of Release T15 Sec. 1092.1.A (CLASS E).

City Budgetary Impacts: The State of Maine, Office of the Attorney General, seeks to transfer $2,480.00 U.S. Currency to the Auburn Police Department. Funds will be used for ongoing K-9 expenses.

Staff Recommended Action: Vote to accept the transfer of $2,480.00.

Previous Meetings and History: None

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments: *None

Page 1 of 1

ORDER 06-01192021

City Council Order IN CITY COUNCIL

ORDERED, that the City Council hereby accepts the transfer of $2,480.00 forfeiture assets in Rem in U.S. Currency to the Auburn Police Department (Unified Criminal Court Docket No. CR-20-1787 Lloyd Lyttle).

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: January 19, 2021 Order: 01-01042021

Author: Eric Cousens, Director of Planning and Permitting

Subject: Packgen TIF District #26 Public hearing

Information: The Council and ECD Staff have discussed the proposed purchase of the Auburn Enterprise Center subdivision and the new Packgen Manufacturing Facility numerous times recently. A portion of the subdivision and some land outside of the subdivision on Logistics Drive is already in a TIF District that pays debt service towards the $3,000,000 borrowed to help construct the new road and infrastructure. The proposed TIF will capture 100% of new value created on lots 1&2 only. We projected the creation of $4,000,000 in new taxable valuation from the current proposed project with 40% proposed for a credit enhancement agreement and 60% for City purposes.

After posting the draft TIF for a Public Hearing, the developer received estimates for site construction that exceed the planned budget and would like some time to refine plans and potentially move proposed buildings to lots within the subdivision that are not part of the proposed draft TIF District #26. It is preferrable at this time that the Council accept any public input and then enter executive session to discuss the details of potential changes to the site that might negatively impact the developer if discussed publicly.

Any substantive changes identified in the future will require a new Public Hearing before action by the Council.

City Budgetary Impacts: None at this time.

Staff Recommended Action: Postpone indefinitely

Previous Meetings and History: Executive Sessions, public hearing held on 1/4/2021, and postponed to this meeting of 1/19/2021.

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments:

Page 1 of 1

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUBURN, MAINE

An Application for a Municipal Development and Tax Increment Financing District Development Program

PACKGEN OMNIBUS MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (District #26)

Presented to:

City of Auburn, City Council

DATED: January 4, 2021

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 A. The Packgen Expansion and the TIF District ...... 1 B. Designation of the TIF District ...... 1

II. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM NARRATIVE ...... 2 A. The Development Program ...... 2 B. The Project Costs ...... 3 C. Operational Components ...... 4 D. Improvements to Public Infrastructure ...... 5

III. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ...... 5

IV. FINANCIAL PLAN ...... 5 A. Financial Data ...... 6 B. Tax Shifts ...... 6 C. Public Indebtedness ...... 6 D. Certification of Original Assessed Value ...... 6

V. MUNICIPAL APPROVALS...... 6 A. Notice of Public Hearing…...... 6 B. Minutes of Public Hearing ...... 6 C. Order and Authorizing Vote ...... 7

EXHIBITS:

A-1 Map Showing TIF District Location within Municipality A-2 Map Showing TIF District Boundary B Statutory Requirements & Thresholds C Assessor’s Certification of Original Assessed Value D-1 Captured Assessed Values Projections & TIF Revenue Projections D-2 Projected Tax Shift Effect E Public Hearing Notice F Public Hearing Minutes G City Council Order

I. Introduction A. The Packgen Project and the TIF District Packgen (the “Developer”), an Auburn based specialty packaging manufacturer, is looking to construct a new facility at Cascade Drive in Auburn, Maine to accommodate recent and forecasted future substantial growth. The Developer is purchasing the subdivision at Cascade Drive and developing lots 1 and 2. The District will be comprised of the following parcels: Map 130/Lot 001-001 and Map 130/Lot 001-002.

The Developer plans an initial investment of $10,000,000 to add a 70,000+/- square foot structure, parking and site improvements, as well as an investment in personal property, on Map 130/Lot 001-001 and Map 130/Lot 001-002, shown on Exhibit A-1 (the “Project”). The Project is expected to add 25 jobs. Additionally, the Developer is considering the future development of at least two other lots in the subdivision that are not located in the proposed district.

A development hurdle has been identified with the developer. Site construction and permitting costs to develop a new manufacturing facility are more expensive than the project can support. A Credit enhancement agreement is proposed that that would help mitigate these expenses and make the project feasible.

The City of Auburn has identified this growth as an opportunity to capture Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to make needed infrastructure improvements in the area and repay the debt incurred to construct the subdivision road, infrastructure needed to serve the Development and wetland mitigation monitoring. The City will use captured funds to pay debt incurred during the construction of the public road (Cascades Drive). The City would also use TIF Revenues (as defined below) to fund a new public safety facility, as allowed by a recent TIF Statute amendment in 2019. The municipal projects are described below in Table 1.

B. Designation of the TIF District The City hereby designates the Packgen Omnibus Municipal Development and Tax Increment Financing District (#26) (the “District” or “TIF District”). The District is shown on Exhibits A-1 and A- 2 and consists of 11.3 acres identified on City Tax Maps as Map 130/Lot 001-001 and Map 130/Lot 001- 002. The District will exist for a total of twenty-five (25) years beginning with the City’s July 1, 2020- June 30, 2020 Fiscal Year, upon approval from the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development (“DECD”), and ending on October 31, 2045.

The District is a so-called “omnibus” district, which means that the City will be permitted in the future to enter into additional credit enhancement agreements relating to this District as it sees fit for up to the full term of the District for up to 100% of the captured assessed value, so long as the City holds a public hearing prior to the approval of any such credit enhancement agreement. Pursuant to this Development Program, the City is authorizing a credit enhancement agreement with the Developer, and by designating

1 The property is currently two parcels but may be combined to a single parcel for the Development.

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program

the District as an “omnibus” district, the City reserves the right to enter into additional credit enhancement agreements in the future. II. Development Program Narrative A. The Development Program This Development Program is structured and proposed pursuant to Chapter 206 of Title 30-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, as amended (the “TIF Statute”). The City’s designation of the District combined with the adoption of this development program (the “Development Program”) create a single municipal TIF district in order to capture the value of the real property improvements made in the District, and enable the use TIF Revenues (as defined below) to ensure the economic viability of the Initial Project slated for construction and as incentive for the development of the Future Projects. The Development Program will run for the same twenty-five (25) years beginning with the City’s July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 Fiscal Year, upon approval from DECD, and ending on October 31, 2045. Under this Development Program, the City will capture 100% of the increased assessed value of real property in the District over the original assessed value of the District and retain the tax revenues generated by the captured assessed real property value (the “TIF Revenues”) for designated economic development purposes. In the Assessor’s Certificate attached as Exhibit C hereto, the City’s Assessor has certified the original assessed property value of the District. The calculation of TIF Revenues is more specifically described below in Section IV – Financial Plan.

By adopting this Development Program, the City will be creating a TIF district that will (1) contribute to the success of the District with developer-funded property improvements of the District; and (2) shelter the new municipal real property value from impacting the overall State valuation for the City of Auburn, thereby minimizing decreases in the City’s State school subsidy and State revenue sharing, and potential increases in the City’s county tax assessments.

Further, approval of this Development Program and the designation of the District will have a neutral impact on the existing tax base, because only the increased assessed real property value over the original assessed property value within the District will be captured. In addition, at the end of the term of this Development Program, the City will emerge with a substantial amount of new real property value to add to its municipal tax base.

In designating the District and adopting this Development Program, the City can accomplish the following goals:

• Maintain the existing tax revenues;

• Enjoy enhanced future tax revenues generated by improvements within the District;

• Enable the investment of TIF Revenues (defined below) in high priority City projects;

• Create long-term, stable employment opportunities for area residents; and

• Improve the overall economy of the City, the region, and the State of Maine. The City's designation of the TIF District and pursuit of this Development Program constitute a good and valid public purpose pursuant to Chapter 206 of Title 30-A because it represents a substantial necessary City infrastructure improvement and contributing to property taxes. In addition, by creating the District,

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program

the City will “shelter” the increase in municipal valuation that the Project will bring about. This tax shift benefit will mitigate the adverse effect that the District's increased assessed property value would have on the City's share of state aid to education, municipal revenue sharing and its county tax assessment. An estimate of the tax shift benefit is shown as Exhibit D-2 attached hereto. B. The Project Costs 1. Municipal Project Costs The City plans to invest in municipal infrastructure. The City plans to use its portion of the TIF Revenues to undertake projects that will enhance the exposure and viability of the City as a vibrant place to locate a business, to visit, and to work. The City’s Project Costs will cover capital or municipal debt to fund the items listed in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 City of Auburn’s Project Costs Note: The TIF Revenues from this District are not intended to fully fund each of the projects listed below. The total project cost estimates for the projects listed below may well exceed the projected TIF Revenues from this District.

Statutory Project Cost Estimate Citation

1. Public Safety Facility: Costs related to the construction or 30-A M.R.S. operation of a public safety facility in the City, the need for which is related to general economic development within the City, not to $26,000,000 § 5225 exceed 15% of the captured assessed value of the development (1)(C)(9); district. (1)(B)(1)

2. Road and Intersection Improvements: Design, construction and 30-A M.R.S. engineering costs related to road construction and intersection $4,600,000 § 5225 improvements on Cascades Drive and Lewiston Junction Road, (1)(A)(1); located within the District or directly related to or made necessary (1)(B)(1) by the District.

3. Capital Improvements: Costs of the construction of or the 30-A M.R.S. expansion of utility infrastructure, including but not limited to sewer $1,000,000 § 5225 and water, located within the District or directly related to or made (1)(A)(1); necessary by the District. (1)(B)(1)

4. Professional Services Costs: Professional service costs related to 30-A M.R.S. § the District including, but not limited to, licensing, architectural, $400,000 5225(1)(A)(4) planning, engineering and legal expenses.

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program

5. Economic Development Programs: Costs of the City’s economic development programs, including, but not limited to, marketing costs, monitoring and compliance with wetland mitigation requirements, 30-A M.R.S. § $20,000 prorated portions of staff salaries devoted to supporting and 5225(1)(C)(1) administering TIF programming, and other related operating expenses for the City’s Economic Development Department. * TOTAL $27,795,000

*Similar project contained within Auburn Memory Care TIF, Downtown Omnibus TIF and Futureguard Omnibus TIF. 2. Developer's Use of TIF Revenues With the designation of this District, the City authorizes a twenty-year credit enhancement agreement (the “CEA”) with the Developer under which the Developer will receive 40% of the TIF Revenues per year of the District being developed into the Project, identified on the District map at Exhibit A. The purpose of the CEA is to reimburse the Developer for the cost of the site development, wetland impact permitting, stormwater treatment and construction costs required by the Project. The City will retain the remaining 60% of TIF Revenues related to this portion of the Developer’s property to be used for the municipal projects described in Table 1. Once the CEA expires, 100% of TIF Revenues related to this portion of the Developer’s property will be retained by the City for the duration of the District to be used to fund municipal projects. C. Operational Components 1. Public Facilities See Table 1 for a description of public facilities. 2. Commercial Improvements Financed Through Development Program The City will enter into the CEA with the Developer, to support the commercial improvements in the District. 3. Relocation of Displaced Persons Not applicable. 4. Transportation Improvements See Table 1 for a description of any transportation improvements. 5. Environmental Controls The improvements made under this Development Program will meet or exceed all federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and ordinances and will comply with all applicable land use requirements for the City.

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program

6. Plan of Operation During the term of the District, the City Council or its designee will be responsible for all administrative matters within the purview of the City concerning the implementation and operation of the District. D. Improvements to the Public Infrastructure Please see Table 1 for a list of public infrastructure improvements contemplated by the District. III. Physical Description This Article III addresses the conditions for approval contained in 30-A M.R.S.A. § 5223(3). The proposed 11.3-acre District is shown in Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2. The statutory threshold limits addressing the conditions for approval mandated by 30-A M.R.S.A. § 5223(3) are set forth in Exhibit B. IV. Financial Plan The Original Assessed Value of the property in the District was $272,900 as of March 31, 2020 (April 1, 2019) as shown in the Assessor’s Certificates at Exhibit C.2 In the event of a revaluation of taxable property within the City, the Captured Assessed Value of this District may be adjusted in proportion to the change in taxable assessed property valued within the District in the year of the revaluation. Under this Development Program, the City will capture 100% of the taxes paid on increased assessed value in the District. As discussed in detail in Section II(B)(2), the City will enter into the CEA with the Developer, which provide that certain percentages of the TIF Revenues be reimbursed to the Developer and certain percentages of TIF Revenues are retained by the City to be used to fund the municipal projects described in Table 1. A Development Program Fund shall be established by the City consisting of a Project Cost Account and a Sinking Fund. Upon each payment of property taxes for property located inside the District, the City will deposit into a development program fund (the “Packgen Development Program Fund” or “Development Program Fund”) 50% of the property tax payments on increased assessed value of District property, also referred to as TIF Revenues. The Development Program Fund is pledged to and charged with the payment of the project costs in the manner provided in 30-A M.R.S.A. § 5227(3). The Development Program Fund Project Cost Account shall consist of and be separated into at least two separate subaccounts: the Developer Project Cost Subaccount (the “Developer Project Cost Subaccount”) and the City Project Cost Subaccount (the “City Project Cost Subaccount”). The Developer Project Cost Subaccount will be pledged to and charged with the payment of amounts due to the Developer under the CEA entered into by the City and the Developer. Upon receipt of each payment of property tax from the Developer on District property, the City shall deposit into the Developer Project Cost Subaccount 15% of the TIF Revenues generated on that portion of the Developer’s property upon which the Initial Project is located, until (a) the total cumulative amount of TIF Revenues so deposited during the term of the District reaches the Cap, or (b) the expiration of the term of the CEA, whichever occurs first, at which point no further deposits shall be made into the Developer Project Cost Subaccount. The amounts in the Developer Project Cost Subaccount shall be used

2 As stated above, as of March 31, 2020, the property within the District was comprised of two parcels, Map 130/Lot 001-001 and Map 130/Lot 001-002. The property within the District will likely be developed as a single merged parcel matching the District Boundaries.

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program

and applied solely to fund the payments to the Developer under the CEA. The City shall deposit in the City Project Cost Subaccount the balance of the TIF Revenues related that portion of the Developer’s property upon which the Project is located. All funds deposited into the City Project Cost Subaccount will be used to pay or costs of the public facilities debt, improvements, and programs described in Table 1 hereof. All funds deposited into the Developer Project Cost Subaccounts will be used to make payments pursuant to the CEA. A. Financial Data Estimates of the increased assessed property values of the District and the anticipated TIF Revenues generated by the District are shown in Exhibit D-1. The current and future developers owning or leasing properties located within the District will pay for and/or finance improvements located in the District through private sources. The statutory requirements and thresholds for approval required by Section 5223(3) of Title 30-A in the TIF Statute are set forth in Exhibit B. B. Tax Shifts In accordance with the TIF Statute, the table set forth in Exhibit D-2 identifies the tax shift benefits that the City estimates will result during the term of the District. C. Public Indebtedness The City reserves the right to issue municipal bonds in order to pay for capital improvements to pay for capital improvements in the Development Program. Any municipal bond issued for such project would require the City approval process as normally required for municipal indebtedness. D. Certification of Original Assessed Value The Original Assessed Value of the District was $272,900 as of March 31, 2020 (April 1, 2019). This assessed value is wholly attributable to taxable real property value. Certification by the City’s Tax Assessor of the original assessed value of the District is set forth in Exhibit C. V. Municipal Approvals A. Notice of Public Hearing Attached as Exhibit E hereto is a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the designation of the District and the adoption of the Development Program for the District, published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, on a date at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. The public hearing on the Development Program was held on January 4, 2021, in accordance with the requirements of 30-A M.R.S.A. § 5226(1). B. Minutes of Public Hearing The Auburn City Clerk has provided an attested copy of the minutes of the January 4, 2021 public hearing before the Auburn City Council, a copy of which is contained in Exhibit F. This exhibit also provides a record of the vote of the Council on the designation of the District and the adoption of the Development Program.

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program

C. Order and Authorizing Vote A copy of the City Council Order posted for the Public Hearing and approved by the Auburn City Council is provided in Exhibit G, attested by the City Clerk.

Exhibit A-1

Exhibit A-2

M re wor dR

d lR te o H

EXHIBIT B STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND THRESHOLDS Packgen Omnibus Municipal TIF District (#26)

SECTION A. | Acreage Caps 1. Total municipal acreage; 41,430 2. Acreage of proposed Municipal TIF District; 11.3 3. Downtown-designation1 acres in proposed Municipal TIF District; 0 4. Transit-Oriented Development2 acres in proposed Municipal TIF District; 0 5. Total acreage [=A2-A3-A4] of proposed Municipal TIF District counted toward 2% limit; 11.3 6. Percentage [=A5÷A1] of total acreage in proposed Municipal TIF District (CANNOT EXCEED 2%). .027% 7. Total acreage of all existing/proposed Municipal TIF districts in municipality including Municipal Existing 717.31 Affordable Housing Development districts:3 #10 Downtown Omnibus/264.18 acres Proposed 11.3 #13 Retail Development/29.67 acres #15 Mall Area Hotel/1.5 acres #19 Hartt Transportation Industrial Park/43 acres #6 Proctor & Gamble (Tambrands II)/84 acres #9 Mall Area/57.74 acres #12 Auburn Industrial Park/144 acres #14 Mall Revitalization/38.91 #16 Webster School AHTIF/1.4 acres #18 Norway Savings Bank Arena/8.53 acres #20 62 Spring Street/.81 Total: 728.61 #21 477 Minot Ave/3.83 #22 Hampshire Street/1.01 #23 Memory Care/8.61 #24 Gracelawn/2.92 #25 FutureGuard/27.2 #26 Packgen/11.3 30-A § 5223 ( 3 ) EXEMPTIONS 4 8. Acreage of an existing/proposed Downtown Municipal TIF district; 264.18 9. Acreage of all existing/proposed Transit-Oriented Development Municipal TIF districts: 0

10. Acreage of all existing/proposed Community Wind Power Municipal TIF districts: 0

11. Acreage in all existing/proposed Municipal TIF districts common to5 Pine Tree Development Zones per 30-A § 5250-I (14)(A) excluding any such acreage also factored in Exemptions 8-10 above: 0

12. Total acreage [=A7-A8-A9-A10-A11] of all existing/proposed Municipal TIF districts counted 464.43 toward 5% limit; 13. Percentage of total acreage [=A12÷A1] of all existing/proposed Municipal TIF districts (CANNOT 1.12% EXCEED 5%). 14. Real property in proposed Municipal TIF District that is: ACRES % [=Acres÷A2] a. A blighted area; 0 0 b. In need of rehabilitation, redevelopment or conservation; 0 0 c. Suitable for commercial or arts district uses. 11.3 100% TOTAL (except for § 5223 (3) exemptions a., b. OR c. must be at least 25%) 100%

1 Before final designation, the Commissioner will seek advice from MDOACF and MDOT per 30-A § 5226(2). 2 For Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) definitions see 30-A § 5222 sub-§§ 19-24. 3 For AH-TIF acreage requirement see 30-A § 5247(3)(B). Alternatively, Section B. must exclude AH-TIF valuation. Page 1 of 2 | Revised NOV-10-2015

EXHIBIT B STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND THRESHOLDS Packgen Omnibus Municipal TIF District (#26) 4 Downtown/TOD overlap nets single acreage/valuation caps exemption. 5 PTDZ districts approved through December 31, 2008.

Page 2 of 2 | Revised NOV-10-2015

EXHIBIT B STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND THRESHOLDS Packgen Omnibus Municipal TIF District (#26)

SECTION B. | Valuation Cap 1. Total TAXABLE municipal valuation—use most recent April 1; $1,956,632,371 2. Taxable Original Assessed Value (OAV) of proposed Municipal TIF District as of March 31 preceding municipal designation—same as April 1 prior to such March 31; $272,900

3. Taxable OAV of all existing/proposed Municipal TIF districts in municipality excluding Existing $114,484,300 Municipal Affordable Housing Development districts: Proposed $272,900 #10 Downtown Omnibus/$83,168,800 #13 Retail Development/$5,425,400 #15 Mall Area Hotel/$4,900 #18 Norway Savings Bank Arena/$1,564,100 #6 Proctor & Gamble (Tambrands II)/$520,900 #9 Mall Area/$5,956,300 #12 Auburn Industrial Park/$334,200 #14 Auburn Mall/$11,328,400 Total: $114,757,200 #19 Hartt Transportation Center/$1,278,600 #20 62 Spring Street/$474,300 #23 Auburn Memory Care/$327,100 #24 Gracelawn/$262,600 #25 FutureGuard/$3,838,700 #26 Packgen/$272,900 30-A § 5223 ( 3 ) EXEMPTIONS 4. Taxable OAV of an existing/proposed Downtown Municipal TIF district; $83,168,800 5. Taxable OAV of all existing/proposed Transit-Oriented Development Municipal TIF districts: 0

6. Taxable OAV of all existing/proposed Community Wind Power Municipal TIF districts: 0

7. Taxable OAV of all existing/proposed Single Taxpayer/High Valuation6 Municipal TIF districts: 0

8. Taxable OAV in all existing/proposed Municipal TIF districts common to Pine Tree Development Zones per 30-A § 5250-I (14)(A) excluding any such OAV also factored in Exemptions 4-7 above: 0

9. Total taxable OAV [=B3-B4-B5-B6-B7-B8] of all existing/proposed Municipal TIF districts $31,588,400 counted toward 5% limit; 10. Percentage of total taxable OAV [=B9÷B1] of all existing/proposed Municipal TIF districts 1.6% (CANNOT EXCEED 5%). C O M P L E T E D B Y N A M E : Eric J. Cousens, Interim Director of Economic and Community Development, City of Auburn D A T E : December 10, 2020

6 For this exemption see 30-A §5223(3)(C) sub-§§ 1-4. Page 3 of 2 | Revised NOV-10-2015

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program Exhibit C

Original Assessed Value for Individual Tax Map Lot

Tax Map and Lot Original Assessed Value as of Number Acreage March 31, 2020 (April 1, 2019)

Map 130, Lot 001-001 5.8 $142,000

Original Assessed Value for Individual Tax Map Lot

Tax Map and Lot Original Assessed Value as of Number Acreage March 31, 2020 (April 1, 2019)

Map 130, Lot 001-002 5.5 $130,900

Exhibit D-1 | Captured Assessed Value & TIF Revenue Projections PACKGEN OMNIBUS TIF DISTRICT #26

Projected Mill Rate Percent Increased Captured Total Projected TIF Revenue TIF Revenue Taxes to City Increased Captured TIF Revenue Taxes to City Total District Fiscal TIF Tax Yr Captured Assessed Value Assessed Value TIF Revenue to Developer to City General Fund Assessed Value Assessed Value to City General Fund Captured Year Year 2020 in TIF Other Parcels Other Parcels Other Parcels Other Parcels Assessed Value $23.75

2020-2021 1 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2021-2022 2 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2022-2023 3 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2023-2024 4 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2024-2025 5 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2025-2026 6 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2026-2027 7 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2027-2028 8 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2028-2029 9 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2029-2030 10 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2020-2031 11 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2031-2032 12 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2032-2033 13 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2033-2034 14 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2034-2035 15 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2035-2036 16 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2036-2037 17 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2037-2038 18 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2038-2039 19 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2033-2035 20 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $38,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2034-2036 21 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $0 $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2035-2037 22 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $0 $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2036-2038 23 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $0 $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2037-2039 24 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $0 $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 2038-2040 25 23.75 100% $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $95,000 $0 $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000

25-Year Total: $2,375,000 $760,000 $1,615,000 $0 25-Year Average: $95,000 $30,400 $64,600 $0

Assumptions: 1. Assumes the initial project is complete for Year 1 of the District with an estimated assessed value of $4 million. 2. Assumes a 25-year district term and 100% assessment ratio. 3. Projections include projected mil rates based on 2020 actual mil rate, held constant for remainder of District term. 4. Assumes 100% of the increased assessed value is captured in the District and available for municipal project costs for 25 years (and a portion to the CEA relating to the project for a period of 20 years). 5. Assumes 40% of TIF revenues each year for Developer for 20 years. 6. Projections are much less likely to be accurate farther into the future and are for demonstrative purposes only.

Exhibit D-2 | Tax Shift Benefits PACKGEN OMNIBUS TIF DISTRICT #26

State Aid County State Revenue Total Fiscal TIF to Education Tax Sharing Tax Shift Year Year Benefit Benefit Benefit Benefits

2020-2021 1 - - - $0 2021-2022 2 - - - $0 2022-2023 3 - $4,890 $2,945 $7,835 2023-2024 4 $10,798 $7,628 $4,593 $21,695 2024-2025 5 $21,595 $9,780 $5,889 $37,260 2025-2026 6 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2026-2027 7 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2027-2028 8 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2028-2029 9 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2029-2030 10 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2020-2031 11 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2031-2032 12 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2032-2033 13 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2033-2034 14 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2034-2035 15 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2035-2036 16 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2036-2037 17 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2037-2038 18 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2038-2039 19 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2033-2035 20 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2034-2036 21 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2035-2037 22 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2036-2038 23 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2037-2039 24 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2038-2040 25 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2040-2041 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2041-2042 $32,720 $9,780 $5,889 $43,389 2042-2043 $32,720 - - $37,260 Totals: $784,953 $237,458 $142,985 $1,101,997 Averages: $31,398 $9,498 $5,719 $44,080

Assumptions: 1. Data sources include the 2020 mil rate reported and predicted by the City of Auburn, Androscoggin County's FY 2016-2020 Tax Commitment, the State Treasurer's Office Municipal Revenue Sharing projections for FY 2020 07/01/20 - 06/30/21 Published 08/03/20, the Maine Department of Education 11/16/20 2020-2021 ED 279 form for Auburn Public Schools. 2. Tax shift losses are comprised of declining subsidies in revenue sharing and increasing obligations to pay county taxes. Tax shift losses occur a couple of years following the year in which the new assessed value is first recognized in the assessment. No tax shift losses occur when a TIF captures all of the new value. 3. These projections assume that the formulas and general inputs for state subsidies and county taxes do not change over time and they assume that all other values in other communities are static relative to one another except for the new value assessed. The projections are less likely to be accurate farther into the future. 4. Assumes the assessment ratio in the City is 100% when new property value arrives, such that the market value of new property is used for assessment purposes. 5. The projections above assume that no tax increment financing district is put in place, thus the mil rate is reduced by as a result of the full new value in the City. This analysis factors in tax shift impacts resulting from the project's new assessed value into future commitments and mil rate calculations to arrive at projected

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program Exhibit E

CITY OF AUBURN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Notice is hereby given that the City of Auburn City Council will hold a public hearing on January 4, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. for the purposes of receiving public comments on the designation of the Packgen Omnibus Municipal Development and Tax Increment Financing District as well as the adoption of the development program for the district to encompass approximately 11.3 acres located at 11 and 35 Cascades Dive Parcel IDs 130-001-001 and 130-001-002. The City plans to enter into a credit enhancement agreement with the owner of the property within the District related to development of a new manufacturing and distribution facility.

The public hearing is proposed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 206 of Title 30-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, as amended. All interested persons are invited to attend the public hearing and will be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing.

This public hearing will be conducted remotely using “Zoom.” The meeting will be broadcast as usual on Great Falls TV (cable channel 1302) and on the City of Auburn YouTube channel. Information, materials and the active meeting access links are available under the January 4, 2021 TIF link at: https://www.auburnmaine.gov/pages/government/city-council-agendas .

If you wish to offer public comment during the meeting, you can “attend” the meeting via Zoom and speak during the public comment session. To participate in this way, please register in advance by using the following link under the January 4, 2021 TIF link at: https://www.auburnmaine.gov/pages/government/city-council-agendas .

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. If you wish to speak, simply click “Raise Hand” in the webinar controls. You can also use the Alt+Y keyboard shortcut (Mac: Option+Y) to raise or lower your hand. You will be notified when it is your turn to speak. Be sure to “Unmute” yourself and speak clearly. All participants will be able to hear you.

