Loading...
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