Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-08 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Tuesday, November 8, 2005 Minutes Councilors Attending: Geoffrey Gratwick, Susan Hawes, Councilor Farrington, Councilor Cashwell, Councilor Allen, Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, Jim Ring, Brad Moore, Rebecca Hupp, Dan Wellington Others Attending: Committee convened at 5:00 p.m. 1. Sewer Abatement Request WWTP: 269 French Street-Acct. #014008 1 st 2. Memorandum of Understanding Between the 101 Air Refueling Wing and Bangor International Airport 4. Mary Snow School Sign - Code 5. MDOT Local Project Agreement for Bangor Riverpark-ADA Ferry Landing, PIN #013872.00 – Engineering Councilor Gratwick entertains a motion to move. So moved and seconded. 3. Update on the Bangor International Airport Passenger Statistics Councilor Gratwick requests Rebecca Hupp to provide the update for the September Passenger Statistics. Rebeccca Hupp states that passenger traffic continues to be up about 7% year to date. Preliminary numbers for October about 4%, which leaves us about 6.98% for October. Those numbers haven’t been finalized yet. Councilor Allen asks if we know how many people are coming from Canada? And is the uncertainty with Delta going to impact us? Rebecca responds that the monthly basis origin of the passengers is not something that can be tracked. Mostly the studies show that about 10% of passengers are from Canada from studies and surveys of license plates, also through random zip code surveys as people leave the airport. The reduction has impacted BIA by the ComAir flight reductions. However, Continental service is available this year that wasn’t last year. Councilor Cashwell wanted to share that he was finally able to book a flight out of Bangor at a rate of approximately 300.00 cheaper than Manchester, which shows things are looking up. 6. Sewer Abatement Request Denial – WWTP: 493 Broadway, Acct. # 016153 7. Sewer Abatement Request Denial – WWTP: 133 Virginia Lane, Acct. # 039233u Councilor Gratwick request Brad Moore to explain these and give the criteria we use when there is unmetered water. Brad Moore states the first request for 493 Broadway and Mr. Grandchamp is present. The water bill translated into a higher sewer bill because the Jiffy Print building power cleaned, thus the high consumption of water. The Code allows for granting an abatement is characterized as inadvertent water lose, either by vandalism, or by malfunctioning plumbing appliance. Once it was recognized as malfunctioning then it was repaired. We do grant abatement for water used outside the home if the water is metered which is called the sub-meter program. This request is denied because it was not inadvertent use of water for a specific purpose outside the property. Ed Barrett clarifies the Ordinance is based on the notion that an abatement can be given when the amount can be measured and verified. The meters are to track where the water goes. And are available to install inline when outdoor water use is used on a regular basis. Or a meter can be placed temporarily or have an company come in to measure water usage when water is used on a rare basis, such as in the case of filling swimming pools or construction company using a hydrant use a meter. The option is available for people, we do try to make them aware of the sub-meter program through utility bills, website and information Brad provides. Brad Moore states almost every spring the sewer stub you will see “are you using water outside? Please call”, plus the website outlines sub-meters and how to obtain an abatement for water used outside. Councilor Cashwell asks if J.B. & Sons who performed the work have ever applied for a meter. Brad Moore states not that he is aware of. Mr. Grandchamp was under the assumption this was metered, because they removed a certain meter to have it tested. And asks for clarification. Brad Moore states the meter that was removed was for measuring water going into the facility. Mr. Grandchamp states he has never seen any of the mailings regarding sub- meters and asks if any of the Committee members have. Councilor Gratwick asks Brad how many business and residents are using these meters. Brad Moore states about 350. Councilor Gratwick asks should a contractor doing the work be expected to know. Brad Moore states they have made an effort to contact such companies that are employed to do such things. But rarely do we run into this type of situation. Ed Barrett states that the issue is on what basis are we to charge. The general rule is charge is based on the water going through the meter under the assumption that water is going into the sewer system, and is treated. Councilor Allen raises the question of why the business is being billed for a contractors work. Ed Barrett states that the outside company could have made arrangements to have with the Water District to pick up the water from a fire hydrant, metered that, paid the Water District. Mr. Grandchamp comments that he has done this two other times and has never seen such a large bill, thus the reason he is requesting abatement. Jim Ring states this isn’t a situation of lost water; this was wash water. We don’t know how much reached the sewers, but suspect a fair amount of it did. Councilor Allen makes a motion that to look at the Ordinance and issue an abatement, or work out an agreement. Councilor Gratwick states there’s no second. Councilor Cashwell suggests billing the company for the use of the material and water. And makes a motion to not abate it. Councilor Gratwick seconds. Also, commenting it’s 3-1 against. Referral to the Committee with the actual Ordinance and go through it in detail to see if any changes are needed. 