If you prefer to submit public comment in writing, please send your remarks via email to: [email protected]. Your comments will be included in the meeting minutes.

EXHIBIT F – Public Hearing Minutes Placeholder

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program Exhibit G

CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE COUNCIL ORDER

WHEREAS, the City of Auburn (the “City”) is authorized pursuant to Chapter 206 of Title 30-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, as amended, to designate specific areas within the City as Packgen Omnibus Municipal Development District (the “District”) and to adopt a development program for the District (the “Development Program”); and WHEREAS, there is a need for development in the City and for the creation of good new jobs in the City; and WHEREAS, implementation of the Development Program will help to improve and broaden the tax base in the City and improve the economy of the City and the State of Maine; and WHEREAS, there is a need to encourage the expansion, improvement and continuation of commercial development in the City through the establishment of the District in accordance with Chapter 206 of Title 30-A; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on January 4, 2021, upon at least ten (10) days prior notice published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, on the question of establishing the District in accordance with the requirements of 30-A M.R.S.A. § 5226; and WHEREAS, the City desires to designate the District as a Municipal Development and Tax Increment Financing District, and to adopt a Development Program for the District; and WHEREAS, it is expected that approval will be sought and obtained from the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development (the “Department”), approving the designation of the District and the adoption of the Development Program for the District;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that:

a. At least twenty-five percent (25%), by area, of the real property within the District, as hereinafter designated, is suitable for commercial uses; and

b. The total area of the District does not exceed two percent (2%) of the total acreage of the City, and the total area of all existing and proposed development districts within the City (including the District) does not exceed five percent (5%) of the total acreage of the City; and

c. The original assessed value of all existing and proposed tax increment financing districts (including the District) does not exceed five percent (5%) of the total value of equalized taxable property within the City as of April 1, 2018; and

d. The District and pursuit of the Development Program will make a contribution to the economic growth and well-being of the City of Auburn and the surrounding region, and will contribute to the betterment of the health, welfare and safety of the inhabitants of

Packgen Omnibus TIF Development Program Exhibit G

the City of Auburn, including a broadened and improved tax base and economic stimulus, and therefore constitutes a good and valid public purpose. The City has considered all evidence, if any, presented to it with regard to any adverse economic effect on or detriment to any existing business and has found and determined that such adverse economic effect on or detriment to any existing business, if any, is outweighed by the contribution expected to be made through the District and Development Program. Section 2. 30-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, as amended, the City hereby designates a Municipal Development and Tax Increment Financing District and to promote the completion of the project, designated and described more particularly set forth in the Development Program presented to the City Council and such Development Program is hereby incorporated by reference into this vote as the Development Program for the District. Section 3. Pursuant to the provisions of 30-A M.R.S.A. §5227, the percentage of the increased assessed value to be retained as captured assessed value in the District is set forth in the Development Program.

Section 4. The City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized, empowered and directed to submit the proposed designation of the District and the proposed Development Program for the District to the Department for review and approval pursuant to the requirements of 30-A M.R.S.A. §5226(2). Section 5. The foregoing designation of the District and the adoption of the Development Program for the District shall become final and shall take full force upon receipt by the City of approval and designation of the District and adoption of the Development Program by the Department.

Section 6. The City Manager be and hereby is authorized and empowered, at his discretion, from time to time, to make such revisions to the Development Program for the District and the City Manager deems reasonably necessary or convenient, including revisions to the scope or description of the public improvements, facilities and programs to be financed with a portion of the tax increment revenues generated by the District, in order to facilitate the process for review and approval of the District by the Department, or for any other reason so long as such revisions are not inconsistent with these resolutions or the basic structure and intent of the Development Program.

Section 7. The City Manager, in the name and on behalf of the City, is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a credit enhancement agreement between the City and the developer of the project to be located in the District, consistent with the description of such agreement in the Development Program.

Section 8. This Order shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

Approved January 4, 2021, by the City Council of the City of Auburn, at a meeting duly convened and conducted at Auburn, Maine.

2 ORDER 01-01042021

City Council Order IN CITY COUNCIL

ORDERED, That the Auburn City Council hereby approves the Packgen TIF District #26.

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: January 19, 2021 Order: 03-01042021

Author: Derek Boulanger

Subject: Lake Auburn Impact Study RFP

Information: Develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a study that will have the following outcomes, as it pertains to impact:

1. Economically 2. Environmentally 3. Regulatory 4. Community

Workgroup Members:

Councilor Belinda Gerry, Councilor Brian Carrier, Trustee Mary Sylvester, Trustee Jason Pawlina; Staff: City Manager Phil Crowell, AWD Superintendent Sid Hazelton, Facilities Manager/Purchasing Agent, Derek Boulanger

Timeline:

• September 8th – city council appointed representatives along with the AWD Trustees • September 22nd workgroup holds first meeting – determined meeting dates and decided we would use the 2013 ordinance RFP as our template. Started reviewing the economic outcomes. • September 28th – workgroup met and completed economic section and began the work on regulatory. • October 5th – workgroup met and completed the regulatory outcomes and began discussion on the environmental outcomes. It was determined the areas that we would propose for outcomes on community impact were being addressed in the other three categories. • The original timeline had the workgroup presenting to the council on October 19th. With meeting constraints, the final editing of the RFP was completed by email with the group participating over the last few weeks. • November 2nd – City Council adopted the draft RFP • November 13th – RFP is advertised • December 17th – Proposal due date • December 29th – Staff meeting to review proposals, all in agreement to recommend the proposal submitted by FB Environmental Associates. • January 4th, 2021 – recommendation provided to the city council for consideration

Page 1 of 2

City Budgetary Impacts:

Staff proposes to utilize $96,852.92 from Comprehensive Plan implementation funds to complete the Study.

Staff Recommended Action:

Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with FB Environmental Associates for the evaluation of ordinances applicable to the protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed.

Previous Meetings and History:

8/17/2020 9/8/2020 11/2/2020 This was on the 1/4/2021 agenda and was postponed to this meeting of 01/19/2021.

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments:

2020 Lake Auburn Impact Study RFP (Bid# 2021-015) FB Environmental Associates Proposal Docs.

Page 2 of 2

Lake Auburn Ordinance Review . Submitted to the City of Auburn by FB Environmental Associates, Horsley Witten Group, and the University of Maine. The following provides a billing and payment schedule for the proposed project. The project will be billed monthly for time and materials by task.

Task A-2: Task C-2: Task C-3: Task D-2: Task A-3: Task B-3: Task C-1: Task A-1: Treatment Task B-1: WQ Task B-2: Land Treatment Comparison Planning Task D-3: City Comparison Land Costs of Task D-1: Final Task E-1: Subtotal by Staff Member Ordinance Alternatives Impact Model Cons & For Mgmt Alternatives Matrix Board Pres Council Pres & Matrix (Best Purchase Added Report Project Mgmt Staff Review Review (Best Scenarios Review (Economic (Economic & Draft Final Ordinance Practices) Review Protection Practices) Analysis) Impacts) Ordinance Bell, P4 4 4 10 12 12 8 50 Brereton, P3 12 40 16 8 8 60 16 16 12 188 Diemer, P3 80 20 2 102 Sohns, P3 12 12 12 8 8 49.5 8 109.5 FB TASK TOTAL: 24 0 52 108 20 20 0 0 49.5 98 28 28 22 449.5 Claytor, P4 4 4 4 12 Baker, P4 16 8 4 8 4 32 16 12 100 Price, P4 6 6 Lee, P4 6 6 Bartlett, P2 20 50 6 76 HW TASK TOTAL: 36 74 0 4 8 4 0 0 0 0 42 20 12 200 UMaine (Daigneault) 20 40 40 10 110 TOTAL 60 74 52 132 28 24 40 40 59.5 98 70 48 34 759.5

Bell, P4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $568.00 $568.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,420.00 $1,704.00 $1,704.00 $1,136.00 $7,100.00 Brereton, P3 $1,212.00 $0.00 $4,040.00 $1,616.00 $808.00 $808.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,060.00 $1,616.00 $1,616.00 $1,212.00 $18,988.00 Diemer, P3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,080.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,020.00 $0.00 $0.00 $202.00 $10,302.00 Sohns, P3 $1,212.00 $0.00 $1,212.00 $1,212.00 $808.00 $808.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,999.50 $808.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,059.50 FB TASK TOTAL: $2,424.00 $0.00 $5,252.00 $10,908.00 $2,184.00 $2,184.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,999.50 $10,308.00 $3,320.00 $3,320.00 $2,550.00 $47,449.50 Claytor, P4 $0.00 $840.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $840.00 $840.00 $0.00 $2,520.00 Baker, P4 $2,640.00 $1,320.00 $0.00 $660.00 $1,320.00 $660.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,280.00 $2,640.00 $1,980.00 $16,500.00 Price, P4 $0.00 $1,110.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,110.00 Lee, P4 $0.00 $1,110.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,110.00 Bartlett, P2 $1,900.00 $4,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $570.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,220.00 HW TASK TOTAL: $4,540.00 $9,130.00 $0.00 $660.00 $1,320.00 $660.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,690.00 $3,480.00 $1,980.00 $28,460.00 UMaine (Daigneault) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,200.00 TOTAL $6,964.00 $9,130.00 $5,252.00 $13,968.00 $3,504.00 $2,844.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $6,199.50 $10,308.00 $10,010.00 $6,800.00 $4,530.00 $89,109.50

Labor Rate/hr Total Hours Total Dollars Note: color coded by lead firm for each task Bell, P4 $ 142.00 50 $7,100.00 Brereton, P3 $ 101.00 188 $18,988.00 Diemer, P3 $ 101.00 102 $10,302.00 Sohns, P3 $ 101.00 109.5 $11,059.50 Subtotal (FBE) $47,449.50 Claytor, P4 $ 210.00 12 $2,520.00 Baker, P4 $ 165.00 100 $16,500.00 Price, P4 $ 185.00 6 $1,110.00 Lee, P4 $ 185.00 6 $1,110.00 Bartlett, P2 $ 95.00 76 $7,220.00 Subtotal (HW) $28,460.00 UMaine (Daigneault) $ 120.00 110 $13,200.00 TOTAL LABOR $89,109.50 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Total Dollars UMaine Salary Employee Fringe (7.9%) $ 1,042.80 UMaine Indirect (33%) $4,700.12 TOTAL ODCs $ 5,742.92 TOTAL LABOR + ODCs $ 94,852.42 RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN, ME BID # 2021-015 FB Environmental Associates, Horsley Witten Group, and The University of Maine

December 17, 2020

Updated January 8, 2021 Photo Credit: Sun Journal

Derek Boulanger Facilities Manager/Purchasing Agent City of Auburn, Maine 60 Court Street Auburn, Maine 04210

December 17, 2020 Updated January 8, 2021

Dear Mr. Boulanger, FB Environmental Associates (FBE) is pleased to submit to the City of Auburn the following response to the Request for Proposals for Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed (Bid #2021- 015). We have coalesced a strong team of watershed planners, environmental modelers, water resources engineers, and economists from FBE, Horsley Witten Group, and the University of Maine to effectively and efficiently coordinate, execute, and deliver outstanding products for the City of Auburn. FBE is widely regarded as a regional leader in water resource planning, assessment, monitoring, and restoration with an expert staff of scientists, modelers, and planners. Horsley Witten Group is considered a leading-edge engineering, planning, and environmental consulting firm with a staff of highly skilled planners and engineers. Dr. Adam Daigneault is an Assistant Professor of Forest Policy and Economics at the University of Maine’s School of Forest Resources and specializes in developing models to assess socio-economic impacts of environmental and land use policy on natural resource sectors. We are pleased to showcase that three of the seven key staff members for this project have a Ph.D. in a related field. All of the project staff will provide a high level of expertise to the City and its stakeholders. Being only one of 50 non-filtered public drinking water sources in the United States, Lake Auburn is unique and thus the overall approach and goal of the project are unique as well, with components of the project tapping into our team’s strong work experience and expertise in ordinance review and drafting, alternatives analyses, environmental and economic trade-off analyses, and client/stakeholder outreach and engagement. We understand that several other consultants have performed studies in the past related to components of this project; however, our team can serve as an independent, third-party reviewer of all previous studies, with the infrastructure, connections, expertise, and unbiased scientific rigor afforded by our firms and university partner. We are also aware of the political tensions and differing interests among stakeholder groups in the watershed. For past projects, we have proven ourselves as effective communicators and mediators in similarly contentious projects, the stakeholders of which were assuaged through public presentation of robust and sound scientific reason and thus the garnering of public trust in the results, regardless of which public interest they may serve. We pride ourselves in this area of stakeholder engagement and look forward to the opportunity to work with key stakeholder groups in the Lake Auburn watershed. If selected, I will serve as the Principal-in-Charge and will be responsible for ensuring that all project tasks are completed to the satisfaction of the City of Auburn. Rich Brereton Ph.D., (FBE) will serve as the Project Manager and will ensure that all work is performed on schedule and within scope. Other FBE staff will serve as technical support staff for task completion. Environmental planners and water resources engineers at Horsley Witten Group will provide expert support on most project tasks. Economists at the University of Maine will lead the economic analysis tasks. We specialize in the area where “science meets civics” and look forward to the opportunity of working with the City of Auburn on this important project. Our highly qualified team will be flexible and creative in our approach and will meet the demands of the project schedule. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (207) 221-6699 or email me at [email protected].

Sincerely Yours,

Forrest Bell Principal and Senior Scientist, FB Environmental Associates, Portland, ME

FB Environmental Associates, 97A Exchange Street, Suite 305, Portland, ME 04101 Office: (207) 221-6699, Cell: (207) 650-7597. www.fbenvironmental.com Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed TABLE OF CONTENTS

BUSINESS INFORMATION...... 1 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE...... 3 PROJECT TEAM...... 3 PROJECT TEAM PROFILES...... 6 LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION...... 9 RECENT AND SIMILAR PROJECTS...... 10 APPROACH & METHODOLOGY ...... 13 WORK SCHEDULE AND TIMELINE...... 18 REFERENCES...... 20 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES...... 21

"Our team can serve as an independent, third- party reviewer, with the infrastructure, connections, expertise, and unbiased scientific rigor afforded by our firms and university partner."

Photo Credit: Fishingnortheast.net

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 1i Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed BUSINESS INFORMATION

Primary Firm: FB Environmental Associates LLC.

1. Length of time our firm has been in business: We will be celebrating our 20th anniversary in 2021. 2. Length of time at current location: 10 years on Exchange St, 16 years in Portland total. 3. List types and business license number(s): LLC 4.Names and titles of all officers of the firm:Forrest Bell - CEO and Owner 5. Is your firm a sole proprietorship doing business under a different name? No 6. If yes, please indicate sole proprietorship name/name under which you are doing business: N/A 7. Please indicate your Federal Tax ID Number: 26-3505442 8. Is your firm incorporated? Yes, LLC 9. Primary business address: 97A Exchange Street, Suite 305, Portland, ME 04101

Sub-Consultant: Horsley Witten Group

1. Length of time your firm has been in business: 32 years 2. Length of time at current location: Sandwhich, MA - 22 years. Exeter, NH - 5 years 3. Total number of employees: 60 4. List types and business license number(s): N/A 5. Names and titles of all officers of the firm: Richard Claytor, President; Mark Nelson, Treasurer; Jane Estey, Clerk 6: List the names of similar projects you have worked on within the last ten years: • On-Call Engineering and Resource Protection Peer Review Services for Multiple Communities, MA (2010-present) • Hazard Mitigation Plan and Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Planning, Taunton, MA • (2020-2021) • Designing a Floodwater Management Program in the Assawompset Ponds Complex, MA (2020- 2021) • Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Master Plan Update, and Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Planning, Sudbury, MA (2018-2020) • Taunton River Watershed Management Plan & LID Regulatory Code Update (2007-2010) 7. List the number of past projects partnering with Primary Consultant: 6

Sub-Consultant: The University of Maine, Orono

1. Length of time your firm has been in business: 155 years 2. Length of time at current location: 155 years (university); 5 years (Daigneault) 3. Total number of employees: 2,500 4. List types and business license number(s): Non-profit educational organization 5. Names and titles of all officers of the firm:N/A FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 1 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

6: List the names of similar projects you have worked on within the last ten years. • An Economic Case for the Sebago Watershed Water & Forest Conservation Fund (The Nature Conservancy, 2018-19) • Modeling Economic Impacts Assessment of Ruamahanga Catchment Water Quality Policy (New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 2018-19) • Economic modeling of Kaipara Harbour catchment sediment mitigation study (Auckland Council, 2016-2019) • Economic assessment of scenarios for the Ruamāhanga Watershed (Greater Wellington Regional Council, 2016-18) • Economic Costs and Benefits of National Riparian Restoration in New Zealand (Landcare Research, 2016-17) • Modeling economic impacts of nutrient allocation policies in Canterbury, New Zealand: Hinds and Selwyn Catchments (New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries, 2012-14). 7. List the number of past projects partnering with Primary Consultant: 0

Photo Credit: lakeauburnhalf.org

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 2 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed 1

Photo Credit: alltrails.com STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE

PROJECT TEAM

The following section outlines the project team, project hierarchy, and level of participation of each team member. Full staff resumes can be found at the end of this document. All project team members are prepared to work for this project in the timeframe specified (2021).

FB Environmental Associates –Portland, ME and Dover, NH; (207) 221-6699 Email: [email protected] (Forrest Bell)

FB Environmental Associates (FBE) is a consulting firm that specializes in directing environmental planning, assessment, monitoring, mapping, and restoration projects for a diverse array of clients. The firm’s thirteen associates have more than 150 years of combined experience working on land and water resource projects in New England. FBE was founded by Forrest Bell in 2001 to help provide state environmental agencies and watershed associations with comprehensive assessments of phosphorus- impaired lakes. Since then, FBE has become a regional leader in stakeholder-driven watershed management and community planning projects for water resources, which include water quality and statistical analyses, nutrient load modeling, land use regulatory reviews, and public outreach and communication. FBE delivers thorough scientific assessments of water resources to public sector clients and assists those clients with comprehensive watershed-wide planning and implementation efforts to protect or restore surface waters. FBE has worked with municipal officials throughout New England on public policy review and recommendations relating to water quality and land management. Often relied on to bridge the gap between local conservation groups and municipal decision-makers, FBE has conducted municipal ordinance reviews in several Maine and New Hampshire communities. One of the most rewarding aspects of their work is when they see changes in local rules because of their research and recommendations. FBE focuses on the area where “science meets civics” and is passionate about educating decision-makers on the scientific research that requires behavior change and regulatory change.

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 3 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

References have indicated that the firm’s greatest asset is the staff’s ability to work with great attention to detail to meet the specific needs of project partners and the public. Using sound science and audience-based communication strategies, FBE prides itself on its ability to effectively manage and engage diverse stakeholder interests and mediate controversial topics for a variety of projects and situations. FBE has facilitated dozens of sessions with local stakeholders to address complex and often controversial environmental issues and to solicit input on various components of watershed management and community planning projects. Our associates strive to be thoughtful in soliciting, assessing, and using comments and suggestions from stakeholders during the planning and outreach process. FBE understands the importance of simple and effective communication of important and complex topics to ensure that stakeholders and concerned citizens can fully and equally participate. An example of this at the local level is FBE’s facilitation of a unique public meeting involving the planning boards of both Acton, ME and Wakefield, NH. The planning board members were asked to share views on the barriers and advantages of stormwater management. FBE received extensive positive feedback on their facilitation of this meeting, and it has directly led to increased public support of new stormwater management measures, which have now been established. FBE currently works with a wide range of clients including the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP), New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), Maine and New Hampshire municipalities, Piscataqua Regional Estuaries Partnership (PREP), regional planning commissions, lake and watershed associations, and non- profit environmental organizations, including regional land trusts. Specific services include water quality monitoring, modeling and assessment, stormwater management, nutrient management, design and oversight of stormwater controls or best management practices (BMPs), riparian habitat assessments, development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reports, ordinance reviews and buildout analyses, and watershed management plans for lakes, rivers, and streams, geographic information system (GIS) mapping and analysis, data compilation and interpretation, wetland delineation, soil characterization, invasive plant management, erosion control, grant writing, and scientific report writing. Our offices are in Portland, ME and Dover, NH, and our website www.fbenvironmental.com describes more about our firm.

Horsley Witten Group, Inc. – Exeter, NH; (603) 658-1660 Horsley Witten Group Email: [email protected] (Rich Claytor, President) Sustainable Environmental Solutions

Horsley Witten Group, Inc. (HW) is a leading-edge engineering, planning, and environmental consulting firm providing sustainable design solutions for over 25 years. Over that period, their success in terms of projects and clients can be attributed to a combination of innovation, responsiveness, and client satisfaction. HW’s dedicated staff of highly-skilled professionals manages projects in New England and beyond. HW excels as a liaison between decision-makers and the public, translating technical subjects into understandable concepts. Their multidisciplinary-team approach integrates resilience, sustainable civil engineering, and landscape architecture. HW’s award-winning projects address critical environmental challenges including climate change, coastal resiliency, watershed health, and open space and natural resource protection. Their services include site design, green infrastructure, smart growth planning and community design, zoning regulation review, water and natural resources assessment, and emergency preparedness. Their clients include the US EPA, NOAA, and the US Department of Justice, as well as more than 100 New England municipalities, several state agencies, tribal agencies, non-profit organizations, private organizations, and multiple universities and colleges. HW is a New England-based corporation headquartered in Sandwich,

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 4 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

MA with regional offices in Boston, MA, Providence, RI, and Exeter, NH. For more information, visit us at www.horsleywitten.com or facebook.com/HorsleyWittenGroup.

The University of Maine – Orono, ME; (207) 581-2805 Email: [email protected] (Adam Daigneault, Ph.D.)

The University of Maine offers premier research facilities to study sustainable forestry, nature-based recreation and tourism, and community development, including the Forest Policy and Economics Lab. The Forest Policy and Economics Lab is a diverse group of faculty, staff, and students focused on researching integrated and applied approaches to helping solve complex natural resource and environmental issues. The lab has conducted research in all seven continents of the globe, investigating topics ranging from estimating global timber supply and carbon stocks under different socioeconomic and policy conditions to understanding how landowners prioritize the management of their farms and forests. The lab is led by Dr. Adam Daigneault, Assistant Professor of Forest Policy and Economics at the University of Maine’s School of Forest Resources, faculty fellow at the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions, and affiliated faculty member with the University of Maine’s School of Economics and Ecology and Environmental Sciences Program. The lab includes students from the School of Forest Resources, School of Economics, Ecology and Environmental Sciences Program, and School of Food and Agriculture. As such, there is strong emphasis on cross campus collaborations, including with the Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions and Center for Research on Sustainable Forests. Lab members are currently working on or have received degrees in Forest Resources, Resource Economics and Policy, Ecology and Environmental Science, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, and Sustainability.

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 5 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

PROJECT TEAM PROFILES Brief staff descriptions of key project personnel are presented below. More detailed staff qualifications are provided in the Resume section of this proposal.

A C B D

E F G

A FORREST BELL, FBE Owner and Principal Scientist; 7% of Project Hours Forrest is a regional leader in managing watershed assessment, planning, and restoration projects, having directed more than 550 successful environmental projects, ranging from small (<$5,000) to large (>$1,000,000), over 20 years for a diverse array of clients, including federal and state natural resource agencies, municipalities, and non-profit organizations. FBE managed a $1.6 million contract with USEPA Region 1 under a Blanket Purchase Agreement from 2008-2013. Task orders included detailed assessments of impaired waterbodies in all six New England states (i.e., statewide TMDLs), including technical writing, river and stream mapping, impervious cover analysis, pollutant load modeling, and water quality monitoring. FBE also managed a $900,000 contract with the Maine DEP from 2000-2007, which included TMDL development and phosphorus control action plans for 36 nutrient-impaired Maine lakes. Since founding the company in 2001, Forrest has grown FBE into a successful and reputable consulting business with thirteen highly qualified staff scientists and planners.Forrest will serve as Principal-In-Charge and will ultimately be responsible for ensuring successful project completion. RICH BRERETON, Ph.D., FBE Project Manager & Land/Water Permitting Division Lead; 25% of B Project Hours Rich has been with FBE since 2017 and completed his Ph.D. in Earth and Environmental Science from the University of New Hampshire-Durham. He has extensive experience leading scientific and environmental inquiry in the field. At FBE, Rich leads the Land and Water Permitting Division and manages FBE’s permitting program for private and public projects. His expertise is in building relationships with stakeholders and collaboratively guiding projects toward good environmental outcomes and regulatory compliance. In addition, as a water resource scientist, he manages multifaceted water resource projects

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 6 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

requiring data collection, management, and analysis, water quality modeling, and GIS mapping and analysis. Prior to joining FBE, Rich gained valuable experience at the UNH Water Quality Analysis Laboratory, the National Science Foundation Critical Zone Observatory Network, the Marine Biological Laboratory, and the Puerto Rico Long-Term Ecological Research program. Rich will serve as the Project Manager and will be responsible for project oversight and completion. C ANTONIA SOHNS, Ph.D., FBE Project Manager & Climate Change Division Lead; 14% of Project Hours Antonia joined FBE in 2019 as the Climate Change Division Lead and project manager. She completed her Ph.D. at McGill University in 2019, where her research used qualitative and quantitative methods to examine what factors affect drinking water access in Arctic households. Her fieldwork focused on water security in Alaska. Before her doctoral degree, Antonia was a water and energy analyst/consultant at the World Bank in Washington D.C. and an intern at the White House under President Obama. In her work at the World Bank and at the White House, she worked on large international and national projects that required skills in stakeholder engagement, communicating complex topics to broad audiences, budgeting, and collaboratively working across sectors. She has an MSc. in Water Science, Policy and Management from the University of Oxford, and a B.S. in Earth Systems, Oceans track from Stanford University. Her work and research have focused on natural resources management and community resilience and adaptation. Antonia will provide expert review of policies and regulations for the project and help direct and facilitate the public outreach effort. D LAURA DIEMER, FBE Project Manager & Environmental Monitoring Lead; 13% of Project Hours As the FBE Environmental Monitoring Division Lead, Laura oversees FBE’s monitoring projects and provides outstanding technical oversight of watershed planning and restoration projects that require water quality analyses, pollutant load modeling, quality assurance/quality control review, statistical analyses, GIS mapping, and public presentations. Laura has been with FBE for eight years and specializes in synthesizing complex water quality information into a form that is clear to a range of clients, including federal and state agencies, lake associations, nonprofit organizations, municipalities, and the public. She received a B.S. in Ecology and Environmental Science from the University of Maine and a M.S. in Soil and Water Resource Management from the University of New Hampshire (UNH). Laura will lead the environmental modeling task and provide quality control review of technical work products.

E Richard Claytor, PE., HW President and Professional Engineer; 2% of Project Hours Rich Claytor has more than 35 years of practical experience in civil and environmental engineering with specific expertise in water resources planning, design, implementation, research, education, and training (19 years with HW). Rich has extensive experience and expertise in stormwater management design, implementation, program assessment, policy and evaluation. Rich also is experienced in watershed planning, training and education; water resource assessment, research, and permitting; water supply and wastewater design; land use planning, site design and research; storm drainage, erosion/sediment control, and roadway design; and construction administration. Rich will be responsible for ensuring successful completion of HW’s project tasks. F Ellie Baker, AICP, HW Senior Project Manager and Senior Environmental Planner; 13% of Project Hours Ellie Baker has 25 years of consulting experience working with federal, state, municipal, non-profit, and other private clients in the fields of environmental planning, policy, and science. Ellie has particular

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 7 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

experience in green infrastructure and climate resiliency planning, watershed management, non-point source pollution management, coastal systems, and stormwater management. With a background in watershed management, Ellie has managed and supported multiple watershed management efforts to improve water quality, reduce flooding, restore habitat, and protect property, including efforts in the Taunton River watershed, Mystic River watershed, and Assawompset Ponds Complex in MA. All of these long-term projects have included significant public engagement and technical assistance to staff. Ellie supports communities with bylaw and ordinance revisions to improve water resource protection and management and also assists multiple local boards and commissions with third party technical reviews to evaluate compliance with natural resource protection, water quality, and stormwater requirements. She has an in-depth understanding of municipal decision-making processes related to water resources management and has most recently been working with communities on issues related to resilience planning. Ellie will provide expert support for tasks related to ordinance review, ordinance language draft ing, and public engagement.

