Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-08 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Tuesday, January 8, 2008 Minutes Councilors Attending: Peter D’Errico, Frank Farrington, Hal Wheeler, Gerry Palmer, Susan Hawes, Richard Stone, Harold Wheeler, Geoffrey Gratwick Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, Jim Ring, Joe McNeil, Bob Farrar, Norm Heitmann, Rebecca Hupp, Brad Moore Others Attending: Larry Lunn, Mr. Buffum, Ron Davis, GM of Sheraton - Vivian Committee convened at 5:00 p.m. 1. Sewer Abatement Request: 42 Kenduskeag Avenue, Account #008196 2. Sewer Abatement Request: 68 Division Street, Account #008207 #1 & #2 were moved by Councilor Palmer and seconded by Councilor Stone with no discussion. 3. Review of BAT Community Connector Training and Safety Procedures Councilor Gratwick was contacted by Mr. Lunn after a December 6, 2008 accident. Joe McNeil provided a memo regarding training and statistics. He explained they must participate in the National Transit Database report (NTD). NTD looks at the “bottom line” figure of $7,500 or more involving an accident. He stated there was one “at fault” accident in three years with claims over $7,500. New drivers are required to complete 70-75 hours of driver training, in which they are shadowed 90%-95% of the time. Other areas of training are provided by Finance for lose control, blood pathogens, etc. Councilor Stone requested to hear from Larry Lunn. Mr. Lunn stated he has observed buses going down Middle Street and not stopping at the stop sign. He stated his office desk is approximately 12’-15’ from the stop sign. He stated he did not recall the day of the incident but did recall the bus lost control and hit the pole. He asked if there was a need for buses to go down that hill, aside from getting to Pickering Square. Joe responded to Councilor Stone that drivers are measured by on time performance and they review whether this was due to the run or scheduling. Joe keeps an accident log and has an active personnel file and the drivers have their initial review six months after hire, annual thereafter. Councilor Stone asked if their being rank on time if this would cause them to pick up a second or two here and there. Joe explained the accident, for the Committee’s th understanding of the incident on December 6. Public Works was cleaning the downtown area, they cleaned the sidewalk, neither sand nor salt was in place and it was ice covered. He stated the driver should not have been using the 1 street and that was a separate issue that was addressed. He further explained the driver was making a connection downtown. Hammond Street was blocked up to Ohio Street; Union Street was the same to High Street. He saw an opportunity, but it was not part of the regular run. He stated a memo had gone out that they were not supposed to use that street. He also stated the drivers were allowed to use occasionally when “out of revenue service”. He explained there was approximately 10 minutes “built in” to the run on the later part of the route to allow for persons with disabilities, driving conditions, etc. Councilor Palmer stated the drivers were doing a good job with the population base, weather, etc. He recalled a dreadful accident with a driver’s death had taken place within the past twelve months. He also mentioned the BAT was at the mercy of Public Works in terms of sand and salt, etc. He asked what attention was given to customer service and what kind of talks are given to drivers regarding strategies. Joe stated the levels of service depend on driver ability. He stated there was a lot of group training, and if a driver had a problem they would work one on one. Personal service was done in wheelchair training, which is very in depth with a series of films. Councilor Gratwick noted that he figured there was an accident every 30,000 miles and asked what type of license was required, and if CPR/First Aide was required, as public employees. Joe stated CPR/First Aide was made available, not to individual drivers. Given the reaction time with the Fire Department, it would be more important to let the true professionals do their job. The drivers are given an overview in first aide. The requirements for drivers would be a Class 2 with a “P” (Passenger) endorsement. With regards to accident rates, some accidents were very minor because of something hitting something else. All incidents are recorded, what was reportable as far as Bangor Police Department, they’d find was a lot greater than numbers in mileage. Drivers do a tremendous job of being conscious of accidents. Joe stated Middle Street was off limits, period. Mr. Lunn stated he appreciated being heard and the attention to promptness that Councilor Stone gave to make this possible. Joe state Public Works goes out of their way, when called to assist. 4. City of Bangor Policy on Energy Conservation and Climate Protection Councilor Gratwick asked what stance the City of Bangor should take to get the Feds to get their act together for a national policy. This would go to next Monday’s meeting. Ed stated on page 39-40, items were already reviewed by the Committee; this would go to Council on Monday for adoption. The resolve requested to come back to this Committee addressing to call on State and Federal government to take certain actions. Close modeling of this policy was from the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement. Goal to meet: 1) reduction target for global warming gases. 2) Reduce 7% from 1990 levels by 2012. 3) Spells out steps that should be taken. 4) Looks at taking positive role in international negotiations to replace the Kyoto Agreement, which are currently on going. 5) Suggest other units of government to adopt similar policies. Councilor Farrington requested the difference between resolve and policy already adopted. Ed stated the Resolve adopted urges Federal and State to enact 2 policies/programs to do certain things. Policy talks about what the City of Bangor will do. Councilor Farrington was concerned about “lower body” with limited information urging a “higher body” of government to do something. That suggestions might be made that would not be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Councilor Stone referenced #8 regarding funding of new construction, potential double cost of construction. Ed stated the City would evaluate projects and what level of certification was appropriate on a case by case basis. There would be potential to recover cost within two – five years. Suggested not to state specifically what level and there’s a provision in a separate policy on that in addition to that the Council could exempt a project if there were significant issues. Councilor Palmer stated that at this level we deal with real issues in real time and was comfortable with how this was progressing. Bangor needed to do its part and lead. Councilor Stone moved and it was seconded for passage. Ron Davis, Orono and The Cool Bangor Coalition spoke fine tuning the policy and to consider some points: 1) Size, related to energy use for example big American vehicles being used as government vehicles. 