City Council Meeting
Minutes
April 9, 2007
Non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 2, I (b)
to discuss collective bargaining.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved approval of the March 12, 2007 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded. Councilor McClure referencing the fifth line down in the second paragraph on page 15 indicated that it should read “how they would affect one of his projects.” The motion to approve, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Bouley moved approval of the March 19, 2007 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
- Consent Agenda Items –
Note: Those items listed as pulled from the consent agenda will be discussed at the end of the meeting following unfinished business.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved approval of the consent agenda, as amended, with item 8 removed to be discussed at the end of the agenda. The motion was duly seconded. Councilor McClure indicated that she had worked with the Assessor on some edits to the tax bill insert. She pointed out that the editing occurred within the section of the tax bill insert entitled “convenient options for property tax payment.” The motion to approve the consent agenda, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to City Administration
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Items Tabled for a May 14, 2007 Public Hearing
From the City Manager
Consent Reports
20. Report from the Police Department regarding summer crossing guards on Loudon Road, at Keach Park, and North State Street, at Kimball Park.
21. Tax Bill Insert Approval. (April, October)
Consent Resolutions
**End of Consent Agenda**
A. Resolution authorizing the Annual Appraisal of Real Estate at Market Value per RSA 75:8-b; together with report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments. (For public hearings in March & April) (2-17) (3-9) (3-45L; 3-57)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this is the second of two public hearings and since 2004, the city has been annually assessing properties at market value. He indicated that in 2005, the number of local abatement requests decreased by 40 percent from 339 to 204. Mr. Aspell added that the number of appeals to the Board of Tax and Land Appeals also decreased noting that it is believed that by continuing the annual assessment updates, staff should be able to reduce the amount that goes into the overlay account every year.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
B. Report from the City Engineer recommending final design approval in conjunction with the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Enhancement (CMAQ) Project 14426 (Federal project X-A000 (366), to design and construct a roundabout at the intersection of Liberty, Auburn and Centre Streets, CIP #29. (3-10) (Public testimony received) (Communication from the City Engineer in response to public comment received)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that at the September meeting, Council appropriated all the funds for this project but limited the initial phase to completing the traffic study, intersection alternative analysis and a public participation forum.
City Engineer Ed Roberge indicated that in 2004, Council authorized the City Manager to proceed forward with an application to the Federal Highway and New Hampshire Department of Transportation for a congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) grant to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Liberty, Auburn and Centre Streets. He explained that as a result of this, staff came back to Council in September 2006 to appropriate the $470,000 grant project and moved the project forward. Mr. Roberge indicated that City Engineering solicited consultants and selected a team that included McFarland-Johnson and Elizabeth Hengen, PA, both local to Concord and Michael Wallwork, a national roundabout design expert. Mr. Roberge explained that the project design began in December 2006 and the result is the intersection traffic study before Council.
Gene McCarthy, McFarland-Johnson, noted that the nature of the problem of the intersection is that it has a very confusing geometry, a five-legged intersection where four of the five have stop controls and one does not. He explained that there are too many accidents at this particular intersection over a three year period. Mr. McCarthy noted that the history shows fourteen reported accidents that have occurred at this intersection and of these, none of them included a failure to yield which is because of the confusing geometry of the intersection. He indicated that as part of the analysis traffic data was collected for twelve hours on January 4, 2007. He noted that the two items that were really evaluated at the intersection were safety and operations; safety for vehicles and also for pedestrians; operations; levels of service and looking at the measure of delay at this intersection to see how it is functioning. Mr. McCarthy explained that they looked at six different options for this intersection: Option One is the No-Build Alternative – leave the intersection in the existing condition. He indicated that levels of service had been evaluated as part of the existing intersection and are rated from A to F, with A through D being an acceptable level of service and E or F being an unacceptable level of service. He explained that the Centre Street leg functions very well because there is no stop controls but the other four, because of stop controls, are functioning at a failure service level. Option Two is the Five-Way Stop Alternative – this would include installing a stop sign at the Centre Street leg and this option does a great deal to address the safety issues, not only for vehicles but also for pedestrians. He explained that operationally, the four legs other than Centre Street actually improve because now they have the opportunity at every fifth turn to get through the intersection without waiting for the other traffic to pass through. He added that Centre Street would fail because of the delay associated with the installation of a stop sign. Option Three is a Four-Way Stop Alternative with the northern Liberty Street leg being converted to a one-way street northbound. He indicated that Auburn Street would intersect with the other three legs and function similar to other intersections. He indicated that they felt that, because of the nature of some of the local streets, Franklin and Auburn Streets were the preferred routes should this option be considered. From an operational perspective, it functions fairly well but noted that Centre Street would be a level of service F and the remaining legs would improve because they have a stop control. Option Four is a Four-Way Stop Alternative with Liberty Street remaining a two-way street and is essentially terminated at Auburn Street. He indicated that this option would make vehicles on Liberty Street stop two times before entering the intersection. Option Five is the Roundabout Alternative which is a hundred foot radius that would be placed to optimize the safety and operations of this particular type of intersection. He explained that roundabouts function with very slow moving traffic providing a safe intersection for both vehicles and pedestrians because it isolates crosswalks and keeps the crosswalks as short as possible. From an operational standpoint, there would be a level of service B overall in the morning and evening peaks and all the levels of service are quite good for vehicles entering and exiting this intersection. He explained that the level of service D, coming down Auburn Street in the morning is because there are a lot of vehicles traveling down Auburn Street heading to the school and this is also where there is a lot of traffic traveling down Centre Street and is blocking a lot of the traffic that wants to come onto Auburn Street. Option Six is a Signalized Intersection Alternative and he explained that due to the traffic numbers this intersection meets warrants for a traffic signal. He explained that since it met this warrant, they agreed with the Engineering Division to evaluate the signal to see how it would function. From a safety perspective, signals are the safest form of traffic control for both vehicles and pedestrians. From an operational perspective, he explained that is has a D and C which are acceptable levels of service. He indicated that this is what is called a concurrent phasing signal where the pedestrians would cross with traffic. He added that they had looked at one that had a separate pedestrian phase but this had a level of service E and was in a failure condition. He noted that this alternative does function at an acceptable level of service, however, the experience at the public hearings last summer and this year there was very little support for a signal at the intersection and it wasn’t felt that it was in character with this particular location.