Adam Daigneault, Ph.D., University of Maine, School of Forest Resources, Assistant G Professor of Forest, Conservation, and Recreation Policy; 14% of Project Hours

Dr Adam Daigneault has been an Assistant Professor of Forest Policy and Economics at the University of Maine’s School of Forest Resources for the past five years. He received a PhD in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics from Ohio State University in 2006 and has spent the past decade developing quantitative models to assess the socio-economic impacts of environmental and land use policy on the natural resource sectors. Dr. Daigneault’s research has focused on a wide range of issues, including freshwater management, climate change mitigation and adaptation, invasive species control, and valuing ecosystem services. His work typically follows an integrated approach to address complex policy issues that have a direct impact on stakeholders. Dr. Daigneault has conducted dozens of watershed-level economic analyses over his career, and nearly all of them have focused on identifying potential trade-offs of alternative policy and land use interventions. One of his most recent analyses focused on estimating the benefits and costs of forest conservation on water quality and other ecosystem series in the Sebago Lake Watershed, Maine. Prior to joining the School of Forest Resources at the University of Maine, Dr. Daigneault was a Senior Economist at Landcare Research, New Zealand’s leading institute on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity research and an Economist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where he worked extensively on policy analysis relating to climate change, water quality, and land use change. Adam will lead the economic analysis in Tasks C-1 and C-2.

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 8 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION The following flow chart lists the process for project decision making. Forrest Bell will be responsible for all major items, including the submission of deliverables and monthly invoices. He will oversee the overall direction and flow of the project and will troubleshoot any issues that may arise. Forrest is responsible for ensuring that the project manager and team members are completing the work to the satisfaction of the client. Rich Brereton will be the Project Manager for the project tasks and project details and will ensure the successful and timely completion of each deliverable by FBE. The project subcontractors from Horsley Witten Group and the University of Maine will work collectively with FBE to provide professional expertise for the project.

FBE Principal: Forrest Bell FBE Project Manager: Rich Brereton, Ph.D., Water Resources Scientist

FBE Technical Staff: Antonia Sohns, Ph.D., Climate Horsley Witten Group: University of Maine: Change Division Lead; Richard Claytor, P.E., President; Adam Daigneault, Ph.D., Laura Diemer, Environmental Ellie Baker, AICP, Assistant Professor of Monitoring Division Lead Senior Environmental Planner Forest, Conservation, and Neal Price, Senior Hydrogeologist; Recreation Policy F.P. (Tom) Lee, P.E.; Sarah Bartlett, Staff Scientist

Photo Credit: Bob Orsillo, fineartamerica.com FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 109 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed 2

Photo Credit: https://marinas.com/ Photo Credit: longislandsoundstudy.net

Photo Credit: maineimaging.smugmug.com RECENT AND SIMILAR PROJECTS

Addressing GAO’s Recommendations: LISS Performance Reporting and Cost Estimating - 2018 In 2018, FBE partnered with Horsley Witten Group to assist the Long Island Sound Study (LISS), a US EPA National Estuarine Partnership aimed at restoring ecological health in the Long Island Sound, use best practices to improve their progress tracking. Funded by US EPA Region 1, the project was designed to respond to a programmatic review by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) and implement GAO’s recommendations. The team of FBE and Horsley Witten Group guided LISS and state and academic partners through a dynamic and collaborative review process. This involved a detailed examination of the ecological indicators proposed by LISS to monitor a range of ecosystems (including but not limited to nitrogen loading, water clarity, sediment quality, riparian buffers) and compared current practices to LISS’s national program peers. An economic analysis was completed to estimate implementation costs of ecosystem restoration goals, which included accounting for overlapping goals and uncertainties, as well as developing a cost matrix at a 5-year and 20-year implementation target timeline. This process involved extensive engagement of stakeholders and collaboration across federal and state agencies, municipalities, and academic institutions. The successful conclusion of this project resulted in a full report in 2019 available on LISS’s website, entitled Addressing GAO’s Recommendations: LISS Performance Reporting and Cost Estimating. Several recommendations set forth by the project team have since been implemented to improve LISS’s tracking and reporting on environmental conditions in order to meet their ecosystem restoration and protection goals. Client Reference: Mark Tedesco, Director, Long Island Sound Office, U.S. EPA; (203) 977-1542;Tedesco.Mark@ epa.gov

Boothbay Region Water District: Water Quality Models for Source Water Lakes FBE assisted the Boothbay Region Water District (BRWD) with developing a water and phosphorus load budget for both Knickerbocker Lake and Adams Pond, both of which are used as primary drinking water sources for the surrounding towns. FBE field-confirmed and edited sub-basin boundaries to the lakes, updated the land cover layer for the watersheds using the most recent available satellite imagery, conducted a buildout analysis, and modeled the lakes’ water quality under past, current, and future conditions, as well as under different regulatory scenarios. Areas of each watershed contributing the most phosphorus to the lake helped target restoration efforts and best management practices for the most effective improvement to water quality. FBE has since been used as an on-call consultant for

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 10 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

BRWD work. Recently, FBE performed an analysis that determined the minimum forested land coverage required to meet water quality standards and remain viable drinking water sources. BRWD is now working to secure large parcels of forested land for conservation in both watersheds. Client Reference: Susan Mello, Natural Resources Program Manager, Boothbay Region Water District; (207) 633-4723 x 111; [email protected]

Palmer River Water Quality & Land Use Regulatory Analysis FBE, in collaboration with Horsley Witten Group, state environmental agencies, and the USEPA Region 1, completed an analysis to better understand the status of water quality in the Palmer River watershed, located in Rehoboth, Seekonk, and Swansea, MA and Barrington and Warren, RI. The analysis included an assessment of water quality status and trends in the context of land cover change and agricultural best management practice (BMP) installation in the watershed. The project (1) developed recommendations for use of an innovative microbial DNA microarray (PhyloChip) method to identify fecal sources in other regional watersheds in the Southeast New England Program (SNEP); (2) analyzed water quality trends in the Palmer River watershed using existing water quality data and PhyloChip results, geospatial information, and summary papers and determined the efficacy of agricultural BMPs; and (3) assessed the impact of changing land use in the Palmer River watershed and provided municipal land use regulation recommendations for reducing the impacts of land development on water quality. Client Reference: Ian Dombroski, Project Lead, US Environmental Protection Agency; (607) 918-1342; [email protected]

Project Examples from Sub-Consultants Taunton River Watershed Management Plan & LID Regulatory Code Update Horsley Witten Group collaborated with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, and regional planning agencies to develop a long-term vision and strategy for the Taunton River watershed. This plan focuses on protecting ecological resources in support of the hydrologic, environmental, and economic sustainability of the region. Phase I of this Study, completed in 2008, included the development of a GIS-based tool to estimate water budgets for more than 100 sub-basins within the watershed, looking at water withdrawals, wastewater management, impervious cover, and other changes in land use. Habitat and development data were also evaluated within each sub-basin to assist in prioritizing preservation and restoration efforts. In Phase II, Horsley Witten Group developed management recommendations and on-the-ground demonstration projects to illustrate innovative low impact development (LID), green stormwater infrastructure, and wastewater management approaches in the watershed. We also worked with two communities to draft updated regulatory codes to incorporate the LID and green stormwater infrastructure approaches into the permitting requirements for new development and redevelopment. The goal of these bylaw revisions, which also served as an example to others, was to protect the water quality and water quantity in the Taunton River system from further degradation due to development and to promote restoration of impacts. The Taunton River system provides drinking water supply to many of the 44 communities in the watershed. Client Reference: Alison Bowden, MA Freshwater Program Director, The Nature Conservancy; (617) 532-8300 x. 8360

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 11 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

An Economic Case for the Sebago Watershed Water & Forest Conservation Fund Dr. Adam Daigneault of the University of Maine School of Forest Resources and the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions and Dr. Aaron Strong of Hamilton College Environmental Studies Program completed an economic feasibility analysis related to scaling up investments in forest conservation that would secure water quality and other ecosystem services in the Sebago Lake watershed over the next 30 to 50 years. The study utilized the latest economic approaches and current land use, ecosystem service, and conservation information to evaluate the benefits and costs of natural water filtration and co-benefits such as carbon sequestration, recreation, habitat, and the provision of fuel and fiber that could be realized from watershed protection. It also provided recommendations on where investments in conservation were most likely to provide the highest returns on investment. The 282,000-acre Sebago Lake watershed provides drinking water to more than 200,000 users in the greater Portland, Maine region. The Portland Water District (PWD) has federal filtration exemption and invests in watershed protection through acquisitions and conservation easements in partnership with local and regional conservation organizations. The Sebago Lake watershed faces the threat of water quality impairment through loss of forest cover, primarily due to anticipated development. The report answered the following questions: 1. At what level of forest area converted to development would the Sebago water supply be at risk of significant decreases in water quality? 2. What are the costs and benefits of protecting enough land to ensure clean water? 3. What is the value to beneficiaries of clean water and the associated co-benefits of land protection in the watershed? 4. Is there a business case for commercial water users to invest in watershed protection to reduce future risk to their water quality? 5. What is the marketing value for commercial water users to invest in watershed protection? 6. Are there investment grade conservation opportunities in the watershed? For example, is there real potential for existing ecosystem service markets (e.g., carbon market) to use any value of cobenefits to help pay for watershed protection? Client Reference: Spencer Meyer, Senior Conservationist, Highstead Foundation, (207) 852-3171; smeyer@ highstead.net

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 12 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed 3

Photo Credit: Richard Plourde, Fineartamerica.com APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

We understand that the City of Auburn (the City) wishes regional economy. Quantifying the potential lost economic to evaluate existing ordinances related to water quality opportunity with added protections in the Lake Auburn protection at Lake Auburn, which serves as a drinking watershed will be a key consideration and justification for water supply to the cities of Auburn and Lewiston and part recommended amendments to existing regulations. of the town of Poland. The analysis will identify watershed The expertise of our team will be efficiently divided among protection ordinance deficiencies, develop options for the tasks. As the lead firm, FBE will rely on support from HW’s improvements and updates to modernize the City’s environmental planners and water resources engineers for ordinances to include current best management practices, Tasks A, B, and D, as well as support from economists at the and consider the overall effect of watershed development University of Maine for Task C. density, along with associated stormwater runoff, wastewater disposal, lost economic and recreational opportunity, and A. Analysis of Regulatory Impacts water quality implications of alternatives. The outcomes of Objective: Determine impact of regulations in and around the evaluation will be used to help the Planning Board and Lake Auburn. What is working and what is not working? Can City Council adopt ordinance amendments that meet the building restrictions/regulations within the watershed be needs of the City of Auburn. eased if a filtration plant is built? We recognize that the City of Auburn, along with the Auburn 1) Review existing ordinances and bylaws for the protection Water District (AWD) and the Lake Auburn Watershed of Lake Auburn and identify strengths, weaknesses, Protection Commission (LAWPC), have taken numerous obsolescence, and concerns with existing ordinances and progressive actions to protect sensitive natural resources bylaws. around Lake Auburn. These protection efforts have afforded Our team will complete a thorough ordinance review of the AWD and Lewiston Water Division exemption from the relevant water quality protections adopted by the City of EPA Surface Water Treatment Rule’s filtration requirements Auburn for Lake Auburn. At a minimum, we will seek out under the Safe Drinking Water Act. the following sources for review: Code of Ordinances for the Balancing natural resource protection with development City of Auburn, Maine (June 1, 2020), By-Laws for Protection opportunity, the City of Auburn also serves many commercial of Lake Auburn, City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: 2010 and industrial businesses that are critical to the local and

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 13 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

Update, and 2010 Comprehensive Plan Progress Report, environmental impacts, that will be evaluated in the analysis Natural Resources (and the reports therein). We will generate of economic impacts (Task C). We will also use the comparison a spreadsheet matrix that identifies relevant ordinances with best practices used by other communities, described in and notes specific strengths, weaknesses, obsolescence, A-3 below, to inform the list of potential regulatory updates. and concerns for each. We will also consider the ordinance 3) Determine if the current “multiple barrier approach” to recommendations included in the 2010 Lake Auburn water quality, and its impact to stakeholders, are consistent Watershed Management Plan and any other planning with best practices used by other protected water sources. documents that the City wishes us to review. The strength of an ordinance or bylaw can be related to the technical The LAWPC currently follows the “Multiple Barrier Approach standards implemented, the authority for enforcement, to Public Health Protection,” which targets four key safeguards the clarity of the requirements, the process for review and or barriers needed to provide safe drinking water. Our team evaluation (or permitting) of activities in the watershed, and will identify at least three and up to ten other comparable the ability to manage both future activities, as well as existing protected drinking water sources (based on size, population activities. served, water quality status, and geographic proximity, among other factors, see Task C-3) and summarize their regulatory We will confer with and interview representatives from the best practices for potable water protection. The case studies City of Auburn economic and community development selected will include both filtered and non-filtered drinking department, the AWD, and the LAWPC for additional water sources. Similarities and differences among the resources and information, with particular attention regulatory best practices for each drinking water source related to the redundancy or obsolescence when enforcing (including Lake Auburn) will be determined in a side-by-side ordinances, as well as bolstering our clear understanding of comparability analysis. Impact to stakeholders, including the current land use conversion and development pressures the extent of development restriction and recreational use in the watershed. Following our initial review of existing limitation, as well as the cost to taxpayers for filtration, will be ordinances and bylaws, we recommend that detailed input considered and weighed among the case studies (see Task from each representative be gathered via individual calls and C-3). The analysis will help determine if other comparable individual interviews with our team. We will then convene a protected but filtered drinking water sources have less virtual panel for group discussion of common issues or topics stringent restrictions to development and recreational use that came up during the one-on-one interviews. During these and if other comparable protected and non-filtered drinking discussions, additional stakeholders for interview may be water sources have similar levels of restrictions. Lake Auburn identified and contacted by our team. is one of only 50 other watersheds in the United States with a 2) Review existing studies and reports regarding filtration waiver. consideration of filtering drinking water and identify B. Analysis of Environmental Impacts options for updates or improvements. Objective: Determine short- and long-term environmental Our team will compile and review existing studies and impacts pertaining to past and future watershed and in-lake reports that consider filtering drinking water from Lake strategies and make recommendations that will ensure long- Auburn. We will also interview City staff and prior consultants term viability of Lake Auburn as a public drinking water supply, to obtain more detailed information on the existing studies future development, and possible recreational activities. Is and reports. Such studies will likely include the Application the current amount of protected land too much, too little, or for Exception to the SDWA Filtration Requirement (1991), the sufficient to meet water quality goals for an unfiltered public Source Water Assessment Plan – Lake Auburn Watershed water supply? Do additional recreational opportunities exist (SWAP) (2003), the SDWA Compliance Study (2005), and the that will not impact the overall environmental health of Lake UV Concept Design Report (2007), but we will request copies Auburn? Can changes occur to development standards in the of all studies listed in Section 7 of the RFP (and additional Lake Auburn watershed to maintain the unfiltered potable studies since 2013) for relevancy review. We will use this water quality status of the lake? review in conjunction with the ordinance and bylaw review in Task A-1 above to develop options for updates or revisions to 1) Investigate the magnitude of changes in water quality in watershed regulatory measures that will allow Lake Auburn Lake Auburn that could result from changes in development to continue to meet the filtration avoidance requirements standards or enhanced recreational activities. into the future. These options will be described conceptually In consultation with City representatives, our team will select in a detailed memorandum for discussion with the client the best model and approach for quantifying estimates of prior to the development of specific language revisions. It water quality changes resulting from several scenarios of is these concepts, along with the watershed benefits and land use change. A good candidate is the InVEST (Integrated FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 14 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) model, which from the University of Maine Climate Change Institute and can estimate the potential changes in multiple water quality consider the recent study results by Gundersen (2020) in The parameters (e.g., amounts of phosphorus, nitrogen, and Origins and Dynamics of Phosphorus in Maine’s Lake Auburn sediment) in Lake Auburn that could result from multiple Watershed. We will also empirically derive the climate-driven scenarios, including, but not limited to, the following: risk of blooms generating cyanotoxins and the likelihood of • Minimum amount of protected, forested land in the any changes to taste or odor of source water. watershed needed to meet water quality goals for 2) Review existing resources and practices pertaining to land an unfiltered public water supply. conservation, erosion control, and forest management. • Incremental and/or complete build-out options Our team will complete a thorough review of existing with key changes to development standards resources, studies, and reports (starting with at least the ones (based on Task A results) and the point at which the mentioned in Section 7 of the RFP and since 2013, including filtration waiver is lost. the LAWPC’s Woodlot Management Plan) that describe • Enhanced recreational activities such as boating, practices related to natural resource protection, including fishing, camping, hiking, and limited bathing. land conservation, erosion control, and forest management. • Changes to woodlot management plan practices. In a spreadsheet matrix, we will identify the strengths InVEST is a suite of open-source software models used to and weakness of each practice and determine possible map and value ecosystem goods and services and quantify opportunities for improvement. The water quality benefit of how changes in ecosystems can lead to changes in the flows woodlot management practices will be quantified through of goods and services to people. The unique modular design InVEST in Task B-1. of InVEST allows for effective balancing of environmental and 3) Review LAWPC land purchase strategy and history of economic goals and assessment of tradeoffs associated with purchases. alternative management options. InVEST uses spatial inputs and thus accounts for the specific location of outputs, which Our team will review the LAWPC’s land purchase strategy can be useful for targeted protection efforts. For this project, and history of purchases. Significant amounts of land in we recommend the Recreation, Sediment Retention, and the watershed have already been put into conservation and Water Purification (Nutrient Delivery Ratio) sub-models. have gone through a reforestation process. At present, the LAWPC controls 1,800 (20%) of the watershed and 80% of We assume that we will have access to all files associated the direct shoreline along Lake Auburn. The economic cost with CEI’s 2010 Generalized Watershed Loading Function – of these purchases will be considered in Task C. The water Enhanced (GWLF-E) Version 7.2.3 model with GIS interface for quality benefit of individual and collective land purchases for Lake Auburn, as well as the gross build-out evaluation files, conservation will be quantified through InVEST in Task B-1. as reference for setting up and calibrating the InVEST models. We will rely on the City to provide up-to-date GIS land cover, C. Analysis of Economic Impacts building, zoning, and parcel files, as well as water extraction/ Objective: Determine the financial impacts to the City of level and water quality records. Auburn, past and future, to provide a public drinking water Based on a review of comparable studies, our team will assess supply for the customers of the AWD, with consideration for and quantify (as available) the relative risk of enhanced the impacts of interventions on past, present, and future tax recreational activities on the spread of invasive species and revenues, economic activity (including development and pathogen contamination from human waste, which are not recreational), and rate payers. accounted for specifically in InVEST. 1) Quantify the economic costs of added protection for One important factor to consider in the modeling exercise Lake Auburn. will be climate-driven changes in the timing and magnitude Costs of added protection through ordinances and of storm events and warming air temperatures. The 2013 regulations for Lake Auburn will accrue for a range of sources, Phase I Diagnostic Study of Lake Auburn showed the including lost property tax revenues and the opportunity significant influence of wetter winter/spring periods and cost of unrealized economic activity due to land and water increasingly warmer intake water temperatures on the use restrictions. Water users are also impacted by the cost probability of blooms, regardless of any changes in land of watershed protection through the rates that they pay. use, development standards, or recreational activities. The However, it is also uncertain how these costs compare to impact of climate change on water quality in Lake Auburn other alternatives such as constructing a water filtration will be assessed empirically from site-specific historical plant (see Task C-2). To quantify the impacts of added lake data and Maine-based mid- and late-century projections protection, we will utilize information gathered in Task B on

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 15 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed the potential expansion of protected land that could occur in the watershed in the future, and then estimate the change in land values, property tax payments, and lost economic activity if that land had the potential to be developed at different levels of impact. These estimates could then be used to quantify the potential opportunity costs of avoided development relative to the cost of constructing a filtration plant. Attention will be paid to quality of life and distributional considerations, in addition to financial opportunities in the area. 2) Quantify the construction, operating, and maintenance costs of various drinking water treatment scenarios, including modern filtration and other technologies to ensure both quality drinking water and long-term lake health, as well as the potential for supplementary or alternate drinking water sources. At present, the AWD has a filtration waiver and does not need a filtration plant to treat surface water before distributing it to its customers. However, if water quality in the lake was to deteriorate to a level at which the filtration avoidance waiver was no longer obtainable and filtration or other additional Figure 1. Total capital and annual operating and maintenance costs treatment became necessary, this would require a significant of a new filtration plant by capacity (MGD), based on EPA (2008) plant capital investment, as well as long-term maintenance and data (Source: Daigneault and Strong, 2019). operation costs. Prior estimates have been in the $35 million The change in cost that the AWD would face by needing to range, which would have impacts on water user fees. Our construct and maintain various new technologies would team will draw on existing studies and literature to develop likely be passed through to their customers through changes a short list of potential treatment options for consideration in rate payments. These rates and structure in which water and review that list with the City. We will then develop a costs are levied are assumed to vary by type of customer planning-level cost estimate for construction, operation, and (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial). The rate changes maintenance of the proposed system, building off the prior will then be used to evaluate the relative cost of each estimates that have been developed by and for the City in potential intervention compared to rates from the current recent years. We will consider existing water withdrawal water management strategy. The analysis will also consider needs, as well as trending future needs based on anticipated the cost of seeking alternative sources of potable water growth over the typical projected life of the systems. This and using short-term in-lake management controls such analysis will serve as a comparison to the costs and benefits as algicides and alum treatments, as well as the potential of regulatory filtration avoidance measures evaluated in environmental justice impacts of such changes in rate the regulatory impact analysis (Task A). We will quantify payments in accordance with current practices. the capital and operation and maintenance expenditures required to build and run a plant that would likely have a 3) Evaluate where Lake Auburn currently ranks with respect capacity of 10-20 million gallons per day (MGD). For example, to other filtered drinking water sources, and how that USEPA (2008) published a range of costs for filtration plants ranking could change with changes in various factors, with with varying capacities, which we will plot out and compare consideration for lake size and depth, permissible types using regression analysis. A similar analysis was recently of development and recreation, cost to construct and completed to estimate the costs of putting a 50-150 MGD maintain, and other factors. filtration plant in the Sebago Lake watershed (Figure 1). Up to The economic piece of this sub-task will be combined with four additional technologies to ensure both quality drinking Task A-3. We will rely on data from USEPA and state level water and long-term lake health will be evaluated, based on environmental agencies to quantify and compare surface what is deemed technologically feasible for Lake Auburn. water quality in Lake Auburn to other filtered lakes and water sources in the US. The analysis will include comparable metrics such as: (1) waterbody location, (2) lake size and max and mean lake depth, (3) total watershed area, (4) watershed

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 16 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed protected land area, (5) watershed land cover distribution, Following the public workshop session with the City Council, (6) watershed recreational resources and activities, (7) we will incorporate comments and direction from the City permissible types of development in watershed, (8) water Council and prepare final ordinance revisions for submission source capacity in MGD, (9) water management company to the City Council for adoption. As part of this process, annual expenditures, customer base, and water rates, and we will work with the City to determine an effective public (10) lake water quality levels (e.g., nutrients, sediment, etc.). engagement and outreach plan to solicit public participation These metrics will then be used to assess where Lake Auburn and comment. Public engagement is an essential piece that ranks relative to comparable but filtered drinking water will ensure that the public is involved in this process, trusts sources across the US. Rankings will be created for each the process and the information, and ultimately supports the metric, as well as an index that utilizes multiple indicators. strategies and revisions that are identified. For purposes of Additional research could utilize regression analysis to this proposal, our team anticipates employing the following evaluate the relative influence of each indicator on key engagement strategies throughout this project: economic metrics such as water rates or annual expenditure Project Website. We can develop content for a unique per unit of water consumed. project website. This website can include information announcing the project, tips on how to get involved, D. Final Report Outcomes and ways to view presentations and data presented 1) Compare identified options in all three categories and at community forums. It will also serve to keep make holistic recommendations to the City Council on community stakeholders informed and engaged early- bundled Improvements. on, during and following ordinance development. We will develop a final report that describes the approach Social Media. We can use a Facebook page as another and results for Tasks A-C and makes specific ordinance way to engage community members. Whether it is used amendment and/or best practice recommendations for the for project meeting announcements, notifications City to adopt or implement. All supporting data and analyses on the availability of draft materials for public review will be provided in spreadsheets, geodatabases, or other and comment, or simply to generate community relevant formats. discussions centered on specific topics, it can be a 2) Present options to Planning Board. powerful tool to engage the public. We will present a summary of recommendations to the City Online Survey. We can use SurveyMonkey to Planning Board at a public meeting of the Planning Board design and implement online surveys to gauge and incorporate any feedback from the Planning Board. In the community’s knowledge and/or feedback on our presentation, we understand the importance of serving as important topics relevant to this project. The project a third-party neutral voice, particularly regarding potentially team is experienced in standard methods of survey contentious topics such as this that have generated significant design and execution. prior consideration and discussion. We will rely on the Printed Media/E-blasts. We can develop a media Planning Board to manage the public participation process strategy through local networks to publicize the project at the meeting. We will be prepared to provide a clear and and direct stakeholders to the website, Facebook neutral presentation based on our analysis and to answer page, and presentation events. It can serve as both an questions that arise. Based on the final list of approved educational tool and a mechanism for feedback. recommendations, we will draft ordinance revisions for the City Council to review. E. Project Management 3) Present options and Planning Board recommendations 1) Manage all project components to meet the 4-month to City Council. project duration schedule (by May 2021). We will facilitate a workshop session with the City Council in Our team will complete project management duties to a public meeting setting to discuss the watershed protection ensure the successful and timely completion of project tasks. and water treatment options and recommendations, Project management duties include coordinating staff and incorporating the Planning Board feedback and including stakeholders on tasks, responding to email correspondence the specific ordinance revisions resulting from that prior and phone calls from stakeholders, and submitting monthly feedback. Our team will conduct itself in the same neutral invoices. Our team will maintain direct communication with manner at the City Council workshop session and will rely on City staff to keep them informed of project progress. Within the City Council to manage the public participation process. one week of contract signature, the project will be initiated We anticipate providing a presentation, with significant time with a team virtual call with City staff to review the scope of allotted to respond to questions and allow for discussion. work and timeline and determine immediate data needs. FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 17 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed 4

Photo Credit: Sun Journal WORK SCHEDULE AND TIMELINE The following table identifies the work schedule and timeline by task for this project, along with milestone dates or events for the 4-month project duration. It is expected that a contract will be secured with the City of Auburn in January 2021, with a conservative official start date of February 1, 2021, extending through to May 31, 2021 (although we are able to start work at any time after contract execution). The City has acknowledged that the completion schedule will be dependent on timely City responses, seasonal data gathering and analyses, and processing information from stakeholder outreach and discussions. We will work as diligently and efficiently as possible to complete the requested scope of work within the allocated timeframe with the City’s understanding that several elements (such as event scheduling and public/City feedback) may be out of our team’s control and may impede the expeditious project timeline.