7. Sewer Abatement Request Denial – WWTP: 133 Virginia Lane, Acct. #039233u Brad Moore states this is a new unoccupied property owned by Ms. Quirk and they watered the lawn with City water that was not metered. No history to establish a water usage. This is not covered by City Ordinance, thus denied. Trisha Quirk, the President of Hampden Home Builders, states that the billing date is the transfer date, when the house was closed. Initially scheduled for rdth Sept. 23 and didn’t transpire until Sept. 29. The house was unoccupied until Sept. 29. Any water used was used to fill the furnace to get the baseboard up and running and an occasional paint brush for a contractor. Other than that the remainder used to water the lawn. There is a stormwater system that she believes is not connected to the sewer system. Other communities they have built subdivisions in, such as Hampden and Veazie have an automatic abatement, unsure if it’s a 100%, or a percentage of the usage. Brad Moore comments to Ms. Quirks comment, stating that a percentage was considered for abatement for water used outside. The Committee and the Council at that time wanted a hard number, not a percentage. Because it would be fairer to all the sewer rate payors. Councilor Cashwell moves that the minimum of $49.00 and the remainder abated. Councilor Allen seconds. Jim Ring asks Trisha if there are other homes that will be coming forward in a similar manor for abatements. Trisha Quirk states it doesn’t make sense for her to install a meter on every house, and asks the Committee to consider a new construction policy. Abatement requested. Councilor Farrington requests clarification between the stormwater system and the sewer system. Jim Ring clarifies that with all newer subdivisions they have a separate stormwater system, that captures the water directs it to a treatment pond then discharged but not to the sewer system. Then there is a separate sewer system, all the domestic piping and consumption, which is collected and sent to the treatment plant. Catch basins and storm drains are not connected to that. Ed Barrett states the need to look at this particular issue in light of the current Ordinance to see if an adjustment is needed. It may be something for the Committee to consider that if there is new construction prior to certificate of occupancy that there is a lawn established that there be a minimum bill. 8. Disposition of City Owned Property Located at 58 Court Street – YMCA Request to Purchase Ed Barrett comments this was before the Committee and before the Council Workshop in December 2004. At that time the YMCA was looking to purchase the property right behind their property on Hammond and Court Street. There was interest expressed at the time of renovating for continued residential use. It was tabled at that time, given the uncertainty about the Police Department where it would be located and the potential for other parking downtown. The property has been vacant and deteriorating for several winters. There are significant problems with the foundation, which Dan with Code did some estimates on. Renovation costs would be at a low end of 63,500.00 and high end 113,00.00 based on more recent consideration. The Y does have parking issues. This would provide additional parking that would be Y owned and Y controlled. Also in the long term make sense should the Y ever need to expand it’s property. It is staff recommendation to accept the Y’s proposal to pay the taxes that were due, 8,000.00 was proposed. Dan Wellington states the building wasn’t weathered very well, when seized. And the owners had not paid property tax in nearly ten years. It has many issues and not very well constructed building. And is supportive of this transpiring. Councilor Cashwell will excuse himself from the conversation as his wife has been offered Director of the Y. Ed Barrett states the Committee should vote as to whether John has a conflict. The Committee has to vote to recuse him. Councilor Gratwick states they recuse him. Councilor Farrington also states due to the fact of him being a member of the YMCA, past President, Director, and the current President of the Y Foundation, which assumed will be tapped for some money if this goes through, and suspect he has a conflict of interest. Councilor Allen states she is a member too. And asks if this has to be sent to another Committee as three out of the four Councilors are members of the Y. Ed Barrett states there are two issues that arise if there is a conflict and one being financial conflict. The situation with Councilor Cashwell is a different one due to financial conflict due to employment. The other is if there is a special interest. Councilor Allen suggests considering to it pass to BED or Council. Councilor Gratwick updates Councilor Tremble who just joins the Committee meeting. Rob Reeves, the CEO of the YMCA/YWCA, refers to the November letter for the need for additional parking. Next Spring would be the anticipated parking lot construction, with the removal of the building this fall. Dave Peliot and Janice who live at 73 Court Street, neighbors of the YMCA and members. Comments on the property not going up for sale to the public. Even though the rehab might be high, the City might be