Costs of EMH expansion on Brewer council agenda

BREWER – A first step toward ensuring the city is reimbursed for any of its expenses pertaining to Eastern Maine Healthcare’s planned expansion here, and a proposed public censure provision for councilor misbehavior, are among the issues city councilors will consider during their monthly meeting at 6:45 tonight at City Hall.

EMH is currently gearing up to build and equip a medical and professional building in the Brewer Professional Center on Whiting Hill on outer Wilson Street as part of its efforts to ease a worsening space crunch at Eastern Maine Medical Center.

According to city documents, the current plan is for the city to own the building, which would total about 110,000 square feet, and lease it to EMH. The project would be financed partly through the sale of up to $17 million in revenue bonds that would be paid off through revenues from that project. The equipment would be financed through a conduit loan from the city to EMH.

The city and EMH anticipate that approximately 90,000 square feet will be occupied by EMH and the rest by its for-profit affiliates, documents indicate.

Because the bonds could be sold as much as three years from now, the council will consider approving an inducement resolution to make sure its out-of-pocket costs related to the project are reimbursed if and when the bonds proceeds do become available.

In a letter to Finance Director Karen McVey, James Saffian of the Portland law firm Pierce Atwood noted that the inducement resolution is designed to do two things. First, it marks the starting point of the revenue bond authorization process. Second, it constitutes “official action” on the city’s part, action required for project cost reimbursement under the Internal Revenue Code.

Saffian said that the inducement resolution does not in any way obligate the city to approve the bond issue itself – that decision is to be made later, after a public hearing. Nor does it constitute a pledge of the city’s credit or any form of taxation or appropriation for payment of the bonds. The revenue bonds, Saffian wrote, would be repayable solely from the revenues of the project to which they are issued.

Also tonight, councilors will conduct the second reading, and likely adopt, an ordinance amendment that would provide a means for publicly chastising members who engage in activity that is not in the city’s best interest.

After a public hearing earlier this month, the councilors voted 3-1 to put on the Nov. 6 election ballot a proposed charter amendment that, if approved by voters, would allow councilors to actually oust members for more egregious actions. The censure and removal proposals already have generated some lively public debate.

The idea behind the two proposals is that the council should have the authority to hold individual members accountable for their actions. As things stand, the city’s sole means for dispensing with councilors who do something offensive to the public is the citizen-led recall process, which requires voters’ signatures and a special recall election, but no specific cause for recall.

If the council approves the censure proposal, members could be publicly chastised for the following reasons: prolonged, unexcused absence from council meetings; repeated tardiness; violations of meeting procedures, such as repeatedly interrupting fellow councilors; discourteous remarks to the public, city employees or other councilors; public disclosure of information discussed or obtained during executive session; failure to comply with the section of the city’s charter, codes and ordinances setting forth the city’s chain of command; inappropriate use of any information obtained through any memorandum from any attorney representing the city; disclosure of information deemed confidential by state or federal law; conviction of a crime of moral turpitude; or a felony conviction.

A resolution of censure would require sponsorship by two members of the council, according to the council order. The councilor targeted for censure would have to be notified in writing of the detailed reasons for the resolution at least 48 hours before the meeting at which the resolution would be considered. Censure would require a hearing and a unanimous vote before it could be implemented.

The council’s regular meeting will be preceded by a brief joint meeting with the planning board at which an application for amending a contract zone for 149-153 State St. will be considered. That session starts at 6:30 p.m.