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 18 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed

Task Subtask Deliverable 2/1/21 3/1/21 4/1/21 5/1/21 5/7/21 2/15/21 3/15/21 4/15/21 5/15/21 5/21/21 5/31/21

Ordinance Review Spreadsheet matrix Task A-1: Ordinance Review Individual Interviews Call summary document Virtual Group Panel Call summary document Task A-2: Treatment Alternatives Review (Best Reports Review Spreadsheet matrix Practices) Individual Interviews Call summary document Task A-3: Comparison Matrix (Best Practices) Comparable Examples Research Spreadsheet matrix Model/Approach Confirmation Summary document Current Conditions Model Setup Model files Task B-1: WQ Impact Model Scenarios Scenario Model Runs Model files Literature Review Summary document Task B-2: Land Cons & For Mgmt Review Reports Review Spreadsheet matrix Task B-3: Land Purchase Review Documents Review Summary document Task C-1: Costs of Added Protection Economic Analysis & Research Summary document Task C-2: Treatment Alternatives (Economic Economic Analysis & Research Summary document Analysis) Task C-3: Comparison Matrix (Economic Comparable Examples Research Spreadsheet matrix Impacts) Tasks A-C Findings and Recommendations Final Report with preliminary recommendations Task D-1: Final Report Summary for ordinance amendments City schedules presentation to Planning Board Scheduled Planning Board Presentation Date

Task D-2: Planning Board Pres & Draft Presentation to Planning Board Presentation files Ordinance Revisions to List of Ordinance Final list of approved recommendations for Recommendations ordinance amendments Ordinance Amendment Language Drafting Draft ordinance amendment language City schedules workshop/public presentation Scheduled City Council Workshop & Presentation with City Council Date Workshop & Public Presentation with City Task D-3: City Council Pres & Final Ordinance Workshop and presentation files Council Virtual Public Comment Period Response to public comment summary Ordinance Amendment Language Revisions Revised final ordinance amendment language Project Mgmt Timely project completion Task E-1: Project Mgmt Kickoff Call Call minutes City sends needed materials Receipt of materials

FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 19 Response to RFP | Evaluation of Ordinances Applicable to the Protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed 5

Photo Credit: Lake Auburn Watershed Protection Commission REFERENCES Maine Department of Environmental Protection Boothbay Region Water District 17 State House Station 184 Adams Pond Rd 28 Tyson Drive Boothbay, ME 04537 Augusta, ME 04333 Contact: Susan Mello, Natural Resource Program Manager; Contact: Don Witherill, Director of the Maine DEP (207) 633-4723 ext. 111; [email protected] Division of Environmental Assessment; (207) 215-9751; Projects: Peer review of the Maine Coastal Botanical Gardens [email protected] expansion - 2016 ($2,000); Nutrient load modeling and Projects: Maine Statewide Nonpoint Source TMDL - 2012 build-out analysis for Knickerbocker Lake and Adams Pond ($192,240); numerous past and ongoing projects related to - 2018 ($19,000); Model updates and shoreline survey of planning and implementation work for surface waters in Knickerbocker Lake and Adams Pond - 2018 ($4,960); Estimate Maine (2001-present) of minimum amount of conserved land required to meet acceptable water quality of Knickerbocker Lake and Adams Pond - 2019 ($1,800). United States Environmental Protection Agency US EPA Region 1 Maine Department of Marine Resources 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (06-2) 194 McKnown Point Rd Boston, MA 02109 West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575 Contact: Steve Winnett, USEPA Water Quality Standards Contact: Erin Summers, Director of the Biological Section; (617) 918-1687; [email protected] Monitoring and Assessment Division; (207) 350-6076 (cell); Projects: Connecticut Statewide Bacteria TMDL – 2011 [email protected] ($108,437); Maine Statewide Nonpoint Source TMDL – 2012 Project: DMR North Atlantic Right Whale Protection - ($192,240); Connecticut Statewide Nonpoint Source TMDL Fishermen Outreach ($482,529), BREP NOAA Time Tension – 2012 ($49,323); Addressing GAO’s Recommendations: Line Cutter Testing ($76,978). LISS Performance Reporting and Cost Estimating – 2018 ($128,844); Palmer River Water Quality & Land Use Regulatory Analysis - 2019 ($68,283); Connecticut Statewide Lake Highstead Foundation (Adam Daigneault, Ph.D.) Nutrient TMDL – ongoing ($103,361); Lake Winnisquam PO Box 1097 Watershed Based Plan - ongoing ($65,030). Reeding, CT 06875 Contact: Spencer Meyer, Senior Conservationist; (207) 852- 3171; [email protected] Project: An Economic Case for the Sebago Watershed & Forest Conservation Fund - 2018 ($45,000) FB ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 20 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES FORREST BELL | PRINCIPAL, SENIOR SCIENTIST

Forrest is the founder and owner of FB Environmental Associates, a regional leader in managing environmental assessment and restoration projects. With over 29 years of experience, Forrest has directed more than 500 successful environmental planning, assessment, monitoring, and restoration projects for a diverse array of clients, including federal and state natural resource agencies, municipalities, and non-profit organizations. Forrest is a skilled presenter and facilitator, embracing the challenge of presenting the complexities of land and water resources to New England’s communities. Forrest received his BS in Geography from the University of Southern Maine and completed his Master’s coursework at the University of New Hampshire in the Natural Resources Management program.

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE PROFESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS BMP Design & Implementation • Proven record of success working for clients such as US Environmental Protection Community Development Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, Maine Department of Marine Resources,, New Conservation & Land Use Planning Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Rhode Island Department of Lake, River, & Stream Assessment Environmental Management, Piscataqua Regional Estuaries Partnership, Spruce Marine Fisheries Management Creek Association, the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership, numerous private companies, Natural Resource Evaluations and more than 50 municipalities in Maine and New Hampshire. Watershed Management • Technical training in geomorphic processes, river and stream restoration, water Water Quality Monitoring quality monitoring, BMP design, and pollutant load modeling. • Worked face-to-face with more than 5,000 landowners and fishing and agriculture industry employees to develop conservation strategies for various projects. EDUCATION • Advises nonprofit organizations, government, municipalities, and professional M.S. Coursework completed, associations regarding compliance with environmental programs and laws. Natural Resource Administration • Delivered more than 100 formal presentations at numerous national, state, & Management, University of New regional, and local water resource, watershed management, and land management Hampshire, Durham (1999-2002) conferences. • Secured over $10 million in environmental project funds between 1995 and 2019 for B.S., Geography & Land Use several organizations to help improve and protect water resources. Planning, University of Southern Maine (1991) SELECT PROJECTS

Large-Scale Watershed Assessment VOLUNTEER BOARDS Executive Board Member, Maine Department of Marine Resources (2018-present). Co-PI for a 3-year, $550,000 NOAA- Piscataqua Regional Estuaries funded study of vertical line strength as it relates to North Atlantic right whale entanglements. Partnership (2014- present) Tasks include survey design, implementation, and analysis; rope breaking analysis, and load cell deployment to test breaking strengths at sea. Working collaboratively with the Maine Executive Board Member, Saco Department of Marine Resources, the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, the University of Maine Headwaters Alliance (2019 – Chen Lab, and the other New England coastal states. present) US Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 BPA (2008-2013). Principal scientist and senior project manager for a five-year, 1.6 million-dollar contract focusing on providing detailed assessments of impaired waterbodies in all six New England states. Tasks included directing staff, technical writing, river and stream mapping, impervious cover analysis, pollutant load modeling, and water quality monitoring for multiple parameters. Forrest successfully led eleven individual large-scale projects under this contract.

Select Watershed Management Projects

Saco Headwaters Alliance Technical Assistance (2018- present). Helped local stakeholders develop the Saco Headwaters Alliance which will oversee decades of groundwater and surface water assessment, management, and restoration in conjunction with several conservation organizations, federal and state agencies, and municipalities. Overseeing multiple projects in the Saco River Watershed focusing on water quality management, groundwater protection, floodplain mapping, and climate change resiliency. FORREST BELL | PRINCIPAL, SENIOR SCIENTIST

Select Watershed Management Projects (continued)

Multiple Watershed Plans, Lake Winnipesaukee Association and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (2014-present). Lead contractor for multiple comprehensive watershed management planning projects in the Lake Winnipesaukee watershed in central New Hampshire. Project tasks include field BMP survey, land use modeling, pollutant load modeling, stakeholder participation, community forum facilitation, and technical report writing.

Long Creek Watershed Management District (2011 – 2018). Project manager for the development of the US EPA merit award- winning, Long Creek Watershed Management Plan. Project tasks included developing a detailed stormwater retrofit inventory, including detailed cost estimates, developing a long-term monitoring plan, and leading a large technical advisory committee. FB Environmental also developed the initial Quality Assurance Project Plan and managed the comprehensive water quality monitoring program for several years.

Casco Bay Estuary Partnership, Presumpscot River Drainage Basin (2003-2007). Co-managed a regional watershed management planning and assessment project for the Presumpscot River Watershed. Accomplishments include the authoring of an EPA-funded $740,000 Targeted Watershed Initiative grant proposal and designing a comprehensive monitoring plan for the river, including the establishment of quality assurance guidelines and the installation of continuous monitoring devices.

Land Conservation Planning and Management

Southern Maine Conservation Collaborative and Local Land Trusts (2012-present). Principal-in-Charge for multiple projects for southern Maine land trusts. Efforts include the development of natural resources inventories, conservation planning, easement monitoring, invasive species management, GIS mapping, and wildlife surveys.

Upper Saco Valley Land Trust (2013-2014). Project Manager and Lead Scientist for a regional conservation planning project. Project tasks included interpreting regional co-occurrence modeling, leading presentations to eleven municipalities, modeling future development patterns, hosting a community forum, and engaging communities in land protection efforts.

RECENT PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS

• 2019 Maine Stormwater Conference, Portland, ME: Innovative Restoration Efforts on Dole Brook and Riverside Golf Course • 2019 Implementing the Merrymeeting River and Merrymeeting Lake Watershed Management Plan, Alton, New Hampshire • 2018 – Green Mountain Conservation Group: Multiple Public Presentations for the Ossipee Lake Watershed Plan • 2017 Maine Rural Water Association, Bangor, ME: Bacteria Source Tracking Methods in Maine and New Hampshire • 2017 Lake Winnipesaukee Association: Multiple Public Presentations for Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Plan Development • 2016 New Hampshire Lakes Conference, Meredith, NH: Watershed Plan Development • 2016 Penobscot River Watershed Conference, Northport, ME: Culvert Assessment for Climate Change Adaptation • 2015 Maine Lakes Conference, Sebago, ME: Local Climate Change Monitoring and Culvert Assessment • 2015 International Oyster Symposium, Woods Hole, MA: Using Canine Tracking for Bacteria Impaired Waters • 2015 New England NPS Conference, Freeport, ME: Restoring Bacteria Impaired Waters in Kittery, Maine and Rye, New Hampshire • 2015 Maine Beaches Conference, South Portland, ME: Bacteria Source Tracking and Implementation • 2015 Northern New England Planners Association Annual Meeting, Portland ME: Local Climate Change Monitoring and Adaptation • 2015 NH Saving Special Places Conference: Climate Change Monitoring and Build-Out Analyses • 2015 Joint NEAEB/NH Water & Watershed Conference: Innovative Bacteria Source Tracking • 2015: New England Association of Aquatic Biologists Conference: Restoring New England’s Impaired Waters • 2014 Northeast Region Planners Association Conference, Stowe, VT: Topsham Fair Mall Stream Assessment Project RICH BRERETON | WATER RESOURCE SCIENTIST/PERMITTING LEAD

Rich has been with FBE since 2017 and completed his Ph.D. in Earth and Environmental Science from the University of New Hampshire-Durham. He has extensive experience leading scientific and environmental inquiry in the field. At FBE Rich leads the Land and Water Permitting Division and manages FBE’s permitting program for private and public projects. His expertise is in building relationships with stakeholders and collaboratively guiding projects toward good environmental outcomes and regulatory compliance. In addition, as a water resource scientist, he manages multifaceted water resource projects requiring data collection, management, and analysis, water quality modeling, and GIS mapping and analysis. Prior to joining FBE, Rich gained valuable experience at the UNH Water Quality Analysis Laboratory, the National Science Foundation Critical Zone Observatory Network, the Marine Biological Laboratory, and the Puerto Rico Long-Term Ecological Research program.

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND SELECT PROJECTS

Water Resource Permitting Water Resource Planning and Regulatory Guidance Stream & Riparian Biogeochemistry Addressing GAO’s Recommendations to the Long Island Sound Study (2018-2019). The EPA Watershed Hydrology Long Island Sound Study coordinates ecological restoration and watershed protection efforts Watershed Management Planning across two states and over 100 municipalities, including New York City, and tracks hundreds of NPS Pollution Surveys ecological, economic, and social variables. The team of FBE, Horsley Witten Group, and Rachel Water Quality & Flow Monitoring Bouvier guided LISS and state and academic partners through a dynamic and collaborative Groundwater-surface Water review process. This involved a detailed examination of the ecological indicators proposed Linkages by LISS to monitor a range of ecosystems (including but not limited to nitrogen loading, Statistical Analyses water clarity, sediment quality, riparian buffers) and compared current practices to LISS’s GIS Spatial Analyses national program peers. An economic analysis was completed to estimate implementation costs of ecosystem restoration goals, which included accounting for overlapping goals and EDUCATION uncertainties as well as developing a cost matrix at a 5-year and 20-year implementation Ph.D., Earth & Environmental target timeline. This process involved extensive engagement of stakeholders and collaboration Science, University of New across federal and state agencies, municipalities, and academic institutions. The successful Hampshire, Durham (2017) conclusion of this project resulted in a full report in 2019 available on LISS’s website, entitled Addressing GAO’s Recommendations: LISS Performance Reporting and Cost Estimating. B.A., Colorado College, Colorado Several recommendations set forth by the project team have since been implemented to Springs, CO (2008) improve LISS’s tracking and reporting on environmental conditions in order to meet their ecosystem restoration and protection goals. Ossipee Lake Watershed Management Plan, NHDES 319, (2019-present). On behalf of Green Mountain Conservation Group, Rich led design efforts for best management practices (BMPs) to control stormwater on shorefront properties on Ossipee Lake. Funded by the NHDES 319 grant program, this work follows up on Phases I (Lower Bays and Danforth Pond) and II (Lovell River and Ossipee Lake shoreline) of the Ossipee Lake Watershed Management Plan. These projects included data analysis, field survey, pollutant load modeling, and extensive work with stakeholders and several formal presentations to town officials in the watershed. Watershed and shoreline surveys identified many sites that were good candidates for BMP implementation. Phase III products include BMP engineering designs for shorefront stormwater control, as well as documentation of pollutants prevented and shoreland permit applications. Ogunquit River Watershed Restoration Project, Maine DEP 319, Ogunquit, ME (2018-present). Worked with the Town of Ogunquit, ME and the Ogunquit Conservation Commission to help track sources of fecal indicator bacteria to the fecal-impaired Ogunquit River. Source tracking has included watershed-wide sampling of the Ogunquit River and its tributaries during both wet and dry weather conditions for Enterococci, as well as canine scent detection to identify sites with human waste present. Phase II included installation of BMPs at the Main Beach parking lot and targeted public outreach that included door-to-door education and flyer distribution, mailings, catch basin stenciling, and pet waste signage installation. Rich leads work on the Phase III grant to continue BMP construction and source elimination. Wetland Protection Ordinance Revisions, Mont Vernon, NH (2018). Conducted ordinance review of existing wetland protection regulations for the Town of Mont Vernon Conservation Commission. Drafted strengthened wetland protection language incorporating sound scientific principles and an approach based on best practices and models from other New Hampshire RICH BRERETON | WATER RESOURCE SCIENTIST/PERMITTING LEAD communities. Products included an ordinance review, new language for an amended wetland regulation, and maps of existing National Wetland Inventory areas with proposed buffer zones. Upper Saco Valley Land Trust Ordinance Review (2017-2018). Led an ordinance review funded by a New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Local Source Water Protection grant, focusing on improving local groundwater protection approaches. Reviewed existing ordinances and other regulations/policies relevant to groundwater protection in eight municipalities, including best management practices (BMPs) programs. Drafted recommendations for improved regulations.

Water Quality Monitoring and Data Analysis

Water Quality Monitor (May 2017-present). Duties consist of water quality monitoring, including coordination and execution of annual sampling, and technical report development for lakes, ponds, streams, tidal estuaries, and beaches in Maine and New Hampshire. Currently conducting continuous and grab sample monitoring for physical and chemical parameters and flow monitoring using USGS guidelines; deployment, maintenance, and calibration of data loggers and sondes (e.g., YSI Exo2, YSI 600 XL/XLM,YSI 600 OMS, YSI 6920, Satlantic SUNA UV Nitrate, Onset HOBO loggers); responsible for data analysis and interpretation, QA/QC review, report writing; certified Maine VLMP volunteer.

Managed the following monitoring projects: • Salmon Falls River TMDL Monitoring (2018-present) • Ogunquit River Bacteria Source Tracking (2018-present) • Sabbathday Lake Annual Water Quality Monitoring (2018-present) Contributedto the following monitoring projects: • Kezar Lake Watershed Association Annual Monitoring (2017-present) • Corinna Closed Municipal Landfill (2017-2018) Watershed Nutrient Cycling Research Biotic response to stream nutrients in forested streams of Puerto Rico (2012-2017). Lead author of a synthesis of existing scientific literature from five decades of research on stream ecology and water quality in the USDA Forest Service Luquillo Experimental Forest. Chapter in press in a USDA Forest Service General Technical Report on the response of freshwater biota to nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients in streams. Nitrogen Uptake in Rainforest Headwater Streams, Puerto Rico (2014-2017). Coordinated and conducted nutrient pulse uptake experiments in rainforest headwater streams to quantify the effects of ammonium and dissolved organic carbon on stream ecosystems. Utilized Onset® Corporation HOBO® data loggers with conductivity sensors to quantify stream flow and characterize breakthrough curves of nutrient pulses. Analyzed grab samples with automated colorimetry and ion chromatography for nutrient and salt concentrations. Quantified nutrient uptake using tracer addition for spiraling curve characterization (TASCC) method. Found that ammonium uptake varied greatly with the amount of groundwater input and geologic setting including bedrock. Conducted as part of dissertation research; a manuscript resulting from the project is in preparation for submission to a peer reviewed journal. Riparian nitrogen biogeochemistry in a rainforest (2012-2017). Coordinated and conducted groundwater nutrient enrichments in rainforest riparian zones. Designed and installed a field of research minipiezometers (specially-designed wells) to assess ammonium retention in riparian groundwater. Injected nitrogen-rich solution into aquifer, and after incubation period withdrew samples following the push-pull method. Analyzed grab samples with automated colorimetry and ion chromatography for nutrient and salt concentrations. Quantified nutrient retention in several locations in the riparian zone, hillslope, and floodplain. Conducted as part of dissertation research; a manuscript resulting from the project is in preparation for submission to a peer reviewed journal. PUBLICATIONS Brereton, R.L. Burgos-Caraballo, S., Lilyestrom, C., McDowell, W.H. In press. Biotic response to stream nutrients in the Luquillo Experimental Forest. US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report. Wymore, A.S., Brereton, R.L., Ibarra, D.E., Maher, K., McDowell, W.H. 2017. Critical zone structure controls concentration- discharge relationships and solute generation in forested tropical montane watersheds. Water Resources Research, 53, doi:10.1002/2016WR020016. Morse, N.B., Pelissier, P.A., Cianciola, E.N., Brereton, R.L., Sullivan, M.M., Shonka, N.K., Wheeler, T.B., McDowell, W.H. 2014. Novel ecosystems in the Anthropocene: a revision of the novel ecosystem concept for pragmatic applications. Ecology and Society 19(2). McDowell, W.H., Brereton, R.L., Scatena, F.N., Shanley, J.B., Brokaw, N.V., Lugo, A.E. 2013. Interactions between lithology and biology drive the long-term response of stream chemistry to major hurricanes in a tropical landscape. Biogeochemistry 116(1-3) 175-186. ANTONIA SOHNS | PROJECT MANAGER, OUTREACH SPECIALIST

Antonia joined FBE in 2019 as the Climate Change Division Lead and project manager. Her Ph.D. research at McGill University used qualitative and quantitative methods to examine what factors influence drinking water access in Arctic households. Her fieldwork focused on water security in Alaska. Before her doctoral degree, Antonia was a water and energy analyst/consultant at the World Bank in Washington D.C. and an intern at the White House under President Obama. She has an MSc. in Water Science, Policy and Management from the University of Oxford where she studied how energy companies recycle produced water in hydraulic fracturing operations on the Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming, and a B.S. in Earth Systems, Oceans track from Stanford University where she researched cancer clusters along the Mississippi River in Louisiana, and phytoplankton populations aboard the Robert C Seamans in the Pacific Ocean. Her work and research have focused on climate change impacts, community resiliency and adaptation, and stakeholder engagement.

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND SELECT PROJECTS

Stakeholder engagement Stakeholder Engagement & Facilitation Facilitation Project management NOAA Recreational Fishery Workshops (July 2019-present). Working with NOAA to facilitate Communication recreational fishery workshops for feedback regarding management measures. The workshops provide an opportunity for stakeholder input on developing potential short- and long-term Climate change adaptation strategies management approaches for the recreational fishing community. Resilience planning Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) Vertical Line Project (August 2019-present): Vulnerability assessment Working with DMR to develop new regulatory measures for fixed gear fisheries aimed at Environmental policy reducing the rate of serious injuries and mortalities due to entanglements of North Atlantic Watershed management Right Whales. Co-managing data collection from online and phone surveys and analyzing the Scientific/Technical Report Writing functional breaking strengths of rope samples of whole vertical lines donated by fishermen. Engaging with stakeholders to gather data and feedback on continued gear testing. The next EDUCATION phase of the project includes convening a facilitated workshop to discuss gear modifications Ph.D., Geography, McGill University and protypes being designed to meet regulatory measures. (2019) Project Management M.Sc., Water Science, Policy and Management, University of Oxford Flood Resilience Checklist (August 2019-present). Working with Wells and Bar Harbor to (2011) complete the Maine Flood Resilience Checklist. This process enhances local government and community capacity, shares information between municipal departments, and identifies short B.S., Earth Systems, Oceans Track, and long-term planning needs that require attention. The facilitated process highlights the Stanford University (2010) existing gaps where towns should prioritize planning and resiliency resources and develops adaptation strategies that address those identified needs. Climate Change Observatory Network on Maine Land Trusts (August 2019-present). Developing a Climate Change Observatory (CCO) network pilot project and CCO App tool to be used across coastal land trusts to observe, measure, and analyze long-term climate change trends, with a focus on sea level rise and coastal erosion. The CCO App will serve as a tool that not only collects important climate observations and data, but also connects people with the local environment and teaches them about climate science.

Natural Resource Management PhD Candidate, McGill University (September 2016-August 2019). Conducted participatory modeling to identify policy pathways that would improve drinking water access in remote Alaskan households. Worked with policy stakeholders and government officials to develop collaborative strategies to manage water resources, mitigate vulnerability, and increase community resiliency. Water and Energy Analyst/Consultant, The World Bank (January 2013- July 2016). Helped create and launch the Thirsty Energy Initiative at the World Bank in Washington, D.C. Thirsty Energy incorporates water variables into countries’ energy development plans. Provided clients with technical advice on water and energy management frameworks and identified risks of proposed projects. Wrote policy papers and participated in international conferences and workshops to share Thirsty Energy’s messages for integrated planning and optimizing resiliency through sound investments and infrastructure. LAURA DIEMER | PROJECT MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LEAD

Laura serves as the Environmental Monitoring Lead for FB Environmental Associates. She manages our water quality monitoring projects and provides technical oversight of watershed management planning projects that require water quality analyses, pollutant load modeling, quality assurance/quality control review, plan development or review, statistical analyses, GIS mapping, and public presentations. She is responsible for both project and staff oversight, including administrative tasks, hiring, training, and supervising staff, and client or public relations. She has experience working with a variety of clients, including federal, state, and municipal governments or agencies, watershed groups, and lake associations. Prior to FBE, she gained valuable research and writing experience through the National Park Service, New England Organics, Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, and The Nature Conservancy

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND SELECT PROJECTS

Lake & Stream Biogeochemistry Water Quality Monitoring, Assessment, & Quality Assurance (2011–Present). Provides Watershed Modeling oversight of water quality monitoring program, including staff and volunteer training, Watershed Hydrology coordination and execution of annual sampling, and technical report development for Watershed Management Planning lakes, ponds, streams, tidal estuaries, and beaches in Maine and New Hampshire; conducts NPS Pollution Surveys continuous and grab sample monitoring for physical and chemical parameters and flow Water Quality & Flow Monitoring monitoring using USGS guidelines; experience with deployment, maintenance, and calibration Geomorphic & Stream Habitat of data loggers and sondes (e.g., YSI Exo2, YSI 600 XL/XLM, YSI 600 OMS, YSI 6920, AquaTROLL, Assessment & Restoration DIVERS, Onset HOBO loggers); responsible for data analysis and interpretation, QA/QC & QAPP Statistical Analyses compliance review, report writing, and presentations to public; certified Lake Stewards of GIS Analyses Maine volunteer; developed numerous state and EPA-approved quality assurance project plans (QAPPs); developed more than 50 water quality assessment reports that apply applicable state EDUCATION water quality criteria to data to determine impairment status and are prepared in an acceptable format for submittal to state agencies for review and approval; recommends management M.S., Soil & Water Resource actions based on complex issues (e.g., fecal indicator bacteria source tracking) surrounding Management, University of New results of water quality analysis and works with communities to implement those actions. Hampshire, Durham (2014) Select project examples include: B.S., Ecology & Environmental Science, University of Maine, Orono • Sagamore Creek Water Quality Sampling Program (2017-2020) (2010) • Kezar Lake Water Quality & Climate Change Monitoring, Lovell, ME (2011-2020) • Salmon Falls TMDL Compliance Monitoring, ME/NH (2011-2020) MEMBERSHIPS • Bangor Streams Monitoring, Bangor, ME (2014-2017) • Coastal Bacteria Source Tracking, ME/NH (2011-2020) – includes Parsons Creek (Rye, Society for Freshwater Science NH), Winnicut & Little Rivers (North Hampton, NH), Ogunquit River (Ogunquit, ME), & (SFS), Member (2013–2015) Spruce Creek (Kittery, ME) North American Lakes Management • Lake Water Quality Monitoring Buoys, ME (2016-2020) – innovative, cost-effective Society (NALMS), Member (2015– design of buoy system with DO/temp loggers deployed at two Maine lakes Present) Maine NPS TMDL Stream Delisting (2014). Collaborated with the Maine DEP on development of a technical document supporting the delistment of six streams from Maine’s 303(d) list of PUBLICATIONS impaired waterbodies. The 2013 NPS TMDL showed these six streams required no nutrient or sediment loading reductions, and thus, exceedance of dissolved oxygen criteria at these Diemer et al. (2015). Nutrient streams was likely a result of natural conditions. Carefully documented reasons for delisting uptake along a fire gradient in for natural conditions based on available reports or studies, land use characteristics, habitat boreal streams of Central Siberia. assessments, biomonitoring surveys, and modeling results. Freshwater Science 34(4), 1443-56. Stormwater Monitoring & IDDE Investigations (2011-Present). Conducts stormwater outfall monitoring and IDDE investigations for municipalities, especially MS4-regulated communities, following federal and state guidelines, such as the 2004 IDDE Guidance Manual published by the Center for Watershed Protection, or permits, such as the 2017 New Hampshire Small MS4 General Permit. Select project examples include: North Hampton MS4 Program Assistance (2020); Salem Outfall Monitoring & IDDE (2015-2018); Portsmouth Outfall Monitoring & IDDE (2017); Farmington Outfall Monitoring (2015).