2) #10 “reduction in air emissions” bio-diesel and carbon emissions. 3) Engage public outreach program, enabling public education. He stated he was concerned about the implementation of the policy. Ed stated the City’s fleet, when purchasing, starting to reduce vehicle size. However, police vehicles did have certain requirements. Contact sources for that information would be Bob Dawes. There has been a long standing policy not to provide vehicles to too many people. Statistics on bio-diesel’s positive impact on the carbon footprint would be provided by Ed. Regarding enforcement, policies come forward from City Staff on items listed, most are underway or steps have been already taken. The City Manager would delegate and ensure policies are met with the Council’s oversight. Councilor Palmer provided an example of last night’s vote on the purchase of two Crown Victoria police cars for the K-9, being a necessity for the dogs, equipment, etc. He also noted the Police Department had an interesting energy efficient vehicles being the bicycles. Councilor Wheeler was in support of the Police Department larger vehicles, for example, high speed chases and road blocks. Councilor Gratwick stated it would be a challenge to make it work and suggested a citizen sponsored group could have input. There was a unanimous vote. 5. Transportation Security Administration Lease-BGR Rebecca Hupp stated the TSA was a branch of the Federal Government and provided security at Bangor International Airport. The lease was for 3,000 square feet of space, with the lease expiring later in the month. BGR and TSA were in the negotiation process. The final draft was sent to Legal for review and approval. The lease would be a five year fixed lease, annual rates and adjustment were taken into account for CPI. There was a proposed lease rate, not finalized. The recommendation would be for referral, in the form acceptable to Legal and the Finance Department. This would come back to Council for approval before the expiration of the lease, with Finance having the final numbers at that time. Ed stated that once finalized they would email the final numbers. Rebecca Hupp stated that the utilities were paid by BGR and was 3 passed onto TSA and 30 parking spaces were provided to them in conjunction with other users, this in response to Councilor Stone’s inquiry. Councilor Palmer moved and seconded by Councilor Stone. 6. New Castle Request Revision of Rent Calculation Rebecca provided a brief overview and stated this was reviewed in the last meeting and brought back with additional information. Mr. Buffum, owner of the Sheraton Four Points spoke of the history of the hotel. In 1982 he bought the hotel, which was in the seventh year of the lease agreement. He outlined the renovations needed and stated it would cost eight million in repairs. He said it was customary when investing in the landlord’s property that it was reasonable to have a reduced rate. He requested if approved to extend the lease terms to forty years. Rebecca said the financial impact was outlined in memo and it was important to have a brand name hotel at the airport because they were an important amenity for customers. She also said they pay a premium rate for being located there. Councilor Stone stated he was supportive. Councilor Wheeler said it was a matter of principal not dollars and cents. He addressed the issue of titling and ownership at the end of the lease. He also asked how many rooms would be shut down during the renovation process. Mr. Buffum said there would be a quarter of the rooms and would be done in sections. Vivian informed the Committee of the plans to extend the WiFi service into the Airport. Councilor D’Errico inquired about the heating, was it electric? Mr. Buffum stated yes there was and explained the efficiency steps they would take with windows, installation, etc. He explained additional changes to include a new indoor pool which they’ve never had before. Councilor Farrington seconded Councilor Stone’s motion and stated it was a win/win situation. Councilor Wheeler asked if it were not acceptable to underwrite cost and be reimbursed later. Mr. Buffum stated it would be different if this were a new construction with no employees, etc. Councilor Gratwick stated it would not be a problem to term the lease for forty years, but would leave that up to the negotiations between Sheraton and the Staff. Councilor Gratwick would hope the building would be Leeds certifiable. If approved it would need to go to Council for next Monday night with the term of forty years upon the City Solicitor’s concurrence. Councilor Gratwick stated he looked forward to the competition between Sheraton and Hollywood Slots. 7. Planning Board Size and Voting Requirement This topic was brought by Councilor Wheeler to increase Planning Board membership to seven full members; as opposed to five full members and two associates. Ed said when this was discussed there was a strong consensus to have a seven member board. The question would be what would be considered the quorum. The Chair of the Planning Board was comfortable with a five member requirement for a quorum, correction that he was suggesting four and a simple majority of present to approve everything. The proposal at the last meeting was that there would be a requirement of five members for a quorum, 4 items that were recommended to the Council by the Planning Board would be recommended by a majority of those present. Items that the Planning Board would take final action on would require the majority of the full membership of the Planning Board with no further City review. Norm Heitmann said the Planning Board met and five members were present, have the quorum and voting remain the same. The largest concern would be public perception with regards to votes and attendance. Importance on regular member showing up, attendance. Councilor Wheeler said when considered initially the City Manager suggested vote of three members in the event seven members were not present for items that were to be finalized by the Planning Board. A total of four required for items that were referred to Council for Council action. He concurs regarding attendance. If someone was appointed they would have an obligation to attend meetings unless ill, family emergency, or there was a circumstance that was totally unavoidable. In his six years on the Planning Board he saw members and associates miss 50%-75% in the course of a year, which was frustrating. Absences should be addressed with reprimand or dismissal. He said he was comfortable with four and three as suggested by the City Manager. Councilor Gratwick stated there were three options: 1) Keep it the same. 2) Go with the option of four/three. 