HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-16 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Minutes
Councilors Attending: Geoffrey Gratwick, Susan Hawes, Anne Allen
Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, Jim Ring, Brad Moore, Joe McNeil, Norman
Heitmann, Rebecca Hupp
Others Attending: Don Cooper (BACTS), Merritt Webster
Committee convened at 5:00 p.m.
1. WWTP: Sewer Abatement Request – 33 Carroll Street
Jim Ring states this abatement doesn’t meet the guidelines and should be
removed from the consent agenda. Mr. Webster who is making the request is
present and invites him to the table.
Brad Moore states Mr. Webster approached the staff at the WWTP for the
abatement request. He used the water outside to water the grounds, shrubs,
and grass to keep them alive this summer. He did not have a sub-meter to
measure the water used outside. That being the criteria used to measure
whether he can grant the abatement or not. In the conversation with Mr.
Webster he state he could not grant the abatement. Mr. Webster requested who
he could speak to in order to further his request, that being the reason for
bringing it to the Committee.
Geoffrey Gratwick clarification of the data.
Brad Moore states if the Committee decides to grant the abatement, that the
supporting documents show what the calculation would be. Guidelines for
calculating an abatement is to go back the previous years average usage.
Measuring that against the present consumption in the quarter in question that
Mr. Webster is asking for is 58 units of water. His average has been 16 units.
The estimation for the units used outside is 43 units. His actual bill was $240.12
the adjusted bill would be $74.41, if granted. Abating $165.71 from his bill.
1
Mr. Webster states oversight on his part. He realized he had two meters but
didn’t pay to much attention to it. Assuming the outside one was for outside
use. He also stated he had gotten a meter and will be putting it on.
Councilor Hawes asks if he has the sub-meter.
Mr. Webster stated he actually has the meter, and is getting fittings today, and
found the end of the pipe was broken which has slowed him down. He has the
materials and is hoping to have it on in a day or so.
Councilor Hawes can appreciate the shock when he realized how much water
actually used. However, there are guidelines that the department has to follow
to allow an abatement, or not. And it makes it difficult if we deviate from those
guidelines. Could not support granting the abatement, just because it does not
meet the guidelines.
Jim Ring comments that in looking at the consumption history it appears the
usage has gone up, and assume that some watering had been done in the past,
although not to this extent. Even if the sub-meter is in place, it looks like the
following quarters bill in past years reflect some additional consumption, getting
it in place now may make him qualify for a potential abatement on his next bill.
Brad Moore states that would be correct for the water going through the meter.
Councilor Gratwick asks for clarification for the principal involved.
Brad Moore stated that when considering these ordinances it was a matter of
equity. Are we going to just estimate or is it more fair to all sewer rate payers
that we get an actual amount that is used outside. The Council five or six years
ago decided it was better to have a hard number. And that we would require
the homeowners to meter the water used outside. There are approximately 325
homes that do have sub-meters that we give abatements for water usage
outside. Stating Mr. Webster is going to take advantage of that now. That was
part of the basis of it, not just giving an estimate on what might have been used,
wanted a real number of gallons used outside and give them the abatement for
that amount.
Jim Ring states the basic premise is if water is used for irrigation purposes, the
assumption is that it doesn’t directly find it’s way into the treatment or sewer
system. Therefore the person using the separately metered water shouldn’t be
paying for the treatment of that water.
2
Councilor Gratwick asks if he had a swimming pool or large garden he would
have to have a sub-meter and would it be his role to have learned about that
ahead of time.
Ed Barrett states that you would have the option of putting in the sub-meter or
not, it depends on how much you use. We have tried to publicize the program
Brad’s done inserts in the water bills, also on our website. We don’t expect
everyone to know about the program.
Mr. Webster stated he understood where the Committee was coming from but
was asking for mercy. Stated he placed a hedge and didn’t want them to die, so
put up a soaker hose and left it on about four hours, two to three times a week.
Didn’t realize it would be so much more.
Councilor Gratwick entertains a motion.
Councilor Hawes opposes and notes with the statement that the staff
recommendation was no because it didn’t meet the qualifications.
Councilor Gratwick also opposes.
Jim Ring would like to add that Mr. Webster’s expense trouble for installing will
not be fruitless because he will get the tail end of the season and it will pay a
return.
2. Update: Status of BAT/Community Advisory Committee-Joe McNeil and
Don Cooper (BACTS)
Joe McNeil states several months ago, at the end of February, first of March the
Committee asked us to put together a body to adhere the Bus to. At that point
they asked if Don Cooper from BACTS would entertain the idea. They voted on
that towards the end of February, who then took the lead role of it.
