HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-03 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Minutes
Councilors Attending: Patricia Blanchette, Susan Hawes, Peter D’Errico, Richard
Stone, Gerry Palmer, Harold Wheeler, David Nealley, Richard
Bronson
Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, Jim Ring, Brad Moore, Rebecca Hupp, Jerry
Ledwith, Ron Gastia, Norm Heitmann, Paul Nicklas
Others Attending: Peter Ramsey, John Parcak, Gerry King, Dan Cassidy, Dan
Field, Richard Reinhart, Robert Woods, Tim Woodcock
Committee convened at 4:30 p.m.
Consent Agenda
1. Sewer Abatement Request: 11 Wiley Street, Account #076095
2. Sewer Abatement Request: 682 Ohio Street, Account #091237
Councilor Blanchette asked for a motion. Councilor Palmer moved for the
approval of #1 for $1,692.48 and #2 for $1,016.34, and was seconded with no
discussion.
3. Proposal Fuel Supply Consulting Services – BGR
Rebecca said she met with the Council prior to their Council Meeting. At that
time had requested direction on how to proceed, following the decision not to
assign the existing contract with Exxon Mobile to Western Petroleum. They
discussed the merit of selecting or hiring a consultant to help through the
transition process. Because the transition was from a sole supplier model to a
multiple/open access model, work with the consultant John Armbrust with
Armbrust Aviation was offering a more detailed proposal and would provide
handouts. Mr. Armbrust’s services would be about $60,000 and would help
identify businesses and different business segments and actual operation in the
open access model to include technical issues, software, and inventory
management tracking. The airport was seeking the approval of the Committee
to continue utilizing his services. Councilor Stone asked about pitfalls; how
would the consultant help. Rebecca stated they would make sure the dollars
were right regarding the charges to store fuel at Bangor, and identify all costs
associated with this service. And said he had worked with this type of fuel model
previously & fuel suppliers, he would bring other contracts as a template to
follow. Other key issues included tracking, ad hoc, flights that stop over and
1
wouldn’t hold inventory at Bangor. Technical issues like accounting for
temperature variations, gains and losses. Ed Barrett stated Mr. Armbrust, on
th
Monday, February 9, would work with Staff and Council at a pre-meeting to get
preliminary feedback on the bigger issues. August 1, 2009 they would need
something different in place. Councilor Stone asked what type of personnel
would be required and what special skills would be needed? Rebecca’s
expectation was that they would fold into existing operations that Bangor already
had at the fuel farm. However, they would need to track the inventory at the
fuel farm differently, with different software and perhaps one to two more
people, which he would help with that. Councilor Blanchette asked if Mr.
Armbrust was on the phone and if they want him to answer questions today or
wait until Monday. Rebecca stated he was not on the phone but was on standby
just in case. Councilor Blanchette asked the pleasure of the Committee, if they
should wait until Monday and encouraged the review of the pamphlet and to
take notes down. Staff requested approval and asked for a motion to authorize.
Councilor Stone moved and it was seconded with no further discussion.
4. Referral: Ordinance, Amending Chapter 194, Chapter 194, Code of the City of
Bangor – Noise
Councilor Blanchette provided a copy of the Maine Criminal Statutes dealing with
disorderly conduct and stated Maine Statutes were stiffer than City Ordinance,
it’s a felony and asked they take that into consideration. Councilor Stone stated
his intention behind this was to come up with a way businesses and individuals
living downtown could have an opportunity to co-exist, an opportunity to hold
establishments and people in question accountable for their actions, and for
business owners to model as to what customers they would like to attract, to see
if this Ordinance fits into their business model and hold accountable. Norm
Heitmann stated that this arose from a City discussion over the past several
years. Various establishments, noise, and patron behaviors had been brought to
the Council’s attention. And recalled the most recent action on that was to limit
hours of special amusement permits for one of the businesses. Through
research in the downtown, it had evolved from business/commercial to mixed
residential and commercial use. There had been continued complaints and the
purpose of this Ordinance was an attempt to control, and asked if the City
wanted an Ordinance at all. Currently there is a boom box and vehicle noise
ordinance. The alternative to an ordinance would be limit the hours of
operation, which is currently pending with the Planning Board; they would be
th
discussing tonight and brought to Council on the 9. The State law for
disorderly conduct was a Class E offense; the courts could impose incarceration,
a period of probation, and up to a $1,000 fine. The pros would be to get
peoples attention, being a more serious offense and removal from the scene.