Mr. McCarthy indicated that with looking at the traffic, the analysis, and both safety and operations, it was clear from the consultant side that the roundabout was the superior solution for this intersection. He explained that a roundabout is a circular one-way intersection clarifying that it is not a traffic circle or a rotary which are seen in the different parts of New England. He noted that some of the advantages of a roundabout include: slow speeds; statistically has proven to save lives and reduce accident rates; reduced pollution and fuel use; aesthetic issues that can be dealt with; allows convenient U-turns. He indicated that the reason that roundabouts are considered safe for pedestrians is that it really shortens the distance that a pedestrian has to cross traffic. He added that because the roundabout is a one-way situation and because they typically provide splitter islands, a pedestrian would be crossing from a sidewalk to a splitter island only having to look in one direction to look at one flow of traffic moving at a slow speed. Because of their one-way nature, he noted that roundabouts reduce the number of conflict points that exist within an intersection. Referencing a diagram, Mr. McCarthy explained that a traditional four legged intersection can have thirty two conflict points between vehicles and twenty four between a vehicle and a pedestrian. He explained that with a roundabout, these are reduced to eight noting that because it is one-way there are very few instances or opportunities for there to be a conflict. Referencing a study that looked at roundabouts that had been constructed, overall there is a reduction of 39 percent in accidents and injury with the number of fatalities going down even more due to the slower speeds. He noted that there are roundabouts in New Hampshire including: Nashua, Keene and Hanover with a few that are under construction. In closing, he noted that these are new intersections that are being constructed all over the country and added that there are a lot of opposition to these intersections before they are constructed but after they are built and people have the chance to experience them and to see how they function, they have a much favorable opinion of them.
In summary, City Engineer Ed Roberge indicated that a public meeting was hosted in February and the same six alternatives and the majority of the information was summarized at the meeting. He noted that he had picked up on four key points: 1) the impact of traffic at the intersection with the Northwest Bypass and if the northerly leg of the bypass were built, would it distract or take away a majority of the traffic to a point where this project may not be required. He indicated that analysis had been run looking at the detail and the regional model and it concluded that while the regional model provides good data it doesn’t give final analysis on a particular intersection. He noted that while there may be some diversion of traffic with the bypass, given the fact that a majority of the traffic is traveling along the Centre Street approach it may not be as effective as one may think. 2) The Liberty Street one-way north was included within the analysis and the neighborhood had supported this at both public meetings. Mr. Roberge noted that the Fire Department is concerned because Liberty Street is a primary emergency response route. 3) The Liberty Street option where Liberty Street turns into Auburn Street and what is essentially the level of service at this particular leg and can anything be done to improve this. He explained that one of the options that will be looked at in the final design effort would be to turn Auburn Street into Liberty Street understanding the fact that Liberty Street has higher traffic than Auburn Street. 4) Impacts to the private properties. He indicated that the preferred roundabout option has impact to the Dewey School property as well as the property at 1 Auburn Street. He noted that staff has met with both property owners and indicated that the School Facilities Planning Committee has made a recommendation to the school board to support granting them an easement on the Dewey School property. He indicated that in his last conversation with the property owner of 1 Auburn Street, they are in opposition to the project and concerned with the impacts to the property. Mr. Roberge noted that this effort was to come back to Council explaining where we were, what has been done since the project has been approved, and has it been demonstrated that a roundabout solution, as recommended by the design consultant, is feasible at this location. He noted that he feels that with all the information with the options that will still present and examine in the final design effort, this has been demonstrated. Mr. Roberge explained that the project schedule is constrained and under mandate by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation and Federal Highway to move this forward. He pointed out that some items have changed since staff was before Council in September, the Department of Environmental Services and Department of Transportation has restructured the attainment and non-attainment districts and the mandated September 15th deadline for final completion of constructible plans has been extended to October and beyond if needed and would include an application process and the city would have to go before the Department of Transportation to request this extension if needed. Mr. Roberge indicated that it is important to note that there have been some recent misconceptions in some of the documentations and feedback and further indicated that it is important to also note that while staff does make the recommendation, the recommendation is being made as it stands on its own merits regardless of the funding mechanisms. He pointed out that the roundabout has value added in a number of ways including: being superior in operation levels of service, reducing speeds, addressing pedestrian safety, and fitting within the context of the neighborhood. He concluded by noting that the recommendation within the staff report is to advance to the final design stage to finalize the final options and move the project forward.
Referencing the Liberty Street one-way option to Rumford Street, Councilor Brochu indicated that he didn’t see much difference in the length of time for emergency vehicles traveling down North State Street to Washington Street and to the roundabout. He inquired that if there is a roundabout and Liberty Street is turning up into Auburn Street with a stop sign and crossing Auburn Street at the split in the island to take a left down Auburn Street inquired as to what happens when a car pulls out of Liberty Street and stops in the middle of the road to let a vehicle come through and there is a vehicle coming through the circle to head up Auburn Street and all the vehicles become stopped. Mr. Roberge, referencing the emergency response delays, noted that a concern he has is how far to extend Liberty Street north and noted that the concern that staff has if it went all the way to Rumford Street is that it may change the traffic patterns and divert traffic through the neighborhoods. He indicated that the plan looked at Liberty Street northbound from Centre Street to Franklin Street and didn’t continue it on so that it didn’t affect the rest of the neighborhood. Councilor Brochu indicated that if it is not continued all the way, he noted that he feels that when vehicles travel up Liberty Street to Franklin Street they will travel up Franklin Street and down Auburn Street therefore pushing heavy traffic into a residential area. Mr. Roberge responded that staff is more comfortable with maintaining two-way traffic on Liberty Street for some of these reasons. Mr. McCarthy indicated that traffic traveling down Liberty Street and having to enter Auburn Street before getting into the roundabout is definitely a concern and noted that during the public meetings, this configuration received the most comments. He explained that this is one area that they would like to spend more time in final design to refine this and to come up with a solution that everyone can feel comfortable with.
Mayor Donovan noted that staff had indicated that swinging Auburn Street into Liberty Street can also be looked at and questioned whether this would be a significant change to make without Council looking at this. Mr. Roberge responded that if it is felt that this was a superior design, staff would come back to Council. Mayor Donovan indicated that the neighborhood would want to weigh in on this option.
With regards to property acquisitions, Councilor Nyhan inquired whether the school board has given any indication whether or not they will try to strong arm or charge the city. He further inquired, in regards to the property at 1 Auburn Street, whether the city would be looking at eminent domain to move forward if the property owners do not favor this design. Councilor Nyhan questioned whether the design could work without property acquisition at 1 Auburn Street. Mr. Roberge indicated that the Facilities Planning Commission was in favor of the preferred alternative and explained that the city has never paid for property acquisition with the school department. He indicated that trying to mitigate landscaping impacts on the property, sidewalk construction, making sure that access is maintained to their driveway would be the key issues they would consider as well as maintaining two-way access out of the back driveway. Mr. Roberge indicated that there are some geometric options in regards to 1 Auburn Street that would not substantially change the roundabout as a solution but may change the location either way to avoid or minimize the impact. He explained that if Council got to a point in which they supported the project and wanted to acquire the property, eminent domain would be represented and that there would be an appropriation decision and staff would need to come back to Council to authorize construction as well as eminent domain. Councilor Nyhan inquired as to how the city’s timetable fits into the state extension application in regards to negotiations with property owners. Mr. Roberge responded that if the city is successful in the extension request, the project will likely need to be completed in 2008. Councilor Nyhan inquired whether the current cost of $470,000 accommodates design, construction and property acquisition for the preferred design option before Council this evening. Mr. Roberge responded that at this point, the cost does include those items.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether leaving Liberty Street two-way jeopardized the purpose of a roundabout and keeping it from functioning the way that a roundabout is supposed to at a normal four-way intersection. Mr. McCarthy responded that this is a four legged roundabout and have moved the intersection where Liberty Street would terminate with Auburn Street as far north as possible without having extensive property acquisitions. He indicated that it will function as a roundabout and noted that it is true that if people become impatient traveling down Liberty Street they certainly could affect the operation but the way it is set up, they would have to wait for gap or an opportunity to get into Auburn Street before they could do so. Councilor Blanchard inquired whether there would be any point to placing a stop sign on Auburn Street. Mr. McCarthy responded that this is something that can certainly be done.