Don Cooper states the BACTS Policy Committee voted to approve the formation
of an Transit Advisory Committee, it would be a committee of BACTS, which
would then go out and solicit membership from the member communities. The
idea being to return to the BACTS Policy Committee to get them to sign off of
the actual membership of that Committee. It is a BACTS Committee. We have
contacted everyone via mail, email, and telephone. We are still short a couple of
communities, we intend to keep trying. Once we have a full slate, we’ll go back
to the Policy Committee and have them sign off, then we can start a setting a
schedule of the meetings. We anticipate four times a year. Also that in the event
they were carrying out some kind of transit study, in which case it would be
more frequent.
3
Councilor Allen asks if these meetings will me more in line with the funding from
the Federal Highway Bill and funds that would come in to supporting
transportation.
Don Cooper states they would be looking at what Federal transit funds are
available to do that.
Councilor Allen asks if it is known of any transit funds that are available for next
year that can be built on to improve the system as it stands now.
Don Cooper states that as it stands now the new legislation that has just been
signed, we do not know what it’s going to be, nor what the total is for the State
of Maine; it’s division between the urban areas within Maine. The Federal
register should be coming out the beginning of September.
Councilor Gratwick requests review of what the commission of the Committee
will be and what problems it will be solving for us.
Don Cooper states the Committee is being formed at the request largely of
Councilor Allen from the City of Bangor, then funneled through the BACTS Policy
Committee as being a good way of establishing a committee to look at transit
issues in the urban area. It would be an advisory committee to the BACTS Policy
Committee, the direction where public transit should be in the urban area.
Drawing all of it’s members from all member communities of the BACTS area.
Also stating Joe has a list of emerging issues to bring to the Committee for their
input.
Councilor Allen requests clarification of the BACTS Policy Committee.
Jim Ring explains the Policy Committee is much like the Council in terms of it’s
relationship with the City of Bangor, it makes the major decisions. The Technical
Committee is comprised largely of Policy Committee members, but works on
particular studies, etc. The Policy Committee is the approval body for BACTS.
The tasks for this Committee are not laid out as of yet, that will come over time.
The Policy Committee is scheduled to meet at approximately two month
intervals. In terms of budgetary considerations, that’s more annualized and an
ongoing process. The quarterly meetings and the formation of the Advisory
Committee will be a useful vehicle in between the annual policy decisions and
the financial decisions by the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee endorsed
it, and would request Don to convey to Rob Kenerson, the coordinator, give an
update of the status of the communities at the next Policy Committee meeting.
4
Councilor Allen asks if this Advisory Committee will work in conjunction with
State funding that comes down. Who would they go through if there is a need
to enhance the system in terms of making the numbers work.
Ed Barrett states there are a number of funding sources going into the system,
both Federal, State, and Local. And view this group as a way to insure that the
communities that are members of the system are talking about the system as a
group and where the system might go. This is an opportunity to see these
communities represented on a Committee, to look at available funding, decide
what can be done within that funding to provide the service. It’s also a
mechanism to go back to the community and see if there is a consensus to make
other improvements in the system that may require Federal funding. Being a
useful communications tool.
Councilor Allen asks Don if he is the liaison to the Policy Committee.
Don responds that he could act in that role. And states it is possible to have a
member of the Advisory Committee that is also a member of the BACTS Policy or
Technical Committee. And will always be attending both meetings.
Councilor Gratwick comments that this is basically an FYI for the TIC Committee.
And requests that at a future Transportation and Infrastructure meeting the
structure of the decision making goals will be presented.
Councilor Allen requests if there is a date for the first meeting will be.
Don Cooper states it will probably not be until September or October, it has not
been set yet.
Councilor Gratwick states the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will
be the recipients of information and not be making policy decisions.
Ed Barrett states that Councilor Allen is the designated representative to this
advisory group.
Councilor Gratwick requests that if there is something to report to place it on the
agenda.
Don Cooper states it would be helpful to have regular updates for the City
Council. Perhaps to do it right after the Advisory Committee meets.
Councilor Gratwick comments that in the past year of his being on the
Committee the BAT has brought up issues two or three times, and would suggest
5
having meetings every quarter or every four months to come back to this
Committee, which he will leave up to the City Staff as deemed appropriate.
2. Request for Easement for Bangor Gas Installation at Eastern Maine Healthcare
System
City Solicitor Norm Heitmann presents materials regarding the installation on
Union Street. The easement area runs along the access road into the building.
They are also contemplating providing serve to the Healthcare Mall as well.
When Bangor Gas provides beyond the right-of-way they require the owner to
grant an easement. City of Bangor being the property owner, the leasee does
have the option to buy, but the City of Bangor has to be the one to grant the
easement.
Ed Barrett would like to discuss with them the potential of moving the back part
of the line over closer to the property line, so that it won’t interfere with the
building.
Norm Heitmann stated it’s already been done. He discussed with David Ashmore
from Bangor Gas that once they get beyond the AHS building, they should go
right along the property line. The initial easement is just get to the Affiliated
Healthcare Systems building.
Councilor Gratwick asks, if this isn’t our land, why do we give easement for it.
Norman Neitmann states that is our land, we lease it, and they have the option
to buy, but they cannot exercise that option for a period of three years. With
most utilities when they get out of the right-of-way they require an easement
from the owner before they’ll put in power, water, gas lines.
Councilor Gratwick asks why they are going to the back of the property line.
Norm states the immediate focus is to the building itself. Eastern Maine
Healthcare also wants gas service, so they have discussed it with Bangor Gas to
extend to the back of the property. When they get passed where they make the
corner, further discussion is needed as to where this line will actually be. Bangor
Gas has indicated heading towards the parking lot of Eastern Maine and run
along the property line. For two reasons: 1) This road will be extended straight
back to the rear lot, being cautious not to have the lines under the road or
driveway. Plus, it may impact any future building. Will be discussing with
Eastern Maine, shortly, their in hopes to have the current facility extended.
Immediate purpose is granting Bangor Gas to get to the AHS building and not
going beyond that for the time being.
6
Councilor Gratwick states they have this option to dig their trench, but may or
may not be putting their gas in at this time.
Ed Barrett states they will run their line, and will deal with the rest of at a future
date.
Councilor Gratwick states at which point they may own the land.
Norm Heitmann states that’s correct.
Ed Barrett states this requires action by the Council and recommendation to the
Council.
Councilor Hawes recommends move to the Council.
Councilor Allen seconds.
3. Indenture of Lease – Lifeflight of Maine, LLC.
Rubecca Hupp states staff recommends approval with the new lease with
Lifeflight of Maine. They use this area to house the helicopters used for
emergency rescue procedures and have been a good tenant in the past.
Councilor Allen recommends a motion to move.
Councilor Hawes asks if this varies from the last one.
Rebecca Hupp states it’s essentially the same, with a couple of minor
housekeeping items that were not applicable and were removed.
Councilor Hawes seconds the motion.
Ed Barrett notes this being a five-year lease, goes to the full Council.
4. BIA-Passenger Statis Update.
Rebecca Hupp states for the month of July showed an increase of 11.3% from
last year. And an increase year to date of 6.6%, which is significantly ahead of
the national trend. She attributes this to the strength of the local economy,
more people visiting Maine, and increase in capacity and competition, amongst
existing carriers. No action required on this item.
Ed Barrett requests members to take a look at the history that is included in the
packet, page 53, with the projection, it appears they will approach a half million
7
passengers this year, which will be an all time record, far exceeding the 456,000
in 1998, which was our past peak. Domestically doing quite well, due to more
carriers, frequent service, and competition.
5. Update: Halifax/Bangor Joint Marketing/Cooperation Activities
Rebecca Hupp asks the Committee to recall about a year ago the Council passed
a cooperative agreement allowing or removing their objection to Halifax
obtaining pre-clearance. As part of that agreement established a joint marketing
task force between the two communities, Bangor and Halifax. The Committee
meets quarterly, having just had the meeting early in the month. Exploring air
surface opportunities between Bangor and Halifax should there be sufficient
market to support that particular route. In the past that hasn’t been successful,
but are looking for the right carrier to operate the route. The other possibility of
partnering with Halifax to additional destinations via Bangor, by working
together. And looking at cargo as a market where we can cooperate jointly and
be successful with that endeavor. Halifax has asked us to put some money
behind this cooperative effort and recommended we put $5,000 to attend airline
meetings, $40,000 to market new air service between Bangor and Halifax, and
$20,000 to joint sponsorships and trade shows. That corrected total is $70,000
not $75,000 represented in the attached materials. Stating $10,000 for airline
meetings, then realized our share was half, thus the change. The funding would
only be used if successful in attracting new service.
Councilor Hawes asks if when attending the airline meetings, does the whole
Committee go or just one or two.
Ed Barrett states the last meeting was done by teleconference.
Councilor Hawes comments on the freight study, and asks where would this
money come from, is the marketing budget already in place.
Ed Barrett notes that Halifax is interested in doing a freight study, they have
found there may be some potential for service in the freight market, but the
shippers are wary about giving up their existing arrangements. With a new
arrangement they don’t have a guarantee of long term service. Everybody
should be aware there is an obstacle and that shippers fear if they give up their
current arrangements, they may not be able to get them back or get them back
easily at the same rates they have now.
Rebecca Hupp states that about this time last year they hosted a freight shipping
symposium in Portland in cooperation with the Maine International Trade Center.