The cons would be that it doesn’t address the owner of the establishment.
Another alternative in the permitting process - to impose a restriction on special
amusement permits and liquor permits to eliminate noise after 1:00 a.m. (i.e.
Club Fusion) If the Council preferred a noise ordinance then who would be held
responsible, person or person and establishment, establishment inside or
outside? A noise ordinance would allow them to deal with noise regardless of
2
the time of day. The Council could choose to amend later. They could impose a
penalty of not less than $50.00, not more than $100.00. Councilor Hawes stated
her opinion was to have an ordinance to help ease, since there were three
businesses they had already dealt with. With regards to owner recourse if
patron was warned and the establishment continued calls to Bangor Police
Department, where do they draw the line and were they not held liable in a
public way. Norm stated the owner had limited rights, it was the discretion in
application designed to be held responsible if they contributed to the problem.
Ed pointed out police, a good portion of the time, responded to drinking
establishments with rowdy behavior. Councilor Blanchette stated she had heard
a couple of upsetting things from Norm about people being in the bars and
obviously being served when intoxicated. She asked Chief Gastia with the State
Laws regarding serving intoxicated people, why would they continue being given
licenses. Norm clarified that the law says you cannot serve someone who is
apparently intoxicated. Councilor Blanchette thanked Norm for the clarification
for the public. Chief Gastia stated he concurred with Norm regarding over-
served people in bars. Their focus is on bars and people leaving the bars. He
commended owners for training their people to curb that kind of activity of over-
serving. Police Officers are trained to pick up on intoxicated individuals. Owners
of establishments often based it on observations. He aid the officers were not
able to respond to all calls, but did prioritize them. He didn’t see passage of this
Ordinance as an increase in the amount of calls they would receive. The officers
currently use the State Statute and typically the offender is taken into custody,
removing the problem from the area, for the moment. He also pointed out two
problematic areas when using the State Statute with the owner of the
establishment, the Statute states a “person”. He stated officers respond to
businesses and it’s a balancing act between businesses and residential. Would it
be appropriate to hold owners liable under an ordinance? Councilor Nealley staid
he had friends at Franklin Place and didn’t think enacting would change the
scenario. The practical solution would be for the establishments to have extra
patrols, a little more enforcement where there was a residential community close
to the bars or nightclubs. Councilor Wheeler noted that for a number of years
the Council held the objective of revitalizing the downtown area. The last few
years there’d been a marked increase in the number of establishments that
provided food, entertainment, and alcoholic beverages. There were an
increasing number of people choosing to make their residence in downtown
buildings in second and third floors. He could not believe people who chose to
live downtown, made the choice believing they were going to enjoy the same
kind of consistent tranquility that they would enjoy in traditional neighborhoods.
If the City was serious about revitalizing downtown Bangor, they needed to be
realistic about attaching responsibility for unruly conduct by patrons of an
establishment that served alcohol to the owner/operator of an establishment
with no authority to control/influence activity of patrons once leaving the
establishment. He urged they think very carefully as this being a disincentive to
further development of the downtown for retail/night time activity. He concurred
with Councilor Nealley and his suggestion was reasonable. He said that the
Chief, in a previous meeting, stated the State Statute was sufficient to address
disorderly/disruptive in the early a.m. hours. He stated you couldn’t put
3
responsibility on owners/operators unless they were habitually guilty of over-
serving visually intoxicated patrons. He sympathized with people living in
downtown, but living in downtown brought certain inevitable circumstances, (i.e.
