HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-16 Municipal Operations Committee MinutesMUNICIPAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
July 16, 1996
Councilors in attendance: Jim Tyler, David Leen,'Timothy
Woodcock, Pat Blanchette,
Christopher Popper
Staff in attendance: Edward Barrett, Erik Stumpfel, Kathi
Murray, Arthur Stockus, Aaron Larsen,
Robert Farrar, Gail Campbell, Sim Ring
Others in attendance: Nancy Garland (BDN), members of the City
Nursing Facility Advisory Board,
numerous members of the public,
representatives from Baker, Newman i
Noyes
Committee Chair opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Arthur Stockus discussed the lighting situation at Bangor
Gardens.Councilors received a map of the area showing lights in
existence and their illuminated areas. Stockus explained that if
lights were added to every pole without one, the annual electric
power cost would increase $2,853. Installation Would be $6,600.
He said that electric costs would go up $100,000 annually, an 808
increase, if a light were placed on every pole in the city where
there currently is none. Stuckus's recommendation was to remove
certain lights, saying that after a night-time inspection, the
area was found to be adequately, and in some areas, excellently,
lighted. Ed Barrett recommended that the Police Department work
closely with the neighborhood to resolve specific concerns,
establish a neighborhood watch, etc. He also expressed support
to retain the additional street lights for security reasons where
there are problems and recommended delaying removal of excess
lights until the neighborhood watch system is in place. Voted to
accept all recommendations.
2. City Nursing Facility
Kathi Murray spoke about the consulting study does by Baker,
Newman and Reyes on comparative coats analysis and reimbursement
analysis. Representatives from Baker, Newman and Noyes, said the--
facilities
he -facilities that were compared to CNF ranged in size from 40-80
beds. Ms. Murray said she planned to utilise all the
recommendations and that some had already been implemented.
Voted to accept the report as submitted.
Councilor Leen asked Terrance Hughes if he had any photographs he
would like submitted to the meeting. He indicated that he did,
but also said that he wanted the same privilege that was
previously extended to Ur. Harris --the ability to show his
exhibits to all at that meeting. Councilor Leen then asked the
City Solicitor to update everyone an the status of the proposed
ordinances.
Erik Stumpfel said that on June 28 there were two draft
ordinances, dividing the current parade ordinance Into two
separate ordinances. The new parade ordinance would require that
a parade permit be obtained for point-to-point parades, and would
also require a parade permit for any public as sembly (-any
meeting, demonstration, picket line, rally orgathering of more
than 25 persons for a common purpose...") that might interfere
with the normal flaw of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or that
interferes with the access of any person to public or private
premises. He said that complaints Here received stating the City
was being excessive in requiring parade permits for a small
number of people engaging in non-residential area picketing. The
new, ordinance would increase the number of persons to 25.
Stumpfel suggested that the committee discuss whether to keep
that number. The second ordinance would be a new ordinance
directed specifically at the activity of targeted residential
pickets. Legislative findings have provided definitions of
'picket or picketer", "residence', "dwelling", "sidewalk", etc.
The basis of this ordinance is that a targeted residential picket
within 100 feet of the exterior property line of a targeted
residence would be prohibited and would cover any number of
Persons, even just one, engaged in that activity. Stumpfel also
provided the definition of "targeted" as stated in the new
ordinance. He said he thought a focus of the committee's
discussion should be that definition, as well as the related
definition of 'picket"; and to discuss whether to accept the
prohibition in general, and if so, to define the area or sone
where pickets would be prohibited.
Councilor Leen asked for comments from the public.
Phil Worden, of the Bangor CURBS project and a member of the
Mabel Wadsworth Home's Health Center, said he sees the issue as
consisting of two components: (1) whether the ordinance will be
effective at stopping targeted residential picketing; (2) whether
anything "goes too far", unduly restricting First Amendment
Bights of legitimate free speech. He pleaded for an effective
ordinance to stop residential picketing. He asked that various
memoranda and correspondence be entered into the record so that
judges deciding the issue later could see that the City had not
been "overzealous^ in protecting or promoting abortion rights
issues and "squashing" the rights of abortion protesters. Warden
said that the people he represents had decided that a 100 -foot
buffer zone
would, in fact, be effective; previously, his group
had asked for a 300 -foot zone. However, if a 100 -foot zone
proves to be inadequate to protect residential privacy, he asked
for the opportunity to document that and return to the committee
to request possible changes in the ordinance. He also addressed
what he felt was the intent of the picketers and commented that
their actions were "personal harassment', not First Amendment
rights.
Councilor Woodcock painted out that even though picketers might
be outside a 100 -foot zone, the reason they would be there is
because the residence is located nearby. He said the City is
trying to accommodate an ^intent" to engage in targeted
residential picketing while accommodating the concerns of
residents regarding privacy and peace of mind from "overly
intrusive speech.^ He felt it wasn't legally possible to "chase
demonstrators out of all neighborhoods". He thought it possible
to come up with an ordinance that accommodates the strong
interest that society has in free speech and, at the same time,
accommodates what he feels are real interests in privacy and
peace of mind.
Mr. Warden said some doctors had asked him why it wasn't possible
to ban targeted picketing entirely. He thought that setting up a
"bubble" around targeted homes was necessary to effectively
protect privacy.
Councilor Woodcock said that what he felt happened last year and
now is an undertaking by the City Council to limit "unreasonable,
unfairly intrusive' targeted residential picketing.
Mr. Warden concluded by saying his group wanted to see a buffer
around the targeted homes, but that it shouldn't be any bigger
than 'it has to be.,,
Pam Correll, of Poplar Street, said that she lives at a 100 -foot
zone of a targeted neighbor. She said she would not be satisfied
with this 100 -foot zone and would feel the same if it were a
black neighbor being targeted by the Ku Klux Klan. She felt that
the issue of targeted picketing constituted 'harassment" and said
she, her neighbor and her family are looking to the Council to
e up with a means of protecting them from harassmnt. She
aie
d she came home one day to find people marching and carrying
photographs of dismembered fetuses. She said she was thankful
that her children, ages S and 5, were not home because she didn't
know, has she would explain the situation to them. She said she
feels that she's a victim as well as her targeted neighbor --that
there wasn't a line thexe--and that she would still feel like a
victim if she was 300 feet from 'this magical buffer zone." She
said she was present to implore the group to find a way to look
at targeted residential picketing as what it iss ^harassment of
targeted groups of people whatever their activities or their
beliefs.' She pointed out that when picketers are on Harlow
Street, she can take another mote if she doesn't want her
children to see the information that she isn't ready to discuss
with them at their ages; however, she can't do that if the
picketers are on her street. She thanked the Council for
listening.
Hartin O'Connell, a neighbor of Bra. Correll, is concerned that
children playing an the street will be harmed by what they see,
be misled by what they hear when someone describes a person who
is engaged in a legal business as amurderer." The children
come home concerned that someone like a "murderer° would be
living in their neighborhood. He referred to the word -targeted-
as implying a bullseye and requested that the Council be more
restrictive, rather than leas restrictive, when framing the
ordinance.
George Singal, who described himself as a lifelong Bangor
resident, wanted to talk about the type of City of Bangor should
be and what it's like to be a home owner in Bangor. He pointed
out that Bangor is not the most prosperous city in the state; but
that one of the attractions in Bangor is its neighborhoods and
its sense of well-being in terms of home ownership. He described
Bangor as a "town of small home owners.' He thought it one of
the pluses that one didn't need to be wealthy to own a home here.
Another plus is that once a person is in his home, there is a
sense of security and privacy. In Mine, people leave others
alone in their home, that it is a place of refuge. He said
people agree that they have a right to be irritated at such
things as a neighbor's barking dog, yet present circumstances
seem to indicate that one doesn't have the right to be irritated
at other things going on outside their homes. He said he wanted
to "force" the Council to think very clearly about the image they
ant to project of Bangor --is it a place where people can work
and then come home at the end of the day, shut the door, release
concerns and focus on the family and not be forced to
confront a "intrusion' into the home? Cr is it a "potential
battle sone" where there is no place to relax and release the
cares of the day? He said it is
a basic policy issue that
confronts the City Council. He suggested that the Councilors ask
the question of all the Bangor home owners. He said the
ordinance is not an issue of pro -abortion or anti -abortion' it is
very simply, 'What do you want the City to be like? what type of
neighborhoods do you want to have?" He said that the decision to
newer the question is long overdue. He felt most people wonder
why it has taken so long to legislate something that most people
take for granted and urged the Council to pass an ordinance that
would give people their peace and refuge from their workday.
Councilor Woodcock asked Mr. Sinal if he felt the proposed
ordinance satisfied Mr. Siegal's objective. Mr. Singal said he
didn't feel the proposed ordinance was broad enough to satisfy
him inclination, giving as an example the 100 -foot limit. He
said he thought the 100 -foot limit made targeted picketing close
enough to be "enticing.^ He said he was speaking, not as a
lawyer or Constitutional expert, but as a homeowner and taxpayer
of the City of Bangor. He thought targeted picketing has few
benefits, and doesn't provide much information or a legitimate
debate. Mr. Singal says he supports targeted picketing only to
the minimum that it has to be tolerated for Constitutional
issues. He mentioned again that he wants the Council to consider
what type of image the City wishes to provide its hosmownere.
Councilor Leen asked Mr. Singal to remember that the Council
would have to keep In mind the Constitutional issues. He pointed
out that even if the ordinance allowed a 350 -foot buffer, people,
such as Mrs. Correll might have a problem with the message being
addressed. Councilor Leen wondered if an ordinance could be
passed that provides what mr. Singal is looking for. mr. Singal
thought that there is a qualitative difference between picketing
in front of one's home and picketing down the street, saying that
the purpose of targeting picketing is to "give no peace --that
it's to intimidate."
Winn Stevens said he wished to comment on Mr. Singal's remarks
about the City's image. He said that in the meetings he had
attended, he bad not heard anyone speaking in opposition to the
ordinance identify themselves as a resident of Bangor; they have
all been non-residents. He asked the Council to listen to the
as of the people who live in the city about what image should
be projected. He thought the 100 -foot buffer doesn't "do the
trick." He said he must drive past an area where targeted
picketing takes place in order to get to his own home, and that
when that happens, an intrusion into his guaranteed right of
happiness takes place. He thought a 300 -foot buffer is
significantly different" and would be enough to discourage
people from "bothering to waste their time iHe said some of the
photos he has seen would, if they were in am , probably cause
the movie to be rated "8" or "R" --no children allowed. He said
It "boggles' his mind that someone has the right to expose
children in neighborhoods to these photos, when they wouldn't be
able to go to a movie and see them.
Deanna Partridge, of Bangor CURBS Project, said that whether the
buffer Is 100 feet or 300 feet, it doesn't accomplish what her
group wishes, privacy and security in homes.She said she
thought the Council owes a responsibility to the people of the
targeted neighborhoods. She pointed out that the previous
ordinance provided for a notification to neighbors so they could
decide whether to expose themselves to the picketing. In the
current draft, there is no notification process. She discussed
the issue of the width of the residential sidewalks saying that,
hypothetically, if three picketers were on the sidewalk, she
wouldn't be able to walk past. She asked the Council to keep in
mind, as they review the definitions, that if they were to
require a minimum of three people to constitute a parade, thereby
requiring a permit, notification could be made to neighbors. She
said that if targeted picketing couldn't be banned outright, at
least the Council should provide options to neighbors and
residents. -
Julie Grover, Activities Director at Bangor Convalescent Center,
stated she thought the Council has a tough job ahead of them.
She said she thought the 100 -foot limit i not sufficient" and
asked that it be extended to 300 feet. She said in all the talk
about Constitutional rights, people aren't thinking about
children and families and residents of places such as the Bangor
Convalescent Center. She said residents of her facility are
refusing to go into the fenced -in garden area "at any time'
because of the possibility that picketers might appear. She said
she agrees that the photos being displayed would be rated if in a
movie, yet homeowners and residents of the facility do not have a
choice of not looking at them.She mentioned the criticism of an
article covered by a tv newscast which showed a person's body
trapped under i saying the information could be conveyed
without being so graphic, and compared that to what the
protesters show. The protesters could inform the public without
infringing on the rights of the 74 residents of the facility.
She pointed out that her residents could not pack up and leave,
s neighbors of targeted residences might, when picketing was to
occur. She hoped that a decision could be reached that protected
Constitutional rights and rights of people living in the
neighborhoods. She said that, since the last municipal
Operations Committee meeting (at which she spoke), she has
received daily telephone calls from the "groups" telling her to
'back off", to not push the issue. She reiterated her previous
testimony that she isn't taking a stand an abortion, or any other
pretested issue, that she only wants to inform the Council about
the situation happening at Bangor Convalescent Center. She said
she is being harassed in her home for only wanting to protect the
rights of her residents. She said that picketers have repeatedly
marched past doctors' residences, in violation of the existing
ordinance. She has had to call the Police Department for
problems with protesters' vehicles being parked on the facility's
property. She said a picketer said she should go inside and tell
the residents to call their representatives to "stop the
killings." She felt there was n"reasoning' with the
protesters. She asked the Councilors to come to some kind of
compromise that will protect everyone's rights.
Steve Crichton lives 100 feet from a targeted residence. He said
he thought the whole issue is "crazy." He wondered how people
could be allowed to walk around with signs that depict the images
they do. He said children are very confused by the signs. He
asked the Council to have the"courage^ to disallow signs that
refer to murderers, and allow only signs that refer to
"abortion.' He doesn't understand how someone can be allowed to
harass people in neighborhoods when businesses aren't allowed in
neighborhoods and when there are zoning laws. He said the
literature is "outrageous" and wondered how an educated society
could say that is a good thing to do to the children and the
harassed neighbors. He suggested a public soap box be installed
at Bass Park where people could speak publicly, and said he
wanted no marching in neighborhoods. He said he 'can't believe"
that the signage can't be controlled and asked the Councilors to
look at the signs that are displayed.
Councilor Leen spoke to Terrance Hughes about showing the photos,
saying he did not want to personally see them at this time and
asking him to submit them for the record.
Terrance Hughes said he needed to clear up s "lies" that had
been told. He said the protesters had picketed only one time
this a, that they obey police orders and arenot too noisy.
He compared what he called the unpopular stance of the local
anti -abortionists to the struggles of George Washington and
Thomas Paine. He felt that picketing doctors' homes was less of
an intrusion than national news media depictions of wars. He
stated that any intrusion people felt could be "turned off-', just
like the television. He commented that he hadn't heard any
compassion for the victims of abortion --only complaints from
people who don't want to see the photographs.
Councilor Woodcock pointed out that the Council was attempting to
separate the issues of parades ardi targeted residential
picketing. He asked the City Solicitor to explain the background
of determining the minimum numbers required for permits and for
the buffer zone.
Erik Stumpfel said the original model, prior to June 1995, was
prepared by an asociation of municipal law officers and that the
current draft for parades still reflects that model. To be
Constitutionally correct, the ordinance must "serve a significant
governmental interest", "must be rationally related to achieving
that interest^ and leave alternatives for expression of speech.
A court might determine that a number is too small to be
•'rationally related" to a parade permit requirement. The number
would likely be determined by each case before the court.
Regarding the buffer zone, Stumpfel said residential pickets and
parades can not be totally banned, even if they are targeted. He
stated that some strict ordinances have been overturned as being
civil rights violations. He said the 100 -foot zone was based on
One of Bangor's zoning regulations that requires notice be given
to neighbors within 100 feet of someone who is applying for
rezoning. By that definition, it can be concluded that
activities occurring within that a or nearby, have an impact
on a particular residence. MothernWaine statute prohibits
electioneering within 250 feet of any polling place. He said it
is a question of "reasonableness- that the Council must decide,
and that there is a case law which upholds a zone of 300 feet.
Ed Barrett said some polling had been done of other
municipalities regarding requirements for rezoning, and that the
more was 300 feet. This recognizes that rezoning can have
significant impacts well beyond 100 feet. The City is reviewing
its ordinances to reflect this.
Councilor Blanchette said that, not being a lawyer, she might be
naive about the impact of banning targeted residential picketing.
She said she grew up to believe that the courts are in place to
serve the people and the only time a law gets changed is when
someone has "the nerve and the backbone" to stand up and say,
This is wrong. We need to protect our residential
neighborhoods.- She said the City must take that mentality. She
said current rules are allowing an infringement of rights on the
residential neighborhoods, infringing on rights of privacy as a
homeowner. She said there should be some sanctuary from having
people picket in front of one's home due to act liking the
resident's political beliefs. She said that targeted residential
picketing, regardless of the subject, should not be allowed. She
said she was tired of people infringing on her personal rights
and felt if it has to go to the Supreme Court, that's fine. She
said she could not support any ordinance that Would allow
picketing in any neighborhood.
Councilor Popper expressed his support for Councilor Blanchette's
views and those of several residents who spoke earlier and said
he would vote to ban targeted residential picketing to the
largest extent the Constitution would allow. He said he found it
offensive that someone would suggest he take his children indoors
or into the backyard if he didn't want them to see picketers'
materials. He said he would not tolerate someone harassing
himself, his family and his neighbors and said he would vote
against an ordinance that allows it, saying the courts could
battle it out. He wants to do what is legally possible to ban
"legalised harassment."
Councilor Woodcock said he agreed that the issue should go to the
full Council. He felt the ordinance is deficient in that it
doesn't sufficiently accent that targeted residential picketing
is not "simply a tug of war" between the person whose house i
being targeted and the picketer. it has profound impact on the
neighbors. Because of the neighborhood concern, he said the
ordinance should be as restrictive as legally possible. He said
he -venerates the right to free speech" and felt the Constitution
makes the country what it is today. As a municipal official, he
said he would 'shrink from trying to regulate the content of free
speech.- He pointed out that some municipalities have bad their
ordinances overturned and were found to be, not only
Constitutionally wrong, but legally liable for money damages. He
said whatever ordinance the City ensure should be effective for
the purpose and within the confines of the law. It moat be
`content neutral,, and must fit all issues at all times. He moved
that both ordinances be forwarded to the full Council for
consideration. Seconded by Councilor Leen.
Gail Campbell advised the committee of two openings: one on the
Planning Board and one on the Housing Authority (tenant
position). She said the Planning Board position had been
advertised once and the Housing Authority twice. She has
received four applications for Housing and one, plus an associate
member applying for regular, for the Planning Board. Councilor
Blanchette said it had been past practice to move the associate
member to regular status and than advertise for an opening to
associate status. She moved that an order be drafted appointing
Carol Woodcock from associate to regular status on the Planning
Board.
5. Appointnents to MMA's L
It w ved and seconded to recommend to the full Council that
Councilors Sullivan and Popper be reappointed.
6. MTXff Broad
Jim Ring, City engineer, asked that this item be tabled until he
has reviewed a petition that had been submitted regarding the
placement of a traffic light.
Discussion centered on whether the areas of interest of the
Recycling Advisory Committee should be expanded to include other
forme of solid municipal waste. Councilor Popper spoke about the
Impact of price reductions for paper on the recycling division of
Public Works. He advocated continuance of the committee, stating
he feels their work is important. Councilor Blanchette expressed
concern that an advisory committee has become involved in policy
making issues. Ed Barrett said the committee's jurisdiction in
recycling keeps it focused on that issue. He said it would be
possible to expand jurisdiction at a later time. Councilor Tyler
said, that if the committee was purely advisory, there might not
be a need for three appointed Council members. mr. Barrett
pointed out that the City gets credit under the State laws just
for having such a committee. Councilor Blanchette agreed with
Councilor Tyler, saying she wondered if it was necessary to "tie
up" three Councilors to be onan advisory committee. Sim Ring
said it does help the City's recycling efforts to have the
committee. Mr. Barrett recommended doubling the number of
members from the public, with staggered terms of two years.
Councilor Blanchette moved to recommend that option to the
Council. Passed.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
10