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