ambulance/fire sirens). Councilor Stone didn’t believe it created a disincentive; it
would create an incentive, to help encourage business models like the Whig &
Courier, the Irish pub. Councilor Wheeler asked Councilor Stone how they would
ensure the operator was aware of and had ability to control patrons once they
left the establishment. Councilor Stone responded that when an establishment
opens they were aware of what type of model/clientele they would attract and
that some businesses stay open later and attract people already intoxicated. Ed
pointed out two options: 1) To adopt the on/off premise option which was
originally intended. 2) On premise noise, applying only to noise generated on
property. He noted as an example, with Raena’s Pub noise came from inside and
outside. Occasionally, concerns about noise from premises inside, for example,
Club Gemini, which the City and the Club worked to get fixed. To date pretty
much everyone was willing to work with the City. His understanding of what the
Chief said was it was difficult to apply State Statutes with on premise noise.
Councilor Hawes said they should have something on the books about noise on
premise, however, off premise noise would open a door that could cause
problems for the City. Councilor Blanchette opened discussion up to the public:
Peter Ramsey of 64, Main Street, stated he resides between the Tavern and
Paddy Murphy’s and that onsite noise was progressively worse (about five times
a year) and offsite was worse in the summer. He had called the non-emergency
Bangor Police number to have officers swing through. He commented that if
there was a law already, why add another. John Parcak, downtown property
owner since 1973. He currently leases space to one of the bars. He stated he
believed the Council was trying to find a reasonable level, but this would have an
impact on his income. Recently his tenant had remodeled the lounge, changing
their business model and spent a substantial amount of money to do so in hopes
to address the issue of after hour’s clientele. This was the end result of
decisions made at this level. Gerry King, Larkin/Lincoln Street stated he
respected the fact of income impacts, but sometimes in certain areas of the City
it brought property values down. He stated very little was happening, police
responded when they could. This went to the full Council with the opportunity to
have reduction in noise via renovations. He suggested two sets of double doors
for those establishments. There had been no answers but was a major concern
in that area. Councilor Blanchette asked Norm what was needed from this
Committee to go forward to Council. Norm stated they really needn’t do
anything as this was on Monday’s Council and referred back, requiring two
readings. Committee could make a recommendation. Currently, the Ordinance
covered owner inside/outside. Staff also had prepared an amendment for inside
which would be in the Council packet. Councilor Blanchette noted this would be
before the Council on Monday night and for those not able to attend tonight’s
meeting; and extended invitation for public comments at the meeting. Council
Wheeler requested clarification regarding referral back to Council without a
recommendation. Norm stated the Committee didn’t have to make a
recommendation. Councilor Wheeler then asked why they had Committees.
Norm stated there were a number of reasons. This item wasn’t required to come
4
back to TIC for discussion. This had been previously discussed, second
opportunity for the public to come before the Committee level, where they
sometimes felt more comfortable. Council Wheeler stated he was not
comfortable sending this back to Council without a recommendation. He moved
the Committee make a recommendation. It was not seconded. Councilor
Nealley suggested that since there were eight of nine Councilors present it would
make sense to make a recommendation if it moved to Council in the form of a
narrow scope of conversation at the Council. Councilor Bronson moved the
Committee send this with a recommendation to support the on premise noise,
Councilor Wheeler seconded. Yes votes: Wheeler, Bronson, D’Errico. Norm
stated there was an amendment by substitution to replace the ordinance on
record.