able to get a better deal with those people bidding higher than the YMCA. From a taxpayer point of view would be the best way to go. Also they acquired a property next door to this property, tore down the house, and haven’t done anything to improve the property since owning it. But would hold the YMCA to it’s site plan to make it a proper parking area. Jan Peliot comments they have an interest due to owning properties around the YMCA. With a strong interest to this property as it is abutting their property and once the building is down it will be abutting to their parking area. They own the property at 1 Bean Court which is directly behind this area, that particular piece of land they have for parking is doesn’t look presentable to the general public. In hopes it will be a good boundary and not create parking problems for their own tenants. Ed Barrett states the City does sell it to the Y they could make do it conditioned on the site plan put together. There is also a requirement the property would have to be rezoned. It would have to go to the Planning Board with the request the property would have to be rezoned from Urban Residence II to Government and Institutional Service District so they could use it for parking. That all could be a requirement of any deed transfer to the Y. Councilor Gratwick requested if there had been any bids go out. Ed Barrett states shortly after taking possession the Y approached them. A number of people contacted them both verbally and in writing, but have taken no proposals. If they were to take bids, intent with the property and what was expected of the City. But suspect if it intent were for rehabilitation the City would be requested for funding through the Community Development Block Program. Councilor Allen is curious as to what is being done for the neighborhood area. Ed Barrett states the plan for the Police Department lot would be left for parking, most likely initially would not be expanded because of the excessive costs of rebuilding the retaining wall to hold up Court Street. The parking demand is likely to exceed what’s available. John Karnes lives at 1105 Ohio Street, owning several buildings in Bangor. Most of the buildings were bought in poor condition and rehabbed. Also states he st had seen the building and submitted a proposal on August 31. If it were not for a call from one of the Councilors today, he would not have known about this evenings meeting. He had never received a response to his letter that it was received or anything. He would like to purchase the building and rehab it to top quality standards. In the proposal there was a monetary offer of a donation to the Y to help their parking needs. He would be borrowing money and has discussed it with C&ED about this being a two unit, low to moderate income families, which there is a great need in this City. Councilor Gratwick asks Mr. Karnes when he would be anticipating beginning work if his proposal were accepted. John Karnes states he could begin within three to four weeks. Ed Barrett response that there is an application process where an individual could make an application for funding, they have to go to the Business and Economic Development Committee for approval. He believes there would be funding in the program for this, however getting hit hard due to the Waterworks project. But will check to find out. It would probably take three to four weeks to put a proposal out, if we wanted to do that. Councilor Allen asks when the Police Station may move out. Jim Ring states approximately a year from now vacated. Councilor Allen asks how long it would take to demolish. Ed Barrett states that it is not at the point of Engineering work yet. That would be something their looking at Spring/Summer next year. John Karnes states he hasn’t seen the plans, but requested to know how many spots they would gain from that one spot alone. Rob Reeves provides Mr. Karnes a look at the plans. And states fourteen total which includes the existing. Ed Barrett states there are somewhere around 80 spaces behind the Police Station, some leased to the County already and anticipate the County will be interested in leasing additional spaces. And, approximately six spaces on street parking. Councilor Gratwick asks Rob Reeves if the YM/YW anticipates over the next five years a change in the physical setup of those two institutions. Rob Reeves stated they are starting a planning process. Jody McGregor who lives at 1477 Union Street, is interested in this property and made an offer last year. States her concern for tearing down the house and having a loss of revenues and can’t help but wonder if that contributes to her property taxes being raised 24% this year alone. Interested in this property with no interest in money from the City or anyone else to renovate and provide two more affordable housing. The size of the lot is not very big; it’s shame to tear down a two unit for minimal parking. Ed Barrett states there was a Council Order introduced last December that will have to be acting on it. That Council Order would transfer the property to the Y. You could kill that off and could be modified to recommend to go out for proposal. Or you could pass it. Counilor Tremble states there is value in rehabbing some of these properties. But suggest to not put this off forever, if opting for RFP now it will be the middle of December before making a decision. It would be a shame to tear a building down like that. In a transition neighborhood, that’s a buffer