Watershed Planning (2011–Present). Provides technical oversight of watershed management planning projects that require water quality & statistical analyses, pollutant load modeling (see Environmental Modeling below), watershed and shoreline surveying, rapid geomorphic and habitat assessments, GIS mapping, and public presentations. Expertise in developing US EPA LAURA DIEMER | PROJECT MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LEAD a-i watershed management plans that include technical information on watershed characteristics, water quality impairment status, modeled pollutant load estimates, field-identified NPS sites, measurable milestones and interim benchmarks, community-prioritized action plan & goal(s), and plan implementation costs. Select project examples include:

• Merrymeeting River & Lake Watershed Management Plan (2018-2019, ongoing) • Spofford Lake Watershed Management Plan (2017-2018) • Watershed Plan for the Ossipee Lake Shoreline & Lovell River Watersheds (2015-2017) • Pleasant Lake Watershed Restoration Plan (2015-2016) • Moultonborough Bay Inlet Watershed Restoration Plan (2015-2016) • Watershed Plan for Danforth Ponds and the Lower Bays of Ossipee Lake (2014-2015) • Capehart Brook Watershed Management Plan (2014-2015) Environmental Modeling (2011–Present). Uses a variety of simple and complex models to simulate or estimate environmental conditions. Model expertise in STEPL, Region 5, SIMPLE method, MapShed, Virtual Beach, BASINS, and Lake Loading Response Model (LLRM). The LLRM is an Excel-based model that uses environmental data to develop a water and phosphorus loading budget for lakes and their tributaries. Water and phosphorus loads (in the form of mass and concentration) are traced from various sources in the watershed through tributary basins and into the lake. The model requires detailed and accurate information about the waterbody, including the extent and number of sub-basins draining to the lake, the type and area of land covers within those sub-basins, water quality data for the deep spot and tributary outlets, lake volume, septic system loading estimates, and more. Implementing this model requires advanced GIS modeling and understanding of complex lake biogeochemical processes. Select project examples include:

• Palmer River, Rehoboth, MA (2019) - STEPL • Merrymeeting Lake and River, New Durham/Alton, NH (2018-2019) – LLRM, SIMPLE Method/Region 5 • Spofford Lake, Chesterfield, NH (2017-18) - LLRM • Knickerbocker Lake & Adams Pond, Boothbay, ME (2017-18) - LLRM • East Pond, Smithfield/Oakland, ME (2017) - LLRM • Ossipee Lake, Ossipee/Freedom, NH (2017) - LLRM • Pleasant Lake, Deerfield/Northwood, NH (2016) - LLRM • Moultonborough Bay Inlet, Moultonborough, NH (2016) – LLRM • Capehart Brook Watershed Management Plan (2014-2015) – SIMPLE method • Spruce Creek Watershed Restoration Project (319 Phase IV) (2015-2016)– STEPL • Ogunquit River Restoration Project (319 Phase I-II) (2014-2017) – Region 5 • Maine Statewide Nonpoint Source (NPS) TMDL Report (2012-2013) – MapShed • Willard Beach, South Portland, ME (2011) – Virtual Beach SELECT PRESENTATIONS

• Guest Lecturer. Watershed Water Quality Management. University of New Hampshire. (2013-2019) • Diemer, L. Using co-indicators along with traditional source tracking methods to better pinpoint human sources of fecal contamination, a case study from Parsons Creek, Rye, NH. Beaches Conference, Well, ME: July 14, 2017. • Diemer, L. Alternative and affordable approach to buoy monitoring systems for Maine lakes and insights gained from continuous data collection. First Annual Lake Monitoring Summit, Augusta, ME: March 23, 2017. • Diemer, L. Creative and effective tools for translating water quality data. 46th Annual Maine Lakes Conference, Unity, ME: June 25, 2016. • Diemer, L. & Bell, F. Citizen-driven watershed-based plans for lake protection: a how-to. NH Lakes Congress, Meredith, NH: June 3, 2016. • Diemer, L. & Riley, J. Recent pH trends in the Kezar Lake watershed and potential impacts to coldwater fisheries. New England Association of Environmental Biologists Conference (NEAEB), Rockport, ME: March 25, 2016. PROFESSIONAL TRAININGS

Field Geology Services. Professional Short Course: Using fluvial geomorphology in watershed assessment and stream restoration. Concord, NH: April 26-28, 2016. Horsley Witten Group Sustainable Environmental Solutions

Rich Claytor has more than 37 years of practical experience in civil and environmental engineering with specific expertise in water resources planning, design, implementation, research, education, and training. Rich has extensive experience and expertise in stormwater management design, implementation, program assessment, policy and evaluation. Rich also is experienced in watershed planning, training and education; water resources assessment, research, and permitting; water supply and wastewater design; land use planning, site design and research; storm drainage, Richard Claytor, Jr. erosion/sediment control, and roadway design; and construction administration. President KEY PROJECTS [email protected] Green Infrastructure Solutions for Boston Public Schools and the Boston Areas of Expertise Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC), Boston, MA: Principal-in Charge for Stormwater Management the implementation of green infrastructure (GI) solutions to manage stormwater runoff Green Infrastructure and engage students at five Boston Public Schools. Wetland & Natural Resource Area Assessments EPA, Region 1: Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act Basic Purchasing Environmental Permitting & Compliance Agreement (2018-2023) Program Manager for HW and Principal-in-Charge for Watershed Planning & Assessment specific work assignments, including Palmer River Watershed Plan, Long Island Sound Civil Engineering Study GAO Response, and Connecticut Statewide Lake Nutrient TMDL. Environmental Engineering Surveying Fuller Brook Restoration, Wellesley, MA: Principal-in-Charge for the stream Site Design restoration of a 2.2-mile reach of a suburban impaired stream/wetland system using Training natural channel-based geomorphologic principles. Professional Registrations & Affiliations Massachusetts Department of Ecological Restoration: Principal-in-Charge for Professional Engineer: MA & NH master services contracts for the assessment, design, and implementation of ecological LEED Accredited Professional restoration for more than two dozen projects in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Town of Sandwich, beginning in 2005. Historical Commission American Society of Civil Engineers Willard Street, Cambridge MA Sewer Separation: Principal-in Charge for the Academic Background assessment and design of green infrastructure measures to manage stormwater runoff Bachelor of Science, Union College, Civil prior and reduce phosphorus loading for a new discharge pipe to the Charles River in Engineering, Concentration in Hydrology, compliance with the Lower Charles TMDL. Hydraulics, Water Resources, and Geotechnical Engineering Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on Stormwater BMPs in Coastal Massachusetts: Principal-in-charge for this assessment of likely impacts to Professional Experience Horsley Witten Group, Inc., stormwater management practice performance as a consequence of climate change President, 2013- Present; and resulting sea level rise and changes in precipitation characteristics with funding Principal Engineer, 2001 to 2013 from the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. Center for Watershed Protection, Principal Engineer, 1994 to 2001 Engineering Design and Assessment of Stormwater Management for Loiederman Associates, Inc. (now Soltesz, MassDOT’s Impaired Waters Program: Principal-in-charge for several project Inc.), Vice President and General assignments to evaluate existing drainage/stormwater characteristics and design Manager, 1985 to 1994 stormwater retrofit improvements to address runoff from MassDOT rights-of-way that Greenhorne and O’Mara, Inc.(Now drain impaired waters. Stantec, Inc.), Design Engineer, 1983 to 1985 Morrissey Boulevard Redesign to Accommodate a Changing Climate and Provide Coastal Resiliency: Principal-in-Charge for the design of a set of green infrastructure controls and living shoreline along a 2.5 mile segment of Morrissey Boulevard, a scenic parkway in a vulnerable coastal location subject to increasingly frequent inundation from sea level rise. Richard Claytor, Jr. Horsley Witten Group President Sustainable Environmental Solutions [email protected]

Maine Mall Retrofit Design and Construction, South Portland, ME: Principal-in-Charge for the identification, design, permitting, and construction administration for the “Greening of the Maine Mall,” a key component of the Long Creek Watershed Management District’s charge to restore Long Creek to meet water quality standards.

Roger Williams Park Water Quality Improvement Plan and Implementation, Providence, RI: Principal Engineer for planning and design of implementation projects to improve the water quality and biodiversity conditions of the Park’s urban ponds.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Alternative Strategies for Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction, New York City: Principal Engineer and part of a team under contract with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection to evaluate and implement a series of pilot green infrastructure stormwater retrofits projects to reduce the contribution of stormwater to combined sewer systems.

Barnstable Municipal Airport Terminal Improvement Project, Hyannis, MA: Principal Engineer for the permitting and design of civil site improvements for a $20 million passenger terminal construction.

2010 Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installations Manual Update: Principal-in-Charge and co-author for the update to the statewide Rhode Island Stormwater manual to incorporate low impact development practices for all new and redevelopment projects.

Oak Bluffs Streetscape Improvements: Principal-in-Charge for the Oak Bluffs Downtown Streetscape Master Plan to provide a framework for future planning, development, and design of the commercial district of Oak Bluffs on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.

Centennial Brook Flow Restoration Plan, Burlington, VT: Principal-in-Charge for a watershed assessment and plan to develop a flow restoration approach to meet the flow based TMDL for the 1.4 square mile Centennial Brook watershed.

Integrated Water Quality Plan, Burlington, VT: Principal-in-Charge for HW’s role in Burlington’s integrated water quality plan. Specifically, HW is assisting in the development of stormwater runoff opportunities to identify projects that reduce phosphorus loading to Lake Champlain. Responsibilities also include prioritizing stormwater runoff opportunities as compared to a range of other CSO projects, such as sewer separation and wastewater treatment plant upgrades.

Salmon River Watershed Evaluation of Municipal Policies and Regulations, Eastern Connecticut: Principal-in-Charge of a two-phase project for the Salmon River watershed to evaluate municipal codes and management practices contributing to water resource impacts. Completed technical training, and support for policy revisions to Conservation Subdivision Design, parking regulations, roadway standards, and LID design standards for two Connecticut municipalities.

Upper Charles River Sustainable Stormwater Funding Assessment, Bellingham, Franklin, & Milford, MA: Project Director for the assessment and dissemination of a technical report documenting the feasibility of widespread implementation of stormwater control measures to meet TMDL requirements and the requirements for a sustainable funding source through a Stormwater Utility structure.

Phase II Stormwater Permit and LID Training Clinics for Municipal Officials in New England, EPA Region I: Conducted a series of training clinics and hands-on assistance to New England municipal staff on the requirements of the new Phase II permits, as well as helping municipal officials and decision-makers encourage the use of low impact development/green infrastructure practices.

Massachusetts Statewide Stormwater Training Seminars, Various Locations in Eastern Massachusetts: Prepared technical presentations for more than a dozen one-hour stormwater design, policy, implementation and maintenance topics for a range of stormwater management strategies and presented at more than ten one full-day training sessions. Horsley Witten Group Sustainable Environmental Solutions

Ellie Baker has more than 20 years of consulting experience working with federal, state, municipal, non-profit and other private clients in the fields of environmental planning, policy and science. Specific topics of technical experience include: watershed management, stormwater management, low-impact development (LID), climate adaptation, site design, non-point source pollution management, land use planning and smart growth, drinking water supply protection, and water quality modeling. Ellie directs Horsley Witten Group (HW)’s office in Exeter, New Hampshire. Ellie Baker, AICP KEY PROJECTS Sr. Project Manager/ Sr. Environmental Planner Taunton River Watershed Management Plan, MA: Managed this multi- year state-funded watershed planning project, working with an Active Steering [email protected] Committee representing various state and regional agencies, Bridgewater State Areas of Expertise University and TNC. The goal of this project was to evaluate water resource impacts Watershed Planning & Assessment from land development within the more than 35 watershed communities and make Integrated Water Management recommendations to keep water local and restore natural hydrology and habitats. Stormwater Management Also included the design of six LID, alternative wastewater, and habitat restoration Land Use Planning demonstration projects to “keep water local” and two code-reform projects to Environmental Permitting & Compliance encourage LID design. Coastal Resources Smart Growth/Low Impact Development Assawompset Ponds Complex Floodplain Management Planning and Climate Change Adaptation Project Prioritization (Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Low Impact Development Development District): Provided technical assistance to the project team, Training consisting of SRPEDD, The Nature Conservancy, MassAudubon, Manomet, and the Professional Registrations & Assawompset Ponds Committee, to compile and evaluate prior management and Affiliations restoration recommendations, lead a prioritization process, and develop project AICP concepts, cost estimates, and permitting pathways to facilitate progress toward Certified Municipal Vulnerability implementation. This work immediately resulted in an MVP grant application Preparedness Provider (pending) and the obtainment of an EPA SNEP technical assistance grant for APA, MA and Northern New England implementation of two of the priority projects, and was recently the focus of a site visit Chapters and briefing for the Governor and EEA Secretary in summer 2020. Academic Background Masters of Environmental Management, Upper Nemasket Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, EPA SNEP Program Coastal and Watershed Systems, Technical Assistance: Environmental Planner assisting with an H&H study of the Yale University Upper Nemasket River, the largest herring run in the state. The project included the Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Studies collection of historical hydrology and infrastructure survey data and new field data and Spanish, Bowdoin College to inform the creation of an H&H model using the USACE HEC-RAS river modeling Professional Experience program. The model will be used to evaluate a variety of potential water resources Horsley Witten Group, Inc., Senior Project related projects including multiple dam removals, fish passage, channel restoration, Manager and Senior Environmental culvert replacement, and wetlands restoration. Planner, 2006 to present, 2000 to 2004 The Nature Conservancy in New Stormwater Program Technical Assistance for Mystic River Watershed Hampshire, Coastal and Marine Municipalities, EPA Region 1: Provided technical assistance to communities to Program Director, February to identify assistance needs and fill those needs in improving stormwater management September, 2016 programs for MS4 compliance, reducing pollutants to the Mystic River system, and Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., Senior Environmental Scientist, facilitating green infrastructure practices. HW was a subcontractor to ERG for EPA 2004 to 2005 Region 1 for this work. Products included a code review of multiple watershed Harvard Institute for International communities, guidance document for an O&M self-certification program to improve Development, Research Assistant, long-term practice performance, and a package of small-site stormwater BMP Central America Project, 1997 to 1998 educational cut-sheets. ICF Incorporated, Analyst, 1995 to 1997 Ellie Baker, AICP Horsley Witten Group Sr. Project Manager/Sr. Environmental Planner Sustainable Environmental Solutions [email protected]

Red Brook Watershed Stormwater and Stream Protection Standards and Regulatory Framework, Scarborough, ME: Prepared a set of recommended stormwater management and stream protection standards for the watershed in order to meet environmental and economic growth goals, and drafted a regulatory framework for local implementation to assist the town in obtaining regulatory primacy from the Maine DEP. Provided services as a sub-consultant to AMEC and worked closely with Scarborough Planning, Engineering and Public Works staff, as well as Maine DEP.

Watershed Management Plan for Boynton Inlet Watershed in Southeastern Florida, NOAA Coral Program: Managed the development of a watershed management plan for this highly mechanized and managed water system to set the stage for future funding and implementation. Convened a stakeholder advisory committee of municipal staff, scientific community and state and regional agency representatives to shepherd the project. HW developed a hydrologic model to assess relative pollutant loads and performed rapid field assessment to identify retrofit opportunities. Final deliverable included a library of information, a watershed management plan, pollutant reduction calculations, and prioritized recommended retrofits and conceptual designs.

Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Planning, Multiple Municipalities, MA: Lead Newburyport, Peabody, Newbury and West Newbury individually through the MVP Planning Process, and supported the process in Sudbury and Methuen. Served as project manager and point of contact for each municipal team, as well as workshop coordinator, lead facilitator and primary technical presenter at the workshop, and manager for the development of maps, workshop materials and final reports. These communities have since secured over $1M in MVP Action grant funding.

Site Suitability Analysis for Green Infrastructure to Boost Drought Resilience, MA: Managed the development of a GIS-based methodology to identify suitable sites for green infrastructure practices, with the goal of improving drought resilience in a variety of settings in MA. This work was funded by EPA, to support the 2017/2018 MA Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan development process.

Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on Stormwater BMP Design in MA, MACZM and MADEP: HW performed an assessment of potential impacts of climate change on stormwater BMPs in the MA. Managed HW team in evaluation of specific BMPs installed primarily in the near coastal area of MA against a set of anticipated climate change impacts, and development of example retrofit concepts to illustrate recommended design revisions for these and future BMPs.

Analysis of Nature Based Solutions and Innovative Financing Mechanisms for Nutrient Mitigation, Barnstable, MA (The Nature Conservancy): Provided technical support for the team of The Nature Conservancy and Quantified Ventures to evaluate a variety of nature based solutions (such as cranberry bog restoration, alternative septic systems, fertigation, and phytoremediation) in tandem with an evaluation of innovative financing opportunities to reduce risk and improve results. Horsley Witten Group Sustainable Environmental Solutions

Neal Price has 25 years of professional experience in the fields of hydrology and hydrogeology. Neal is a Senior Hydrogeologist/ Hydrologist and Associate Principal at HW and is responsible for developing client relations, supervising staff activities, and managing various projects within the firm. The nature and extent of the work he has conducted includes freshwater and saltwater wetlands restoration, groundwater and surface water modeling, watershed and drinking water protection studies, water supply investigations, wastewater disposal feasibility studies, dam removal, nutrient management, contaminant fate and transport studies, Neal M. Price stormwater management, dredging assessment, expert witness testimony, as well as Senior Hydrogeologist – development review and permitting. Associate Principal [email protected] KEY PROJECTS Areas of Expertise Assomopsett Ponds Complex Water Resources Assessment: Technical Lead Hydrogeology/ Water Supply for a high altitude assessment and prioritization of potential water resources projects Development in the vicinity of the Assawompsett Ponds and it outlet river, The Nemasket. The Ponds Watershed Planning & Assessment Integrated Water Management are the largest natural freshwater bodies in Massachusetts and the Nemasket has Groundwater Quality the largest herring run in the state. This project included frequent meetings between Wastewater Management various federal, state, non-profit, and municipal representatives to review 30 years Stormwater Management of past water resources-related work, prioritize those that best meet current goals Wetlands Restoration and needs, and plan an implementation strategy. Several of the priority projects have Dam Removal already received funding through competitive grants. Dredging Coastal Resources Upper Nemasket River Hydrology and Hydraulics Study: Project Manager Environmental Permitting & Compliance for an H&H study of the Upper Nemasket River, the largest herring run in the state. Professional Registrations & The project included the collection of historical hydrology and infrastructure survey Affiliations data and new field data to inform the creation of an H&H model using the USACE American Geophysical Union HEC-RAS river modeling program. The model will be used to evaluate a variety National Groundwater Association of potential water resources related projects including multiple dam removals, fish American Water Works Association passage, channel restoration, culvert replacement, and wetlands restoration. New England Water Works Association Academic Background Ipswich Mills Dam Removal, Ipswich, MA: Managed dam removal feasibility Master of Science, Geology, University of assessment for this historic and highly visible dam in downtown Ipswich. The Project Massachusetts, Amherst includes site survey, natural resources and habitat assessment, sediment quality/ Bachelor of Arts, Archeology, Oberlin dredging assessment, hydraulic evaluation, assessment of potential structural impacts College Archeological Field School, to adjacent historic mill buildings supported by timber piles, conceptual dam removal Sheffield University and river restoration site designs, and public outreach. Professional Experience Horsley Witten Group, Inc., Senior Taunton River Watershed Study, MA: Principal Investigator for the water Hydrogeologist/Senior Project Manager, budget components of this major basin-scale watershed study in Southeastern, MA. 1997 to present Compiled extensive databases of hydrology, climate, water/wastewater/stormwater MetroWest Water Supply Tunnel Project, infrastructure, geology, land use, and impervious surfaces in a GIS-based water 1997 budget model that estimated the water balance status of each of the 108 sub- Water Resources Research Center, Univ. watersheds within the basin. of Massachusetts, Research Scientist, 1995 to 1997 Aberjona River/ Davidson Park Restoration, Winchester, MA: Managed Fugro East Inc., Geologist, 1995 this river and park restoration project in a historic park with flooding concerns and 21E, Inc., Environmental Scientist, 1993 sediment quality concerns related to two upstream superfund sites. The Project includes site survey, natural resources and habitat assessment, sediment quality/ dredging assessment, hydraulic evaluation, conceptual river and park site designs, and public outreach. Neal M. Price Horsley Witten Group Senior Hydrogeologist – Associate Principal Sustainable Environmental Solutions [email protected]

Groundwater Modeling Assessments of Water Management Alternatives, Southeastern Massachusetts: Served as Project Manager and Lead Modeler for two projects in the so-called Tri-Basin area of Southeastern Massachusetts evaluating water budget impacts from various water management strategies related to the City of Brockton’s interbasin transfers of water between various surface water bodies. One project assessed water budget and water quality impacts to Stump Brook and Monponsett Pond; the other project assessed impacts to Silver Lake and the Jones River. Both projects involved the adaption of a USGS regional groundwater model to conduct the water quantity evaluations and then used that water budget information to inform water quality analytical evaluations of the water quality impacts from potential management strategies.

Red Lily Pond Wetlands Restoration, Barnstable, MA: Managed this feasibility assessment and conceptual design of a multi-faceted wetlands restoration that includes freshwater ponds, freshwater stream, and tidal stream. Project includes survey, hydrological monitoring, groundwater and surface water modeling, and design to remove flow restrictions and restore naturalized hydrology, ecology, and fish passage to the extent practical.

Saltwater Wetland Restoration Feasibility and Implementation, Sandwich, Falmouth, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Bourne, Eastham, Harwich, Nantucket, Manchester, and Mattapoisett, MA: Managed over a dozen projects to investigate the feasibility of restoring salt water flow to wetland areas and evaluate design options to provide enhanced flow (culverts, channels, bridges). Many of these projects were designed and permitted and several of them have progressed through construction.

Freshwater Wetland Restoration Feasibility and Implementation, Plymouth, Carver, Winchester, Walpole, Falmouth, Barnstable, and Harwich, MA: Managed over a half dozen freshwater stream restoration projects involving feasibility assessment, design, permitting, and public outreach.

Water Supply Investigations, Plymouth, MA: Conducted groundwater modeling and field investigations to identify, develop, and permit new water supply wells for the Town of Plymouth, the Pinehills, and multiple golf courses.

Coastal Processes and Stormwater Impacts, Savin Hill Cove, Dorchester, MA: Managed this major, long- term project assessing potential impacts to coastal resource areas from stormwater improvements proposed as part of the continuing MWRA cleanup of Boston Harbor. The projects included modeling of stormwater quality and potential sediment erosion and transport characteristics; field monitoring of bathymetry, depositional characteristics, and long term, automated, stormwater water quality sampling of baseline, construction, and post-construction conditions.

Parker River Low-Flow Study, MA: Managed this project assessing the extent of flow impairment, potential causes of flow impairment, and potential mitigation strategies to address the critical low flow conditions in this basin. The project included components of groundwater recharge water budget assessment, statistical analyses of measured historical and current streamflows, and estimates of potential streamflow depletions caused by groundwater withdrawals using the USGS StrmDepl modeling tool.

Groundwater Modeling Support for Remedial Actions, San Francisco, CA: Managed two separate projects conducting groundwater modeling assessments of remedial actions alternatives for different parcels within the Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard. Utilized the USGS MODFLOW groundwater modeling code to create two groundwater models used to evaluate a landfill cap, slurry walls, French drains, pump and treat systems, and constructed wetlands as remedial alternatives.

Eastern Ontario Regional Groundwater Study, Canada: Managed wellhead delineation project wherein six different MODFLOW numerical groundwater models were constructed to delineate Wellhead Protection Areas for 32 public drinking water wells in the greater Ottawa area. Horsley Witten Group Sustainable Environmental Solutions

Tom is the Principal Engineer, specializing in water and wastewater design and management systems, with 40 years of engineering experience. His experience includes water and wastewater master plan studies, engineering designs, permit applications, capital and operating budget preparations, construction oversight, contract administration, and project management. Tom is also experienced with system startups for various water and wastewater projects, including water pumping stations, water treatment plant upgrades, and wastewater treatment systems. Since 2001, Tom has been providing management services to the water, wastewater treatment facilities, F.P. (Tom) Lee, P.E. and irrigation systems at The Pinehills community in Plymouth, Massachusetts. His Senior Project Manager management oversight includes: updating the water system hydraulic model; reviewing Principal Engineer water, sewer and drainage systems; inspecting water, sewer, and sewage lift stations; [email protected] updating as-built plan annually; updating water and sewer system specifications; preparing annual capital and operating budget for the water and wastewater treatment Areas of Expertise facilities; assuring compliance with Drinking water license, Water Management Act Civil Engineering permits, and Groundwater Discharge Permit for wastewater; coordinating system Environmental Engineering operation with contract operators; and various management functions with the water Stormwater Management Wastewater Treatment and Management and wastewater treatment facilities. Tom also provides management and design review Water Treatment and Management for the irrigation systems for community area in The Pinehills community. Tom also works Low Impact Design on stormwater and site design components of other projects. Site Design KEY PROJECTS Professional Registrations & Affiliations The Pinehills Private Sewer Treatment Facilities Phase III Expansion, Professional Engineer, MA, RI, CT,WI, ME Plymouth, MA: Client Representative for Phase III Expansion to increase the and Alberta, Canada. plant capacity to 450, 000 GPD from 300,000 GPD including additional influent Member, Conservation Commission equalization volume, sequencing batch reactor, air blower piping upgrade, filter (2006 to present), upgrade with related building, UV system upgrade, odor scrubber upgrade, Community Preservation Committee instrumentation and SCADA control upgrade, and treated water reuse. Tom permitted (2009 to present), and Land Acquisition this project under current Groundwater Discharge Permit with MassDEP. Tom is working and Preservation Committee (2011 to with the Woodard & Curran Operation and Engineering group on this project, which present). is scheduled to be built in 2017. American Water Works Association Water Environment Federation Catamumet Harborview Homes Wastewater Treatment Plant, Stormwater American Society of Civil Engineers and Site Design, Bourne, MA: Lead Designer for the permit, design, and Plymouth County Water Works construction services for a subsurface leaching systems to support a 34,000 gpd Association Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) package wastewater treatment system for a Academic Background housing development and existing commercial development in Kingman Marina. The Master of Science, Environmental project is permitted for a Groundwater Discharge Permit through MassDEP and is Engineering, Purdue University currently under construction. Tom also worked on the site and stormwater design. The Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, development is scheduled to be available for sale in 2016. University of Massachusetts Wastewater System Evaluation and Design, Algonquin Heights Apartment Professional Experience Complex, Plymouth, MA: Tom manages this project, performed evaluation of Horsley Witten Group, Inc., existing wastewater system, designs a gravity sewer collection and lift station, and 1999 to Present provided the information to the Town of Plymouth DPW for the construction of a Town City of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, lift station to service this area including this apartment complex. 1982 to 1999 EPA Copper Rule for State of Washington, Oregon, Washington: Tom Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff, provided the treatment options to reduce the copper concentration in the wastewater 1980 to 1981 treatment effluent to meet the potential effluent target level and related cost estimates. MCI Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade, Norfolk, MA: Lead Designer for an upgrade to a 0.484 MGD wastewater treatment system, using membrane bioreactor technology, to meet the new Total Phosphorus discharge limit of 0.1 F.P. (Tom) Lee, P.E. Horsley Witten Group Senior Project Manager - Principal Engineer Sustainable Environmental Solutions [email protected] mg/L. Completed permitting through MassDEP, Norfolk Con Comm, and EPA, public bid, and design upgrades that include: a screening process, anaerobic tanks, aeration tanks, a membrane system, an ultraviolet disinfection system, chemical addition, treated water reuse, and reuse of existing clarifiers as part of the overall treatment processes and additional influent liquidation tanks. Tom also oversaw construction administration, weekly meetings, and change orders throughout the Project. MCI Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade, Plymouth, MA: Lead Designer for a new 31,000 gpd wastewater treatment system using membrane technology. The project includes a trash trap, anaerobic tank, aeration tanks, membrane system, ultraviolet disinfection system, effluent pump station, and subsurface leaching beds. The project included obtaining a GWDP from MassDEP. Tom also oversaw construction administration, weekly meetings, and change orders throughout the Project. South Sandwich Village Wastewater Treated Effluent Disposal Design, Sandwich, MA: Lead Designer for the permit, and design services for a subsurface leaching systems to support a 500,000 gpd membrane wastewater treatment system for a commercial and housing development. They project did not obtain the Town’s approval and terminated during the Groundwater Discharge permit preview process. The Pinehills Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion, Plymouth, MA: Project Manager and Designer for the permit, design and construction services for the expansion of the treatment plant from 150,000 gpd to 300,000 gpd. Tom directed the design and construction of a grit removal system, screened influent pump chamber, sequencing batch reactor, effluent equalization tanks, effluent pump station, subsurface leaching beds and supervisory control and data acquisition system. Breezy Acres Wastewater and Water Design, Mashpee, MA: Lead Designer for the design, permit, and construction supervision of a 4,400 gpd septic system with connection to the Mashpee High School wastewater treatment plant, and watermain. Barstow Village Drainage, Wastewater and Water Design, Hanover, MA: Lead Designer for the design, permit and construction supervision of a 9,924 gpd septic system with subsurface leaching fields serving 65 housing units, watermain, and drainage system for the community. West Barnstable Community Wastewater Treatment Systems, Barnstable, MA: Lead Designer for the design, permit and construction services for two different wastewater treatment plants for two separate locations in the Town of Barnstable. One system was designed using Bioclere system with a design capacity of 1,800 gpd while the second system is designed using Advantex and Presby system with a design capacity of 7,260 gpd. Canal Bluffs Water and Wastewater System Design, Bourne, MA: Lead Designer for the permit, design, and construction services for a new wastewater treatment system for this affordable housing development, consisting of 137 housing units. Services included permitting, design, public bid support, and construction inspection for 1,600 feet of 8-inch water main and a booster pump station. An advanced wastewater treatment system was designed, using Bioclere and multimedia filtration system, for a flow of 7,644 gpd. An innovative stormwater management system was also designed and implemented. Prepared an interim GWDP from DEP because the final design flow, including future phases, will exceed 10,000 gpd. The project will also be permitted under the “no-net nitrogen increase.” Main Street Village, Mashpee, MA: Lead Designer for the overall site design and wastewater system design that included stormwater, drinking water, and wastewater for thirty-two housing units and two commercial buildings. The project involved all permit applications including a pilot testing permit for the Nitrix system. The Pinehills Private Sewer Treatment Facilities, Plymouth, MA: Project Manager for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater treatment plant, in cooperation with the contract operators. Tom also prepares capital and operating budgets, forecasts wastewater flow, updates the sewer system specifications, reviews sewer and lift stations design, inspects sewer systems during construction and startup, reviews as-built plan, and other related activities for the wastewater treatment and collection system. Horsley Witten Group Sustainable Environmental Solutions