5. Harbor Committee Annual Report for 2009
Jim Ring stated this came about from an Ordinance 09-031 from a month ago,
which was a companion Ordinance for the appointment of Chairs. Through
discussion of that item at Committee level, there was interest expressed in
having the Harbor Committee come in to talk about its activities, etc. The
Harbor Committee is one of the City’s Advisory Committees, by Ordinance, with a
number of responsibilities and charges as to the overall operations of the
waterfront area. They consider dock rates, future waterside activity, and boating
operations. One of the provisions was the Harbor Committee would make an
annual report. The Harbor Committee was present tonight and noted this
Committee was very active and looking at a lot of issues. Councilor Blanchette
read the recommendations to the Council by the Committee were: 1) The City
make a proposal to the Army Corps of Engineers allowing recreational use of the
Harbor below the Chamberlain Bridge. 2) Continued access for American Cruise
Lines and Bangor Harbor Cruises, Patience on Dock 3 & 5. 3) Establish a
short/long term strategy for recreational boat use. 4) A balance of use of Dock
2 & 4 being seasonal & visiting boater usage; with 75 ft. of dock space on Dock
4 reserved for visiting craft for 2009 season. 5) Continued improvement in
marketing of the Harbor to recreational boaters. 6) Increase availability of
moorings with a goal of 12 rental moorings on the downriver side of the Joshua
Chamberlain Bridge over the next five years, if Council accepted
recommendation. 7) Provide paddle craft (i.e. canoes/kayaks) access to
riverfront park development. 8) Port security to proceed with surveillance
cameras, installation and evaluate effectiveness in 2009. Additional measures, if
necessary: a) Install additional cameras. b) Locking gates @ dock access
points. c) Increasing illumination. d) Dock reconfiguration. 9) Establish small
craft launch facility, currently in the waterfront park plans for the next phase of
construction. 10) Improve the former harbormaster building, repairs to the
exterior, showers, and bathroom. 11) Develop a five year capital plan to replace
existing dock facilities, docks 1, 2, 3, 4. Also noted were the dock rate charges
for 2008 and the proposed new rates reflecting a 3% increase, which was
considered reasonable. Dan Field suggested showing slides for good graphical
information purpose. Dan Cassidy outlined, in detail, the 2009 recommendations
previously outlined by Councilor Blanchette. Richard Reinhart stated the
5
anticipated security measures – lights, fences, gates which the Finance
Committee had approved the purchase of cameras funded by the Homeland
Security Grant. He spoke of installation of additional lights, accessibility from
shore, etc. Robert Woods spoke about his work on history project (first part
inaudible). He provides historical narrations for the Patience each summer. He
then mentioned the Committee expressed an interest in the history of the port.
He continued to say he was working on a 40-50 page historical book, with
footnotes, pictures, and walking trails. The Committee had discussion of
storyboards being placed along the waterfront and producing a map of the lower
Penobscot with key points of historical interest and would be working on this
with the University of Maine. Dan Field spoke of a five, ten, fifteen year vision
for the future with an increase in traffic upriver and small sailboats with Parks
and Recreation Department’s participation. They would like to see summer
activities such as sculling/rowing in the harbor and discussed funding with the
help of organizations of the Libra Foundation, who they hoped would have
interest. Councilor Blanchette praised the enthusiasm of the Committee.
Councilor Hawes would like to see the move forward with a summer program
and suggested discussion with the Parks and Recreation Department. Councilor
Wheeler stated that he was excited with the last two presentations. He
considered the waterfront a tremendous asset for a community. He spoke of
speed boat races in New Jersey and asked Robert Woods if he had any
interaction with the Penobscot Nation. Councilor Hawes followed up regarding
the 2009 dock rate schedule and if they were looking for action on it. Jim
referred to attachment A1, action was needed on these rates. Dan Field
emphasized how critical it was to deal with the topics regarding the Army Corps
of Engineers. Councilor Blanchette stated she understood the Harbormaster,
experience of 20 years and Jim Ring had a very good relationship with them and
was working very diligently since day one. She was confident it could be left in
their hands to deal with the very sensitive issues. They would be keeping
everyone informed. Ed then suggested they deal with the Harbor rates. With
regards to interest in changing the channel way in the Harbor, they should pass
an order authorizing Staff to investigate that with the Corps because they were
not in a position to talk with the Corps until the Council expressed an interest.