Councilor Coen, referencing the level of service in option three, indicated that he did not see any letters for Liberty Street one-way north where it intersects with Auburn Street. Mr. McCarthy explained that the level of service is for the approach and option three is where Liberty Street is going away. Mr. Roberge clarified that if it’s a one-way northbound on Liberty Street, it would essentially be a free movement and there is no level of service assigned to this. Councilor Coen inquired whether a level of service had been assigned for two-way. Mr. McCarthy responded that a level of service had not been assigned because there is no way to evaluate a “T”. Councilor Coen indicated that Liberty Street has more traffic than Auburn Street and currently has a stop and waits for traffic from Auburn Street and inquired whether that is sort of reversed. Mr. McCarthy responded that it is explaining that when looking at the two streets one is a wide boulevard and the other is a very narrow street and geometrically it makes more sense to have Auburn Street be the leg and Liberty Street “T” into Auburn Street. He explained that the other issue is that if this were to be flipped and have Auburn Street “T” into Liberty Street, if going through the roundabout and a vehicle wanted to get onto Auburn Street, the vehicle would be going onto Liberty Street and having to make a left turn to get onto Auburn Street and if trying to make a left turn and there is traffic coming down Liberty Street you would have to wait for that gap and that could back into the roundabout more so.
Mr. McCarthy explained that the tools being used to evaluate the intersections can only do one intersection at a time and noted that it is not possible to hook them all together because with a roundabout at one and a stop control at another, the software doesn’t know how to treat these so they have to be looked at on their own and to see what kind of queues will be expected from one and determine whether it will affect the other. Mr. McCarthy explained that any change to this intersection that affects the Centre Street flow is going to encourage some diversion of traffic noting that currently the high volume of traffic traveling down Centre Street is because these people know they can make the free left turn onto Liberty Street making it the fastest way to maneuver this area. He indicated that if a roundabout, a stop sign, or signal is installed it will create more delay for that leg.
Councilor Stetson inquired whether this project will be able to be done without any eminent domain proceedings. Councilor Stetson further inquired whether the only property that will need to be acquired is the property at 1 Auburn Street or whether it would affect other properties on other corners. Mr. Roberge, referencing the preferred option layout, indicated that this is the best geometric location to effect the most improvement and noted that it only affected the properties at 1 Auburn Street and the Dewey School. He added that as laid out today, it does not affect White Park or the property at the southwest corner of the intersection. Mr. Roberge explained that there are several options: look at a roundabout diameter that is not ideal or look at deflection angles that are not ideal. He indicated that as progressing into final design, these decisions will be made based on the reality of whether or not staff can work with the property owner. Mr. Roberge explained that there are two options: 1) avoid the property at all cost and look at others such as White Park; 2) changing the effect on Dewey School to avoid that one parcel. He noted that these are details that would be worked out in the final design.
Councilor Black indicated that he feels that safety issues have brought this item forward and inquired whether the accidents have been high or low impacts. Mr. Roberge responded that it has been a mix of crash detail explaining that on some of the failures to yield there have been some injury accidents. He noted that the ratio is approximately a 60/40 mix of significant crashes versus crashes without a lot of personal injury. Councilor Black indicated that the intersection is very awkward and noted that he feels that the proposal is even more awkward. Mr. Roberge responded that what improves what is currently there with this layout is to put a stop condition where a person only has to look at only two mobile actions as opposed to four or five. He explained that while it is not ideal, any time there is a five leg intersection it is never ideal and from a performance standpoint the Liberty Street northbound makes the most sense. He added that staff is cognizant of the neighborhood as well as the emergency response vehicles. Councilor Black inquired whether it was possible to make it a five legged roundabout. Mr. McCarthy responded that the roundabout would get bigger and that would require more property acquisition.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open.
Five minute public testimony
Patricia Murphy, 9 Auburn Street, presented a petition for the record drafted and signed by thirty one members of the community that are directly affected by this proposal. She noted that this petition urges the city to withhold the approval of the installation of a roundabout at the Auburn/Liberty/Centre Streets intersection for the following reasons: 1) it increases danger to elementary children as a crossing guard cannot manage a blind roundabout; 2) it will irreparably alter the character of the residential neighborhood by installing a solution usually found in commercial environment; 3) it does not cure a substantial traffic problem, rather it will dramatically increase traffic flow through a residential neighborhood; 4) the Liberty Street exchange is not solved, only moved; 5) it is too expensive, a stop sign should be added first.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether Ms. Murphy’s opinion has changed on the danger to children since the presentation. Ms. Murphy responded that her opinion has not changed noting that it will be difficult for a crossing guard to easily see the traffic while in the island due to the proposed landscaping. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether the statistics of current roundabouts, specifically in Montpelier, Vermont, were understandable. Ms. Murphy responded that she did understand the statistics but indicated that from the pictures, it did not appear that the roundabout was located in a neighborhood such as this.
Holly Hadley, 5 Auburn Street, noted her agreement with Ms. Murphy. She indicated that there are two fire hydrants that would be impacted, one on the corner of Centre Street and one on Auburn Street, inquiring whether these would be left in their current locations or taken out. She noted her concern with the safety for the children and indicated that she has called the Superintendent’s Office when the crossing guard has left early or is not there at the intersection. She inquired as to how a crossing guard would be able to effectively manage this roundabout. She noted her concern with emergency response vehicles traveling at a high service time when there is a lot of traffic in the roundabout. She added that she feels that there is no effective means for cars to pull over to let these vehicles through.
Chris Carley, 4 Vernon Street, noted that he feels that the southbound traffic on Liberty Street coming into the north section of the intersection has not been solved into the solution of the roundabout. Mr. Carley noted that he feels that the simple solution is to make Liberty Street one-way heading north in that section. He indicated that it is fairly routine for traffic at busy times to completely fill the block between Centre Street and School Street on Liberty Street and this happens because the crossing guards will stop the traffic. He indicated that vehicles currently heading up Centre Street can see that this is happening and usually they will stop and leave a gap so that vehicles heading down Auburn Street can continue on their way. He noted that with the roundabout this strikes him as being more of a problem because of the way the attention is focused when going around a circle noting his concern with vehicles stopping in the circle and waiting for traffic to clear or whether they will just continue to head up Centre Street.
Erin Stuart, 102 School Street, noted that those members of the neighborhood that were not in favor of the roundabout were advocating for a stop sign at the top of Centre Street. She indicated that she walks through four crosswalks every morning and always, at one of those points, a vehicle does not stop to let her cross. She noted that she feel that vehicles will stop for pedestrians with just a stop sign.
