Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-15 Government Operations Committee Minutes Government Operations Committee January 15, 2008 Minutes Councilors: Hawes, D’Errico, Wheeler, Farrington Staff: Barrett, Heitmann, Ring, Farrar, Gastia, Hunt, Cammack, Yardley Others: Tom Mooney, Mike Robinson, Mike Harmon, Gerald Oleson Consent Agenda A motion was made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. 1. Council Resolve 08-062, Accepting and Appropriating Grant Funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Project Based Rental Assistance. This Resolve will accept and appropriate a one year grant in the amount of $67,584 for the City’s Shelter Plus Care Program. This program provides subsidized rents for qualified homeless individuals with a primary diagnosis of mental illness, substance abuse or HIV related illness and who are receiving support services. The rental assistance piece of the program supports the housing needs of residents at Acadia Recovery. 2. Council Resolve 08-063, Accepting and Appropriating a Homeless Continuum of Care Grant from HUD – Shelter Plus Care Renewal. Similar in nature to the Grant above, this Resolve will accept and appropriate $278,124 to support 41 units of housing under the Shelter Plus Care Program. These are subsidized rents for qualified homeless individuals with a primary diagnosis of mental illness, chronic substance abuse or HIV related illnesses, who are receiving support services. Regular Agenda 3. Adoption of National Incident Management System (NIMS) Cammack explained that the Federal Department of Homeland Security has been charged with developing and administering a National Incident Management System (NIMS) which would provide a consistent approach for national, state, and local governments to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from any type of domestic incident. This proposed Order will ensure that Bangor’s Emergency Operations Plan complies with NIMS and the Incident Command System and also adopts NIMS for all incident management situations in the City of Bangor. Chief Cammack said that this is the last step of the process to become compliant with the rules and regulations of the Department of Homeland Security. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation. The item will go forward to the next City Council meeting for final action. 4. Update regarding Maine Drug Enforcement Agency (MDEA) Funding Issues Gastia indicated that the State of Maine Drug Enforcement Agency is facing significant reductions in federal funding. These reductions will have serious implications for the work undertaken by MDEA, both statewide and in the Bangor region. The State of Maine uses funding from the Byrne Grant Program to support the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency. The Federal budget will reduce funding for this program by 67% for the coming year. Without additional state or federal funding, the services provided by MDEA are at risk. The MDEA is currently working with a bare minimum staff and could potentially impact the field offices. Bangor currently provides three employees to MDEA. As a result, consequences for the Bangor area could include an increase in drug related crimes and health issues, reduced drug education efforts, and a requirement to increase funding to other local law enforcement agencies that will be tasked with assuming greater drug enforcement efforts. It should be noted that drug investigations, by their very nature, are not confined to single jurisdictions and raise complex enforcement issues that individual agencies are not in a position to address. Gastia said that substance abuse has been recognized as a growing problem in the Bangor region, and this is not the time to reduce drug enforcement and education efforts. Barrett and Gastia both felt that the Legislature needs to be aware of the situation and urged to secure funding for the MDEA. Wheeler asked if the Maine Congressional Delegation has been contacted about this matter. Gastia has been in contact with McKinney, the MDEA Director, regarding the Maine Legislative Delegation. A motion was made and seconded requesting that a Resolve be drafted in an effort to ensure that MDEA continues to have the necessary resources to support its current personnel and operations. Once passed by Council, the Resolve will be forwarded to members of the State and Congressional Delegation. The item will appear on the upcoming City Council agenda. 5. Citizen Concern/Complaint – Tom Mooney, 39 Parkview Avenue Hawes stated that Mooney requested an opportunity to address the Committee regarding issues surrounding a property boundary dispute with his neighbor, Michael Robinson, and responses he received from City Staff members. Background memorandums from the City Manager and City Engineer, as well as a map depicting the driveway and property in question, were provided to the Committee. Mooney said he had spoken with the Assistant City Manager last week to make certain that today’s agenda item appeared as it should be. Mooney said it was not properly worded. Mooney said he is not at the Committee to discuss a property dispute but rather to complain about a letter sent to him by City Engineer Ring. He disputes the facts in the letter. The specific complaint against Mr. Barrett