Sarah Bartlett has more than three years of professional experience in the environmental science field. At the Horsley Witten Group, she currently supports a variety of consulting services including data analysis, evaluation and summary of public comments on proposed rulemakings, and developing maps, letters, and reports. Sarah has experience in water quality sampling and analysis as well as ArcGIS. While working for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, she sampled private drinking water wells throughout New Hampshire for the Sarah Bartlett presence of various contaminants including MtBE and PFAS. Staff Scientist KEY PROJECTS [email protected] Summary of State and Tribal Co-Regulator Meetings Regarding Proposed Areas of Expertise Water Quality Certification Rule, EPA: Assisted the EPA’s Office of Water in Environmental Science Salt Lake City, Utah and Chicago, Illinois. Support involved background research Data Management on the proposed rule, development of technical materials, note-taking, followed by Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment a summary for the meetings, and assistance at the public hearings. The meetings Site Assessment and Remediation involved a discussion between EPA representatives and state and tribal co-regulators. Water Resource Management Summary and Analysis of Public Comments on Rulemaking Regarding Professional Registrations & the Waters of the United States, EPA: Assisted the EPA’S Office of Water Affiliations in compiling, categorizing, and summarizing comments. Assisted with data OSHA 40 HAZWOPER (includes management and quality control throughout the comment process. Confined Space Entry and Rescue) MtBE Remediation Bureau, NH: Conducted private drinking water well sampling throughout NH per NHDES protocol. Sampled for a variety of contaminants including Academic Background VOCs, PFAS, Perchlorates, and naturally occurring contaminants. Also researched Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Science, Saint Anselm College areas of possible contamination using ArcGIS and multiple databases. Black Brook Water Quality Assessment, Manchester, NH: Assisted the Professional Experience Watershed Assistance Program at NHDES in the assessment of Black Brook stream. Horsley Witten Group, Inc., The assessment was done in order to evaluate the progress the dam had made since July 2019 to Present the dam was removed Collected aquatic insects in order to assess the diversity and New Hampshire Department of quantity. Counted pebbles in order to quantify the substrate at different points up the Environmental Services, MtBE stream. Remediation Bureau, Environmentalist II, February 2018-July 2019 Surface Water Sampling-PFAS, NH: Assisted the Trend Monitoring Program at NHDES in the first of its kind, statewide initiative to sample rivers and streams New Hampshire Department of throughout New Hampshire for PFAS. Environmental Services, MtBE Remediation Bureau, Environmental Stream Crossing Assessments, NH: Assisted the Wetlands Bureau at NHDES Technician III, October 2016 to assessing stream crossing structures (i.e. culverts, bridges, arches, etc.) that carry February 2018 a road over a river, lake, wetlands or small stream. Evaluated the geomorphic compatibility of the structure, the aquatic organism passage and flood resiliency.

ADAM J. DAIGNEAULT, PhD 5755 Nutting Hall, Rm 219 Email: [email protected] Orono, ME 04469, USA Phone: +1 207 581 2805

EDUCATION The Ohio State University Columbus, OH ▪ Ph D., Natural Resource and Environmental Economics August 2006 - Dissertation: “Fire, Carbon, Timber, and Trees: Three Essays in Natural Resource Economics” ▪ M.A., Economics September 2004 ▪ Certificate of Graduate Interdisciplinary Specialization in Survey Research September 2004

Denison University Granville, OH ▪ B.A., magna cum laude, Economics and Environmental Studies May 2001 - Honors Thesis: “Cuba, An Ecological Footprint: Analyzing the ‘Special Period,’ 1989-1999”

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2016-present, Assistant Professor, University of Maine School of Forest Resources 2010-2016, Senior Economist and Research Area Leader, Landcare Research New Zealand 2009-2010, Fellow, Deshpande Foundation & The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) 2008-2009, Economist, U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Climate Change Division 2006-2008, Post-Doctoral Research Economist, U.S. EPA National Center for Env Economics 2005, Research Economist, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station 2002-2006, Research Assistant, The Ohio State University

HONORS AND AWARDS NZ Association of Economists Economic Policy Prize, Best Paper 2014 Landcare Research Distinguished Service Award 2013 NZ Assoc. of Ag. and Resource Economists Society, Best Paper 2011 NZ Association of Economists Economic Policy Prize, Runner Up 2011 EPA Gold Medal: Economic Impacts of U.S. Climate Change Legislation 2009 EPA Bronze Medal: Economic Impacts of Increased Biofuels Production 2007 EPA Bronze Medal: Economic Impacts of Phosphate Mining 2007 The Ohio State University Distinguished University Fellowship 2005 - 2006 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Director’s Associateship 2003 - 2004 The Ohio State University Distinguished University Fellowship 2002 - 2003 Denison University Heritage Academic Scholarship 1997 - 2001 Park National Bank Scholarship for Excellence in Economics 2000 - 2001 Environmental Studies Program Melon Student Internship Grant Summer 2000

JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS Austin, K.G., J. Baker, B. Sohngen, C. Wade, A. Daigneault, S. Ohrel, S. Ragnauth, A. Bean. 2020. How much will global forest carbon sequestration cost?. Nature Communications 11 5946. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19578-z. Roy, S.G., A. Daigneault, J. Zydlewski, A. Truhlar, S. Smith, S. Jain, D. Hart. 2020. Coordinated river infrastructure decisions enhance social-ecological resilience. Environmental Research Letters 15 104054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abad58.

DR. ADAM J. DAIGNEAULT | NOVEMBER 2020 1

Daigneault, A, Sohngen, R Sedo Carbon and aret Eects o S Forest Taation Policy Ecological Economics 18: 18. hao, A. Daigneault, A eisittel Forest andoner Harvest Decisions in a Ne Era o Conservation Steardship Forest Policy and Economics 118: 11 https:doiorg111orpol11 Favero, A, A. Daigneault, and Sohngen Forests: Carbon Seuestration, iomass Energy, or oth Science Advances, 1: eaay9 aith, D, Hodge, F organ, and A. Daigneault Climate change costs more than e thin because people adapt less than e assume Ecological Economics 1: 1 Fernandez, and A. Daigneault A double in: ne pathays to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve ater uality in Ne ealand Environmental Research Letters 1 https:doiorg1188189ab8 Carroll, A. Daigneault. 19 Achieving Ambitious Climate Targets: s it Economical or Ne ealand to nvest in Agricultural H mitigation Environmental Research Letters 1 1 https:doiorg1188189aba Daigneault, A. 19 A Shared Socioeconomic Pathay Approach to Assessing the Future o the Ne ealand Forest Sector Journal of Forest Economics : Daigneault. A. C ohnston, A orosuo, aer, N Forsell, Prestemon and R Abt 19 Developing Detailed Shared Socioeconomic Pathay SSP Narratives or the lobal Forest Sector Journal of Forest Economics : Ausseil, A, A. Daigneault, Frame, E Teiera 19 Toards an integrated assessment o climate and socioeconomic change impacts and implications in Ne ealand Environmental Modelling and Software 119:1 unuula, S, A. Daigneault, AA oateng, CA ullen, DeSisto, C heeler 19 nluence o pstream, Distributed iomassDensiying Technologies on the Economics o iouel Production Fuel, 9: ron, P, A. Daigneault and Dason 19 Age and Decision aing in Ne ealand Agriculture Journal of Environmental Management. 1:111 reenhalgh S, A. Daigneault, O Samarasinghe 18 Allocation – The dilemma at the heart o setting ater uality limits The Journal (official publication of the New Zealand Institute of Primary Industry Management Incorporated) : onge, A. Daigneault, Doling, D Harrison, and A Ausseil 18 mplications rom payments or orest ecosystem services on landuse decisionmaing under uncertain climate change: The case o erosion prevention on the East Coast o Ne ealand Ecosystem Services, :1991 Frame, , A Reisinger, A Ausseil, A. Daigneault and arence 18 Adapting shared climate policy assumptions or national and local scenarios Climate Risk Management, 1:91 Fernandez , and A. Daigneault. 18 The Paris Agreement and its Economic mpact on Ne ealand Climate Change Economics, 9, p18 Teieira, E, de Ruiter, A Ausseil, A. Daigneault, P ohnstone, A Holmes, A Tait and F Eert 18 Adapting crop rotations to climate change in regional impact modelling assessments Science of the Total Environment 1:89

DR ADA DANEAT NOEER

Daigneault A., Environmental and Resource Economics A. Daigneault World Development – A. Daigneault. Agricultural Economics Daigneault, A., Journal of Environmental Management Daigneault A., Ecological Economics A. Daigneault Climate and Development Daigneault, A., Forest Policy and Economics A. Daigneault New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research A. Daigneault Compendium: Cuadernos de Economía y Administración – A. Daigneault Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Daigneault, A Ecological Economics – A. Daigneault Policy Quarterly Daigneault. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review – A. Daigneault. Land – A. Daigneault PLOS One A. Daigneault – Journal of Economic Entomology A. Daigneault Austral Ecology A. Daigneault – Spathodea campanulata Environmental Science & Policy Daigneault, A Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Ecnomics –

A. Daigneault. Environmental Science & Policy Daigneault, A. Environmental Science and Technology – A. Daigneault The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses A. Daigneault Policy Issues Daigneault, A. Land Economics A. Daigneault Environmental and Resource Economics Daigneault, A. Forest Policy and Economics A. Daigneault Onchorhynchus mykiss) Journal of Great Lakes Research

SELECT REPORTS & OTHER PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS Daigneault, A “ ” Arnold, S., …, Daigneault, A. “ ” Daigneault, A “ ” Daigneault, A. & Strong, A. 2019. “An Economic Case for the Sebago Watershed Water & Forest Conservation Fund.” University of Maine Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy and Highstead Conservation. March 2019. Available here. Abello, T. Daigneault, A. et al. 2018. “Review of the Maine Tree Growth Tax Law: Report to the 128th Legislature Committee on Taxation.” Buncle, A., Daigneault, A. et al. 2018. “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Natural Resource Management In The Pacifica Guide: Second Edition.” Technical Report for the Pacific Cost-Benefit Analysis Partnership. Available here. Daigneault A., Eppink F., Gawith D., Craig H. 2017. “Estimate of the economic damage from the September 2015 flood in Freetown, Bo, and Pujehun (Sierra Leone)”. Landcare Research Contract Report LC2751 for Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency. 136p.

Daigneault A. 2017. “Identifying Feedbacks, Understanding Cumulative Impacts and Recognising Limits: Implications (CCII) for New Zealand to 2100.” CCII report for MBIE contract C01X12 Daigneault A. . “ono odlln o rn n nron lloon ndr onrl ol on.” Landcare Research Contract Report LC2 rrd or lnd nr or rr ndr. . Daigneault A., r ., Srn . . “ono nl o lnd oorn n noo ro.” ndr r onr or rrd or noo Māori Trust Board. . Daigneault A, Srn, . . “nr ror dn nd .ol d n ono odlln.” ndr r onr or rrd or nr or rr ndr. . Ar S, Daigneault A., nor S., nor A., Tahi M. 2015. “Land on or Mākirikiri Aggregated Trust lands under a kaitiakitanga framework.” Landcare Research onr or or nr or rr ndr. Daigneault A. 2015. “Modelling the economic impact of New Zealand’s post l change contribution.” ndr r onr or rrd or nr or rr ndr nd nr or nronn. . Daigneault A, rnnd . . “ o lnd o l n onron An ono odlln n.” ndr r onr or rrd or nr or nronn. . Daigneault A, rnnd , r . . “Economic modelling of New Zealand’s INDC or o l n Arn l ror.” ndr r onr or rrd or nr or nronn. . rnnd , Daigneault A . “ l on, don nd rd n dn nrl lr lA odl”. ndr r onr or rrd or nr or nronn. . Daigneault, A. Fernandez M. 2014. “MfE GHG emissions reduction policy scenarios.” Landcare r onr or or nr or nronn. . ron , Daigneault A, , Alrr , ol , on , orn . . “Evaluating obased adaptation for disaster risk reduction in Fiji.” Landcare r onr ror or l nd lon nold or. . Daigneault A, Srn , lrn . . “odlln ono o nrn lloon ol n nrr Sln n.” ndr r onr or or nr or nronn. nl A, Daigneault A, ollnd , n A, oo S, nl . . “on nl for natural resource management in the Pacific.” Suva, Fiji: Secretariat of the Pacific on. .ndl.ordlldonlodo nnlornrlrornnnd.d

. AA . AA

aarasnhe Lrne L 2. “oden econoc pacts o ntrent aocaton poces n Canterr nds Catchent.” Landcare Research Contract Report LC or the nstr or the nronent. Lenno hnhnaa rner Resner . 2. “Interated ssessent o radeReated pacts o oa Cate Chane oces.” Landcare Research Contract Report prepared or the nstr or rar ndstres.p. ron reenhah odeas ather ae aerser 2. “an the pact o seected nase speces n the onesacronesa hotspot.” Landcare Research contract report LC22. Landcare Research e eaand Ltd. 2 p. http.andcareresearch.co.npcatonsresearchpsCannases.pd . 22. “stanae Land anaeent and Cate Chane Catchent nass o Cate Chane.” LCC Contract C. Landcare Research Contract Report prepared or the nstr or rar ndstres .p. conad ott oardas C reenhah se err Lenno Lrne L orenstern orton nn Rtherord neder coc . 22. aaton o the pact o derent poc optons or anan to ater at ts an report. echnca aper o 22. Landcare Research. 2p. Lenno . and . 2. anttate econoc anass o ater poces and developments in New Zealand’s regions and catchments. In: Old Problems, New Solutions. Rsse . . rae and . Lenno eds. Lncon anaa hena ress. . das . R. anes and . 2. Estimated timber harvest by U.S. region and ownership, 1950-2002. en. ech. Rep. R. ortand R .. epartent o rctre orest erce acc orthest Research taton p.

rta st 2 22. “o orest ode ntercoparson proect or to assess the tre o global forests under climate, policy and technological stressors” tanta . 22 2. “oa orest anaeent and caron seestraton tres nder aternate shared socoeconoc pathas” ortsoth . ne 12, 2019. “The value of ecosystem services and forest conservation in the Sebago Lake watershed” Cos . a 15, 2019. “An overe o oa orest sector pathas n an SSP context” ortand R. ctoer 2. “he tre o oa orestr nder aternate shared socoeconoc pathas” ashnton C. st 2. “oa orest anaeent and caron seestraton tres nder aternate shared socoeconoc pathas” othenr eden. ne 28, 2018. “Ho ta reor can aect nestents n natra resorces and pc oods ortand . ctoer 2. “tate orest propert ta poces a ree”

R. . L R 22

, est Lafayette, Indiana. une 9, 2017. “Shared socioeconomic pathway approach to assessing the future of the global forest sector” ienna, Austria. arch 8, 201. “An overview of the New Zealand forest agriculture modelling system” oston, assachusetts. uly 291, 201. “Equally slicing the pie: water uality policy and allocation” anberra, Australia. ebruary 25, 201. “Economic costs and environmental benefits of national riparian restoration for NZ” , otorua, New Zealand. ebruary 101, 2015. “Linkage of a spatially explicit agentbased model to a partial equilibrium model of agriculture” Auckland. uly 2, 201. “Agroenvironmental policy impacts on regional land use in New Zealand” Winner of NZAE New Zealand Policy Paper Prize Port acuarie, Australia. ebruary , 201. “Costs and Benefits of Ecosystembased Adaptation for Flood Risk Reduction in Fiji” Port acuarie, Australia. ebruary , 201. “Agroenvironmental policy impacts on regional economics and ecosystem services in New Zealand” Adelaide, Australia, ctober 811, 201. “stimating the regional economic impacts of climate change and policy responses on agricultural and forestry productivity” ashington , SA August , 201. “Economic and environmental impacts of implementing multiple agroenvironmental policies in New Zealand” Sydney, Australia. ebruary 58, 201. “Invasive species management in the Pacific using survey data and benefitcost analysis” Sydney, Australia. ebruary 58, 201. “Economic and environmental impacts of nutrient reduction policies and their design at the catchmentlevel” olumbus, hio, SA ctober 15, 2012. “Economic and environmental impacts of implementing multiple agroenvironmental policies in New Zealand” Seattle, SA August 121, 2012. “odeling forestry in dynamic general euilibrium: a climate change policy analysis” Seattle, SA August 121, 2012. “Estimating impacts of climate change policy on land use: an agent based modeling approach”

. AA . AINALT N 2020

Fremantle, Australia. February 710, 2012. “Role of global forests in climate change mitigation: a focus on the Australia and New Zealand forest sector” ittsburgh, A. uly 22, 2011. “Estimating Cobenefits of agricultural climate policy in New Zealand: A catchmentlevel analysis” ellington, New Zealand. une 290, 2011. “Estimating cobenefits of New Zealand agricultural climate policy” Runner-up of NZAE New Zealand Policy Paper Prize himla, , ndia, November 1921, 2009. “Role of global forests in climate change mitigation” Copenhagen, enmark, arch 1012, 2009. “mplications of offset eligibility provisions on GHG mitigation for U.S. forestry and agriculture carbon sinks” ortland, R, uly 29 1, 2007. “Optimal forest rotations with environmental values and endogenous fire risk” , rovidence, R, uly 227, 200. “Exchange Rates and the Competitiveness of the U.S. Timber Sector in a Global Economy” ., and A. Favero. ive or take a billion hectares: the influence of shared socioeconomic pathways on global forests. nder review at Land Use Policy revised and resubmitted eptember 2020. gnatiadis, , , C. ponarski, and . Reed. perationaliing ense of lace to Evaluate otential Conflicts in Natural Resourceependent Rural Economies. nder review at Journal of Environmental Policy and Perspetives revised and resubmitted eptember 2020. Cookatton, .C., . opalakrishna, , .. Leavitt, . latt, .. cull, . Amarjargal, .. Ellis, B.. riscom, .L. cuire, .. eo, .E. Fargione. patial action maps to restore forest cover and mitigate climate in the contiguous nited tates. One Earth revised and resubmitted eptember 2020. Al Abri, ., . rogan, . ptimal Forest anagement in the resence of Fire Risk and Fuel Biomass in the outheastern nited tates. nder review at Environmental & Resource Economics revised and resubmitted eptember 2020. , A. trong, . eyer. Economic and Ecosystem Benefits of Conserving Forested atersheds. nder Review at Ecosystem Services revised and resubmitted eptember 2020. ymond, ., , . Burge, C. anner, F. Carswell, . reenhalgh, A. Ausseil, N. ason, B. Clarkson. earching for balance between pastoral agriculture and nature through ecosystem services. nder review at New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research submitted une 2020. Listo, A, . ray, . unt. Environmental Regulations and Employment in the ulp and aper ndustry: Evidence from he Cluster Rule. nder review at Journal of Cleaner Production submitted February 2020.

R. AA . ANEAL NEBER 2020

SR orest Resource Economics all SR orest Resource olicy Spring SR uantitative Social Science for Natural Resources Spring SR orest Resource Economics all SR orest Resource Economics Spring SR orest Resource olicy Spring SR Research ethods in orest Resources all SR Research ethods in orest Resources all SR orest Resource Economics all SR orest Resource olicy Spring SR Research ethods in orest Resources all SR orest Resource olicy Spring Economic nalysis of nvasive Species anagement in East elanesia Economics of nvasive Species anagement in Southeast sia Costbenefit nalysis of nvasive Species anagement in the Caribbean Economic nalysis of Natural Resource anagement in the acific slands

. ). “ Resilience ndicators pproach to Ensuring Euitable Obective and Continued nvestment in Northern order Communities.” 20. unded by US orest Service. . ). “An Integrated Approach to Quantifying the GHG Mitigation Potential of Natural Climate Solutions from Maine’s Working Lands.” 2019. unded by US Climate lliance. . ). “Maine’s Natural Climate Solutions nitiative.” 2019. unded by aine armland Trust. . ). “A Maine Soil Health Initiative to Enhance Agricultural Sustainability and itigate Climate Change.” . unded by itchell Center Sustainability Grant. . (PI: Anil Raj Kizha, University of Maine). “Identifying opportunities for improving smalldiameter tree harvesting strategies, logistics and market diversification.” . unded by the Uaine Cooperative orestry Research Unit. . ) “Developing Economic and Community Resilience Indicators for the Katahdin Region, Phase 2.” 2018. unded by The Nature Conservancy. . ). “Developing Economic and Community Resilience Indicators for the atahdin Region.” . unded by itchell Center Sustainability Grant. . University of ermont : eredith Niles. 2021. “Assessing Climate Perceptions and Developing Adaptation Resources for Small Medium and Beginning Farms.” Funded by USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. . : Sandra e UriosteStone, University of Maine). “Enhancing Conservation Science and Practice: An Interdisciplinary Program.” 2018. unded by NS Research Traineeship NRT program. . : Sandra e UriosteStone University of aine. 2020. “Fostering Climate Change Resilience: SocioEcological Forest Systems Approach.” Funded by USDA griculture and ood Research nitiative.

R. . GNEUT NOEER

19,. (PI: Anil Raj Kizha, University of Maine). “Smalldiameter trees: Evaluating cost and value proposition of harvest from different silvicultural prescriptions”. Funded by the USDA Agricultural Research Service. 11,00. (PI: Sam Roy, University of Maine). “Fishy business: identifying synergies between researchers and stakeholders for improved transportation infrastructure and ecological resilience through coordinated road culvert improvement” Funded by USGS Water Resources Research Institutes Sustainability Research Grant. 1,908. ( ). “Developing Economic and Community Resilience Indicators for the Katahdin Region, Phase 1.” 20172018. Funded by he Nature Conservancy. 99,999. (PI: Mehdi ajvidi, University of Maine). 2012020. “Technical and Economic Feasibility Evaluation and PilotScale Production of Composite Panels Made From LoCost Cellulose Nanomaterials and Wood Residues.” Funded by the USDA Agricultural Research Service. 00,000. (PI: Steve Shaler, University of Maine). 2012020. “Commercialization and Scaling Up of Mass Timber in Maine.” Funded by the USDA Agricultural Research Service. 10,000. (PI: Aaron Weiskettel, University of Maine). 2012018. “Benchmarking Maine’s Forest Product Sector and Assessing Future Markets.” Funded by the USDA NIFA. 0,882. ( ) “An Integrated Approach to Realizing the Value of Maine’s Forest Resources.” 20172018. Funded by the University of Maine Research Reinvestment Fund.

Agricultural Systems, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Carbon Balance and Management, Climate Policy, Climatic Change, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Ecological Economics, Ecosystem Services, Energy Policy, Energy Economics, Environmental Economics & Policy Studies, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Environmental & Resource Economics, Environmental Science and Technology, Environmental Science and Policy, Forest Economics and Policy, Forest Science, Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Global Change Biology, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Journal of Forest Economics, Land Use Policy, Management Science, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Management Science, Natural Hazards, Nature Climate Change, Nordic Pulp and Paper Research Journal, PLOS ONE, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Sustainability, USDA Forest Service Publications, US Environmental Protection Agency Publications, Economic Report of the President

American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE) Society of American Foresters (SAF) Northeast Agricultural and Resource Economics Association (NAREA)

DR. ADAM . DAIGNEAUL NEMBER 2020 10 Total Cost by Task

Submitted to the City of Auburn by FB Environmental Associates, Horsley Witten Group, and the University of Maine.

Task # Item Cost A Analysis of Regulatory Impacts $21,346.00 B Analysis of Environmental Impacts $20,316.00 C Analysis of Economic Impacts $15,799.50 D Final Report Outcomes $27,118.00 E Project Management $4,530.00 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) UMaine Indirect (33%) $4,700.12 UMaine Salary Employee Fringe (7.9%) $1,042.80 TOTAL $94,852.42

Certificate of Consultant

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the principal and CEO, and a duly authorized representative of the firm of FB Environmental Associates, whose address is 97A Exchange Street, Suite 305, Portland, ME 04101, and that neither I nor the above firm I here represent has: a. Employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) to solicit to secure this Agreement; b. Agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the Agreement; or c. Paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with, procuring or carrying out the Agreement; d. Except as here expressly stated (if any): ______

I acknowledge that this certificate is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil.

______Forrest Bell, Principal, FB Environmental Associates

__1/11/21______Signature Date Cost Proposal

The undersigned, as proposer, certifies that this submittal is made without collusion with any other person, firm, or corporation; and in submitting a response to this request; has examined instructions, specifications, and all terms and conditions of the solicitation. Proposer proposes and agrees to execute and fully perform in accordance with the instructions, specifications, terms and conditions of this request and any resulting agreement.

Not to Exceed Price for the Scope of Work contained herein (fixed price including all reimbursable): $94,852.42

Not to Exceed Price (in words): Ninety-four thousand eight hundred fifty-two dollars and 42 cents

Authorized Signature ______

Date: __1/11/2021______

Name of Firm: FB Environmental Associates Name of Owner: Forrest Bell Mailing Address: 97A Exchange Street, Suite 305, Portland, ME 04101 Phone: (207) 221-6699 Email Address: [email protected] ORDER 03-01042021

City Council Order IN CITY COUNCIL

ORDERED, that the City Council hereby authorizes staff to enter into an agreement with FB Environmental Associates for the evaluation of ordinances applicable to the protection of the Lake Auburn Watershed.

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: January 19, 2021 Order: 07-01192021

Author: Sue Clements-Dallaire, City Clerk

Subject: Liquor License El Tequila Mexican Restaurant

Information: An application for a liquor license was submitted by El Tequila, located at 245 Center Street. Police, Fire, Finance and Code have granted approval.

City Budgetary Impacts: None

Staff Recommended Action: Public hearing and motion to approve the liquor license.

Previous Meetings and History: N/A

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments: • Application • Public Notice • Order

Page 1 of 1

CITY OF AUBURN PUBLIC NOTICE

A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter, in the Council Chambers of Auburn Hall, 60 Court Street, to consider the Liquor License Application for:

EL TEQUILA – 245 CENTER STREET, AUBURN MAINE

Public input for this hearing with the City Council will be conducted remotely using “Zoom.” The meeting will be broadcast as usual on Great Falls TV (cable channel 1302) and on the City of Auburn YouTube channel.

If you wish to offer public comment during the meeting, you can “attend” the meeting via Zoom and speak during the public comment session. To participate in this way, please register in advance by accessing the link a few days before the meeting by going to https://www.auburnmaine.gov/pages/government/city-council-agendas and clicking on the January 19, 2021 Council agenda.

If you prefer to submit public comment in writing, please send your remarks via email to: [email protected]. Your comments will be included in the meeting minutes.