John Callewaert, 79 Auburn Street, indicated that he travels through this intersection several times a day and is concerned with the safety issues at this intersection. He noted that he supports roundabouts in concept and feels that the design presented is flawed for two reasons: all examples shown for successful roundabouts are for four-way or three-way intersections and this is a five-way intersection; pedestrian safety.
Shawn LaFrance, 112 School Street, noted his support for the roundabout proposal. He indicated that he feels that the biggest issue is safety and noted that he feels that crossing in the roundabout is safer because you only have to look in one direction. He indicated that when looking at the levels of service, the roundabout or the traffic signals are the only two that eliminate the failure levels. Mr. LaFrance indicated that there needs to be a change that doesn’t engineer failure into the level of service. He added that he feels that in terms of the neighborhood character that a roundabout would be preferable to the traffic lights.
Roy Schweiker, Chapel Street, noted that he sort of favors a roundabout indicating that this is an opportunity to construct a roundabout without having to pay for it entirely out of local tax dollars and noted that he feels that it is time that the city has one so that it can be tried out. Mr. Schweiker noted his concern with constructing a roundabout that is too small and will fail. He indicated that if the roundabout is constructed he feels that the city should be cognizant of potential situations such as ponding of water and the proper signage to notify vehicles of the roundabout.
David Greenwood, 6 Liberty Street, noted that he feels that there are a few issues that have not been addressed. He noted his concern with using federal money to build the roundabout and in a few years if it is found that it is increasing traffic through the city’s side streets and the city wanted to change it, he feels that they will have a hard time making modifications once there is an agreement with the federal government. He noted that he is also concerned with doing anything to this intersection and not addressing the entrance into White Park. He stated that the last accident that he was in was at a roundabout with the reason being that as he was looking left at merging traffic, a vehicle within the roundabout stopped suddenly and he was not paying attention to his forward view. He noted his support of a stop sign at Centre Street.
Mark Kegel, 1 Auburn Street, provided a detailed history of the neighborhood. He noted that he feels that a roundabout will increase the traffic in the area and decrease the property values which will not only affect the property owners but also the tax base within the city. He indicated that he feels that ill conceived projects that look at a short term solution for a long term problem, such as commuter traffic through the center of town, is not the way to go. He feels that the long term solution is the northwest bypass and the completion of the south bypass.
Patricia Kegel, 1 Auburn Street, noted that she does not see any way that a roundabout can be managed with a single crossing guard because currently many vehicles go through stop signs without stopping and with a roundabout, they will be given carte blanche to go without stopping and will therefore not be watching for children crossing. She noted that there were no equally well designed plans showing stop sign access with pedestrian walkways indicating that in fairness, this would be appropriate.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed. Mayor Donovan noted, for the record, that written testimony had been received from Charles Russell from Columbus Avenue in opposition to the proposal.
C. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 17, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 17-4, Operation of Motor Vehicles; Section 17-4-16, Speed Limits, Schedule XVII, Ferrin Road; together with a report from the City Engineer recommending the reduction of the posted speed limit from 35 MPH to 25 MPH. (3-11)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
D. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 17, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 17-4, Operation of Motor Vehicles; Section 17-4-1, Stop Required Before Entering a Through Street; Schedule V, Stop Intersections; Samuel Drive, Reserve Place, Swan Circle, Taylor Lane and Ty Lane; together with report from the City Engineer. (3-12)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
E. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 1, Government Organization, Article 1-5, Fees, Fines and Penalties, Schedule 1, IPP Fees; together with report from the General Services Director. (3-13)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the recommended inclusions of fees are for industrial permits, sampling, and inspections and added that General Services did notify the approximately twenty five currently permitted industrial users of this evening’s hearing.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
F. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 1, Government Organization, by amending Schedule I of Article 1-5, Fees, Fines, and Penalties; together with report from the Finance Director . (3-14)
Action: Mayor Donovan asked the City Clerk to read the title of public hearing item G so that both hearings could be opened together.
G. Non-Ordinance Fee Increases. (3-15)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the revisions are largely inflationary and market based averaging between 3 and 4 percent with the following exceptions to ordinance based fees: water and sewer rates are not proposed to change at this point; no changes proposed for parking costs; no changes proposed for planning review fees; police violations includes conduct in parks, treatment of park property, traffic control, noise, rubbish and liquor consumption which is being suggested to increase these fines by 33 to 66 percent. Mr. Aspell explained that with non-ordinance based fees, there are no increases proposed except for a 20 percent increase in research fees. He explained that most of the fees collected by the City Clerk’s office are mandated by New Hampshire RSA’s and the City Clerk’s office has proposed a fee increase for marriage ceremonies and the sale of ward maps. He explained that as far as the Arena, parking fees are being suggested to increase by 7 to 14 percent. For Police, it is being proposed that special duty charges be increased by $45 which is a 4.65 percent increase. For Recreation camps, sport programs, classes, special events, facility rentals and permits no increase is being recommended at this time because the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee will be looking at these fees and making suggestions in the fall.
Councilor McClure inquired as to why a 3 to 4 percent increase had been chosen. Mr. Aspell responded that that is the rate of inflation.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to the approximate estimate of how much additional revenue these increases may bring in. Finance Director Jim Howard indicated that he was unsure and noted that the last time fees were increased at the same amount it amounted to approximately $100,000 and he expects it to be around the same amount.
Councilor Coen inquired as to the cost of the ward maps. City Clerk Janice Bonenfant responded that they are charged accordingly to what Engineering charges due to the high quality paper and the colored ink cartridges. Councilor Coen inquired whether there is currently a charge for the ward maps. Ms. Bonenfant responded that they are currently $30 and the proposed increase would change the amount to $32.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearings open for items F and G. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
H. Resolution appropriating the sum of $1,000 from the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation for summer camp supplies; together with report from the Human Services Director. (3-16)
Action: Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
I. Resolution authorizing the City Manager through the Police Department to accept and appropriate up to the sum of $48,448 from the United States Attorney’s Office in the form of an operation street sweeper grant for increased drug enforcement activities; together with report from the Police Department. (3Sus3)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the city received this grant last year and noted that forty individuals were charged with 120 felony level drug crimes.
Mayor Donovan thanked the Police Department for continuing its grantsmanship efforts and for doing a great job bringing dollars in from the federal government.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
April 9, 2007 Public Hearing Action (Tabled from the March 19, 2007 recessed meeting)
Action: Councilor Bouley moved to take this item off the table. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Bouley moved to adopt the amendment to the zoning ordinance. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
April 9, 2007 Public Hearing Action
Action: Councilor Bouley moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether there are instances of individuals selling their homes for less than what the homes are assessed for that has come to the attention of the Assessor. Assessor Kathy Temchak responded that there may be a few properties that are selling for less than the assessed value but as a whole, staff is not seeing values drop throughout the city. Councilor Blanchard questioned whether homes are staying on the market longer. Ms. Temchak responded that properties are coming onto the market and not being sold within days or weeks. She noted that overall the prices remain constant and there are fewer sales taking longer to happen but the values are staying stable. She indicated that during the update, if there have been decreases in values staff needs to address these to determine whether adjustments need to be made to these.