is that he did not respond when Mooney complained to him about Ring’s letter. The letter sent to Mooney was dated September 18 and cc’d to Robinson and on to his attorney. The letter states that Mr. Ring cannot offer an opinion or statement regarding property line location. Ring reluctantly did examine the situation in person. Mooney said he understands that Ring cannot make an opinion but Ring did take a measurement of the area in question. Ring indicated in his letter the absence of property pins. Mooney said there is a property pin on the south side of his property. He said that Ring did see the property pin when he took measurements. When Mooney assisted Ring with the measurement, Ring said “it’s pretty clear that at least some encroachment has occurred.” Mooney said that Ring went on to say that “if this is the case and the survey bears out what appears to be encroachment and if it were me, I would put metal stakes along that driveway.” At that same time, Mooney asked if the neighbor’s garage would be grandfathered and Ring said “no, your property is your property.” Mooney said that is the complaint. After Ring took the measurements, he agreed to participate in some mediation with the Bangor Police Department, Lt. Steve Hunt. Mooney never heard back from Ring. Mooney said another issue is that his property and that of his neighbors are 50 foot lots. His 50 lot has 23 ft of esplanade curb. Neighbors to the north have esplanade curb of 40 ft. He presumed that when the street was redone the change occurred. He realizes it is no one’s fault. Mooney asked if the City has an arbitrary method of placing esplanade curbing. He has never received a response to this particular question. Mooney said the question at hand is not a property dispute. He wanted to address some City culpability because of the way that the apron and the curbing were put in place. Mooney does not believe that his neighbors intentionally took anything. The neighbor’s driveway was put in lining up with the apron, which is off. Hawes said that there are two issues, one being measurements. She asked Ring to address the Committee. When Mooney first spoke to Ring about this, it was a question about the property line. On September 13 or th 14, Ring did take the measurements. He provided a section of a topographical map of the area to the committee. This map was done in 1989. Ring said he and Mooney have had discussions in which Ring stated that property side lines are not determined by the City. Property front lines are determined by the City because it coincides with the street line, right of way line. They have discussed Assessing Department records, which are not legal surveys, but are useful. Ring said the property pin is on the back line, not a frontage property pin, and the 50 ft laid out from that point did extend into the Robinson’s driveway. But it is not a legal survey, Ring stressed. The only way to be absolutely sure would require a survey. The City does not provide that service. Ring said he received a call from Robinson on September 14 asking about the site visit. Mooney said he was only looking for an acknowledgement that an opinion was stated by Ring and about a mediation. At that time, Mooney said he was looking to hear back from Ring in person, not by letter. Barrett said he understood there was an unwillingness on the part of one of the parties to participate in a mediation. Mooney stressed that his concern is that there was no mention of mediation in Ring’s letter. Barrett said he suspects at that time the City didn’t know if there would be mediation or not. Ring said he felt it was appropriate to send a letter to eliminate any misunderstandings. Mooney asked if he could have an acknowledgement from Ring that there was no follow up on that particular part of what he and Ring had discussed. He stressed it was important. Hawes said that at this time the Committee is trying to ascertain exactly all sides of this issue. Mooney stated for the record that that is part of the record. Hawes asked Lt. Hunt to address the committee. Hunt said he has worked with Ring and Heitmann on a Third Street problem in the past and he thought the resolution to the Third Street problem might be appropriate for this situation. Heitmann also referred to a similar situation on Eaton Place. Hunt thinks that may have preempted Ring from talking with Mooney about mediation. Hunt had contacted Penquis CAP which has a neighborhood mediation group and was able to speak with Mooney who appeared willing to participate. Robinson, at that time, did not wish to participate. Because of so much police involvement, it was hoped that a resolution could be reached. Responding to Hawes, Hunt said he personally has an approximate 100 hours involved in this issue. Barrett spoke about the driveway approach. This is an older neighborhood with small lots. At the time it was developed, there were probably no driveways or garages. Over the years, he feels that driveways were installed and a pattern developed. In looking at the map, he pointed out that driveway approaches tend to angle out as they get to the street because of turning movements. Many of the driveway approaches extend over where the property line would hit the street pavement if you extended the property line out. Barrett said that Mooney is