Key Takeaways:
- A proposal by MillCompute LLC to develop an artificial intelligence data and technology center in Bates Mill No. 3 in downtown Lewiston was unanimously rejected by the City Council.
- The $300 million project would have used 85,000 square feet of the vacant property and created up to 30 jobs.
- Residents and council members cited concerns over environmental impact, potential electricity rate hikes, and the proposed tax breaks for the project.
- The proposed tax increment financing and credit enhancement agreement would have returned 90% of property taxes to the developer for the first 10 years and 85% for the following 10 years.
- The City Council received overwhelming complaints about the proposal, with over 100 residents communicating their opposition and 15 speaking against it during the meeting.
Introduction to the Proposal
The City Council of Lewiston recently voted down a proposal by MillCompute LLC to develop an artificial intelligence data and technology center in Bates Mill No. 3 in downtown Lewiston. The proposal, which was valued at $300 million, would have utilized 85,000 square feet of the vacant property and created up to 30 jobs. The project was proposed by Lewiston native and building owner Bill Johnson, whose Twin Cities LLC partnered with MillCompute LLC. Johnson has a track record of redeveloping city properties, including Bates Mill No. 3, but it seems that this particular project did not gain the support of the community.
Concerns and Opposition
The proposal faced significant opposition from residents, with over 100 communicating their concerns ahead of the council meeting and 15 speaking against it during the meeting. The concerns cited included environmental impact, potential electricity rate hikes, and whether the developer had a proven track record for this type of project. Some residents also questioned whether the property could be better utilized for other purposes, such as a second middle school or day care center. Local public school teacher Jae Zimmerman suggested that the project would conflict with the Riverfront Island master plan and emphasized that "downtowns should be for people, not machines." The proposed tax breaks for the project were also met with resistance, with residents arguing that such efforts should be directed towards existing Lewiston businesses.
Proposed Tax Breaks and Financing
The proposed tax increment financing and credit enhancement agreement would have returned 90% of property taxes to the developer for the first 10 years and 85% for the following 10 years. This would have resulted in annual tax revenue to the city of $798,250 for the first decade and $965,000 for the final 10 years. However, the City Council and residents were not convinced that the benefits of the project outweighed the costs. The council members noted that they had received overwhelming complaints about the proposal and that the concerns cited by residents were valid. The proposed tax breaks were seen as a major issue, with many feeling that they would unfairly benefit the developer at the expense of the community.
City Council Decision
The City Council ultimately voted down the proposal by a unanimous decision of 7-0. Council members noted that they had received more feedback on this proposal than any other topic during their time on the council. Scott Harriman, who represents Ward 3, stated that "this is the topic that I’ve received the most feedback on in my time on City Council." David Chittem, who represents Ward 6, noted that while he felt some of the concerns were unfounded, the project had "a number of other problems." The council’s decision reflects the strong opposition to the project from the community and highlights the importance of considering the needs and concerns of residents when making decisions about development projects.
Background and Context
The Bates Mill complex, which dates back to 1870, includes 11 former mill buildings, some of which have been repurposed, totaling over 1 million square feet. The four-story Bates Mill No. 3 building, where the proposed project would have been located, is 169,000 square feet. The property has been the subject of redevelopment efforts in the past, and it is likely that it will continue to be a focus of attention in the future. The City Council’s decision to reject the proposal may have been influenced by the property’s history and the community’s vision for its future use. As the city continues to grow and develop, it will be important to balance the needs of residents, businesses, and developers to create a thriving and sustainable community.