The motion to approve passed 8 to 3 with a show of hands vote.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux indicated that the analysis of the roundabout included levels of services as it is today and as it is projected for 2020 and inquired whether the level of service had been modeled as to what the levels would be at each of the legs immediately after the recommended solution is constructed. Mr. McCarthy responded that the numbers were only run for 2020. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether the concept is that an immediate improvement would be seen with a roundabout. Mr. McCarthy indicated that to be correct. Councilor Lemieux referencing emails the City Engineer received after the public meetings, inquired as to how many of these were leaning in favor of the recommended solution and how many were opposed. Mr. Roberge indicated that six emails had been received; five in support and one in opposition. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether any of the five that were in favor of the proposal were present at this hearing. Mr. Roberge responded that one was present this evening. Councilor Lemieux noted his concerns with some of the residents concerns regarding pedestrian safety and asked whether the statistics on the roundabout located in Montpelier could be reviewed. Mr. McCarthy explained that the roundabout located in Montpelier is adjacent to an elementary school. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether there are crossing guards located at intersections at the roundabout during the school year. Mr. McCarthy responded that he was unsure of this noting that he would venture a guess that they do since there is an elementary school immediately adjacent.
Councilor Brochu inquired whether there is a speed limit around a roundabout when it is around a school. Mr. McCarthy explained that the way this roundabout has been designed, the speeds are between 12 and 15 mph.
Councilor Blanchard inquired that if Council approves this, whether Council would be approving the roundabout alternative and giving engineering leeway to make changes and modifications. Mayor Donovan indicated that staff would have to be provided with information about what type of changes Council would like brought back to them.
Councilor Nyhan inquired as to what the levels of service are for this intersection during non-peak hours. Mr. McCarthy responded that only the a.m. and p.m. peaks were looked at for the analysis of delay. He noted that it is his guess that the levels of service are better during the non-peak hours because the volume is less therefore making the delays less. Councilor Nyhan inquired whether the volumes are significant. Mr. McCarthy indicated that he could look into this. Councilor Nyhan asked for clarification as to whether it had been referenced that a four-way stop is safer to pedestrians as opposed to the roundabout. Mr. McCarthy clarified that the traffic signal is the safer measure.
Councilor Black asked for clarification as to what Council would be voting on. Mayor Donovan explained that Council already voted once to support the roundabout concept with the condition that it come back to Council for final approval which is what Council is voting on this evening. Mayor Donovan noted that it is his understanding that if Council votes to accept this report, they are voting to move ahead with the project.
Councilor Black noted that he feels that it needs to be studied more.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether Council has already appropriated the dollars. Mr. Roberge indicated that to be correct.
Councilor Coen indicated that this intersection was flagged in 2004 as a dangerous intersection and inquired whether other options could be considered first over a period of time to see if they would work. Mr. Roberge noted that the residents this evening are quite passionate about pedestrian safety and vehicle speeds at the intersection. He noted that Council has the option to look at a systematic approach, doing one item at a time and examining it. He stated that staff does not recommend this because though it may improve one condition; it doesn’t address some of the critical conditions. He indicated that staff is supporting the proposed project because it is felt that it addresses the maximum amount of issues at one time.
Councilor McClure noted that testimony was heard regarding the difficulty of a crossing guard handling the intersection and asked that this be commented on. Mr. Roberge explained that this concern was stressed and outlined at the February meeting with residents. He indicated that currently there is one crossing guard that goes out into the middle of the intersection to stop traffic and at times the crossing guard is not there and that there is no respect from the vehicles to the guard that is there so there have been some close calls. He explained that what a roundabout will not do is that it will not allow the crossing guard to go into the center of the circle and effectively stop all approaches. Mr. Roberge noted that there is a crossing guard at the Montpelier roundabout in which they create a “train” effect and indicated that some of the safe walk to school initiatives have focused on this to find out where the most predominant pedestrian movement is and get the guard stationed at that crossing and parade the children through two crossings, which will most likely be Auburn Street south across Centre Street and east across Liberty Street. He explained that there is currently a seventy foot crosswalk and that not many people use this because they don’t feel safe doing so. Mr. Roberge noted that recognizing the concerns and that changes may be required with the guard, staff feels that these are positive changes and with education, everyone would negotiate safely through. Councilor McClure noted that the difference with the roundabout is when crossing from one piece of land to another, an individual would be crossing one-way of traffic so it would essentially be safer in this regard. Mr. McCarthy explained that with this layout, the longest crossing is approximately eighteen feet. Councilor McClure noted that the current proposal is for two-way traffic on Liberty Street and inquired whether it will still be considered to make Liberty Street one-way. She indicated that she did not hear the Fire Department oppose the one-way this evening. Mr. Roberge indicated that he has had candid conversations with the Fire Chief and he had noted his concerns with the collective reduction in response time. He noted that while Liberty Street is an important route for emergency response, they had been dependent upon this due to the conditions of Washington Street and now that Washington Street has improved, this is probably a better route for them to adjust. He added that this would be a final design detail explaining that this is being looked at as a reasonable option and from an operational standpoint the roundabout works best this way and staff may continue to pursue this.
Councilor Black inquired whether there have been any pedestrian accidents at this intersection. Mr. Roberge responded that he is not aware of any specific physical accidents with pedestrians. Mr. McCarthy explained that the data received from the city did not include any pedestrian accidents.
Councilor Blanchard noted that the fact that vehicles approaching the roundabout are forced to slow down and this itself would appear to make the crosswalks safer.
With regards to the eastbound leg of Centre Street, Councilor Nyhan questioned whether there are any engineering restrictions that would prevent the city from placing a median strip in between the two lanes of traffic. Mr. McCarthy responded that one of the residents had mentioned that some of the other alternatives were not developed at the same level noting that he agreed with that to the all-stop. He explained that if a stop sign was installed on Centre Street just putting in the stop sign and leaving the seventy foot crosswalk would not be the way to do it and the city may want to also install some calming measures to narrow the road as approaching the intersection.
Councilor Bouley noted that he feels that for this roundabout to work properly it appears to him that Auburn and Liberty Streets are the key components to making this work. He noted that Council has been told that the Fire Department has concerns and inquired whether Council could hear from the Fire Department as to what it specifically does to response times.
Deputy Chief Tim McGinley indicated that what had concerned him originally is the transportation of ill patients from the northern part of the city to Concord Hospital in as quick and safe a way as possible. He noted that as the city is laid out today, it has the benefit of some redundancy in the response routes. He indicated that he feels that anything that impacted free movement on Liberty Street into this intersection was going to have a negative impact on the ability to get patients there quickly. Deputy Chief McGinley stated that the department never requested or received any analytical study as to what this delay could be and just went with the premise that any delay would be a negative delay.
Mayor Donovan referencing the non-peak hours and bringing the emergency vehicles in from Liberty Street, inquired whether that design would delay any more than what is currently there. Deputy Chief McGinley responded that he did not believe that that design will have much of a negative impact on the responses as long as Liberty Street is two-way.
