HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-27 Government Operations Committee Minutes
Government Operations Committee
September 27, 2011
Minutes
Councilors: Blanchette, Gratwick, Bronson, Longo, Durgin
Staff: Conlow, Dubois, Nicklas, Farrar
1. Proposal to Change the Expiration Date of Taxicab Licenses
th
Currently, all taxicab licenses expire on June 30, resulting in all drivers applying to
renew their licenses at the same time. City Clerk Dubois explained that Sgt. Edwards,
Bangor Police Department, proposed that all licenses be issued/renewed for a one-year
period, which would create staggered renewal dates over time. This would reduce the
significant workload issue in the City Clerk’s Office and the Police Department that is
created by having all 150 licenses expire at the same time. Responding to Durgin,
Dubois said each individual operator is required to license. Bronson spoke of the
Taxicab Committee, which he would like to see meet more frequently with a suggested
agenda provided by the Council. He would like to see the taxis of Bangor be more
welcoming. Durgin noted that Bronson’s point was well taken as Bangor tries to
improve and build upon the image of the City. There doesn’t appear to be a general
acceptance of what is considered to be best practice in maintaining taxicabs. Gratwick
made a motion to approve staff recommendation. It was seconded and recommended
for approval to the City Council. Gratwick felt that it would be appropriate to bring this
back to a Council Committee. Blanchette asked Conlow to speak with the Council Chair
to schedule a Taxicab Committee meeting. She spoke of an immediate need for such a
meeting and spoke of prohibiting smoking in taxicabs. Durgin asked if the current
Ordinance is specific enough to articulate such standards.
2. Consideration of Revised and Updated Use of City Property Policy
Nicklas explained that the City has two primary policies regarding the use of City
property by individuals, entities, and organizations other than the City. One is entitled
“The Policy Guidelines for Use of City-owned Property and the Permitting of Commercial
Vendors” and one entitled “Waterfront and Park Facility Event Permit Policy.” There is
also an Ordinance on Parades and Public Assemblies. The Ordinance has been disputed
in court and there are some questions to its current validity. In an effort to update,
refine and consolidate these existing policies, City staff has developed one new “Use of
City Property” Policy for Committee review and consideration. Nicklas provided a clean
copy of the revised and update changes. The new policy eliminates the excess
language and consolidates the commercial vendor provisions in the Use of City Owned
Property Policy, and consolidates the Waterfront and Park Facility Policy and puts
certain provisions in place regarding parades and public assemblies. He noted that are
defined guidelines regarding the use of sidewalks by businesses near those sidewalks, a
number of new deadlines for submission of applications so that the City can properly
inspect and control those vendors and in particular food vendors, and it clearly states
that if something is done that is clearly permitted in this policy it would require Council
approval.
Longo asked if the policy covers camping on City property. Nicklas said it does not. It
would most likely require a separate agreement process. It does not cover use of City
property for archery hunting, and there is a separate policy to cover it. Longo spoke of
the Kahbang Group, the Boy Scouts and tarps behind The Hope House. Nicklas said
certainly with respect to the waterfront it would be covered under the Event Provision.
Camping behind The Hope House is probably a use that should not be going on.
Blanchette asked if the ‘tent city’ off the Interstate is City or State owned. Conlow felt
it was a mixture. The individuals are moved along but go elsewhere. It is an ongoing
problem but not a permitted use under the Ordinance. Blanchette asked if staff would
check with the State.
Durgin asked about the categories of mobile, temporary and events. He noted that the
itinerant commercial vendors which are subcategories as mobile appear to be only food
and beverages. Nicklas agreed stating that both the mobile vendors and the temporary
vendors are only allowed to sell food and beverage. Durgin asked about other vendors,
particularly during parades going up and down the street selling inexpensive toy type
items, and asked if they were addressed in the policy. Nicklas said that under the
terms of this policy the only vendors allowed would be those selling food and
beverages. There are some provisions in State Statute that require vendors of food to
get lunch wagon licenses from the City. Nicklas said that vendors selling non-food
related items have not been addressed in this policy. Nicklas wasn’t sure how much
legal authority would be in place to address those types of vendors. He indicated he
would look into it. Durgin would like to see it pursued further. Vendors selling items
other than food during current parades seems to be in violation of the City’s current
regulations.
Longo asked about specifics on the court case previously mentioned by Nicklas.
Blanchette suggested that Longo contact the City Solicitor.
Responding to Bronson’s hypothetical question of a vendor selling balloons at Pickering
Square, Nicklas said he doesn’t know what the current practice is for this type of vendor
but that he would review it in light of having it addressed in a general context.
Blanchette spoke of concerns a few years back when novelty vending was brought on
to City streets. They were in direct competition with businesses in the downtown area
that are required to have a license to operate a business, and pay taxes on goods sold.