Councilor Blanchette asked the pleasure of the Committee to allow appropriate
personnel to approach the Corps. Councilor Palmer made motion, Councilor
Wheeler seconded. Councilor Wheeler wondered if Congressional delegation
would be able to help. Ed stated they should start with the Corps because there
was a benefit to having the navigation channel such as ice breaking in the
winter. Jim said there was great interest and discussed procedurally how to
approach and work with the Corps. 1) Engage in discussion with the Corps, the
representative was aware of such discussions within the City. 2) What flexibility
was there in the current permit? 3) A change in the navigation channel would
take a process of years. Councilor Blanchette stated there was a motion and
seconded to authorize Staff do a generic order for changes. Noting not to
dictate to the Corps, but make them aware the City Council, as a whole, had
interest. Councilor Palmer stated that would be prudent, but advised to be very
careful not to upset the Corps. He would also be interested if they had a history
on the dredging of the river. Councilor Blanchette noted that Senator Collins was
6
very supportive of waterfronts and of Homeland Security. She asked if the dock
rates would go to Council and stated the draft order would go to Monday night’s
meeting.
6. 2009 Dock Rate Schedule
Ed sited page 43 dock rates and informed the Committee they had authority to
approve them. Motioned made by Councilor D’Errico and seconded by Councilor
Bronson.
7. Referral: Proposed Amendment to Chapter 140, Section 140-3, Harbor Advisory
Committee
Councilor Blanchette asked for a motion to delay action. Chair of the Council
was in the process of realigning the Committees and wondered if this would be a
premature step at this time.
8. Referral: Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 265, Section 265, Section
265-4, Recycling Advisory Committee
Councilor Blanchette asked for a motion to delay action. Chair of the Council
was in the process of realigning the Committees and wondered if this would be a
premature step at this time.
Councilor Wheeler noted a point of procedure, he was nervous about the word
tabled, requested to use the word postpone. Councilor Blanchette invited the
Harbor Committee to meet with Tracy at Parks and Recreation Department to
talk about the possibility of sculling/rowing and to look at water recreation for
the Penobscot River. Their next meeting would be the second Monday in March.
9. Penjajawoc Watershed Citizen Review Panel – Draft Charter
Paul Nicklas stated the Staff and stakeholders had been working on the
Penjajawoc Watershed Management Plan for some time and this was almost
approved by the DEP. He said this would be a way for more consistent
stakeholder participation and provided a vehicle to give input to Council on
stormwater, especially the Penjajawoc. The Charter was based on examples
from CH2Stormhill provided. Councilor Nealley stated that even though he was
not a voting member he shared the history and concerns. Ed stated this was a
mechanism to avoid gridlock. Councilor D’Errico was not sure this was a good
idea. Councilor Bronson stated this was a three year committee and would be
informative, but uncomfortable with the structure. Ed noted the postings on the
City website of the Management Plan, which was a major undertaking and
Council would need to make decisions. He reminded the Committee that the
DEP requirement was to have stakeholder meetings. Councilor Blanchette noted
the time and suggested holding off discussion until the next meeting. Councilor
Wheeler shared the concerns of Councilor Nealley and Councilor Bronson that
unbiased, unconnected landowners/citizens were left out of the process. Tim
7
Woodcock, representing himself, stated this arose out of a conflict period. He
outlined the management plan and suggested setting up a workshop with the
Council that would be informative. He noted this was a very serious issue and
would have impacts on the community. He was concerned that the panel was
exclusive membership that not every citizen could satisfy. Councilor Palmer
expressed concern with the CRP of nine partners, partners was bad language,
terms staggered, look at having Council membership.
Councilor Palmer moved to adjourn, and seconded.
Adjournment at approximately 7:01:38
8