Bangor committee recommends $68 million combined parks and rec facility on Griffin Road; council votes to draft ballot language

A special committee convened by the Bangor City Council recommended placing a $68,000,000 bond proposal on the November ballot to fund a combined Parks & Recreation facility on Griffin Road featuring two ice sheets, expanded childcare space, a fitness area, and multipurpose turf fields.

The recommendation follows a year-old feasibility study the committee reviewed and a series of biweekly meetings from April through July. Committee chair Erwin Schaefer presented the committee’s report and attachments at the July 28 council workshop. Director of Parks and Recreation Tracy Willett said the committee confirmed the feasibility study’s finding that the city’s existing facilities “are no longer adequate for long term use.”

The committee affirmed the Griffin Road site as the preferred location, citing its central location and proximity to Husson University. The report includes a letter of support from Husson; committee members told the council Husson could partner on educational and athletic programs. The proposed facility would not include aquatics, which the committee said would remain the Y’s focus; the new center would emphasize ice facilities, gym space, childcare, fitness, multigenerational rooms and maintenance consolidation.

City staff and committee members told councilors the project design prioritizes two ice sheets — one for games and one for practice and youth use — and that multipurpose synthetic turf fields were recommended to be included in the initial project phase rather than deferred. The committee also recommended adding a fitness component on the grounds that it could generate revenue, expand programming and meet a community need.

Staff told the council the total estimated project cost provided by the consultant Barry Dunn is $68,000,000. In response to Councilor Beck’s question about taxpayer impact, staff said they have not yet modeled a full-year-by-year tax estimate but offered an example figure of “about $1.40 in the last year” of debt service if the city bonded the entire amount — a figure staff described as a preliminary assumption and not a definitive projection.

The council asked staff to produce more detailed financial modeling, including the operating assumptions that produced a projected operating deficit referred to in the meeting as “about 1.7 down to 1.2 in year five” (units not specified in the transcript) and to show multi-year historical operating figures for comparison. Councilors also asked staff for separate cost estimates for phasing the project (for example, funding only the ice arena first) versus building the full combined facility, and for additional detail on potential revenue sources such as sponsorships, naming rights and partnerships.

Questions from councilors addressed walkability and transit access to Griffin Road, the committee’s coordination with the YMCA project nearby, and site-specific issues such as soils testing. Staff said the bus currently stops near Husson and that routing could be adjusted to serve the Griffin Road entrance; they also said anecdotal soil information from prior nearby construction indicated generally favorable soils but that site-specific geotechnical testing would be performed if the project advances and the measure goes on the ballot.

The council voted to proceed with drafting ballot language and the ordinance/order necessary to place the question before voters, with the understanding the item will require a public hearing and two council readings before placement on the November ballot. A roll-call was recorded after a motion and second; the motion passed. The roll call recorded the following responses as read into the meeting record: Councilor Leonard — yes; Councilor Trimble (recorded as Trumbo in the roll call) — yes; Councilor Beck — no; Councilor Mallard — no; Councilor Haas — yes; Councilor Fish — yes; Councilor Dean — yes; Councilor Fournier — no; the roll call also recorded one additional yes. City staff said finalized ballot language would need to be ready by August to meet the November-ballot schedule.

The committee and staff emphasized that doing nothing would leave the city making recurring repairs to aging facilities (the committee and staff described boilers, chillers and roofs as beyond typical useful life in places). John Nelson, general manager who spoke about arena equipment, told the council that parts for the Sawyer Arena refrigeration system are increasingly difficult to find and that the chiller is well past its typical 20–25 year life expectancy, saying, “the life expectancy is 20 to 25 years, and we're at about 35.”

Councilors expressed differing views on scale and timing. Some urged an all-at-once ballot question to capture economy-of-scale savings, while others urged exploring phasing to reduce the initial taxpayer burden and to improve the proposal’s chances at the polls. Several councilors asked staff to return with detailed cost modeling and comparisons at the next workshop.

The committee recommended placing the question on the November ballot as the committee’s formal recommendation; councilors directed staff to draft language and return for the formal readings and the required public hearing process.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to draft ballot language/order to place a $68,000,000 bond question for a combined Parks & Recreation facility on the November ballot — motion moved and seconded; roll-call recorded as: Leonard (yes), Trimble/Trumbo (yes), Beck (no), Mallard (no), Haas (yes), Fish (yes), Dean (yes), Fournier (no), plus one additional yes recorded; outcome: approved; notes: ordinance/order requires public hearing and two readings before placement on ballot.

Why it matters

If voters approve a bond, the city would pursue design and construction of a new consolidated facility on Griffin Road and continue planning on partnerships, site access and programming. If the bond is rejected, the committee and staff said the city will continue to pay for ongoing repairs and short-term fixes to aging facilities while exploring alternatives.

What’s next

Staff will model tax impacts, phasing scenarios and operating projections and return to a council workshop with draft ballot language and additional cost breakdowns for council review and the public hearing process.