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.