lot between a residential area and a government institutional area. And move to go out for RFP’s to see if there’s other uses, not just for houses but to see what the interest is. Ed Barrett suggests that either the current Council Order be killed off or amended to direct us to issue the RFP. It has to go to Council to do this. Councilor Gratwick asks if it should be recommendation to not give it to the Y at this time, but to be open to RFP’s. Councilor Allen supports that but suggests looking at the other side of the street as well as helping the Y out with parking. Look for some designated parking areas for the Y. Referred to the Council for Monday and go out for proposal. Councilor Tremble is requesting the RFP process be expedited, as interested parties are ready to go. Councilor Allen asks if they can put the parking issue to BED. Ed Barrett states that parking issue is actually being looked at by the Parking Advisory Committee, that Jeff Chairs and Sally Bates is working on. The information will be coming forward from that Committee. 9. Request to Develop a Crematorium at the Pine Grove Cemetery Jim Ring states that item has been withdrawn as of this afternoon. Councilor Allen asks if that idea is totally scratched. Jim Ring responds that this is a private proposal, and in looking at the impacts on the cemetery there site isn’t available without having big impacts. 10. Update on Marketing Manager Position Rebecca Hupp states the position has been vacant for the past year. It’s been brought to Council and discussed the need for a Marketing Manager at the airport. The Council and the Committee agreed that we should attempt to hire a Marketing Manager and went through a recruitment process locally, regionally, and nationally. We put together a panel including a member of the community and interviewed five candidates with no success. The intent is to hire a consultant to develop the marketing plan. Then later bringing someone on board. 11. Referral – Ordinance, Amending Chapter 265-3C, Residential Collection & 265-5A, Penalties of the Code of the Ordinances- Residential Solid Waste – Time and Placement of Waste at Curb- Code Ed Barrett states there is a problem that Bob Quirk has called to our attention over the last few months of placing solid waste at the curb well in advance of the collection date. Looking at the Ordinance it didn’t specify a limit in advance of collection date for people to place garbage at the curb. This Ordinance amendment would say that you couldn’t put garbage out prior to 5:00 p.m. the day before the collection. It would those that violate subject to a penalty to an exculpating penalty to perhaps start a 50.00 and increase with each violation. It provides us with the ability to revoke collection if there is a repeated violation for multi-family property. Based on experience most issues are not single family homes. Another option was an early collection charge, which is if placed out too early, to collect it and bill it. Legal had some concerns about our ability to collect those fees. Citizens: Bob Quirk from 81 Park St, Anne Mior, 1681 Essex Street, and Katherine Garon, 756 Hammond Street, who is the Exceutive Director for Keep Bangor Beautiful all expressed their concern regarding this issue. Also Katherine stated on the clean up at Center Street they had collected:  approximately 600 lbs of litter in about a ten block area  4 shopping carts  1 automobile tire  1 blanket  1 box spring  1 washing machine  1 computer monitor  1 television  1badly damaged construction barrel Suggest setting up a task force with interdepartmental feedback to target the problem areas. And they need to have a coordinated effort in picking up the bulky items as they do not have the resources. The citizens could be involved to provide help on litter. She would like to provide information on regarding other city’s cleanup efforts that have a low impact on the City’s Budget. Ed Barrett states they want to be careful that people think if they drop it in Bangor it will get taken care of. A quarter of a million dollars picking up and disposing waste the last cleanup. And would guarantee that a significant amount of waste did not come from Bangor. Public Works did nothing for two months except pick up waste. Recalling Silver and Cresmont, cleaning it out and three days later another two tons of garbage there. Councilor Allen would like to see a committee together and work. And possibly open it up to some local town managers. Councilor Cashwell would move to pass this to the Council and take steps to survey the towns around. Councilor Allen seconds it. Dan Wellington states on behalf of his employees this would be a tool to help them. Dana Wardwell states holidays can be confusing when trash might be picked up this window might have to be flexible on holidays. Passage to the full Council. Ed Barrett offers help of Dana to work with Kathy to convene a group, get someone from the Recycling Committee involved because this will spill over into universal waste. Bob Quirk asks what is the back up plan. Ed Barrett states they are looking into expanding the hazardous waste collection days, instead of once a year doing it more frequently. If the collection people see something that’s unacceptable they will either not take the trash or they will leave it there at sidewalk. Councilor Cashwell suggests doing community research. Ed Barrett will take to people in Portland. Councilor Cashwell moves to adjourn, Councilor Allen seconds.