correct when he speaks about his property not having the same length of curb as the Robinson property. Mooney’s driveway is set in further from his property line and appears at least at the front property line to be somewhat wider. Ring agreed with Barrett’s description of flared driveway aprons. Hawes said essentially the Committee is dealing with two individual properties over which the City has no control over. Barrett said it appears to be a property dispute between two owners who need to find a way to resolve it. Mediation has been offered but not accepted by one of the two owners. The only thing the City could do would be a short extension of the curb, approximately 2 feet. From photos and preconstruction video in 2000, Ring said it looks very similar if not exactly the same. Mooney referred to December 17, 2007, Hunt spoke with Mrs. Mooney th and Mr. Mooney on the 18. In both conversations, Hunt said there was no guarantee but it would be his recommendation that the City try to do something. In a conversation with Heitmann, Mooney said that Heitmann confirmed that as well. Mooney indicated that it was all or in part or some sort of a survey. The Mooney’s felt there could be some remedy, following the two conversations with City employees. He felt the rug was pulled out from them. Responding to Hawes, Mooney said he is the party who had reached out for reconciliation back in May of last year and it was declined. The Mooney’s are for mediation and it was declined by the other party. Mooney said that Officer Buchanan had indicated that a survey had been done by the other party. Mooney wondered why the survey hasn’t been produced. Responding to Hawes, Mooney said that Buchanan was told about the survey by the other party. Hawes said that as frustrating as this has been to the neighbors it falls back on an issue that the City does not survey private property. This is a problem between two property owners. The City can put the owners in touch with mediation. Heitmann said that Hawes is correct. Heitmann does not recall mentioning a survey to Mooney. Hunt had mentioned it to Heitmann, who told him it was worth talking about. Heitmann spoke about the Third Street issue which involved a paper street property. The City surveyed only the corner of the property on the paper street. It was a street, not private property, that was surveyed. The Parkview Avenue issue involves private property, not city property. Mooney said things have changed from what he was told at one point. He asked Heitmann why he would get involved if he had no intention of the possibility. Heitmann said he became involved because Councilor Palmer told Mooney to call Heitmann. At that time, Heitmann got the background information from Ring and Hunt contacted Heitmann because he was extremely frustrated that day and needed to vent. Heitmann did tell Hunt that he had intended to visit Parkview Avenue to look at the area. Mooney said that Heitmann told him that he would; Heitmann said that he told Mooney that he would try to view it. Hunt and Heitmann looked at it that day. The two did talk about a survey but Heitmann knew that the City would not be expending public money for a private survey. At that time, Heitmann said it would be worth pursuing if enough previous survey information was available to the City to at least locate a corner. In their th December 18 conversation, Mooney said that Heitmann made no mention that a survey would be dependent upon if there was a situation similar to Third Street. Mooney said that Heitmann said that discussion is being entertained to have the City subsidize a survey in part or a total. Heitmann said that Lt. Hunt suggested that the City should be considering a survey given the incredible man hours that he and the police department has put into the issue. Heitmann suggested to Hunt that if was something reasonable that he felt he could probably support it. If the corner pin could be placed, such as on Third Street and Eaton Place, with relatively little difficulty, Heitmann said he would be comfortable recommending. But, that is not the situation. Mooney asked Hunt to add something to the statement. Not understanding the City’s historical pattern, Hunt didn’t know if a survey was something the City would consider. Mooney spoke about the disparity of the 43 esplanade feet versus the 23 feet. Barrett said that if the City was to extend the curb in front of Mooney’s residence the only direction to extend it without starting to block his own driveway is toward the Robinson’s. It looks like the extension there would be relatively short. Mooney said he is not specifically asking for extensions. Speaking in general, he said the disparity is unfair. Wheeler said he would like to hear from Mr. Robinson. Hawes said she wasn’t certain if Robinson was willing to come to the table. Attorney Mike Harmon, representing Robinson, addressed the committee. Robinson, via his attorney, does endorse the recommendations contained in Barrett’s January 10, 2008 letter. It is a civil property dispute and the City should not be involved and has already invested too many resources into it. The matter currently is in litigation. Wheeler asked Mooney how he would like the matter resolved if the City could do so. Mooney said it would be to follow Hunt’s recommendation. In