Portland City Council voted 7-1 to enter an executive session to discuss the disposition of city-owned land known as the Midtown properties, after multiple members of the public urged the council to hold the conversation in public.

The vote, held during a virtual meeting, was to go into executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. §405(6)(C) to discuss the disposition of city property described in the agenda as the Midtown parcels at 2529, 75 Somerset Street and 0 Elm Street. The motion was made by Councilor McNevich and seconded by Councilor Phillips; the roll call recorded seven votes in favor and one opposed.

Public commenters urged transparency and a broad community planning process before any decisions. Joe Brunell, a Portland resident who identified his address as 37 Pine Street, said he opposed the use of executive session and described a past pattern — during the previous administration — in which decisions on city land were worked out behind closed doors, leaving the public to respond after details were final. "An executive session only [should be] used when absolutely necessary. It should not be used to hide where real decision making happens," Brunell said.

Nathaniel Ferguson, a resident of 44 Exeter Street, cited the statutory standard the city cited for the session and asked the council to explain on the public record why premature disclosure would prejudice the city's competitive or bargaining position. "If we're discussing the vision for the site ... I think that can happen outside of executive session," Ferguson said.

Wendy Cherubini, a resident of 99 Federal Street, noted the city recently paid $15,000,000 for the land and urged public planning rather than closed deliberations. "We just paid $15,000,000 public tax dollars for this land," she said, adding that residents expected housing to be developed on the parcel and that a community process should shape any change in that expectation.

Council debate reflected a split. Councilor Seitz said the history of litigation and sale of the parcels made openness important and said the Social Housing Task Force — which Seitz noted is early in its work — should be part of public consideration of the land. "I do not think it's responsible to ... continue to have conversations without the public understanding exactly what we're doing," Seitz said, adding she would vote against entering executive session.

Councilor Grant urged patience with the legal process and said the brief closed session would allow the council to "level set" and consult corporate counsel about the city's rights and obligations. "All we're doing tonight is level setting, getting our sea legs on what are our rights and obligations here," Grant said, and he encouraged public participation in subsequent steps.

Councilor Pelletier said she found the public comments "compelling" and preferred most of the conversation to be public, but acknowledged the council has discretion under the cited statute. Several other councilors said they supported a closed session so the council could receive legal advice and discuss bargaining strategy without prematurely revealing details to potential buyers or developers.

Corporation Counsel Gullett called the roll after the brief discussion. The final roll call recorded votes as follows: Councilor Fournier — yes; Councilor McNevich — yes; Councilor Phillips — yes; Councilor Sykes — no; Councilor Grant — yes; Councilor Pelletier — yes; Councilor Ali — yes; Councilor Madaya — yes. The mayor resumed the meeting and directed participants to a secondary platform for the executive session.

The public commenters and several councilors emphasized that broader decisions about use of the Midtown parcels — including housing, public facilities, parks, transit-oriented development or other uses suggested by residents — should be the subject of a public process. Commenters also alleged prior behind-the-scenes negotiations in an earlier era involving the city's former economic development director and named realtors; councilors responded that no deal had been made and that the council's discussion that night was an initial legal consultation.

The council's vote authorized a closed-door consultation under the statutory exception for discussing disposition of publicly held property where premature disclosure might prejudice bargaining position. The meeting record shows the city will continue deliberations after the closed session; specific next public steps, timelines for an RFP or formal disposition decisions were not specified during the portions of the meeting on the public record.