Blanchette asked Nicklas if the City can require people that want to sell novelties on the
streets of Bangor to get a permit from the City. She said there should be a clause that
all free moving vendors need to be registered with the City. Durgin agreed with
Blanchette noting that the rights that are being infringed upon are those of the
permanent vendors, the store fronts in Bangor. Gratwick said that the policy would
need an index and subsections to be made more understandable for his personal
review.
With respect to camping, Nicklas said it can be dealt with separately. One is through
the event portion of this policy which would be different than having an individual erect
a tent on City owned property. Conlow said the camping issue has already been
discussed separately through the Land Use Development Policy. Responding to
Blanchette, Conlow said the vagabonds are an enforcement issue and that living
arrangements and camping are separate items.
Nicklas said the first item received with the agenda packet is the proposed policy, and
the second two are the current policies in place. Gratwick noted that the waterfront
and parade policies include much more than the first one and it also appears that some
things are missing. Nicklas said that if there are particular things that need to be
included he would certainly like to hear it. Some things have been moved around a bit
and some things might be addressed elsewhere in an Ordinance. Gratwick again
suggested an index. Nicklas said he didn’t know of any reason why vendors selling
non-food items could not be regulated but that he wasn’t familiar enough with what the
current and typical response has been. In the parade context, Nicklas said it has not
been addressed and should be reviewed.
Conlow suggested that Nicklas run through the proposed policy to identify those areas
covered and not covered.
Nicklas indicated that the goals and general guidelines are patterned after similar
sections in the original policy guidelines for Use of City Owned Property and Permitting
of Commercial Vendors. Those are things that should apply to any of these situations.
He noted that there are reservations which limit hours of operation in particular cases,
that all City and State laws should be adhered to, and concern for public safety. The
itinerant and commercial vendors section is primarily intended to replace the City
Owned Property and Permitting of Commercial Vendors Policy that mostly dealt with
commercial vendors. There were from 4-8 commercial vendors in the policy depending
on location and time of day. It was much more confusing than necessary and those
were reduced to two vendors: the mobile vendors and the temporary vendors. Mobile
vendors are those who operate on City streets and sidewalks outside the Bangor Center
Development District. Temporary vendors are those who operate on parcels of land,
largely similar to the City’s Ordinance which deals with temporary and commercial
vendors. This was added because it applies to everyone; i.e. a hot dog stand on a
parcel owned by a private entity. The City has its own requirements for its own
property. Nicklas noted that 4.3 through 4.5 are all items applying to both those
different kinds of vendors. The event section is most intended to replace the
Waterfront and Park Facility Event Permit Policy and it does consolidate and makes the
policy considerably shorter. If there are particular things that should be included,
Nicklas asked to be told. The Permit Policy has added deadlines in order to provide
time for City staff to check on things. In particular, there are some provisions, 5.6,
requiring individuals to provide a list of vendors who will be at the event no later than
14 days prior to the beginning of an event. The Parade and Public Assemblies is to
some extent putting into a policy what is current practice. Since the previous
Ordinance was not upheld by the Court, the City has been trying to make sure that it is
at least notified of parades and public assemblies. Nicklas felt that at some point the
Parade Ordinance should be changed to something that is more likely to be upheld in
court. Nicklas spoke of the Accessory Sidewalk Use Section, which has been expanded
to include what is currently practiced.
Durgin referred to Sec 4.0, Itinerant Commercial Vendors, 4.4 which indicates that
itinerant vendors may sell only food and beverages and then later references a lunch
wagon license. He asked for a description of a lunch wagon license and, if someone
wants to cook and serve hot dogs on the street, does that fall under a lunch wagon
license. Nicklas replied yes. There is a sanitary code to be followed and inspected by
the Code Enforcement’s Environmental Health Inspector.
Durgin then asked about Section 5.3, permit application, and asked about random
protest groups. Conlow said that she receives copies of these applications from the
Police Department. They are processed through the Police Department and the
Department makes a determination as to whether they require some type of police or
fire presence. It is not covered under this policy but a freedom of speech. Durgin
asked if the Council could be informed of these events. Conlow said it would bog the
Council down in a short period of time. She noted that the current process is working.
Conlow suggested that if the event is large and of particular interest she would notify
the Council. Nicklas said this type of activity was covered by the Parade and Public
Assembly Ordinance and some provisions, the one dealing with notice, is being pulled
and put into the parade and public assembly section 6.0. It requires a 7 day in advance
notice. If it is a spontaneous event, organizers are to provide notice within 24 hours
before the event. Nicklas quoted “a spontaneous event occasioned by news or affairs
coming into public knowledge within 7 days prior to the parade or public assembly.”
With this type of situation, Durgin said there is opportunity for disruption within the
community. Nicklas said these types of things are difficult to deal with because of the
First Amendment issues. Durgin said he would like to know how to respond to citizen
questions who ask about these events.