the absence of mediation, Mooney would like to see some sort of survey. In the absence of a survey, Mooney would like to be left alone in terms of property lines. He would be pleased if the esplanade situation would be remedied. Farrington spoke about a property dispute with his own property. He said that the City told him that he would need to obtain a survey on this own. He did so. It resolved the issue. The survey was expensive. He said he is puzzled as to why the survey is not undertaken. Heitmann said that is normally how property owners handle issues with property line encroachments. Mooney said it is clear that the Council Chair wants the issue settled. Wheeler asked about the property deed. Mrs. Mooney asked why the City can’t help two property owners to solve this problem according to a deed. Ring said it certainly sounds simple but the question is the very same question discussed earlier. 50 feet is 50 feet but where is it? That is the issue in order to determine a property line. A survey needs to be a legal survey, the surveyor would research deeds and confirm measures and then start from a point that is known to be good. To layout this street in terms of street dimensions, the intersection of State and Parkview would be one likely location to start from or at Garland Street. As stated earlier by Heitmann, Ring said the Third Street and Eaton Place situations were different cases. The City did mark corners but the street corners that were coincidental with property corners. A surveyor needs to know right of way and street lines for the block. By review of the deeds of each property, they use their expertise to make a judgment as to the actual measurements. Before last March, Mooney said he realized there was encroachment and didn’t really care. All he wanted was to cut the grass on the side of his house. He is not looking to get property. But when he wanted to do something on that side of the house, the police were called. That’s why Mooney feels he doesn’t need to pay for a survey. Mooney stated that his home is now on the market. Barrett said that from time to time the City does get involved in neighbor disputes. Those disputes are the single most difficult disputes the City enters into. Some have been successful, others have not been successful. In this instance, this is something that the City cannot fix unless both parties are willing to go into a resolution process. Hawes again asked Mooney what he is looking for other than the survey. He said he would like the City to reconsider its position on a survey. Barrett said it is his strong recommendation that the City not perform the survey. It would set a precedent, and the City is not in the surveying business. Wheeler asked why the police became involved in this in the first place and repeated involvements. Mooney said when he works on his property once every two months, fix trim, mow grass, the adjacent home owner has called the police. Wheeler asked on what grounds. Hunt replied that both parties have reported property trespassing of their neighbor, taking photos of the other property owner, taking something from one property. Hunt said in an effort to keep that from continuing he may have become an advocate for both parties so that the police department will not need to be further involved. This is why he went to Penquis CAP for a mediation group. Hawes indicated that she was distressed that so many manhours have gone into the situation and the parties have refused to sit down to resolve it. Mooney said the neighbor is concerned about losing property and Mooney is not wanting to gain property. Wheeler said he was at a loss as to what the City could do to change what already is. D’Errico asked if there was a problem between the property owners prior to paving the driveway. The driveway was paved in 2005. Mooney said the original problem was with the tenant and not Robinson. Initially, Robinson was sympathetic to Mooney. Now the owner and the tenant are together. Harmon said that one of the things that Mooney is attempting to create is a record by misstating the tenant’s position and Robinson’s position. Hawes stopped the conversation. At this point, she said the City is looking at the issue of the survey and the curb. Barrett said he didn’t see how this discussion can proceed further. He doesn’t feel that Mooney’s suggestions for remedy will solve the underlying relationship of the two property owners. Barrett suggested that the Committee reaffirm the City’s position that this is a civil matter, and that the City should not become involved in surveying private property to determine property lines, that the City would not extend the curb in front of Mooney’s property and to endorse the police department’s position which is to use their judgment under which circumstances to respond to the two parties for future calls. Wheeler made a motion to accept the City Manager’s recommendation. It was seconded by D’Errico and voted by the Committee. 6. Executive Session – MRSA Title 1, Chapter 13, §405 6 A – Appointments to Committee for Hammond Street Senior Center Transition A motion was made by D’Errico and seconded by Wheeler to move into Executive Session. Council Order 08-038 is attached for reference/informational purposes. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.