Scheduled to publish in the Sun Journal on 1/12/2021, 1/13/2021, and 1/14/2021.

ORDER 07-01192021

City Council Order IN CITY COUNCIL

ORDERED, that the City Council hereby approves the liquor license for El Tequila Mexican Restaurant, located at 245 Center Street.

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: January 19, 2021 Order: 08-01192021

Author: Jill M. Eastman, Finance Director

Subject: Reallocation of CIP Dollars for Auburn Lewiston Airport

Information: One hundred and fifty thousand dollars was allocated for the Airport Main Terminal Automobile Parking Lot, and due to cost of this project exceeding expectations, this project has not gone forward. We would request that you reallocate these dollars to the Eastside Aircraft Apron Reconstruction Project at this time.

City Budgetary Impacts: None

Staff Recommended Action: Approve Request

Previous Meetings and History: Discussed at workshop in December 2020

City Manager Comments:

I concur with the recommendation. Signature:

Attachments: Info Packet on Project provided by the Airport Director

Page 1 of 1

80 Airport Drive, Auburn, ME 04210 (207) 786 0631 FAX: (207) 782 3024 www.flytomaine.com

1 January 2021

To: Airport Board of Directors From: Rick Lanman,

Subj: Eastside Aircraft Apron Reconstruction Project

Dear Directors,

This paper should have been to you earlier than this, for that I apologize. My health issues became more severe than expected and recovery became paramount. While I am not completely done with the original issue, I am regaining my energy and strength and feeling much better.

In the following pages, taken directly from the project files, I am providing you with most of the documentation that was discussed at the last Board meeting concerning the viability of approving the Engineering contact. The main information concerning the funding of the project is contained on the first page, the Lewiston Project Request Form. At the bottom of that page is a two-year breakdown of the entire project, by phase and year. The following pages are a deeper explanation of the Project Request Form.

The one thing not included in these documents is that the Cities have an approval on the books for $150,000 each city that has been appropriated for the main terminal automobile parking lot. That money could be used to off-set the cost of the Eastside Apron Reconstruction project to the cities. To use that money will take a separate action of the City Council for reallocation of the already approved $150,000 from each city to be added to the Eastside Apron Reconstruction project. This would reduce the first-year cost to the cities to $78,750 of new appropriation rather than the $228,750 shown on the project form.

Ultimately, with proposed reallocation, the Engineering Contract with Hoyle, Tanner and Associates would be affordable through the project funding planned and could then be approved.

I am available anytime if you want to discuss this more. FY22 Lewiston Capital Improvement Program Project Description Form

Project Title: Reconstruct Aircraft Parking Apron

Operational Funding Division: Airport Project Name: Reconstruct East Ramp

Est. Total Cost FY22: 1,360,000 Est. Total Cost FY22-FY26: 1,885,000 City Share FY22: 228,750 City Share FY22-FY26: 491,250

Project Description: This project is the reconstruction of a portion of the east ramp pavement. This project is split into two phases to reduce the expense of the project on the cities. See attached diagram for more information.

Consistency with the Comprehensive or Strategic Plans or other related planning documents: This project is consistent with the cities' comprehensive plan and will be reflected in a Airport Master Plan update that is scheduled for FY22.

Justification for project implementation/construction and segments, if applicable: The scope of this project is larger than previously submitted due to engineering and Maine Department of Environmental Protection requirements that were not expected in earlier submissions. The maintenance of pavement standards for all of the airport's aircraft movement area pavement is required through USDOT Grant Assurances. The last pavement evaluation completed by MDOT, showed this as the only near FAILED pavement at the Auburn Lewiston Airport. Also consider, this is the last year this project will be considered by FAA for Airport Improvement Program funding until FY25.

Future maintenance costs if known, including contracts and special service requirements: Future maintenance costs including contracts and special service requirements, will be borne by airport through the operating budget.

How were cost estimates obtained and expenditure commitment: Cost was obtained from consulting engineer .

FUNDING SOURCES Source Amount City Operating Budget City Bond Issue 491,250 Federal/State Funding 902,500 Agency: FAA/ Me DOT Approval Received? Yes Other Agency/Municipality 491,250 Agency: City of Auburn Approval Received? Yes No Total Project Costs 1,885,000

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Fiscal Years) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Future

Total Project Cost 1,360,000 525,000

Non-City Share 1,131,250 262,500

City Share 228,750 262,500 0 0 0 0

Attach on separate page(s)/sheet additional information (if needed)

Auburn-Lewiston Airport Reconstruct East Apron Hoyle, Tanner Project No. 030744

SCOPE OF WORK

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This project includes the project administration, data collection, design, permitting, bidding, and construction services for reconstruction of the east apron. A sketch of the proposed project is attached.

The East Apron has numerous block and alligator cracks, and pavement separation. The 2019 Dubois & King Pavement Condition Report assigned the pavement a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 42 in 2018, with a predicted drop of 2 PCI per year. There are 5 hangars installed on the apron: the silver wings hangar was constructed before 1975 and renovated in 2005; the 6-unit and 8-unit T-hangars and pavement were installed in 1986; the Life Flight hangar was built in 2000; and, the most recent hangar was constructed in 2019. This last hangar did not require pavement construction.

A portion of the project will not be eligible for FAA or MaineDOT funding. See the below project sketch for limits of ineligible and eligible work. This scope assumes that all portions of the work shown below will be designed, permitted, and constructed at the same time. However, if required due to limited funding, construction of the project will be phased as shown on the sketch.

(Phase I $770,000 est)

Phase I ($340,000 est) Phase II($460,000 est)

H:\030744 LEW East Apron Rehab\0-Contract\1-Project\030744 Appendix B Scope of Work-East Apron.docx Page 1 of 9 AIP No. 3-23-0002-0xx Hoyle Tanner Project No.

Project Engineer: SLS Date of Estimate: 9/28/2020 Checked by:

Airport: Auburn-Lewiston Airport Project: Reconstruct East Apron (Phase 1)

Total Eligible Costs Base Bid Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost Item No. G-001-1 Mobilization (10%) LS 1 $71,500.00 $71,500.00 G-001-2 Engineer's Field Office LS 1 $2,730.00 $2,730.00 G-001-3 CSPP Compliance LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 G-001-4 As-Built Survey LS 1 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 P-152-1 Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 8700 $4.00 $34,800.00 P-152-2 Unclassified Excavation CY 6400 $10.00 $64,000.00 P-154-1 Subbase Course CY 4600 $30.00 $138,000.00 P-156-1 Inlet Protection EA 6 $250.00 $1,500.00 P-156-2 Sediment Barrier LF 1600 $4.00 $6,400.00 P-209-1 Crushed Aggregate Base Course CY 1100 $45.00 $49,500.00 P-401-1 Bituminous Pavement TON 1400 $160.00 $224,000.00 P-603-1 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL 650 $6.00 $3,900.00 P-620-1 Permanent Pavement Marking with Beads SF 900 $1.50 $1,350.00 P-620-3 Temporary Pavement Marking without Beads SF 900 $1.00 $900.00 D-701-1 12" HDPE Pipe LF 650 $40.00 $26,000.00 D-701-2 Remove Pipes LF 500 $20.00 $10,000.00 D-751-1 4' Catch Basin EA 4 $7,000.00 $28,000.00 D-751-2 Remove Catch Basins EA 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 T-901-1 Seeding SY 5200 $0.50 $2,600.00 T-905-1 Topsoil 4" Deep SY 5200 $4.00 $20,800.00

Estimated Total Construction Cost $694,930.00 10% contingency $69,493.00

Rounded Total Project Cost $770,000

Total Ineligible Costs Base Bid Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost Item No. G-001-1 Mobilization (10%) LS 1 $38,500.00 $38,500.00 G-001-2 Engineer's Field Office LS 1 $1,470.00 $1,470.00 G-001-3 CSPP Compliance LS 0 $0.00 $0.00 G-001-4 As-Built Survey LS 1 $1,050.00 $1,050.00 P-152-1 Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 3200 $4.00 $12,800.00 P-152-2 Unclassified Excavation CY 3000 $10.00 $30,000.00 P-154-1 Subbase Course CY 2400 $30.00 $72,000.00 P-156-1 Inlet Protection EA 0 $0.00 $0.00 P-156-2 Sediment Barrier LF 0 $0.00 $0.00 P-209-1 Crushed Aggregate Base Course CY 550 $45.00 $24,750.00 P-401-1 Bituminous Pavement TON 750 $160.00 $120,000.00 P-603-1 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL 350 $6.00 $2,100.00 P-620-1 Permanent Pavement Marking with Beads SF 0 $0.00 $0.00 P-620-3 Temporary Pavement Marking without Beads SF 0 $0.00 $0.00 D-701-1 12" HDPE Pipe LF 0 $0.00 $0.00 D-701-2 Remove Pipes LF 0 $0.00 $0.00 D-751-1 4' Catch Basin EA 0 $0.00 $0.00 D-751-2 Remove Catch Basins EA 0 $0.00 $0.00 T-901-1 Seeding SY 0 $0.00 $0.00 T-905-1 Topsoil 4" Deep SY 0 $0.00 $0.00

Estimated Total Construction Cost $302,670.00 10% contingency $30,267.00

Rounded Total Project Cost $340,000

H:\030744 LEW East Apron Rehab\4-Design_Planning\4-Estimates\CIP estimate - Phase 1.xlsx1 OF 1 Printed: 9/28/2020 AIP No. Hoyle Tanner Project No.

Project Engineer: SLS Date of Estimate: 10/15/2020 Checked by:

Airport: Auburn-Lewiston Airport Project: Reconstruct East Apron, Phase 2

Total Cost Base Bid Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost Item No. G-001-1 Mobilization (10%) LS 1 $49,000.00 $49,000.00 P-152-1 Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 8000 $4.00 $32,000.00 P-152-2 Unclassified Excavation CY 4000 $10.00 $40,000.00 P-154-1 Subbase Course CY 2600 $30.00 $78,000.00 P-156-1 Inlet Protection EA 2 $250.00 $500.00 P-156-2 Sediment Barrier LF 750 $4.00 $3,000.00 P-209-1 Crushed Aggregate Base Course CY 850 $45.00 $38,250.00 P-401-1 Bituminous Pavement TON 1100 $160.00 $176,000.00 P-603-1 Bituminous Tack Coat GAL 550 $6.00 $3,300.00 D-701-1 12" HDPE Pipe LF 100 $40.00 $4,000.00 T-901-1 Seeding SY 3000 $0.50 $1,500.00 T-905-1 Topsoil 4" Deep SY 3000 $4.00 $12,000.00

Estimated Total Construction Cost $437,550.00 10% contingency $43,755.00

Rounded Total Project Cost $490,000

H:\030744 LEW East Apron Rehab\4-Design_Planning\4-Estimates\CIP estimate - Phase 2.xlsx1 OF 1 Printed: 10/15/2020 APPENDIX D

ESTIMATE OF ENGINEERING COST for RECONSTRUCT EAST APRON

at AUBURN-LEWISTON AIRPORT

AUBURN, ME November 2020

HOYLE, TANNER PROJECT NO. 030744.00

Article I – Project Administration $27,900 ACTUAL COST PLUS FIXED FEE 14400 Hoyle Tanner Phase 01

Article II – Data Collection $7,000 ACTUAL COST PLUS FIXED FEE 45500 Hoyle Tanner Phase 10

Article III – Design $50,100 ACTUAL COST PLUS FIXED FEE Hoyle Tanner Phase 40

Article IV – Permitting and NEPA $29,300 ACTUAL COST PLUS FIXED FEE Hoyle Tanner Phase 50

Article V – Bidding $9,300 ACTUAL COST PLUS FIXED FEE Hoyle Tanner Phase 60

Article VI – Construction Administration $38,800 ACTUAL COST PLUS FIXED FEE Hoyle Tanner Phase 70

Article VII – Resident Engineering $53,000 ACTUAL COST PLUS FIXED FEE Hoyle Tanner Phase 72

Article VIII – Closeout $6,400 LUMP SUM 107400 Hoyle Tanner Phase 80

Expenses and Subconsultants $54,760 ACTUAL COST Hoyle Tanner Phase 99

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $276,560 444800

P:\Airport\ProjectsandPlanning\EastSide Apron Reconstruction\030744 Appendix D fee estimateSummary Crosshatched area is not eligible for AIP and the airport's responsibility only Solid Green area is removed pavement that will reduce future maintenance costs.

Phase I Reconstruction (with FAA Participation)

Phase II Reconstruction (without FAA Participation) ORDER 08-01192021

City Council Order IN CITY COUNCIL

ORDERED, that the Auburn Lewiston Airport is allowed to spend $150,000 that was originally allocated for the Airport main terminal automobile parking lot on the Eastside Aircraft Apron Reconstruction Project.

City of Auburn, Maine Finance Department www.auburnmaine.gov | 60 Court Street Auburn, Maine 04210 207.333.6601

TO: Phillip Crowell, City Manager FROM: Jill Eastman, Finance Director REF: December 2020 Financial Report DATE: January 13, 2020

The following is a discussion regarding the significant variances found in the City’s December financial report. Please note that although the monthly financial report contains amounts reported by the School Department, this discussion is limited to the City’s financial results and does not attempt to explain any variances for the School Department.

The City has completed its sixth month of the current fiscal year. As a guideline for tracking purposes, revenues and expenditures should amount to approximately 50.0% of the annual budget. However, not all costs and revenues are distributed evenly throughout the year; individual line items can vary based upon cyclical activity.

Revenues

Revenues collected through December 31st, including the school department were $50,149,131, or 54.67%, of the budget. The municipal revenues including property taxes were $36,371,245, or 56.98% of the budget which is 5.95% higher than last year during the same period. The accounts listed below are noteworthy.

A. The current year tax revenue is at 57.18% as compared to 51.72% last year. This is a $2,900,180 increase over last year. The reason for this difference is due to the timing of receiving the BETE (Business Equipment Tax Exemption) reimbursement from the State. Last year this was received in February and this year we received it in December.

B. Excise tax for the month of December is at 61.56%. This is a $366,635 increase over FY 20. Our excise revenues for FY21 are 11.56% above projections as of December 31, 2019.

C. State Revenue Sharing at the end of December is 65.63% or $1,777,496 which is $385,169 more than last year in December.

Page 1 of 2

City of Auburn, Maine Finance Department www.auburnmaine.gov | 60 Court Street Auburn, Maine 04210 207.333.6601

Expenditures

City expenditures through December 2020 were $27,780,234 or 60.48% of the budget. This is 13.77% more than the same period last year. Noteworthy variances are:

A. The main variances are Debt Service is $434,533 more than FY20, the Workers Comp transfer of $641,910 was made earlier than FY20, Public Safety Departments are higher than last year by $310,683 and the TIF Transfer of $2,845,623 was made earlier than in FY 20.

Investments

This section contains an investment schedule as of December 31st. Currently the City’s funds are earning an average interest rate of .75%.

Respectfully submitted,

Jill M. Eastman Finance Director

Page 2 of 2

CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE BALANCE SHEET - CITY GENERAL FUND AND WORKERS COMP FUND AS of December 2020, November 2020, and June 2020

UNAUDITED UNAUDITED UNAUDITED December 31 November 30 Increase JUNE 30 2020 2020 (Decrease) 2020 ASSETS

CASH $ 13,214,982 $ 12,919,579 $ 295,403 $ 14,712,549 RECEIVABLES - ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES 1,243,217 996,353 246,863 1,371,945 TAXES RECEIVABLE-CURRENT 21,185,057 21,597,655 (412,598) 185,234 DELINQUENT TAXES 760,847 1,080,817 (319,970) 617,814 TAX LIENS 867,173 1,033,247 (166,074) 884,542 NET DUE TO/FROM OTHER FUNDS 5,717,958 3,704,116 2,013,842 2,811,613

TOTAL ASSETS $ 42,989,233 $ 41,331,767 $ 1,657,466 $ 20,583,697

LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCES

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $ (53,702) $ 4,736 $ (58,439) $ (833,548) PAYROLL LIABILITIES (704,864) 275,285 (980,149) (253,541) ACCRUED PAYROLL (19) (19) - (3,829,105) STATE FEES PAYABLE (45,914) (19,590) (26,324) - ESCROWED AMOUNTS (31,095) (31,083) (12) (26,004) DEFERRED REVENUE (22,773,691) (23,453,462) 679,770 (2,161,507)

TOTAL LIABILITIES $ (23,609,285) $ (23,224,132) $ (385,154) $ (7,103,705)

FUND BALANCE - UNASSIGNED/ASSIGNED $ (16,344,521) $ (15,072,208) $ (1,272,312) $ (10,445,286) FUND BALANCE - RESTRICTED (2,273,457) (2,273,457) $ - (2,273,457) FUND BALANCE - NON SPENDABLE (761,970) (761,970) - (761,249)

TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ (19,379,948) $ (18,107,635) $ (1,272,312) $ (13,479,992)

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE $ (42,989,233) $ (41,331,767) $ (1,657,466) $ (20,583,697) CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE REVENUES - GENERAL FUND COMPARATIVE THROUGH December 31, 2020 VS December 31, 2019

ACTUAL ACTUAL FY 2021 REVENUES % OF FY 2020 REVENUES % OF REVENUE SOURCE BUDGET THRU DEC 2020 BUDGET BUDGET THRU DEC 2019 BUDGET VARIANCE TAXES PROPERTY TAX REVENUE- $ 49,655,498 $ 28,394,656 57.18% $ 49,295,498 $ 25,494,476 51.72% $ 2,900,180 PRIOR YEAR TAX REVENUE $ - $ 403,930 $ - $ 225,257 $ 178,673 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION REIMBURSEMENT $ 1,420,000 $ 1,405,540 98.98% $ 1,250,000 $ 994,116 79.53% $ 411,424 EXCISE $ 4,112,861 $ 2,532,007 61.56% $ 3,910,000 $ 2,165,372 55.38% $ 366,635 PENALTIES & INTEREST $ 150,000 $ 55,798 37.20% $ 150,000 $ 60,147 40.10% $ (4,349) TOTAL TAXES $ 55,338,359 $ 32,791,930 59.26% $ 54,605,498 $ 28,939,368 53.00% $ 3,852,562

LICENSES AND PERMITS BUSINESS $ 166,000 $ 116,746 70.33% $ 169,000 $ 94,499 55.92% $ 22,247 NON-BUSINESS $ 392,400 $ 181,245 46.19% $ 409,000 $ 174,809 42.74% $ 6,436 TOTAL LICENSES $ 558,400 $ 297,991 53.37% $ 578,000 $ 269,308 46.59% $ 28,683

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE STATE-LOCAL ROAD ASSISTANCE $ 400,000 $ 390,976 97.74% $ 400,000 $ 417,352 104.34% $ (26,376) STATE REVENUE SHARING $ 2,708,312 $ 1,777,496 65.63% $ 2,389,669 $ 1,392,327 58.26% $ 385,169 WELFARE REIMBURSEMENT $ 90,656 $ 11,362 12.53% $ 94,122 $ 20,662 21.95% $ (9,300) OTHER STATE AID $ 32,000 $ 10,269 32.09% $ 32,000 $ 10,881 34.00% $ (612) CITY OF LEWISTON $ 228,384 $ 29,877 13.08% $ 228,384 $ - 0.00% $ 29,877 TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE $ 3,459,352 $ 2,219,980 64.17% $ 3,144,175 $ 1,841,222 58.56% $ 378,758

CHARGE FOR SERVICES GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 198,440 $ 79,352 39.99% $ 148,440 $ 53,017 35.72% $ 26,335 PUBLIC SAFETY $ 181,600 $ 71,799 39.54% $ 215,600 $ 61,372 28.47% $ 10,427 EMS TRANSPORT $ 1,200,000 $ 594,473 49.54% $ 1,200,000 $ 557,939 46.49% $ 36,534 TOTAL CHARGE FOR SERVICES $ 1,580,040 $ 745,624 47.19% $ 1,564,040 $ 672,328 42.99% $ 73,296

FINES PARKING TICKETS & MISC FINES $ 55,000 $ 12,003 21.82% $ 55,000 $ 19,281 35.06% $ (7,278)

MISCELLANEOUS INVESTMENT INCOME $ 80,000 $ 29,143 36.43% $ 70,000 $ 60,040 85.77% $ (30,897) RENTS $ 35,000 $ 27,125 77.50% $ 35,000 $ 12,921 36.92% $ 14,204 UNCLASSIFIED $ 10,000 $ 52,713 527.13% $ 10,000 $ 44,153 441.53% $ 8,560 COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE FEES $ - $ 25,122 $ - $ 24,157 $ 965 SALE OF PROPERTY $ 25,000 $ 67,651 270.61% $ 20,000 $ 15,647 78.24% $ 52,004 RECREATION PROGRAMS/ARENA $ - MMWAC HOST FEES $ 230,000 $ 96,408 41.92% $ 225,000 $ 115,141 51.17% $ (18,733) TRANSFER IN: TIF $ 1,117,818 $ - 0.00% $ 1,117,818 $ - 0.00% $ - TRANSFER IN: Other Funds $ 578,925 $ - 0.00% $ 566,011 $ - 0.00% $ - ENERGY EFFICIENCY $ - CDBG $ 214,430 $ - 0.00% $ 214,430 $ - 0.00% $ - UTILITY REIMBURSEMENT $ 20,000 $ 5,554 27.77% $ 20,000 $ 6,867 34.34% $ (1,313) CITY FUND BALANCE CONTRIBUTION $ 527,500 $ - 0.00% $ 527,500 $ - 0.00% $ - TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $ 2,838,673 $ 303,716 10.70% $ 2,805,759 $ 278,926 9.94% $ 24,790

TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $ 63,829,824 $ 36,371,245 56.98% $ 62,752,472 $ 32,020,433 51.03% $ 4,350,812

SCHOOL REVENUES EDUCATION SUBSIDY $ 26,217,074 $ 13,545,807 51.67% $ 25,851,656 $ 13,473,219 52.12% $ 72,588 EDUCATION $ 717,415 $ 232,079 32.35% $ 711,224 $ 264,738 37.22% $ (32,659) SCHOOL FUND BALANCE CONTRIBUTION $ 970,862 $ - 0.00% $ 877,296 $ - 0.00% $ - TOTAL SCHOOL $ 27,905,351 $ 13,777,886 49.37% $ 27,440,176 $ 13,737,957 50.07% $ 39,929

GRAND TOTAL REVENUES $ 91,735,175 $ 50,149,131 54.67% $ 90,192,648 $ 45,758,390 50.73% $ 4,390,741 CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND COMPARATIVE THROUGH December 31, 2020 VS December 31, 2019

Unaudited Unaudited FY 2021 EXP % OF FY 2020 EXP % OF DEPARTMENT BUDGET THRU DEC 2020 BUDGET BUDGET THRU DEC 2019 BUDGET VARIANCE ADMINISTRATION MAYOR AND COUNCIL $ 99,000 $ 34,012 34.36% $ 123,137 $ 52,612 42.73% $ (18,600) CITY MANAGER $ 776,095 $ 331,859 42.76% $ 582,119 $ 280,762 48.23% $ 51,097 CITY CLERK $ 216,946 $ 117,784 54.29% $ 207,139 $ 88,611 42.78% $ 29,173 FINANCIAL SERVICES $ 751,849 $ 374,259 49.78% $ 734,597 $ 358,383 48.79% $ 15,876 HUMAN RESOURCES $ 157,057 $ 75,352 47.98% $ 153,182 $ 71,270 46.53% $ 4,082 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $ 609,260 $ 422,073 69.28% $ 713,729 $ 486,308 68.14% $ (64,235) TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $ 2,610,207 $ 1,355,339 51.92% $ 2,513,903 $ 1,337,946 53.22% $ 17,393

COMMUNITY SERVICES ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $ 1,339,047 $ 477,699 35.67% $ 1,333,724 $ 540,847 40.55% $ (63,148) HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES $ 199,282 $ 60,569 30.39% $ 211,371 $ 74,448 35.22% $ (13,879) RECREATION & SPORTS TOURISM $ 520,474 $ 322,157 61.90% $ 448,575 $ 250,412 55.82% $ 71,745 PUBLIC LIBRARY $ 1,031,533 $ 515,766 50.00% $ 1,006,217 $ 513,535 51.04% $ 2,231 TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES $ 3,090,336 $ 1,376,191 44.53% $ 2,999,887 $ 1,379,242 45.98% $ (3,051)

FISCAL SERVICES DEBT SERVICE $ 7,577,735 $ 6,859,092 90.52% $ 7,334,690 $ 6,424,559 87.59% $ 434,533 FACILITIES $ 667,494 $ 273,623 40.99% $ 667,128 $ 507,288 76.04% $ (233,665) WORKERS COMPENSATION $ 641,910 $ 641,910 100.00% $ 637,910 $ - 0.00% $ 641,910 WAGES & BENEFITS $ 6,840,635 $ 3,238,598 47.34% $ 6,797,826 $ 3,020,598 44.43% $ 218,000 EMERGENCY RESERVE (10108062-670000) $ 461,230 $ (2,500) -0.54% $ 445,802 $ - 0.00% $ (2,500) TOTAL FISCAL SERVICES $ 16,189,004 $ 11,010,723 68.01% $ 15,883,356 $ 9,952,445 62.66% $ 1,058,278

PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE & EMS DEPARTMENT $ 5,302,131 $ 2,678,779 50.52% $ 5,211,262 $ 2,470,432 47.41% $ 208,347 POLICE DEPARTMENT $ 4,332,339 $ 2,148,203 49.59% $ 4,275,323 $ 2,045,867 47.85% $ 102,336 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY $ 9,634,470 $ 4,826,982 50.10% $ 9,486,585 $ 4,516,299 47.61% $ 310,683

PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT $ 4,979,329 $ 2,163,051 43.44% $ 4,836,798 $ 2,133,654 44.11% $ 29,397 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL* $ 1,051,318 $ 437,334 41.60% $ 1,030,500 $ 419,837 40.74% $ 17,497 WATER AND SEWER $ 792,716 $ 390,602 49.27% $ 645,216 $ 316,358 49.03% $ 74,244 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS $ 6,823,363 $ 2,990,987 43.83% $ 6,512,514 $ 2,869,849 44.07% $ 121,138

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AUBURN-LEWISTON AIRPORT $ 170,000 $ 167,110 98.30% $ 191,000 $ 189,200 99.06% $ (22,090) E911 COMMUNICATION CENTER $ 1,134,304 $ 567,341 50.02% $ 1,134,304 $ 556,725 49.08% $ 10,616 LATC-PUBLIC TRANSIT $ 331,138 $ - 0.00% $ 331,138 $ 331,138 100.00% $ (331,138) ARTS & CULTURE AUBURN $ 10,000 $ 10,000 TAX SHARING $ 260,000 $ - 0.00% $ 270,000 $ 5,398 2.00% $ (5,398) TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL $ 1,905,442 $ 744,451 39.07% $ 1,926,442 $ 1,082,461 56.19% $ (338,010)

COUNTY TAX $ 2,629,938 $ 2,629,938 100.00% $ 2,482,721 $ 2,482,721 100.00% $ 147,217 TIF (10108058-580000) $ 3,049,803 $ 2,845,623 93.31% $ 3,049,803 $ - 0.00% $ 2,845,623 OVERLAY $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TOTAL CITY DEPARTMENTS $ 45,932,563 $ 27,780,234 60.48% $ 44,855,211 $ 23,620,963 52.66% $ 4,159,271

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT $ 45,802,612 $ 17,686,312 38.61% $ 45,337,437 $ 18,049,853 39.81% $ (363,541)

TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 91,735,175 $ 45,466,546 49.56% $ 90,192,648 $ 41,670,816 46.20% $ 3,795,730 CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF December 31, 2020

BALANCE BALANCE INTEREST INVESTMENT FUND December 31, 2020 November 30, 2020 RATE

