Bangor committee hears revised plan to build 13,000 sq. ft. commercial kitchen using prefabricated shell

Begita, economic development officer, told the Business and Economic Development Committee on Jan. 6 that a reworked plan to replace an aging building with a new 13,000-square-foot prefabricated metal structure will preserve the project’s program while reducing cost.

"When I started, it was all about really trying to understand the project and moving it forward," Begita said. She said a deeper review showed the existing building would require replacement of the roof and exterior shell to meet code, which drove earlier cost estimates up to about $1,500,000 for a full retrofit. Begita said the city currently has $1,000,000 in congressional spending for the project and has applied for $3,000,000 from the Northern Border Regional Commission, with the NBRC decision expected later this month.

Architects from Paul Designs presented a plan that would demolish the existing structure and construct a compact rectangular metal building that preserves the incubator, kitchen, office and public programming space the project originally intended. "We haven't cut any of the program since what we showed you last time," one architect said, describing a layout that keeps the kitchen core, 70 linear feet of hood, separate freezers and coolers and a multipurpose public room facing the entrance.

Designers said a pre-engineered metal building catalogued with suppliers brought the structural cost estimate down to roughly $350,000 for the shell; the team contrasted that with an estimated near-$1,300,000 roof replacement on the current structure alone. The architects also described options for energy-efficient materials, including locally made Timber HP wood-fiber insulation, and measures such as bird-safe glass for the multipurpose space.

The design includes an alternate for cold-bank freezer space accessed from the same loading dock; architects said they would bid the cold storage as an alternate so it could be added immediately if bids permit or added later as a future phase. Begita and the designers said the revised approach both lowers construction cost and reduces operational energy needs.

Councilor Bridal asked whether the chosen site remains optimal for the proposed functions and suggested staff talk with airport officials about colocating cold storage near the airfield. "Is this still the best site now that we're not now that we're gonna build a building?" Bridal asked. Architects replied the pre-engineered structure could be relocated to a different site and noted the current site has adequate highway access and the infrastructure to support grease traps and the required power feed.

Councilor Dean asked whether prior design work on the original retrofit had been wasted. The architects and Begita said interior programming and kitchen planning translated directly to the new design and that environmental cleanup already performed would be required regardless of which building stands on the site.

Public commenter Curtis Ford questioned the project’s location and design, calling the modern metal exterior "impersonal" for that area; Begita invited further comments by phone or email while noting the committee was on a tight schedule.

Committee members asked staff to provide more information on alternative sites and to include marketing or case studies showing likely tenants and economic impacts. Councilor Beck asked for hypothetical case studies to illustrate tenant types and how the facility would be used.

The presentation packet, they said, includes floor plans, renderings and a budget estimate; architects offered to return with more detail if the committee requested further review. No formal action or vote was taken during the Jan. 6 meeting.

At the close of the discussion, Begita asked the committee to "think seriously about that $1,500,000" if the city sought a full structural replacement rather than the prefabricated alternative, noting the city was still pursuing grant funding.