Councilor Brochu inquired which way a fire truck or ambulance travels when leaving the Central Fire Station. Deputy Chief McGinley responded that from the Central Station, the vehicle would proceed up North State Street to either Washington or Centre Street and then come through this intersection. He added that his concern was more in regards to coming from the Penacook district. He explained that when the Penacook ambulance brings a patient to the hospital, eight out of ten times, the driver is going to head up Rumford Street to Liberty Street.
Councilor Black noted that the presentation for the roundabout is very complete but indicated that the renderings for other options have been incomplete and feels that all the options have merits.
Mayor Donovan inquired that when doing the counts, whether they had run into a back up from the School Street intersection to the Centre Street intersection. Mr. McCarthy responded that the survey had not picked this up but noted that he had heard from the residents that this does occur. Mayor Donovan inquired how this is known that this will not occur and if it does occur enough so that it does become problematic, how does this get addressed. Mr. McCarthy responded that both intersections would need to be looked at together and through the final design; this is being understood that this is more of a common occurrence. He noted that he does not feel that this will make that worse or solve the issue explaining that he feels that there will be some diversion from this intersection over to School Street to avoid the roundabout. Mayor Donovan inquired as to what happens to this under the status quo or if the roundabout gridlocks one way or another. Mr. McCarthy responded that it would back up the roundabout just the way it backs up the intersection currently. Mayor Donovan inquired whether it is more dangerous in a roundabout. Mr. McCarthy noted that he did not believe so indicating that he feels that it is just because of the speeds and if they are traveling at a slow speed in the roundabout, they are going to see that traffic is stopped. He stated that he does not see this as a crash problem but will be a congestion problem creating gridlock as it currently does. Referencing the crossing guard, Mayor Donovan indicated that, as he understands this, the crossing guard will most likely stand at the northwest corner of Auburn Street and Centre Street and the guard would then cross the children over Centre Street and then cross them over Liberty Street. Mayor Donovan noted that there would be education for the children to learn about crossing.
Councilor Stetson indicated that after listening to public testimony he has a problem with continuing with this project noting that most of the residents in attendance were against it. He stated that he had attended the meeting that was held and noted that it was inconclusive as to how many people wanted this and how many people didn’t want this. Mr. Roberge indicated that at the first public meeting last July, staff presented the same options and had taken a written poll at that time explaining that 60 to 40 percent supported a roundabout solution as the number one choice. He noted that at the February public meeting, a formal poll was not taken; indicating that staff tried to discern the sentiment based upon the comments and noted that he characterized this as supportive within the report at the time.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether one of the slides presented from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety showed the before and after data and the percent reduction for different types of crashes. He further inquired whether it included pedestrian crashes or whether it was just injury versus property damage. Mr. McCarthy responded that there was a 39 percent reduction in crashes across the board; a 76 percent reduction in injury accidents; a 90 percent reduction in fatality or incapacitating accidents. He clarified that these were vehicle accidents not pedestrian accidents explaining that it is very difficult to find data on pedestrian accidents.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether the reason this is being proposed is primarily to increase vehicular safety. Mr. McCarthy responded that the three factors that have always been discussed include: pedestrian safety, vehicle safety, and traffic operations. He explained that these factors were considered in determining what recommendation to make. With respect to pedestrian safety, Mayor Donovan indicated that there is not data indicating that there has been a pedestrian accident here. Mr. McCarthy responded that there is no record of any pedestrian accidents. Mayor Donovan inquired as to what the result is of the improvement of operations. Mr. McCarthy responded that the measure is more delay explaining that there currently is a great deal of delay for the four legs other than the Centre Street leg which has a strong flow of traffic because it has the right of way creating a lot of delay for those other four legs because they have to wait until there is a gap.
Councilor Nyhan, referencing the delays, inquired as to how long is the time period for the delays. Mr. McCarthy responded that a level of service A in approximately ten seconds and an F is approximately seventy to ninety seconds. He explained that the roundabout for that leg had a level of service rating of B or C; for the traffic signal the rating was D or E; and for all the other stops it was a rating of F. Mr. Roberge indicated that this is the calculation through the analysis based on average. Councilor Nyhan inquired whether this was the projection through 2020. Mr. McCarthy indicated that to be correct. Councilor Nyhan inquired as to what the level of service currently is for that leg. Mr. McCarthy responded that the rating is A for this particular leg because it does not have a stop control.
Councilor Brochu indicated that he would be voting against the motion noting that he does not feel that it has been demonstrated that it will relieve the problem of the intersection with the traffic that is coming into here through Liberty Street.
Councilor Black noted that he will be voting against the motion indicating that he does not feel that it is cost effective.
Councilor Lemieux noted that he will vote in favor of the motion noting that he had attended all the public meetings and if he had not attended those meetings, he may have been swayed by the testimony given this evening. He noted that many of the proponents did not attend this evening but indicated that he has heard from them. He noted that the consultants have done an admirable job, in the time that he had, and stated that he feels that it will solve the problems.
Councilor Blanchard noted that she hopes that it is considered to make Liberty Street one-way and indicated that she will vote in favor of the roundabout because it appears that it would be calming the traffic in this intersection.
Mayor Donovan noted that if Council is going to have as one of its goal to try to eliminate the traffic through some of the residential neighborhoods, Council will need to start making some decisions to make improvements somewhere in town. He indicated that he currently takes different routes instead of heading through this intersection during the peak times and noted that a roundabout would make this area easier and those sorts of decisions that he makes traveling will not be made. He indicated that he feels it will be reducing the cut through traffic in the neighborhoods adding that he feels that it will achieve this objective. He indicated that he will be supporting the roundabout explaining that he is sensitive to the neighborhood’s concerns but feels that the crossing guard situation can be managed.
Councilor Coen indicated that he will be voting against the motion explaining that he feels that the other alternatives presented were not done in the depth that the roundabout was presented.
Councilor McClure indicated that she will be voting in support of the motion explaining that she had been skeptical of a roundabout when this first came up indicating that she had recalled that most of the testimony that was received that particular evening spoke in support of a roundabout. She noted that she feels that the consultant did a good job and was impressed by how little disturbance there is to that area and feels that it does enhance safety for both motorists and pedestrians. She added that she feels that it increases green space, reduces idling, makes the air cleaner, and would enhance the neighborhood character in the long term.
Councilor Bouley inquired as to the practical effect of voting if this is to fail this evening. He noted that he feels that roundabouts do solve pedestrian problems and limit speeds but indicated that he is concerned that if this is not done correctly the first time, there will be a chilling effect throughout the city. He noted that if it’s done, it is incumbent upon Council to do it right and agrees that Liberty Street is a key component to making this work and should be considered as one-way.
Mayor Donovan indicated that he would change his vote if Liberty Street was changed to one-way noting that he feels that this would shift the traffic to Franklin Street and Auburn Street and have the reverse effect.