Gratwick asked for a series of definitions at the beginning of the policy and to include
mobile vendors, temporary vendors and lunch wagons. He noted his dislike of the term
itinerant, mobile and temporary. He liked the idea that all references to the City
Council Committees thereof. He wants to be sure there is a procedure in place for staff
to keep track of. Nicklas noted that the City Manager has suggested a separate thing
whereby under these specific circumstances this goes to this staff member, this to
other, etc. Under 4.4.3.1. package foods, Gratwick asked if that specifies cooked food.
Again, he thinks it should be included under a definitions section. Gratwick spoke of
5.4.3. f, the compatibility of the event with already other permitted events in or near
the same area at the same time. Nicklas said his understanding of talking about the
compatibility of events with other already permitted events would be if one event was
already taking up a large portion of the park such as an athletic event and a wedding
was taking place at the same time. There is a line between what can be looked at and
what could really get into legal hot water. Gratwick asked if content can be discussed.
Conlow said as long as it is legal and within the law which is why event permit
applications are submitted to the Police Department. Nicklas said there is an extensive
line of case law that deals with what is allowed in different places. Gratwick talked of
5.7.4, clean up, and expressed concern about the condition of grass following an event.
Nicklas talked about getting together with the Parks and Recreation Director to see how
much of an issue it is under the current system. Conlow said there needs to be a
reasonable standard in place regarding clean up. She noted that the Parks and
Recreation Director is comfortable with the language. Blanchette suggested a certain
portion of a permit fee goes toward a fund to resurface, replant.
Longo talked of limiting time and place of events as well as safety concerns. He asked
if the City could require a deposit at an event to cover any costs associated with clean
up. Nicklas said there is a provision indicating that the City can require a cleaning
deposit prior to issuing a permit. Regarding safety, Nicklas said it would be addressed
through an actual parade ordinance. He sensed there have not been many of issues
with safety even without a parade ordinance. There are time and place and manner
strictures which are allowed on public assemblies but they would have to be applied
equally to all parades and public assemblies.
Bronson spoke of the need of substantial housekeeping regarding these policies. He
will put them in an email format to staff and Councilors. He said that camping clearly
needs to be dealt with in this policy or another ordinance. He hopes that in the process
that it be kept in mind that the City historically has had what some might call camping
at Bass Park for 150 years with the horsemen. It needs to be addressed and suggested
it could be done by citing Bass Park and management of the Park will deal with it. He is
concerned about permitting vendors of items during parades. He asked who then is
authorized to permit vendors during the term of the parade. He suggested that
perhaps the parade organizers should be involved in the permitting process. He wished
to make the policy friendly toward food vending on the streets in good weather. He
spoke of the insurance stipulations.
Responding to Bronson, Nicklas said the rationale behind the insurance policy is based
on the City’s limits of liability under the Maine Tort Claims Act. In the event policy, it
does not include activities at Bass Park and the Golf Course as they are dealt with
separately.
Blanchette asked Gratwick if he wants an index on the front page of the policy.
Gratwick replied yes. Blanchette asked the Committee if it wished to place this item
back on the agenda of the next Government Operations Committee to give Nicklas a
chance to index the policy. Conlow spoke of the lack of clarity of ‘vendors selling stuff.’
Durgin felt the City needs to be more specific and explicit about what will be permitted.
Another issue he failed to mention previously is alcohol and restrooms. Responding,
Conlow said the larger events are required to provide a specific number of restrooms.
Durgin felt that the policy should be specific on what events require restroom facilities
and how they can be provided. Longo asked about individuals standing near the mall
with a sign asking for assistance and wondered if it is legal. He also said it doesn’t look
good for Bangor’s imagine. Conlow said she would look into it. Blanchette said there
are ordinances against panhandling. Gratwick spoke of individuals playing music on the
sidewalk area in larger cities. He wants to be sure that their creativity isn’t stifled.
Nicklas said the intent or the language of this policy would prevent busking, the term
for playing music asking for money.
Bronson asked about truck vendors on the side of the road selling seafood, flowers,
fiddleheads, etc. Nicklas said his understanding is that it would be covered under the
mobile vendor. The mobile vendors are required to be outside of the downtown area.
Blanchette clarified that the policy with an index will be placed on the next regular
meeting of the Government Operations Committee. Nicklas said he understood that
Gratwick had requested a definition section and a policy section. He asked if the
Committee wanted an index or a table of contents. Blanchette said it would be much
easier to review. If additional time is needed, Bronson suggested Nicklas return at a
subsequent meeting and not necessarily the next Committee meeting. It was finally
decided that the proposed policy would return to Committee when staff had completed
the various revisions.
The Committee adjourned at 6:15 pm.