They invited freight forwarders and shippers from all over the state to talk about
cargo and shipping cargo from Bangor. And requested they give an indication of
8
what level of interest they would have, volume, frequency, etc. There was a
carrier lined up to come to Bangor if there was sufficient volume. But they were
not able to coordinate and get enough people interested to fulfill that
commitment. By combining with Halifax that the difference is unclear. It’s worth
looking at, but doesn’t think it’s going to yield tremendous results, based on
previous results. One driving factor is it is very inexpensive to truck freight to
Boston or New York. Then there are multiple options. There is a need to have
back up.
Councilor Allen asks if the price of gas has made shippers reconsider options.
Trucking is at a higher cost now, as opposed to shipping, even though it may be
higher, but in less time.
Rebecca Hupp states that is a valid point, because even before last year, fuel
costs have increased significantly. Not sure they would have increased enough
to make Bangor more attractive; there’s also and increase in having the cost of
the aircraft here. The costs have increased in the air freight as well as the
ground freight.
Ed Barrett asks if Rebecca has any idea how much the fuel costs deferentially
effects ground versus air transportation.
Rebecca Hupp believes it makes a difference with the fuel efficiency of the
aircraft. In general, the opportunity and likelihood of being successful in a joint
marketing program with Halifax to attract cargo service even a couple times a
week is probably less than five on a scale of one to ten. Worth looking at but
not encouraging that it’s a likely probability.
Councilor Hawes asks if the study that has been started.
Rebecca Hupp states that this is a study that Halifax is looking to do. We might
be interested in having them looking at a Bangor component to see if that would
make it feasible. That would be a very small part of a bigger study they are
doing.
Councilor Hawes asks where the funds would come from.
Rebecca Hupp states the funds have not been designated yet, and don’t have an
estimated cost.
Ed Barrett states we have requested for them to share their request for
proposals and to allow us to talk about what might be worth us doing. Would
like to have a third party consultant. At the beginning it would be a feasibility
study to see if it’s worth pursuing.
9
Councilor Allen asks if this is being funding by the Federal government in
Canada.
Ed Barrett states he doesn’t believe so.
Rebecca Hupp states she doesn’t know what their funding source is for this
particular thing. But the Halifax Port Authority is actually funded through their
own revenues, they are a private entity.
Ed Barrett states the Canadian government used to run all of the airports, then
they privatized them and spun them off as independent, non-profits.
Councilor Gratwick comments passenger service, which previously not thought to
be a potential route. And suggests that if one could tap into low cost Halifax to
Europe flights, might all of the sudden look very interesting. Also suggesting this
a potential for lesser costs.
Rebecca Hupp states that is their exact thoughts. Service between the two
communities have the same point of interest for businesses that do business in
both cities. There is a core market for that. In addition to that, there could be a
market for passengers in the Bangor to travel to Europe. Our connectivity
through Boston is not good for service. The connections from Boston leave
much to be desired, particularly on return international flights. So we see that as
a key market. That being said, there are some obstacles including code shares,
passengers having to check in twice, therefore they would have to find the
carrier for that. There aren’t that many carriers interested in this type of service.
Looking at approaching it from an international standpoint.
Ed Barrett states there is the potential for coming the other direction. If
someone were flying from Halifax to Bangor to go on through one of our
carriers, the difficulty is we’re competing with local Halifax service. They have
service to a lot of hub communities such as Boston, New York, Ottawa, Montreal,
Toronto, Detroit, so they’ve already got it. So if you don’t have code share that
is a major problem. Example, that means you get on the plane in Halifax, get off
the plane in Bangor, and pick up your bags, you recheck in to get on the next
flight.
There needs to be a code share agreement between the airlines. And his
understanding is that most low cost carriers don’t do that.
Councilor Gratwick asks if there are a significant number of low cost carriers from
Halifax to Europe that would be tapping into ours.
Rebecca Hupp states that they have a seasonal market, as we do. But they do
have a year round service.
10
Councilor Gratwick asks if they are going to be the $200.00 to $300.00 flights.
Rebecca Hupp believes they will be less expensive, and the Canadian Exchange
rate could work for or against you. They do have a lower cost charter.
Ed Barrett states that in talking to them, that they do have one particular carrier
they think might be interested in doing market in the Bangor area. But that will
depend on their carrier and what they are interested in doing. It’s worth
exploring.
Councilor Gratwick opens for questions.
Ed Barrett would like to request the Committee’s blessing on the proposed
budget for some of the joint activities.
Councilor Hawes seconds.
Councilor Gratwick asks if it they will be authorizing $5,000.
Ed Barrett states that most of this will be coming from the marketing budget.
Line item for air service presentations, we’ll be directing a portion of that toward
doing joint presentations. $30,000 to $40,000 is noted, but only kick in if a
carrier to provide Halifax/Bangor service. If a carrier was found that would do
that we should be willing to market it to see if it works.
Rebecca Hupp comments on the other $25,000 for trade shows and events; that
would be if Halifax wanted to market here or participate. This would not be
something that would need individual approval, but rather the overall marketing
program.
11