ANDROSCOGGIN BANK 449 CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 6,828,910.89 $ 6,825,721.95 0.55% ANDROSCOGGIN BANK 502 SR-TIF $ 1,047,822.33 $ 1,047,333.05 0.55% ANDROSCOGGIN BANK 836 GENERAL FUND $ 5,510,516.02 $ 5,287,404.57 0.55% ANDROSCOGGIN BANK 801 WORKERS COMP $ 52,345.34 $ 52,320.90 0.55% ANDROSCOGGIN BANK 684 EMS CAPITAL RESERVE $ 338,447.15 $ 338,289.10 0.55% ANDROSCOGGIN BANK 414 INGERSOLL TURF FACILITY $ 225,983.39 $ 225,877.87 0.55% ANDROSCOGGIN BANK 0888 ELHS FUNDRAISING $ 61,831.72 $ 60,802.98 0.55% ANDROSCOGGIN BANK ELHS CONSTRUCTION BAN $ 4,723,869.24 $ 4,942,986.15 0.55% ANDROSCOGGIN BANK 0627 ST LOUIS BELLS FUNDRAISING $ 15,316.29 $ 15,309.14 0.55% NORTHERN CAPITAL 02155 GENERAL FUND $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 1.70% NORTHERN CAPITAL 02155 GENERAL FUND $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 1.55%

GRAND TOTAL $ 19,805,042.37 $ 19,796,045.71 0.75% EMS BILLING SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 Report as of December 30, 2020

Beginning Ending Balance December 2020 Balance 12/1/2020 New Charges Payments Refunds Adjustments Write-Offs 12/31/2020

Bluecross $ 11,628.98 $ 9,165.80 $ (8,832.25) $ (8,565.01) $ 3,397.52 Intercept $ - $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Medicare $ 108,805.78 $ 117,985.60 $ (47,334.01) $ (92,092.97) $ 87,364.40 Medicaid $ 31,126.78 $ 49,679.00 $ (35,598.30) $ (21,120.86) $ 24,086.62 Other/Commercial $ 55,313.47 $ 20,045.00 $ (7,948.76) $ (4,037.69) $ 63,372.02 Patient $ 98,554.13 $ 5,688.80 $ (7,756.41) $ 30.00 $ 31,072.56 $ (11,656.75) $ 115,932.33 Worker's Comp $ 1,599.40 $ 920.00 $ (1,500.76) $ 1,018.64

TOTAL $ 307,028.54 $ 203,684.20 $ (108,970.49) $ 30.00 $ (94,743.97) $ (11,656.75) $ 295,371.53 EMS BILLING BREAKDOWN -TOTAL CHARGES July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 Report as of December 31, 2020

July August Sept Oct Nov Dec % of 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Totals Total

Bluecross $ 6,396.80 $ 3,992.80 $ 5,651.00 $ 3,597.40 $ 17,449.80 $ 9,165.80 $ 46,253.60 3.96% Intercept $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200.00 $ 200.00 0.02% Medicare $ 169,046.60 $ 95,829.00 $ 88,468.00 $ 60,559.60 $ 157,436.80 $ 117,985.60 $ 689,325.60 59.06% Medicaid $ 61,560.60 $ 40,418.20 $ 40,041.00 $ 30,492.60 $ 55,812.80 $ 49,679.00 $ 278,004.20 23.82% Other/Commercial $ 22,412.60 $ 12,639.40 $ 14,347.20 $ 9,246.40 $ 25,139.00 $ 20,045.00 $ 103,829.60 8.90% Patient $ 8,521.20 $ 10,114.80 $ 4,012.40 $ 8,058.40 $ 9,160.00 $ 5,688.80 $ 45,555.60 3.90% Worker's Comp $ - $ 882.20 $ 1,542.00 $ 717.20 $ 920.00 $ 4,061.40 0.35%

TOTAL $ 267,937.80 $ 162,994.20 $ 153,401.80 $ 113,496.40 $ 265,715.60 $ 203,684.20 $ 1,167,230.00 100.00%

EMS BILLING BREAKDOWN -TOTAL COUNT July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 Report as of December 31, 2020

July August Sept Oct Nov Dec % of 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Totals Total

Bluecross 7 5 7 4 21 11 55 3.43% Intercept 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.12% Medicare 215 144 113 77 245 162 956 59.68% Medicaid 81 63 52 39 73 65 373 23.28% Other/Commercial 33 23 20 12 37 26 151 9.43% Patient 11 15 5 10 12 7 60 3.75% Worker's Comp 0 1 2 1 1 5 0.31%

TOTAL 347 250 198 144 389 274 1602 100.00% EMS BILLING AGING REPORT July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 Report as of December 31, 2020

Current 31-60 61-90 91-120 121+ days Totals

Bluecross $ 4,232.93 125% $ 150.23 4% $ 159.16 5% $ - 0% $ (1,144.80) -34% $ 3,397.52 1.14% Intercept $ 200.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200.00 0.07% Medicare $ 64,130.80 73% $ 17,695.20 20% $ 1,764.40 2% $ 873.80 1% $ 2,900.20 3% $ 87,364.40 29.28% Medicaid $ 17,567.41 73% $ 3,829.32 16% $ 1,558.49 6% $ 37.30 0% $ 1,094.10 5% $ 24,086.62 8.07% Other/Commercial $ 21,400.52 32% $ 21,206.77 32% $ 5,616.73 8% $ 8,690.39 13% $ 9,457.61 14% $ 66,372.02 22.24% Patient $ 37,341.84 32% $ 24,880.00 21% $ 22,752.06 20% $ 10,854.68 9% $ 20,103.75 17% $ 115,932.33 38.86% Worker's Comp $ 1,018.64 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,018.64 0.34%

TOTAL $ 145,892.14 $ 67,761.52 $ 31,850.84 $ 20,456.17 $ 32,410.86 $ 298,371.53

49% 23% 11% 7% 11% 100% 100.00% CITY OF AUBURN SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES As of December 31, 2020

. 1902 1905 1910 1913 1914 1915 1917 1926 1928 1929 1930 1931 2003 Winter Community Police Fitness Oak Hill Fire Training Wellness Healthy Fire 211 Byrne Riverwatch Festival Service Equipment Cemeteries Building Grant Androscoggin Vending Prevention Fairview Donations JAG Fund Balance 7/1/20 $ 762,516.19 $ (15,099.19) $ 5,928.63 $ 4,769.53 $ 33,010.94 $ (20,657.32) $ 3,460.06 $ 5,362.37 $ (312.70) $ 4,791.12 $ (566,303.71) $ 501.65 $ 2,808.57

Revenues FY21 $ 706.00 $ 733.99 $ 21,879.00 $ 2,500.00

Expenditures FY21 $ 145,293.00 $ 339.67 $ 30.00 $ 2,770.50 $ 463.26 $ 2,495.09 $ 343.94

Fund Balance 12/31/2020 $ 617,223.19 $ (15,099.19) $ 6,294.96 $ 4,769.53 $ 33,714.93 $ 1,221.68 $ 689.56 $ 5,362.37 $ (775.96) $ 4,796.03 $ (566,303.71) $ 501.65 $ 2,464.63 $ 5.00

2005 2006 2008 2010 2013 2014 2019 2020 2025 2030 2034 2037 2038 Homeland State Drug OUI Speed Law Enforcement Community EDUL Bulletproof Community MDOT PEACE Security Money Grant Grant Training CDBG Cords Parking Underage Drink Vests Action Team Fund Balance 7/1/20 $ 220,256.60 $ 1,550.98 $ (112,903.52) $ 1,681.39 $ 3,066.05 $ 2,752.59 $ (10,738.25) $ 2,366,559.15 $ 37,353.66 $ 2,005.87 $ (2,685.00) $ 9,659.79 $ 180.00

Revenues FY21 $ 10,833.00 $ 4,055.27 $ 8,293.90 $ 900.00 $ 362,328.52 $ 1,911.54 $ 48,602.00 $ 5,845.00

Expenditures FY21 $ 711,486.57 $ 67,126.81 $ 3,007.27 $ 2,881.76 $ 7,594.71 $ 600.00 $ 671,206.44 $ 72,909.75 $ 1,650.00 $ 8,880.56

Fund Balance 12/31/2020 $ (491,229.97) $ 1,550.98 $ (180,030.33) $ 9,507.12 $ 4,239.56 $ 3,451.78 $ (10,438.25) $ 2,057,681.23 $ 39,265.20 $ (22,301.88) $ 1,510.00 $ 779.23 $ 180.00

2040 2041 2043 2044 2045 2047 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 Great Falls Blanche DOJ Covid 19 Federal Drug Forest American Project Project Nature St Louis EMS Transport Work4ME- Lake Auburn ASPCA Barker Mills TV Stevens Preventative Money Management Firefighter Grant Lifesaver Canopy Conservancy Bells Capital Reserve PAL Neighborhood Grant Greenway Fund Balance 7/1/20 $ 20,536.23 $ 27,840.99 $ - $ 170,777.82 $ 4,345.34 $ - $ 189.35 $ - $ 975.05 $ 20,984.31 $ 187,456.89 $ (13,339.97) $ 125.00 $ 800.00 $ (2,597.43)

Revenues FY21 $ - $ 2,026.64 $ 7,833.43 $ 150,832.27

Expenditures FY21 $ 1,118.69 $ 1,985.31 $ 63,588.36 $ 9,522.60 $ 762.28 $ 55,874.40 $ 8,365.76

Fund Balance 12/31/2020 $ 20,536.23 $ 26,722.30 $ (1,985.31) $ 109,216.10 $ 4,345.34 $ - $ 189.35 $ (9,522.60) $ 975.05 $ 28,055.46 $ 282,414.76 $ (21,705.73) $ 125.00 $ 800.00 $ (2,597.43)

2059 2061 2062 2064 2065 2067 2068 2070 2075 2076 2077 2100 2201 2500 Distracted 150th Employee MDOT Sopers State Bi- Hometown Northern Keeps Maine Keeps Maine CTCI Gramt ELHS EDI Parks & Driving Celebration Store Mill Culvert Centenial Parade Heros Banners Borders Grant Leadercast Healthy Healthy II Fundraising Grant Recreation Fund Balance 7/1/20 $ 829.00 $ 1,893.81 $ 132.69 $ (26,094.03) $ (1,124.00) $ 209.00 $ 210,601.70 $ (3,500.00) $ - $ - $ - $ 1,061,591.57 $ (1,484,407.18) $ 70,269.17

Revenues FY21 $ - $ - $ - $ 332,886.62 $ 157,475.89 $ 262,512.00 $ 139.25 $ 323,930.19

Expenditures FY21 $ 11,614.12 $ 402.17 $ - $ 18,279.22 $ 126,243.86 $ 169,338.65 $ 148,132.37 $ 471,906.21

Fund Balance 12/31/2020 $ 829.00 $ 1,893.81 $ 132.69 $ (37,708.15) $ (1,526.17) $ 209.00 $ 192,322.48 $ (3,500.00) $ 206,642.76 $ (11,862.76) $ 114,379.63 $ 1,061,730.82 $ (1,484,407.18) $ (77,706.85)

2600 Auburn 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 Memory Care 2600 $ 2,600.00 Total Tambrands II Mall Downtown Auburn Industrial Auburn Plaza Auburn Plaza II Webster School Hartt Transport 62 Spring St Minot Ave 48 Hampshire St Facility Millbran Futurguard Special TIF 6 TIF 9 TIF 10 TIF 12 TIF 13 TIF 14 TIF 16 TIF 19 TIF 20 TIF 21 TIF 22 TIF 23 TIF 24 TIF 25 Revenues Fund Balance 7/1/20 $ (161,839.95) $ 192,297.32 $ (460,436.11) $ (388,767.54) $ 411,537.25 $ (763,270.82) $ (0.01) $ 29,915.23 $ 1,120.90 $ 194.75 $ - $ 147.27 $ - $ - $ 1,851,506.48

Revenues FY21 $ 201,360.86 $ 456,315.88 $ 837,349.00 $ 172,809.75 $ 319,924.38 $ 465,987.95 $ 30,435.15 $ 32,531.42 $ 58,978.38 $ 49,606.63 $ 83,937.25 $ 118,292.78 $ 190,093.65 $ - $ 4,723,847.59

Expenditures FY21 $ 615,500.23 $ 220,683.00 $ 75,182.23 $ 439,092.00 $ 15,217.58 $ 32,578.92 $ 29,489.19 $ 12,401.66 $ 20,984.31 $ 127,132.98 $ 169,918.37 $ 6,083.74 $ 4,550,477.54

Fund Balance 12/31/2020 $ 39,520.91 $ 648,613.20 $ (238,587.34) $ (436,640.79) $ 656,279.40 $ (736,374.87) $ 15,217.56 $ 29,867.73 $ 30,610.09 $ 37,399.72 $ 62,952.94 $ (8,692.93) $ 20,175.28 $ (6,083.74) $ 2,024,876.53 City of Auburn, Maine Finance Department www.auburnmaine.gov | 60 Court Street Auburn, Maine 04210 207.333.6601

To: Phillip Crowell, City Manager From: Jill Eastman, Finance Director Re: Financial Reports for December 2020

Attached you will find a Statement of Net Assets and a Statement of Activities and budget to actual reports for Ingersoll Turf Facility for revenue and expenditures as of December 31, 2020.

INGERSOLL TURF FACILITY

Statement of Net Assets: The Statement of Net Assets lists current assets, noncurrent assets, liabilities and net assets as of December 31, 2020.

Current Assets: As of the end of December 2020 the total current assets of Ingersoll Turf Facility were $225,878. This consisted cash and cash equivalents of $225,878.

Noncurrent Assets: Ingersoll’s noncurrent assets are the building and equipment that was purchased, less depreciation. The total value of the noncurrent assets as of December 31, 2020 were $117,249.

Liabilities: Ingersoll had accounts payable of $318 as of December 31, 2020.

Statement of Activities:

The statement of activities shows the current operating revenue collected for the fiscal year and the operating expenses as well as any nonoperating revenue and expenses.

The operating revenues for Ingersoll Turf Facility through December 2020 were $40,302. This revenue comes from the sponsorships, programs, rental income and batting cages.

The operating expenses for Ingersoll Turf Facility through December 2020 were $74,072. These expenses include personnel costs, supplies, utilities, repairs, capital purchases and maintenance.

As of December 2020, Ingersoll has an operating loss of $33,770 compared to a net loss in November of $36,523.

As of December 31, 2020, Ingersoll has a decrease in net assets of $32,985.

The budget to actual reports for revenue and expenditures, show that the revenue for FY21 compared to FY 20.

Page 1 of 1

Statement of Net Assets Ingersoll Turf Facility December 31, 2020 Business-type Activities - Enterprise Fund

Dec 31, Nov 30, Increase/ 2020 2020 (Decrease) ASSETS Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 225,878 $ 225,776 $ 102 Interfund receivables/payables $ - - Accounts receivable - - - Total current assets 225,878 225,776 102 Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Buildings 672,279 672,279 - Equipment 119,673 119,673 - Land improvements 18,584 18,584 - Less accumulated depreciation (693,287) (693,287) - Total noncurrent assets 117,249 117,249 - Total assets 343,127 343,025 102 LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 318 $ - 318 Interfund payable $ 38,891 $ 42,645 (3,754) Total liabilities 39,209 42,645 (3,436)

NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets $ 117,249 $ 117,249 $ - Unrestricted $ 186,669 $ 183,131 $ 3,538

Total net assets $ 303,918 $ 300,380 $ 3,538 CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Ingersoll Turf Facility Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Statement of Activities December 31, 2020

Ingersoll Turf Facility Operating revenues: Charges for services $ 40,302

Operating expenses: Personnel 65,311 Supplies 209 Utilities 6,375 Repairs and maintenance 543 Rent - Depreciation - Capital expenses - Other expenses 1,634 Total operating expenses 74,072

Operating gain (loss) (33,770)

Nonoperating revenue (expense): Interest income 785 Interest expense (debt service) - Total nonoperating expense 785

Gain (Loss) before transfer (32,985)

Transfers out -

Change in net assets (32,985)

Total net assets, July 1 336,903

Total net assets, December 31, 2020 $ 303,918 CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE REVENUES - INGERSOLL TURF FACILITY Through December 31, 2020 compared to December 31, 2019

ACTUAL ACTUAL FY 2020 REVENUES % OF FY 2019 REVENUES % OF REVENUE SOURCE BUDGET THRU DEC 2020 BUDGET BUDGET THRU DEC 2019 BUDGET

CHARGE FOR SERVICES Sponsorship $ 25,000 $ 6,800 27.20% $ 25,000 $ 7,200 28.80% Batting Cages $ 13,000 $ 4,330 33.31% $ 13,000 $ 6,270 48.23% Programs $ 90,000 $ 1,187 1.32% $ 90,000 $ 49,477 54.97% Rental Income $ 102,000 $ 27,985 27.44% $ 102,000 $ 45,874 44.97% TOTAL CHARGE FOR SERVICES $ 230,000 $ 40,302 17.52% $ 230,000 $ 108,821 47.31%

INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS $ - $ 785 $ - $ 543

GRAND TOTAL REVENUES $ 230,000 $ 41,087 17.86% $ 230,000 $ 109,364 47.55% CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE EXPENDITURES - INGERSOLL TURF FACILITY Through January 31, 2020 compared to January 31, 2019

ACTUAL ACTUAL FY 2020 EXPENDITURES % OF FY 2019 EXPENDITURES % OF DESCRIPTION BUDGET THRU DEC 2020 BUDGET BUDGET THRU DEC 2019 BUDGET Difference

Salaries & Benefits $ 187,546 $ 65,311 34.82% $ 149,331 $ 33,162 22.21% $ 32,149 Purchased Services $ 14,700 $ 2,177 14.81% $ 18,160 $ 2,101 11.57% $ 76 Programs $ 18,500 0.00% $ 17,000 $ 5,925 34.85% $ (5,925) Supplies $ 3,750 $ 209 5.57% $ 4,900 $ 1,167 23.82% $ (958) Utilities $ 25,650 $ 6,375 24.85% $ 25,100 $ 5,630 22.43% $ 745 Insurance Premiums $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ 11,000 $ - 0.00% $ - $ 250,146 $ 74,072 29.61% $ 225,491 $ 47,985 21.28% $ 26,087

GRAND TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 250,146 $ 74,072 29.61% $ 225,491 $ 47,985 21.28% $ 26,087 City of Auburn, Maine Finance Department www.auburnmaine.gov | 60 Court Street Auburn, Maine 04210 207.333.6601

To: Phillip Crowell, City Manager From: Jill Eastman, Finance Director Re: NSB Arena Financial Reports for December 31, 2020

Attached you will find a Statement of Net Assets and a Statement of Activities and budget to actual reports for Norway Savings Bank Arena for revenue and expenditures as of December 31, 2020.

NORWAY SAVINGS BANK ARENA

Statement of Net Assets: The Statement of Net Assets lists current assets, noncurrent assets, liabilities and net assets and shows a comparison to the previous month, in this case, November 30, 2020.

Current Assets: As of the end of December 2020 the total current assets of Norway Savings Bank Arena were ($1,602,627). These consisted of cash and cash equivalents of $242,930, accounts receivable of $120,622, and an interfund payable of $1,966,179.

Noncurrent Assets: Norway’s noncurrent assets are equipment that was purchased, less depreciation (depreciation is posted at year end). The total value of the noncurrent assets as of December 31, 2020 was $293,394.

Liabilities: Norway Arena had accounts payable of $577 as of December 31, 2020.

Statement of Activities:

The statement of activities shows the current operating revenue collected for the fiscal year and the operating expenses as well as any nonoperating revenue and expenses.

The operating revenues for Norway Arena through December 2020 are $334,968. This revenue comes from the concessions, sign advertisements, pro shop lease, youth programming, shinny hockey, public skating and ice rentals.

The operating expenses for Norway Arena through December 2020 were $373,060. These expenses include personnel costs, supplies, utilities, repairs, rent, capital purchases and maintenance.

As of December 2020, Norway Arena has an operating loss of ($38,092) compared to the November 2020 operating loss of ($15,155) an increase in the operating loss for the fiscal year of $22,937.

As of December 31, 2020, Norway Arena has a decrease in net assets of $38,092.

The budget to actual reports for revenue and expenditures, with comparison to the same period last year show that revenue for FY21 is $104,343 less than in FY20 and expenditures in FY21 are $14,214 more than last year in December.

Page 1 of 1

CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE Statement of Net Assets Norway Savings Bank Arena December 31, 2020 Business-type Activities - Enterprise Fund

December 31, November 30, Increase/ 2020 2020 (Decrease) ASSETS Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 242,930 $ 201,257 $ 41,673 Interfund receivables $ (1,966,179) $ (1,813,510) $ (152,669) Prepaid Rent $ - $ - $ - Accounts receivable 120,622 156,822 $ (36,200) Total current assets (1,602,627) (1,455,431) (147,196) Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Buildings 58,223 58,223 - Equipment 514,999 514,999 - Land improvements - - - Less accumulated depreciation (279,828) (279,828) - Total noncurrent assets 293,394 293,394 - Total assets (1,309,233) (1,162,037) (147,196) LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 577 $ 6,817 $ (6,240) Net OPEB liability $ 44,026 $ 67,511 $ (23,485) Net pension liability 60,901 57,636 3,265 Total liabilities 105,504 131,964 (26,460)

NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets $ 293,394 $ 293,394 $ - Unrestricted $ (1,708,131) $ (1,507,141) $ (200,990)

Total net assets $ (1,414,737) $ (1,213,747) $ (200,990) CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Norway Savings Bank Arena Business-type Activities - Enterprise Funds Statement of Activities December 31, 2020

Norway Savings Arena Operating revenues: Charges for services $ 334,968

Operating expenses: Personnel 142,781 Supplies 41,689 Utilities 117,012 Repairs and maintenance 21,998 Rent Depreciation Capital expenses Other expenses 49,580 Total operating expenses 373,060

Operating gain (loss) (38,092)

Nonoperating revenue (expense): Interest income - Interest expense (debt service) Total nonoperating expense -

Gain (Loss) before transfer (38,092)

Transfers out -

Change in net assets (38,092)

Total net assets, July 1 (1,376,645)

Total net assets, December 31, 2020 $ (1,414,737) CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE REVENUES - NORWAY SAVINGS BANK ARENA Through December 31, 2020 compared to December 31, 2019

ACTUAL ACTUAL FY 2021 REVENUES % OF FY 2020 REVENUES % OF REVENUE SOURCE BUDGET THRU DEC 2020 BUDGET BUDGET THRU DEC 2019 BUDGET VARIANCE

CHARGE FOR SERVICES Concssions $ 16,500 $ - 0.00% $ 16,500 $ 6,000 36.36% $ (6,000) Skate Rentals $ 7,500 $ - 0.00% $ 7,500 $ - 0.00% $ - Pepsi Vending Machines $ 3,000 $ - 0.00% $ 3,000 $ 191 6.37% $ (191) Games Vending Machines $ 3,000 $ - 0.00% $ 3,000 $ 284 9.47% $ (284) Vending Food $ 3,000 $ 5 0.17% $ 3,000 $ 204 6.80% $ (199) Sponsorships $ 230,000 $ 89,950 39.11% $ 230,000 $ 90,550 39.37% $ (600) Pro Shop $ 7,000 $ 4,503 64.33% $ 7,000 $ 981 14.01% $ 3,522 Programs $ 20,000 $ - 0.00% $ 27,500 $ - 0.00% $ - Rental Income $ 727,850 $ 226,550 31.13% $ 744,000 $ 255,794 34.38% $ (29,244) Camps/Clinics $ 50,000 $ 13,960 27.92% $ 50,000 $ 6,780 $ 7,180 Tournaments $ 55,000 $ - 0.00% $ 55,000 $ 3,500 6.36% $ (3,500) TOTAL CHARGE FOR SERVICES $ 1,122,850 $ 334,968 29.83% $ 1,146,500 $ 364,284 31.77% $ (29,316) CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE EXPENDITURES - NORWAY SAVINGS BANK ARENA Through December 31, 2019 compared to December 31, 2018

ACTUAL ACTUAL FY 2020 EXPENDITURES % OF FY 2019 EXPENDITURES % OF DESCRIPTION BUDGET THRU DEC 2020 BUDGET BUDGET THRU DEC 2019 BUDGET VARIANCE

Salaries & Benefits $ 380,990 $ 142,781 37.48% $ 347,736 $ 135,687 39.02% $ 7,094 Purchased Services $ 145,000 $ 71,578 49.36% $ 49,500 $ 26,289 53.11% $ 45,289 Supplies $ 77,000 $ 41,689 54.14% $ 68,150 $ 14,827 21.76% $ 26,862 Utilities $ 244,650 $ 117,012 47.83% $ 238,000 $ 101,043 42.46% $ 15,969 Capital Outlay $ 50,000 $ - 0.00% $ 15,000 $ 17,464 116.43% $ (17,464) Rent $ - $ - $ - $ 211,035 $ (211,035) $ 897,640 $ 373,060 41.56% $ 718,386 $ 506,345 70.48% $ (133,285)

GRAND TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 897,640 $ 373,060 41.56% $ 718,386 $ 506,345 70.48% $ (133,285)

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: 1-19-2021

Subject: Executive Session

Information: Personnel matter, pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. Section 405(6) (A).

Executive Session: On occasion, the City Council discusses matters which are required or allowed by State law to be considered in executive session. Executive sessions are not open to the public. The matters that are discussed in executive session are required to be kept confidential until they become a matter of public discussion. In order to go into executive session, a Councilor must make a motion in public. The motion must be recorded, and 3/5 of the members of the Council must vote to go into executive session. An executive session is not required to be scheduled in advance as an agenda item, although when it is known at the time that the agenda is finalized, it will be listed on the agenda. The only topics which may be discussed in executive session are those that fall within one of the categories set forth in Title 1 M.R.S.A. Section 405(6). Those applicable to municipal government are:

A. Discussion or consideration of the employment, appointment, assignment, duties, promotion, demotion, compensation, evaluation, disciplining, resignation or dismissal of an individual or group of public officials, appointees or employees of the body or agency or the investigation or hearing of charges or complaints against a person or persons subject to the following conditions: (1) An executive session may be held only if public discussion could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the individual's reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violated; (2) Any person charged or investigated must be permitted to be present at an executive session if that person so desires; (3) Any person charged or investigated may request in writing that the investigation or hearing of charges or complaints against that person be conducted in open session. A request, if made to the agency, must be honored; and (4) Any person bringing charges, complaints or allegations of misconduct against the individual under discussion must be permitted to be present. This paragraph does not apply to discussion of a budget or budget proposal;

B. Discussion or consideration by a school board of suspension or expulsion of a public school student or a student at a private school, the cost of whose education is paid from public funds, as long as: (1) The student and legal counsel and, if the student is a minor, the student's parents or legal guardians are permitted to be present at an executive session if the student, parents or guardians so desire;

C. Discussion or consideration of the condition, acquisition or the use of real or personal property permanently attached to real property or interests therein or disposition of publicly held property or economic development only if premature disclosures of the information would prejudice the competitive or bargaining position of the body or agency;

D. Discussion of labor contracts and proposals and meetings between a public agency and its negotiators. The parties must be named before the body or agency may go into executive session. Negotiations between the representatives of a public employer and public employees may be open to the public if both parties agree to conduct negotiations in open sessions;

E. Consultations between a body or agency and its attorney concerning the legal rights and duties of the body or agency, pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers and matters where the duties of the public body's or agency's counsel to the attorney's client pursuant to the code of professional responsibility clearly conflict with this subchapter or where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the State, municipality or other public agency or person at a substantial disadvantage;

F. Discussions of information contained in records made, maintained or received by a body or agency when access by the general public to those records is prohibited by statute;

G. Discussion or approval of the content of examinations administered by a body or agency for licensing, permitting or employment purposes; consultation between a body or agency and any entity that provides examination services to that body or agency regarding the content of an examination; and review of examinations with the person examined; and

H. Consultations between municipal officers and a code enforcement officer representing the municipality pursuant to Title 30-A, section 4452, subsection 1, paragraph C in the prosecution of an enforcement matter pending in District Court when the consultation relates to that pending enforcement matter.

Page 1 of 1

City of Auburn City Council Information Sheet

Council Workshop or Meeting Date: 1-19-2021

Subject: Executive Session

Information: Personnel matter, pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. Section 405(6) (A).

F. Discussions of information contained in records made, maintained or received by a body or agency when access by the general public to those records is prohibited by statute;

Page 1 of 1