Mr. Roberge indicated that if Council does not approve the project, staff would not advance to the final design phase and likely the project would go away unless Council requested that staff come back with an alternative.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to what would happen to the state and federal grant if the report is not approved. Mr. Roberge responded that the funds would go back to the federal government and the state. Mayor Donovan inquired as to what the impact would be if this report was tabled and staff was asked to look at other options. Mr. Roberge explained that the last appropriation that was approved Council had funded the full project but limited the first phase effort with limited dollars. He noted that if that were the Council’s action, staff would ask that additional funds be released to do the design alternatives or review within some prescribed time. Mayor Donovan inquired whether taking another two months would jeopardize the project at this stage. Mr. Roberge indicated that it would not terminate the project. Mayor Donovan inquired that if the report is approved, what are some of the issues that staff would look at that is still a concern. Mr. Roberge responded that he feels that the biggest issue is the disposition of Liberty Street and Auburn Street. He explained that if the report was approved this evening this would allow the advancement into final design phase and those issues are what are worked out in the final design phase. He added that staff would come back with a final report on that final design outcome.
City Manager Aspell questioned whether any of the $300,000 would need to be used to get to that point. Mr. Roberge responded no that would not be needed. Mr. Aspell indicated that if Council were to authorize dollars to continue with the study and come back to a meeting with the final design and Council doesn’t approve of it, at that time the money would be returned to the federal government and state. Mr. Aspell noted that if Council wanted to move forward with another option soon, it should be done in this year’s budget. Mr. Roberge indicated that this sounded feasible.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that he has been opposed to this project for quite some time primarily because for this particular intersection, the design solution for a roundabout has been the predetermined desired outcome of the analysis. He noted that he is sold on the safety aspects and the level of service but indicated that he is still concerned with the possibility of land acquisition. He noted that he feels that this needs to be hashed out before he can make a decision on whether this is the best solution.
Councilor Brochu clarified his position on the one-way Liberty Street noting that he would like it to go right through to Rumford Street.
Councilor Lemieux explained that this issue goes back to a study that had been done at the expense of Concord Hospital for one of their projects at which the roundabout was recommended as the recommended alternative and based on that, the city approached the federal government with an application for CMAQ funds for a roundabout.
Councilor Brochu moved the question. The motion was duly seconded and passed 6 to 5 with a show of hands vote.
Councilor Bouley moved to table the report until the next month and follow through with some of the issues given this evening. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Mayor Donovan noted that from what has been discussed this evening, Council would like staff to look at one-way traffic on Liberty Street and solutions that do not require eminent domain.
Councilor Nyhan added that if the property owners at 1 Auburn Street are willing to negotiate, what will be the cost associated with this.
Councilor Black indicated that he would like Council to be presented with a rendering of the other options equivalent to the roundabout.
Councilor Stetson indicated that he would like to know how many of these successful roundabouts have a stop sign one block away on a major exit route from the roundabout.
Mr. Aspell inquired that based on these requests, how much money will this cost. Mr. Roberge responded that they had been limited to $20,000 in the first phase and asked whether Council could match this funding for the next effort to continue moving in a systematic approach.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether a larger roundabout with five interest points would be too large to be feasible. Mr. Roberge indicated that to be correct noting that it wouldn’t fit within the context of the neighborhood.
Action: Councilor Stetson moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Coen moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
May 14, 2007 Public Hearing Action (Tabled from the March 12, 2007 Council meeting)
38. Public hearing regarding the removal of an easement across the property at 13 Rolinda Avenue, parcel 9C-1-19, together with report from the Planning Board. (11-12) (1-20) (2-59G; 2-66) (3-45A; 3-46) (Report from the City Solicitor submitted; communication from Councilor McClure and public testimony receive in Feb) (Supplemental information from the City Planner submitted) (Public hearing continued from February 12, 2007) (Additional public testimony received) (Action on the March 12, 2007 public hearing tabled for 60 days)
Action: This item tabled until the May 14, 2007 Council meeting.
(To be distributed under separate cover)
Action: Mayor Donovan indicated that there are fifteen members and that he is still working on these appointments at this time.
Reports
Action: City Engineer Ed Roberge explained that this project began in 2000 and the master plan is a comprehensive look at the storm drainage systems throughout the city. He explained that Council received an executive summary noting that the master plan will be made available to anyone that would like to see it and added that it will also be available online on the city’s website. Mr. Roberge explained that the storm water master plan looked at three areas; beginning with a pilot study in an area in a central city area called the trapezoid which extended to the downtown-Washington Street basin. He indicated that the amendment that was executed in 2004 looked at the remaining eleven watershed districts throughout the city. Mr. Roberge introduced David Polcari and Neal Campbell from Camp, Dresser and McKee.
David Polcari, Client Service Manager for CDM, provided a brief overview explaining that the purpose of this particular project is to develop a storm water master plan which is a guide as to how the city will move forward with the management of storm water whether it be for making sure that the system has adequate capacity to handle flow or whether it be to make improvements to water quality in the storm water discharges throughout the city. He explained that one of the major elements of the project is with the development of a capital improvement plan which identified and ranked storm water improvement projects that would address the ability of a system to convey and properly manage storm water. He noted that with any master plan of this scope, there has to be a way to fund these improvements and recommendations noting that the project did evaluate several funding options to move forward.
Neal Campbell, Project Manager for CDM, indicated that table one lists all the projects by the total score and table two lists all the same projects but by the different sub basins. He highlighted the scope of work noting that there was a GIS piece to this plan in which there was development of some layers and other functionality items for the city; discussions of best management practice (bmp) which are different maintenance and other items that the city and other communities can do to improve on storm water minimum controls; the evaluation of the drainage systems; twelve sub basins that were analyzed. He explained that moving on from these, they identified the different problems working with staff on what existing problems there were and what problems had been discovered while doing the analysis of the system. Moving forward, he indicated that a capital improvement plan was compiled based on all the different problem areas that were identified and prioritized these improvements as shown in the two tables. Touching upon the GIS portion, Mr. Campbell explained that there is a layer created with the storm water, utilities, and pipes that was inputted into the system. He indicated that there is an application put together for the field staff when they are collecting information out in the field to do so and there are custom applications for access to get to the data. Referencing best management practices, he indicated that there are a number of these practices that can be performed in order to help improve the storm water for a town, city or municipality. He noted that each of the practices would fall under six minimum controls stating that the city does some of these items currently. Referencing the analysis of the system, he explained that there are twelve different basins throughout the city that were looked at and different tools were looked at including: analysis tools that were used, a hydraulics analysis in the trapezoid basin followed with a more physical analysis of looking at the condition of the pipes and manholes. He noted that the further part of the report that was done in 2004 was more of a rationale method and looking at some of the main drainage areas in other parts of the town and focusing on the flow and what the pipe diameters are. The last was a build out analysis and indicated that there were three different areas that were rural and focused on looking at the culverts in this area because there wasn’t a drainage network in place. Referencing project prioritization, CIP, they came up along with staff with criteria to base these projects and try to get some idea of which ones were more important than others. He explained that each criterion was given a number per project and were then totaled. Providing an overview of projects, he indicated that there were ninety one projects that were identified and recommended that anything that scored a twenty or higher were to be included in the CIP. He noted that of the thirty five there are seven projects that are currently in the works between the city and the state. He noted that four different ways have been identified within the report for paying for these including; a general fund, village district option, sewer user fees, a storm water enterprise fund. He noted that the next steps can include: more study of the funding mechanisms; feasibility study on storm water utility; itemizing and implementing the top priority projects; implementing the rest of the projects over the course of this report.
