Portland committee pauses selection, invites two developers back for Behrend Center housing proposals

The Portland Housing & Economic Development Committee reviewed five proposals to redevelop city-owned property at 1125 Brighton Avenue (the Behrend Center campus) and, after an executive-session deliberation, asked staff to invite two developers back for additional presentations before making a recommendation to the full City Council.

Committee members and staff spent most of the meeting on the Request for Proposals (RFP) process and on summaries of responsive bids. Director of Housing and Economic Development Greg Watson told the committee the RFP was issued on February 20 with proposals due April 9 and that five submissions were received; one respondent, Newsites USA LLC, was judged nonresponsive.

Why it matters: the site could produce between about 38 and 90 affordable or workforce housing units depending on which proposal moves forward, and developers plan to leverage federal low-income housing tax credits, state financing, and other public funds. Committee members and residents questioned how the city will balance family versus senior housing, what share of units will be reserved for clients of the city’s social services system, and whether the site’s utilities and wetlands constrain development.

Staff summary of proposals

- Community Housing of Maine (CHOM) proposed on Site 1 a roughly 52-unit building targeted to adults 55 and older at about 50–60% of area median income (AMI), with tenant amenities and a projected LIHTC application in September 2026 and a lease-up beginning in 2028. CHOM proposed a smaller, roughly 38-unit building on Site 2 for individuals and families under 50–60% AMI, and said it would pursue Federal Home Loan Bank grants, MaineHousing debt, HUD HOME funds, city housing-trust funds, and an affordable housing tax increment financing (TIF) structure.

- Avesta Housing proposed approximately 40 family units (studio to three-bedroom), ground-floor co‑working space shared with nonprofits and a pocket park; Avesta did not propose for Site 2 and planned a LIHTC application in the 2026 round with construction starting in 2028 and completion in 2029.

- Developers Collaborative, in partnership with Prosperity Maine, proposed about 50 family units (one- to four-bedrooms) at 30–80% AMI on Site 1 and a comparable program on Site 2; the team proposed a robust public‑meeting process and planned a LIHTC application the 2025 season with a 2026 construction start and late‑2027 completion.

- LB Development and Sabino Development Company submitted a Site 1 proposal for roughly 65–90 affordable and workforce units (mostly two‑bedrooms) at up to 80% AMI, with first‑floor commercial/community space. That team proposed a financing structure that would contemplate the city becoming an equity partner under a development entity, an approach that the staff described as requiring additional steps and capacity by the city.

Financing, timing and process questions

Staff and applicants repeatedly referenced low‑income housing tax credits (LIHTC), MaineHousing financing, Federal Home Loan Bank programs and the city’s housing trust funds as likely funding sources. Several developers proposed using an affordable housing TIF; staff advised the committee that a TIF can be considered whether the city sells or leases the land but must follow Maine and city approval processes and state review.

Committee members asked about LIHTC timing and whether the RFP required responsiveness to federal funding schedules; Watson said applicants were evaluating upcoming LIHTC application seasons when assembling timelines. Members also asked how below‑market capital and lease proposals were scored; an applicant asked staff for clarification on how the city treated capitalized lease payments versus requests for trust‑fund support.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

Residents and stakeholders gave mixed public testimony. Several speakers urged greater transparency about confidential proposal materials and asked why detailed financial terms such as lease price were not public prior to a council decision. Steven Sharp (Brackett Street) asked why the proposals were treated as confidential and why no lease price appeared in public documents. Some neighbors raised technical concerns about site maps and utilities, saying available diagrams were decades old and flagged a water line that appears to run through the lease area on Site 2.

Other speakers welcomed housing development. Eamonn Dundon of the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce and a CHOM representative said CHOM’s recent projects have integrated into established neighborhoods and that permanent housing reduces pressures tied to unsheltered homelessness. Claude Roganje and Robbie Perkinzai of Prosperity Maine urged selection of the Developers Collaborative/Prosperity Maine team to prioritize family housing and faster delivery; they noted a shortfall of family‑sized affordable units in areas near the site.

Opposition to portions of some proposals also surfaced. Dr. Darien Plant opposed allocating a 30% minimum of units to people receiving social services and argued that blended "Housing First" approaches would turn the development into a shelter rather than permanent housing; his comments expressed strong concern about public safety and neighborhood impacts. Committee members said such concerns were substantive and recognized the need to explain referral, services and marketing practices publicly.

Site constraints and city property details

Staff described an existing building on the campus called the Barron Center 2 (BC2), roughly 21,000 square feet, with the Office of Elder Affairs occupying a small portion and roughly 16,000–17,000 square feet currently vacant. Staff said activation of that space — not demolition — is being considered separately and that a concept will be brought to the related committee later this summer.

On Site 2 constraints, staff and multiple respondents noted potential utility and wetland challenges and said the information provided in the RFP should not be treated as survey‑level data; any developer selected to pursue an option to lease would be expected to perform further site investigation and adjust program plans accordingly.

Decisions and next steps

The committee voted to go into executive session to discuss real‑estate negotiations under Maine statute and, after deliberation, directed staff to invite two shortlisted developers back for additional presentations on Monday (the committee postponed a subsequent executive‑session item to that date). The committee did not make a final selection; members said they intend to complete deliberations in executive session and then vote in public if ready, with any final recommendation forwarded to the full City Council.

The committee also asked staff to supply additional details the members requested publicly: a breakdown of existing housing by age cohort, clarification about how referrals from General Assistance would be handled for set‑aside units, and more detail on how developers would conduct neighborhood outreach and unit marketing.

"The form of tenure, whether we own it or lease it, doesn't restrict whether or not a TIF can be implemented," Director Greg Watson told the committee when describing financing options. Corporation Counsel Michael Goldman cited the state statute authorizing executive session for real‑estate negotiations and said confidentiality in that setting protects the city's negotiating position.

Committee members and staff said they expect to return to the item after the additional presentations and analysis and to bring a finalized recommendation to the full City Council for approval.