3) Majority, period. Councilor Stone would support Ed’s recommendation now, but didn’t know by Monday night’s meeting. He also stated he wasn’t sure if this was the right place but Board Member, Theeman suggested on items that went to the Board, and the Council was going to overturn it, or new information came to the Council... Councilor Gratwick informed him it was not the right place. Ed stated his proposal was that once the Planning Board made a recommendation to the Council, if the Council wished to modify what had been initially proposed, somehow re-involve the Planning Board in that process. Norm stated that was a separate issue, to craft language. Councilor Stone was satisfied with that. Councilor Hawes said her perspective was that it needed to be left in the hands with those that work with it all the time. She stated she fully supported changing the membership so that they’re all equal voting members. For the by laws, four now for a quorum, the request to stay at four would seem reasonable. Councilor Farrington said he liked the four and three rule. Asking, with the City Council, the requirement was majority of the Council. Norm stated majority of the Council on Ordinance changes that was five. Majority present that would be on resolves or orders, sometimes there’s a super-majority in the instance of overriding a Planning Board recommendation that that would be a majority of the Council which would be six regardless of how many were present. Councilor Farrington stated - that being the case, then the four and three suggestion was consistent being a parallel with the Council Ordinance level. Question raised was if there was a conflict of interest and impossible to get the quorum, was there a way to structure if that happened, it could be kicked back to the Council. He stated the Planning Board was appointed and the Council was elected, it would make the Council more accountable. Norm stated there was nothing in the charter that dealt with that situation where you have a majority of a board conflicted out. Caution against was that “we” don’t “what if ourselves to death” because the ordinance could be written twenty pages long to cover every possible contingency, probably 99.99% which would never happen. Be proactive, but given the history it probably 5 wouldn’t happen. Councilor Farrington stated it may be the saving grace that the governing body makes the decision on whether there was a conflict. Ed summarized that it hadn’t been first read yet because weren’t sure what voting requirements to include in it for first reading. If it was the four/three rule that they wanted on the Agenda, that’s how it would appear. Then referral back to this Committee at the next meeting, giving time to review and the Planning Board may have something to say about the issue. Councilor Wheeler asked clarification, how long would it take. Appointments would be made soon for the openings and would hope this would be done before the appointments were made. Norm said if there were no delays, on the 14th would be referral and on th the 20 final action. Also, look at the proposed changes, some were in section 23 of the codes most were in 165 which was land development code ordinances and amendments go to the Planning Board for their recommendations. Could be referred back to this Committee for any further discussion, but also section 165 had to be referred back to the Planning Board. Ed pointed out that both those meetings would be on the same day. Procedurally, it would be awkward but sure the Planning Board would be happy to express their opinions. Councilor Gratwick asked Councilor Hawes to sit in for Councilor Stone for the fifth member, as he just left the meeting. Councilor Gratwick asked what from the Planning Board would come back to the Council. Ed said zone changes, amendments to the Ordinance, Land Development Code Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The final action the Planning Board took were on Site Plans, Conditional Uses, and Subdivision Approvals. Councilor Gratwick stated the disconnect between what the Committee wished on the four/three and what the Planning Board wished was three/three. Ed said the concern of the Planning Board was final action requiring four votes; that raised the specter of six or five members of the Planning Board having to hear a case, make a decision, and get four votes. The practice they’ve had when they had less than the voting members, they would often ask the applicant if they wished to delay until there were more members thereby slowing down their process. Controversial projects like Stillwater and Widewaters, may be a problem in that instance. Councilor Gratwick stated it should be a majority, period, casting vote. Councilor Farrington concurred with Councilor Gratwick and goes along with the four/three. Motion made by Councilor Wheeler that this Committee recommend to the Council the Planning Board Membership be increased to seven full members, that associate members should be abolished, and that the majority required for issues finally decided by the Planning Board be four votes and issues ultimately decided or referred to the Council be majority of those present and no less than three, with a five member quorum. 4-1 vote to go to the Council. Yes votes: Councilor Hawes, Councilor Farrington, Councilor D’Errico, Councilor Wheeler, and no vote, Councilor Gratwick. Councilor Hawes concern about how long it could take for this to go through. The suggestion was to have the Planning Board come in early for their input. Councilor Gratwick stated he would not be able to attend that meeting. Councilor Farrington motioned to adjourn, Councilor Farrington seconded. 6