Councilor Lemieux indicated that it would seem to him that the most serious problem would be a cross connection or an illegal connection. Mr. Campbell indicated that to be correct. Councilor Lemieux inquired as to why there are twenty eight projects that are prioritized ahead of the highest project that has an illegal connection. Councilor Lemieux clarified whether they know they exist but are unsure where they are. Mr. Roberge responded that it is important to note that some of these cross connections were investigated early on in 2000 to 2002 with some being caught and that staff continues to investigate to find these and they are addressed as they come across them. He pointed out that some of the known ones that were listed are likely already accomplished and these locations will continue to be monitored. Councilor Lemieux questioned whether some of these have been corrected. Mr. Roberge indicated that to be correct. Councilor Lemieux indicated that he had added them up and came up with a total of $32,000 to fix all of them. He questioned whether these should be moved up in the priority list for a low cost to get rid of these.
Councilor Blanchard indicated that she had been told by Betty Hoadley that her problem has not been solved because the work has not been completed. Mr. Roberge explained that this is a separate CIP project that was approved and indicated that the design is almost complete and will constructed in 2007.
Councilor Black inquired as to why the trapezoid sub basin was so named. Mr. Roberge responded that it is shaped similar to a trapezoid and exists in the oldest part of the city with the oldest storm drainage infrastructures. He explained that it is bounded in the north by about School Street just north of Pleasant Street and bounded to the drain outlying areas right to the Gas Street area.
Councilor Lemieux noted that it appears that a lot of water quality issues are driven by state and federal standards and inquired whether state or federal funds are available to some of these deficiencies. Mr. Roberge explained that up to this point, the state available funds have focused on sanitary sewer systems and water systems. He indicated that he does not believe that the state has begun to release state funds for storm drainage projects but noted that staff will continue to pursue this because it is his understanding that there may be some changes forthcoming. Councilor Lemieux noted that there is a reference that indicates that there is a goal of reducing the amount of pet waste entering the surface water by fifty gallons and inquired as to the current amount. Mr. Campbell responded that there is a best management practice listed that mentions placing receptacles in parks for people to put their animal waste to be more conscious of waste that would drain into a catch basin then to the drainage system and ultimately to receiving waters. Mr. Roberge indicated that it would represent a substantial control that would improve water quality.
Councilor Bouley asked for clarification as to the scoring system and referenced the 0-5 range under property and traffic inquiring whether this relates to property damage that occurs when they don’t function properly. Mr. Campbell inquired whether a specific score was being looked at. Councilor Bouley referenced the 6.7, Shaker Road from Pekoe Drive to Mountain Road and inquired as to what the 2 represents in this area. Mr. Campbell explained that they looked at whether it is a busy road, and if a lot of vehicles travel on the road it would be more of an inconvenience to do a pipeline project in this location and therefore would be scored less. He added that if there is an area in which there is easier access to do construction with less of a disruption, it would score higher. Councilor Bouley indicated that these are not measuring the fact that these are not properly functioning. Mr. Roberge explained that it is evaluating how accessible it is and noted that in this particular example, it’s generally accessible explaining that most of the work is on the shoulder and traffic would still be maintained. Councilor Bouley inquired whether there are any pipes running from the corner of Mountain and Shaker Road up Cemetery Street to Styles Drive. Mr. Roberge responded that there may be one or two heading up Cemetery Street. Councilor Bouley asked for clarification to the final rankings. Mr. Campbell explained that it is a summation of the criteria and, referencing the Shaker Road project, each of the criterion was looked at and given a number and the numbers are totaled for a score. Councilor Bouley inquired whether the rank is the order in which they would be tackled. Mr. Campbell responded that the rank is where it would fall in respect to the other projects. Mr. Roberge indicated that staff will take the scores and try to align these as what is done with the water and sewer program, align with the highway paving program when looking at the comprehensive CIP. Councilor Bouley noted his concerns with the damage to many of the homes on Shaker Road due to severe water damage. Mr. Roberge explained that this is the first step of trying to rank and prioritize storm drain systems noting that there hasn’t been a focus until currently on storm water.
Councilor Nyhan pointed out for the public that these carry large costs. Mr. Campbell responded that the cost factors come into play and this is a guide to help the city move forward with improvements.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether there is an impact fee that addresses the storm drains. Mr. Aspell responded no. Councilor Blanchard inquired whether other communities have a fee for storm water similar to water and sewer. Mr. Roberge explained that this is briefly touched upon in the executive summary.
Councilor Black referencing the Shaker Road homes inquired as to what can be done. Mr. Roberge responded that if Council wanted to advance this project, the request can be brought into him and he would fold it into the CIP program and Council can fund it if they choose to do so.
Councilor Brochu inquired how restoring the roads would be handled after doing these projects. City Manager Aspell responded that the city will not be tearing up its own roads and indicated that Mr. Roberge is working on a piece in relationship to utility companies tearing up the roads and make it much more difficult.
Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: This item tabled until the April 16, 2007 Council meeting.
Unfinished Business
Action: This item tabled until the April 16, 2007 Council meeting.
Action: This item tabled until the April 16, 2007 Council meeting.
Action: This item tabled until the April 16, 2007 Council meeting.
Consideration of Suspense Items
4 Sus1 Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit an application to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Domestic Preparedness, Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program as outlined in its current grant program for the purpose of purchasing specialized equipment and providing specialized training in order to enhance emergency incident response; together with report from the Fire Department.
Action: This item tabled until the April 16, 2007 Council meeting.
4 Sus2 Referral to the Recreation
and Park Advisory Committee
Communication from Patricia Kraft, asking the City of Concord to consider
providing the community with a municipal senior center.
Action: This item tabled until the April 16, 2007 Council meeting.
4 Sus3 Report from the City Clerk recommending June 5, 2007 as the date to hold a Special Election to fill the vacant Ward Five City Council seat.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved to suspend the rules to take up this suspense item. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Bouley moved to accept the resignation with regret and to hold a Special Election for June 5, 2007. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Nyhan moved to suspend the rules to discuss item 8 that he removed from the consent agenda. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Item #8 was pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
Referral to City Administration
Action: Councilor Nyhan indicated that he feels that staff should not investigate this item at this point of time. Councilor Nyhan moved to not to refer this communication to Administration and just acknowledge receipt of this item and do nothing with it. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor Lemieux noted that a lot of discussion has been heard about whether or not Langley Parkway is going to increase or reduce traffic in the north end neighborhood. He indicated that he feels that there needs to be some good before and after traffic data to really tell whether the southern leg is going to have any effect and to do this there is no better time to collect data than before construction is completed. He inquired whether it could be requested of the City Engineer and the City Planner to put together a program of doing some counts to get the idea of how traffic is flowing in the neighborhood now and then do counts after Langley Parkway is open for some time and then make comparisons.
Adjournment
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk