City Council Meeting
Minutes
February 12, 2007
Non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 2, I (b) to discuss
collective bargaining following the meeting;
Non-public session in accordance with
RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss contract negotiations, Penacook Mill and Scandia
Hall.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved approval of the January 8, 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 Rogers moved approval of the consent agenda, as amended, with items 18, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 44 removed to be discussed at the end of the agenda. The motion was duly seconded. Councilor McClure indicated that she would like to place item 25 back onto the consent agenda. Councilor McClure requested that item 28 be discussed with public hearing item 59(A). The motion, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to Planning and Engineering
Referral to Code Administration
Referral to Administration, Business Development and the Economic Development Advisory Committee
Items Tabled for a March 12, 2007 Public Hearing
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
From the City Manager
Consent Reports
Action:
This item placed back on to the consent agenda.
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Action: This item moved to be discussed with public hearing item 59(A).
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Consent Resolutions
55. Resolution adopting a cash management policy; together with report from the City Treasurer.
Consent Communications
**End of Consent Agenda**
Action: Mayor Donovan explained that this public hearing is a continuation from the January 8th Council meeting.
Councilor Bennett noted his concern that there are no proposed members from City Council on the commission.
Councilor McClure indicated that she is supportive of the issue but inquired why it was decided to establish another city commission that would require city resources for support when there are other organizations similar as this.
Mayor Donovan explained that the charge of this commission is a lot broader than either of the responsibilities of CATCH or the Concord Housing Authority. Referencing the purposes of the committee within the ordinance, Mayor Donovan noted that the committee is not oriented towards addressing the regional problem of affordable housing but is principally charged with being an advocate for housing issues within the City of Concord. Mayor Donovan, referenced the mission of the committee on page two, 1) represent the interest of housing as an advocate for the City Council, the land use boards and other commissions, boards, and agencies; 2) to serve as a resource for information on effective and innovative means of providing housing; 3) to maintain data on the availability and affordability of housing in Concord; 4) to enhance public awareness of the role of housing in the community as a valuable resource which is a vital part of Concord’s economic, social and community fabric; 5) a sounding board for innovative ideas and proposals related to housing; 6) provide a so called home for housing issues. Mayor Donovan explained with these being the mission of the Housing Commission, it’s a much broader mission than either CATCH or Concord Housing Authority has and it is not a regional group. He noted that he does not disagree with the Planning Board’s observation on the need for some regional approach but that is not the purpose of this commission.
Councilor McClure noted that the Planning Board had two points, the regional issue and the query as to whether or not the Concord Housing Authority couldn’t champion this cause as directed by the city as opposed to establishing a separate commission altogether.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether this commission would address homelessness.
Mayor Donovan indicated that the homeless population within the city presents some very important challenges noting that he does not see the commission being precluded from addressing this issue but does not see this as a principal charge of this particular commission which is really just focused on housing for the city’s workforce population.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open.
Five minute public testimony
Tim Sink, Chamber of Commerce, urged Council’s support of the creation of this ordinance to form a Housing Commission for the city. Referencing the Planning Board’s memo, Mr. Sink noted that the recommendation in the memo indicates that the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council endorse a pro housing stance by the city but urged the city to make better use of it’s existing housing organizations including CATCH and the Concord Housing Authority in lieu of establishing new institutions. Mr. Sink indicated that he supports the Planning Board’s recommendation to the city to be pro housing but in terms of recommendations, is vague and unspecific in terms of dealing with the problem. Referencing the recommendation to make better use of existing organizations such as CATCH and Concord Housing Authority, he noted that he believes this would be best accomplished by enacting the proposed ordinance with the reason that these organizations would be represented on the commission and thus have a formal voice appointed by the City Council which does not formally currently exist. Mr. Sink pointed out that the Planning Board’s memo focused primarily on affordable housing which tends to be limited on many minds to the term subsidized housing but the proposed ordinance makes it clear that a Housing Commission would work to ensure that the City of Concord meets its demand for housing by encouraging development of a diverse housing supply. He explained that the intent of the Chamber’s recommendation is that the Council appoint a commission that would pay attention to a balanced approach towards Concord’s overall housing needs on an ongoing basis. He noted that when making this recommendation, the Chamber was not focused solely on subsidized housing but the broader picture of all areas of the spectrum. Mr. Sink pointed out that many studies referenced within the Planning Board’s memo were outdated and that the landscape has changed and noted that the creation of this commission is necessary, at the very least, to ensure that some group is looking at Concord’s housing needs on an ongoing basis and not at a ten or fifteen year interval. He indicated that the Chamber agrees with the Planning Board that workforce housing is a regional issue explaining that the Workforce Housing Task Force has already reached out to planning staff in some of the neighboring communities to pursue this. Mr. Sink explained that, in the past, the Chamber has partnered with the Central NH Regional Planning Commission, CRDC, and the Concord Board of Realtors hosting a series of forums in surrounding communities that were designed to encourage responsible housing planning in its relation to the regional economy and noted that the Chamber is currently supporting legislative effort that would provide funding for communities to hire expert assistance in creation of sensible housing strategy for those communities.
Steve Duprey, Concord Housing Authority, explained that he has been involved with affordable and workforce housing since 1979 and has built, owned, or managed over 500 units of section eight or USDA 515 housing, subsidized housing. He noted that he is in strong support of the creation of a Housing Commission with the purposes stated: to be an advocacy group, to be a resource, to be a collector of data, to look for regional cooperation and to be a sounding board. Mr. Duprey noted that he concurs with the Planning Board’s suggestion being that this is a regional issue noting that he feels that Concord has done more than its fair share to create special needs housing, housing for low income elderly and housing for low income families. He noted that neighboring communities do not encourage or provide for the opportunity to build moderate income family housing and added that he feels that there has been a failure by the legislature to put enough emphasis on this issue. Mr. Duprey added that he respectfully disagrees with the Planning Board’s recommendation that this would not be useful explaining that the housing that he is talking about is not housing for CATCH clients, Concord Housing Authority clients or special needs housing noting that this is housing for teachers or other employees that are well above any subsidized assistance level but do not qualify for section eight vouchers, yet they must commute from Nashua, Plymouth and Franklin primarily because they cannot find housing in the price range of $160,000 to $300,000, workforce housing. Mr. Duprey explained that when comparing Concord to Manchester, Dover, Keene and Portsmouth it is the only community that has no upper story housing market rate, workforce housing, in its downtown. He noted that while CATCH and the Concord Housing Authority do a great job in serving the population that they serve, there is currently nobody collecting the data and giving any input to be a voice for workforce housing.
Councilor Brochu inquired whether the Jennings Drive development were rentals for Concord Housing Authority. Mr. Duprey indicated that to be correct. Councilor Brochu inquired whether this development qualified for affordable housing for working class individuals. Mr. Duprey indicated that to be correct. Councilor Brochu noted his concern that there are many individuals that cannot afford to rent in Concord because the rents are too high and that something needs to be done. Mr. Duprey explained that one of the things that he has found is that the federal government got out of the housing business during the Reagan administration and with the exception of the tax credit program, there is no housing production program explaining that what has happened on a national level is that it was pushed down to very low income citizens. He noted that the government is making a good use of a scarce resource but that there is nothing in the gap.
Councilor McClure, referencing the Bonz study that EDAC incorporated into the economic development master plan, inquired whether Mr. Duprey had differences with the opinions with this. Mr. Duprey explained that he feels that the problem with the Bonz report is that it bought into the common perception that communities should avoid multi-family housing because it imposes a tax burden noting that he does not believe it does.
Mayor Donovan added that it will be interesting to see how the Planning Board reconciles different reports it has been receiving in the master plan because the Opportunity Corridor Master Plan depends fairly heavily on developing multi-family housing in the opportunity corridor yet the Bonz report lists this as a lower priority.
Rosemary Heard, CATCH Neighborhood Housing President, explained that CATCH currently has 140 units with 54 under construction and 41 in planning. Ms. Heard distributed to Council a listing of the 56 businesses that CATCH supports that employ CATCH recipients. She explained that, as an affordable housing provider, it is difficult to put projects together both from financing, looking for public support, or looking for land. She added that a typical project has anywhere from six to seven sources of funding within it. Ms. Heard welcomed the opportunity to be able to come to the table as part of a housing coalition, not necessarily just a workforce housing coalition, but to be able to bring any expertise that they can bring. Ms. Heard distributed the latest CATCH Annual Report to Council containing a brochure that outlines each of the properties and the locations.
John Hoyt, Concord Housing Authority Executive Director, noted his support of this proposed ordinance. He noted that bringing together areas of expertise from throughout the community will create a better and stronger voice for housing in Concord. Mayor Donovan congratulated Mr. Hoyt on the recent award that he was awarded. Mr. Hoyt explained that every year, they are audited by the federal government on their programs and noted that the section eight program, in which they support 250 families locally within the community, received a perfect score of 100 in the audit.
John Langill, President of the Concord Area Homebuilders and Remodelers Association, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. He explained that the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, Public Policy Alliance for Housing and the New Hampshire Finance Authority have recently commissioned Dr. Shapiro from Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell to survey the land use regulations for 110 municipalities within the state noting the reason for this is that the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association is moving forward with proposed legislation that would change the growth management ordinances within the state and how they are currently abused. Mr. Langill indicated that this information will be used to support testimony that will be made to the legislature. He pointed out that the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association website contains a copy of the Shapiro report noting that contained within the report is information regarding Concord’s labor market. He pointed out that the City of Concord, in the labor market, is one of the only municipalities that does not have a growth moratorium. Mr. Langill indicated that the affordable housing issue is not just a regional or statewide issue but a northeast problem. In closing, he reiterated his support of this ordinance.
Councilor McClure referencing the abuse of growth moratoriums in surrounding communities inquired as to the types of issues that homebuilders would like to see addressed through this commission in Concord. Mr. Langill explained that they are in support of a transfer of development rights program which is very difficult to implement and they are also in support of taking development pressure off of the RO district explaining that they are not in support of the four acre zoning however they do recognize that there are certain areas of the city that have to be and should be protected. Councilor McClure inquired as to how Mr. Langill feels about the urban growth boundary. He responded that he feels that there is a great opportunity here explaining that the biggest problem he faces as a builder is to be able to build an affordable house noting his frustration that he is unable to do so.
Tim Bernier, President of Tim Bernier Inc. a land use planning and consulting firm in Concord, explained that there is some evidence that suggest that demographics in New Hampshire are changing and that many young professionals in the region are leaving the area indicating that he believes a large part of this is due to housing cost within the City of Concord. Mr. Bernier voiced his support of the proposed ordinance before Council.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell clarified that the applicant, Fox Brook Holdings represented by Attorney Richard Uchida, had suggested to simply rezone the property at Exit 16 to opportunity corridor from office park performance. He explained that the Planning Board looked at this and suggested to change the office park performance district itself to allow offices of healthcare practitioners including clinics and outpatient healthcare. Mr. Aspell explained that there is a covenant in place at the Exit 16 Foundry site property and during the time when the Sanborn Head building was under consideration the city was able to acquire property from the state, property leftover when the interstate was constructed. He explained that at that time it was decided that it would be transferred at cost to the developer, Mr. Traffey. He added that there was a calculation that indicated that approximately 10,000 square feet of office space could be developed and the city felt that 10,000 square feet wasn’t enough and indicated that if something is developed it needed to be 20,000 square feet in which Mr. Traffey had agreed upon. Mr. Aspell explained that when the proposal was brought forward to rezone, Mayor Donovan requested that the covenant be revisited. Mr. Aspell noted that he worked with Bill Norton and Attorney Uchida to develop two modifications to the covenant: 1) changing the 20,000 square feet to 46, 800 square feet which would encompass not only the existing Sanborn Head building but also the building proposed by Concord Hospital; 2) change one of the sections in the covenant to go from a land area and/or building area to simply flow within the building explaining what this accomplishes is making sure that the two buildings currently there or at least this amount of square footage as going forward will always pay taxes to the community and not fall under a non-profit status.
Mayor Donovan noted that as he understands, the Planning Board has endorsed this. Mr. Aspell indicated that they have unanimously endorsed this.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Action: Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open.
Councilor Brochu indicated that several years ago the cost of maintaining the pumping station came forward. He noted
his concern with the burden on taxpayers to maintain and improve situations for this type of development.
Councilor Bouley inquired whether the residents in this development currently pay an assessment to a fund for such activities. City Manager Aspell indicated that to be correct. Councilor Bouley inquired whether the money is coming from the residents that live within this development. Mr. Aspell explained that Council in the past anticipated this issue coming up and set up a reserve to cover issues such as this. Mr. Aspell added that this money would come out of a reserve fund paid for by the residents in this development and not the general taxpayer.
There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the funds will be used to support the collection computer for membership fee to the cooperating collection of the foundation center for books for the collection, development, and staff attendance at network days for cooperating collections meetings organized by the foundation center in New York City.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the dollars would be split two ways: $100,000 would go to the 53rd week reserve anticipating the next 53rd week that would be coming up in a few years; $1,150,000 would be going to the highway pavement reserve so that the city gets the maximum pavement program this coming year.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that a complete inventory will be conducted and displayed at the Library and will also include restoration of monuments and fencing with the project being completed this spring.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Action: City Manager Aspell noted that residents received notification of the public hearing late because two departments were unsure as to which one would be notifying residents adding that if Council wanted to ensure that they receive public testimony from the neighborhood, Council may want to keep this public hearing open for an additional month noting that he has heard from Councilors that wish to expand the notification area so that it isn’t just the individuals within the immediate area.
Councilor McClure noted that she provided Council with a summary and added that the Planning Board’s feeling is that it is in the interest of the city to retain the easement for potential future use noting her support of this determination. She indicated that she had spoken to Planning staff regarding several issues: 1) the nature of the area where the easement lies in which some of it is wet which is not a problem when establishing a bicycle or pedestrian trail; 2) the property owner made reference to some easements on New Castle Street; staff indicated that these were not public access but have to do with the open space that was part of the development of South Concord Meadows and do not connect directly to the park or city land.
Councilor Black inquired whether this public hearing should be postponed until next month. Mayor Donovan responded that he would open the public hearing for individuals who may be in attendance and if Council chooses to do so, they may move to continue this hearing for another month so that additional notices are sent out.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open.
Five minute public testimony
Attorney James Morris, Orr and Reno, referencing a map pointed out that along the easterly property line on Mr. and Mrs. Brown’s property on Rolinda Avenue lays a reserved twenty foot wide access and utility easement that was reserved at a point in time when what is now known as Russell Martin Park to be used for school purposes. He indicated that when the Beaver Meadow School was constructed in the 1970’s, there was no longer any need for this to be school land. Attorney Morris explained that the Planning Board in it’s recommendation has suggested that this is no longer needed for access to school or utility purposes, explaining that part of the reason that this land was reserved originally was if there was a school to be built in this location, then utilities would run from Norwich and Rolinda Avenue through this right of way to serve the school facility. He noted that utilities are now available to serve the fields from along Iron Works Road and that the Planning Board noted that there really isn’t any need to retain this easement for purposes of utilities. Pedestrian access would be as the Planning Board suggests for some future use for access to Russell Martin Park. Attorney Morris noted his concern with an unlit and unpatrolled bicycle and pedestrian path within this area. He noted that there is precedent for the city releasing its rights explaining that to the east on Fernrock Road this easement had been released in the 1980’s and is now currently owned by the abutters. He concluded by stating that it is not practical for the city to reserve this right of way any longer and to allow the Brown’s to use their property.
Thomas Brown, Rolinda Avenue, reiterated his position in his original correspondence to Council. Mr. Brown pointed out that an unsupervised path through the easement may provide a place for teenagers to gather at night and on weekends as which previously occurred here in the past with a outward bound program that had existed which presented dangerous situations such as fires.
Mary Jo Hansen, Rolinda Avenue, noted her concerns with this area being developed as an access road because this would place children and teenagers in a wooded area where there is no supervision.
Bill Norton, Concord 2020, asked that Council consider postponing action on this item until the next Council meeting so as to allow notice to a larger range of individuals. Mr. Norton pointed out the second of the five 2020 principles, neighborhoods served by walkable villages, and explained that there is a lot of work going on including Groundwork initiatives to look at connections all people can access open space whether it be recreation or conservation land within the city.
Mayor Donovan pointed out that written correspondence was received from Mary Susan Leahy, 2020 President, Deb Samaha, and Lucy St. John, bicycle/pedestrian coordinator for Groundwork.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether the city has a master plan for Russell Martin Park. Mr. Aspell responded that there is a park plan for Russell Martin Park. Mayor Donovan requested that the plan be distributed to Council if the hearing is continued.
Councilor Coen inquired whether the plan would show where the proposed bike path and walkway would be. Mr. Aspell responded that it may noting that some of the other plans that he has seen do show access points and improvements.
Mayor Donovan noted that he feels that the concept that the Planning Board was trying to express was not to give up the right of way. He inquired that if Council voted to vacate something such as this, whether it is given away or is there a quid pro quo explaining that there would be some value to Mr. Brown if the city abandons this. Mayor Donovan indicated that the thought that occurred to him while listening to testimony is that someone could acquire the right to bring in a walkway over South Concord Meadows then maybe there is an exchange possibility there. Mr. Aspell indicated that he could bring back a value at the next meeting.
Councilor Brochu indicated that the property already belongs to the Browns noting that Mr. Vachon more than likely did not get paid anything by the city when the easement was given inquiring how the city could put a value on it if it’s relinquished.
Mayor Donovan noted that it is his understanding that the Browns owned the property when Mr. Vachon dedicated that plan for the easement. He explained that all easements have value and that this was part of the exchange for Mr. Vachon getting the subdivision approved at that time.
Councilor Nyhan moved to continue the public hearing until the next Council meeting. He noted that he is interested in receiving more information about the master plan for Russell Martin Park and also interested in the option of possibly gaining an easement off of New Castle Street for an even more direct way. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Nyhan asked that notification be sent to all residents in the area, the Safe Walk Program, 2020 and other groups that have an interest in this parcel.
Councilor McClure indicated that there are approximately 150 homes in this neighborhood and inquired whether they should all be notified or whether it should be narrowed down.
Councilor Nyhan clarified that he feels that the residents of Rolinda Avenue and Norwich Street Extension should be notified.
Councilor McClure cautioned Council by indicating that acquiring easements on property that does not currently have public access is an issue and just because a value can be established it does not mean that the city would be able to receive that easement in the future.
The motion to continue the public hearing until the March meeting passed with no dissenting votes.
February 12, 2007 Public Hearing Action
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Bouley moved to amend the ordinance to add to the membership a private land use planning professional familiar with planning and zoning regulations and also to add a City Councilor. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Following additional Council discussion, Councilor McClure moved to add an additional member to the Housing Commission from the Conservation Commission provided that the Conservation Commission accepts this. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to whether this is a legal motion noting that he does not believe Council can amend a motion to have it contingent upon another body approval.
Councilor Brochu moved the question.
Councilor McClure’s motion failed on a voice vote.
Councilor Bouley moved to add a member of the Conservation Commission to the membership of the Housing Commission. The motion was duly seconded and failed on a voice vote.
The motion to approve, as amended by adding a City Councilor and a private land use planning professional, passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Brochu inquired as to what the prior zoning of this parcel was. Mr. Aspell responded that the zoning remains the same, office park performance, but what can be done in this zoning is being changed.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Bouley asked that staff put up a fence that is in tune with the neighborhood and to work with the neighbors to put up a fence that will not need to be taken down and replaced at a later date with another one.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Bouley 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: No action taken on this item. Public hearing for this item to be continued at the next Council meeting.
Action:
Councilor Bouley moved approval of the
nominations. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval of the appointments. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Reports
69.
Annual setting of the tax rate target for 2007 (i.e for the FY 2007-08 Budget).
(Reports from the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee and Mayor Donovan enclosed
submitted)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that that Council received a report dated February 9th from Jim Howard representing the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee; also an “Explanation of the 2008 General Fund Gap Impact”; a tax rate target setting with three different numbers: 3.5 percent, 6 percent, and 4.5 percent; a chart of the FY2008 Tax Rate Target Proposal; a memorandum dated February 9th from the Mayor with his recommendations.
Councilor Bouley, Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee Chair, indicated that the committee deliberated for several meetings and came up with something that the committee had agreed upon. Referencing page two of the report, land use change tax which is a direct relationship to item 18 an item being tabled for a public hearing next month on the distribution of the current use penalty, he pointed out that one of the things that was discussed was that it would be used to offset the reduction and expect a level of general fund contribution to the street and pavement reserve.
Councilor Brochu moved to proceed with a 3.5 percent target. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Rowe inquired why a tax rate target is used instead of a bottom line increase target. Mayor Donovan explained that there had been discussions with the past City Manager as to whether the target shouldn’t be a budget increase target rather than tax rate target but over the years Council has always approached it as tax rate target leaving it to the philosophy that if the City Manager can increase revenues from non-tax sources, then the expense side shouldn’t be held down. City Manager Aspell noted that every other agency in the area does it exactly the way it’s being questioned but doesn’t do as good a job as this Council does.
Councilor Blanchard inquired that if the revenues are increased and a tax rate increase is targeted why wouldn’t it be possible to reduce this. Mayor Donovan explained that the practical aspect of this year’s challenge is that if the 3.5 percent is adopted, it is used up by the increased expense coming from the state retirement system increases that are being mandated by the retirement board, which is a 1.5 percent in the tax increase and that the bond issues that Council has passed such as the street paving catch up bond, the two open space bonds, the Capital Commons general obligation bond themselves come onto the tax rate this year at two percentage points. He indicated that the 3.5 percent is a no-growth budget target because it is used up for these items.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to how much the dollar amount is for the retirement system. Mayor Donovan responded that the amount is approximately $460,000. City Manager Aspell explained that last year Council set the tax rate target at 4 percent and by the time Council finished the rate came in at 3.75 percent which for a typical homeowner this translated to an approximate 2.5 percent. Mayor Donovan explained that in term of just the math of it, a one percent increase in the municipal tax rate is approximately $261,000 making the difference between a 4.5 percent target and a 3.5 percent target an additional $261,000 that the City Manager would have to find in either increased revenue or budget reductions.
Councilor Nyhan noted that he would tend to lean towards the 4.5 percent in tax increase as opposed to the 3.5 percent increase in regards to the new bonds and state retirement system.
Councilor Stetson referencing health insurance rate reductions under the proposed solutions within the report indicated that he would like more explanation in regards to this. Mr. Aspell responded that the city receives a certain number regarding health insurance as to what the costs are going to be early in the year and as the year goes along, that number generally inches down a little bit, inching down approximately one percent saving the city approximately $65,000. Councilor Stetson stated that Council has not yet done the budget for fiscal year 2008 and inquired how there will be $65,000 in savings if the budget has not been completed yet. Mr. Aspell responded that this is based upon the fiscal model that was put together.
Councilor Rowe inquired that if the assessed value of property goes down wouldn’t the 3.5 percent be lost. Mr. Aspell responded that the residential housing market has stabilized and the commercial market is going up so what will happen is that more of the cost will be shifted over to the commercial market.
Councilor Blanchard referenced info item 20 in which the city of Dover is requesting representation on the board because of this state retirement issue. Mr. Aspell explained that the city supported this last year but that the legislation did not support this last year. Mayor Donovan explained that this item does show the complete break down.
The motion to approve a 3.5 percent target failed with a 7-7 show of hands vote.
Councilor Nyhan moved to approve a 4.5 percent target. The motion was duly seconded and failed 6-8 with a show of hands vote.
Councilor Rowe moved to approve a 3 percent target. The motion was duly seconded and failed 6-8 with a show of hands vote.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to approve a 4 percent target. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor St. Hilaire reiterated earlier discussion that 3.5 percent is already consumed by the bond expenses and by what the city needs to contribute towards the retirement system, leaving the City Manager, under this proposal, with .5 percent for items such as pay raises and increased fuel costs. Referencing the tax rate target settings, he indicated that the City Manager is already at a gap at 4.5 percent of $1 million that he needs to make up and is currently being made up by hiring freezes and that at some point, when Council passes this budget, it may not be a hiring freeze but may require cuts to positions. He noted that positions were cut last year and Council will be facing these same issues this upcoming budget and noted that there needs to be cognizance that although Council wants to see the smallest increase possible, some of the constituents also want the basic city services they need such as police and fire protection.
The motion to approve a 4 percent tax rate target passed 11-3 on a show of hands vote.
70. Route 3 Corridor Study Report. (For presentation in March)
Action: This item to be presented at the March Council meeting.
Action: City Manager Aspell indicated that Council has received the executive summary and if Council would like a copy of the full Solid Waste Master Plan it could be provided to them adding that a presentation could be held at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Donovan noted his concern with the amount of items on the March agenda.
Councilor Rogers explained that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has looked through this and the reason they would like this referred back to them for recommended implementation is because there is a specific variety of pay as you throw that it refers to which is an alternative that is a no cost alternative but a version of it that is something that the committee wanted to elaborate on. She questioned whether it would be better to do the presentation when the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has had some chance to come up with some recommended suggestions of how they wish to move on this so that the time that the plan is discussed, the committee would have some recommendations on that implementation at that time.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to how long the committee has been dealing with this noting that he had seen a draft report dated in July at the Chamber of Commerce. Councilor Rogers responded that the committee received the final version in November, the committee met and came out with the suggestion that it be brought forward to Council and that the committee look at implementations and recommendations on what has been suggested to it.
Councilor Bouley indicated that he feels that it is unclear as to what the recommendations are and further indicated that within the discussion section it indicates that when putting this report together, it reviewed public opinion and inquired as to how this public opinion had been gathered.
Councilor Rogers responded that as she understood, the consultant did a series of three different focus groups that were put together and conducted a series of surveys to gather information. She explained that the committee would be looking at making suggestions on the short term for implementation and would be specifically looking at the proposed alternative pay as you throw, the recycling, and at leaf and yard waste.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to what staff is looking for from Council. Mr. Aspell responded that staff is looking at Council to provide feedback. Mr. Aspell noted that he would need to understand the master plan a little better before he is able to work this into a work plan and a budget plan.
Following brief Council discussion, Councilor Bennett moved to have a presentation of the Solid Waste Master Plan at the March meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
New Business
Unfinished Business
Action: Councilor Black moved to take this item off the table. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Mayor Donovan noted that Ken Roos submitted written testimony noting his concerns with the shelter detracting from the State House and the war memorial.
Councilor Stetson inquired whether staff had spoken to and gone over the design proposals with Mickey McIver from Concord Area Transit. Community Development Project Manager Matt Walsh indicated that Mr. McIver has been involved since this began explaining that he believes that it was Mr. McIver’s idea to apply for these funds several years ago.
Councilor Coen inquired whether Mainstreet Concord had any input this time around. Mr. Walsh responded that he has not brought this back to them but had a verbal conversation with Nan Hagen explaining to her that staff has responded to their concerns in regards to placement and other issues. Councilor Coen inquired as to the aesthetics. Mr. Walsh responded that he feels that staff has incorporated what their concerns were in regards to aesthetics.
Councilor Brochu inquired as to how many bus shelters would be erected. Mr. Walsh responded that there would be two. Councilor Brochu questioned whether the paper boxes on the sidewalks could be consolidated around the bus stop to keep them all in one area. Mr. Walsh explained that the paper boxes in the downtown area is a separate issue. He indicated that the plan is to try to keep some of the paper boxes, particularly on the east side of the street, on the Eagle Hotel side near the bus shelter and some of them will have to move and may end up closer to the clock tower or the entry way of Eagle Square.
Mayor Donovan, referencing the sketch on page six, noted that the shelter as proposed is the current location of the paper boxes in that area asking noting that if the boxes end up just behind the shelter it will most likely compound the degree of ugliness of the boxes. Referencing page five which contains the option of tucking this in against the wall of what is currently Charter Trust, Mayor Donovan inquired why this option was rejected. Mr. Walsh noted that there were two predominant concerns: 1) visibility in which the bus driver would not be able to see who is at the bus stop and patrons of the shelter not seeing the bus approaching; 2) there is an incline through here in which there was concern with the handicap patrons. Mayor Donovan noted that the busses stop at each of the designated bus stops whether they can see a patron or not. Mr. Walsh explained that the bus would stop and indicated that Mr. McIver was uncomfortable with this particular option which is why staff did not pursue it beyond the sketch within the report.
Councilor McClure inquired whether both bus shelters will be similar in design noting that the sketches within the report appear to be very different. Mr. Walsh responded that the overall design will be similar with the same color for the metal frames but that the seats may be slightly different because of the curvature.
Councilor Bouley noted that the paper boxes are not included within the sketches and inquired what is going to be done with them. Mr. Walsh responded that on the Eagle Hotel side of the street it is likely that one or two of the boxes will remain such as the UPS and DHL boxes. He explained that the rest of the boxes may end up near the entrance of Eagle Square by Charter Trust.
Councilor Black inquired as to who made the determination that these bus shelters were needed. Mr. Walsh explained that back in 1999 there had been shelters that were purchased through a catalog company that were very similar to the other bus shelters throughout the city. He noted that it was his understanding that they had been placed in these two locations and individuals were dissatisfied with them and they were relocated to other locations within the city. He explained that as a reaction to this, Council made an application to the Department of Transportation for federal funding to design custom shelters to be placed in these two locations. Councilor Black inquired whether these two bus shelters are needed. Mr. Walsh responded that Concord Area Transit feels that they are needed especially with the trolley system that will begin this coming fall that will hopefully increase ridership at these two stops which already have approximately 37,000 patrons a year.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to how many people will be able to sit in the shelters. Mr. Walsh explained that both shelters are approximately fourteen feet long and should be able to accommodate five or six people sitting on one side with room for standing behind it. He added that there is also an area under the canopy reserved for wheelchair space.
Mayor Donovan indicated that many individuals stand in inclement weather to wait for the bus. Mr. Walsh added that many individuals stand in the doorways of the businesses to wait for the bus. Mayor Donovan inquired as to how many people wait for the bus in front of the State House. Mr. Walsh responded that he does not have counts for both sides but that it is his understanding that there are approximately 37,000 individuals at both stops combined throughout the year. He indicated that according to Mr. McIver that these two locations are key switching areas for catching other busses that go to other places throughout the city.
Councilor Nyhan noted that he realizes that a majority of the funds are coming from the state to specifically place bus shelters at these two locations and if Council authorizes that these shelters be placed in these locations and there ends up being an outrage in which the city decides they no longer want these shelters, inquiring as to what the city’s obligations would be and whether they can be relocated or do they have to be given back to the state. Mr. Walsh responded that he was unsure what the city’s obligations would be. Councilor Nyhan noted his concern that if city approves the placement of these shelters and then they are removed, the city may be left to reimbursing the state for dollars spent. Mr. Walsh responded that the city is paying for twenty percent of the shelters and noted that he does not anticipate using the entire $89,000 to build the two shelters. He further stated that he would need to check with the state to answer these questions. In regards to the city’s contribution, Councilor Nyhan questioned whether the money is towards the actual materials and creation or whether this money is already spent in design. Mr. Walsh explained that it’s for the entire process including design, materials and construction.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired as to what amount is the city’s portion of the cost. Mr. Walsh responded that the current split is a $72,000 grant from the state and $17,000 from the city.
Councilor Lemieux clarified that there are no state funds involved; it is eighty percent federal funds and twenty percent city funds. Mr. Walsh indicated that to be correct explaining that it is the federal government through the State of NH and is technically federal transportation money. Councilor Lemieux noted that Council is not being asked to appropriate money, Council is being asked to accept the report in order for the project to proceed and if Council does not want the project to proceed, they don’t have to accept the report. Mayor Donovan indicated that Council can vote not to accept the report because of the locations not because they don’t want the bus shelters.
Councilor Nyhan inquired as to how much has accrued in city costs to date. Mr. Walsh responded that the total amount spent to date is approximately $6,000. Councilor Nyhan inquired whether this is just for the city portion or whether it included the federal portion as well. Mr. Walsh explained that this is the total outlay so far.
Mayor Donovan referencing the photos on page nine noted that he feels that no matter where the bus shelter is it appears to block the war memorial in some manner. He inquired whether it had been considered that the shelter be moved down Park Street a bit so that it would be more parallel to Park Street. Mr. Walsh indicated that this could be looked at explaining that it was trying to be kept as close as possible to minimize movement for individuals using it because of handicap patrons. Mr. Walsh noted he is aware of the concerns regarding this location indicating that regardless of where the shelter is placed; from a certain angle it will temporarily obscure visibility of the war monument. He noted that the Division of Historic Resources felt that the way it is positioned within the report would be acceptable but if Council wanted staff to look into a different alternative he would be happy to do so.
Councilor Brochu inquired as to why there is a shelter southbound on Main Street in front of the State House noting that he feels that it should be on the south end of the city.
Councilor Coen questioned whether the cost for a bus shelter is approximately $40,000. Mr. Walsh responded that the shelters have not been priced explaining that the budget was created back in 1999 without having any direction on what the costs may be. He indicated that he feels that they would total somewhere between $25,000 to $30,000 complete.
Councilor Blanchard moved to accept both staff recommendations, the State House Plaza option three and the Eagle Hotel option three. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux moved to amend the motion to not have any of the shelters in front of the State House. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Bouley asked if Council could split the vote.
Councilor Lemieux withdrew his amendment to the motion. The withdrawal was duly seconded.
Councilor Bouley moved to split the vote. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Mayor Donovan noted that the first vote will be the shelter on the east side which is the one in front of the Eagle Hotel.
Councilor McClure inquired whether there is higher usage on this side. Mayor Donovan indicated that through his observations, there is a higher number of people that wait for the bus on this side of the street Mr. Walsh noted that he was unsure as to the numbers on each side of the street and that he would need to verify this number with Concord Area Transit.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether the motion is to allow staff to proceed. Mayor Donovan indicated that it is his understanding that if Council votes for the motion, they are approving the proposal in front of Eagle Square on page six of the report.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether a public hearing had ever been held for the shelters. Mayor Donovan responded that a public hearing would have been held for the appropriation at some point within the last seven years.
Councilor Nyhan noted that one of his understandings is that these bus shelters are supposed to offer shelter but noted that he feels that the designs don’t appear to offer much shelter from the elements. Referencing the costs of the shelters, he inquired that in light of this whether a granite bench could be placed here instead. Mr. Walsh responded that he would need to get that approved by the state.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to how many busses run per day in each direction. Mr. Walsh indicated that he unsure as to how many busses run per day. Referencing the 37,000 patrons per year, Councilor Lemieux indicated that this does not amount to many individuals being served by this when broken down on a daily basis. Mr. Walsh reiterated that the intangible here is that when the trolley system comes online whether these two stops will see an increase in usage.
Councilor Bouley noted that during inclement weather he observes individuals huddling in doorways to get under cover. Councilor Bouley inquired whether the bus currently stops in front of Pompanoosuc Mill. Mr. Walsh indicated that it stops right before the crosswalk there. Councilor Bouley pointed out that the staff recommendation in option three is placing the shelter in front of Britches which is further down, currently where all the boxes are. Mr. Walsh indicated that to be correct explaining that it would be approximately thirty feet from where the bus would be in front of the crosswalk. Councilor Bouley inquired whether individuals would use the shelter if it’s placed in front of Britches as opposed to staying where they currently wait now noting his concern with putting a bus shelter in when in practicality it may not really be used as it should. Mr. Walsh indicated that the hope is that it would be used. Councilor Bouley asked whether it had been taken into consideration that the bus shelter is being proposed in an active loading and unloading zone. Mr. Walsh responded that the anticipation was to leave the bus stop where it was and indicated that he feels that there is enough room to move the bus stop to the north if the bus shelter is placed there noting that there may be the an opportunity to switch the loading zone and the bus stop so that the loading zone would be where the bus stop it today and vice versa.
The motion to approve the shelter location on page six of the report failed on a voice vote.
Mayor Donovan indicated that since the motion was made to split the vote, Council will now consider the second question which is for the other side of the street, in front of the State House on page nine.
Councilor Lemieux moved to amend the motion to have no bus shelters in front of the State House. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Coen inquired as to why Concord Area Transit isn’t paying for this. Mr. Walsh explained that the way that the grant was conceived in 1999, the city was the applicant to the state for these federal funds and the city agreed to supply the match.
Councilor Brochu noted that he feels that the bus shelter should be placed at the bus stop on Pleasant Street.
The motion to not to have any bus shelters in front of the State House passed on a voice vote.
Councilor Brochu moved to place the bus shelter at the bus stop on Pleasant Street. The motion was duly seconded.
Mr. Walsh explained that the grant for the funding of the bus shelters was very specific that it was for the two locations at Eagle Square and the State House Plaza. He indicated that he would need to approach the state and the federal government to see if it could be amended to that particular location.
The motion to place the bus shelter on Pleasant Street failed on a voice vote.
Mayor Donovan indicated that if Council chooses to table this item then Council should direct the staff as to the circumstances this item would come off the table. He noted that if a majority of Council does not want the bus shelters to let staff know so that they can inform the state of this decision.
Councilor Bouley moved to table this item indicating that before he votes on anything he would like to see staff come back with more comprehensive information 1) exactly what will be done with the boxes; 2) like to see Main Street individuals in attendance or submit a written correspondence as to what they can live with or not live with so that after Council votes on this there isn’t a group of businesses or downtown merchants unhappy with the shelters blocking their businesses; 3) follow through with the actual practical problem of the loading and unloading zone within that area. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Stetson inquired as to whether there is a time limit on the grant. Mr. Walsh responded that something has to be built by October 2007 or ask for an extension from the state.
Councilor Bennett noted that this should be looked at with the trolley in mind and to set a precedent that Concord is a welcoming city by providing shelter for people waiting.
Councilor St. Hilaire noted that he would like to see option two developed a little bit more indicating that this option may be considered if it were more developed. Mr. Walsh indicated that he would discuss this Concord Area Transit.
Mr. Aspell asked for clarification as to whether staff will be focusing on just one shelter. Mayor Donovan indicated that is how he interpreted Councilor Lemieux’s motion.
Councilor Lemieux noted his agreement with Councilor Nyhan’s concern that these shelters do not provide much shelter and if this is true, staff should investigate this. Mr. Walsh responded that staff could discuss adding side panels to the shelters.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether any of the business owners have complained about individuals seeking shelter in their doorways while waiting for the bus. Mr. Aspell responded that this is a constant complaint of business owners.
The motion to table passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: This item remains on the table.
Action: This item remains on the table.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor Blanchard referencing information item 11 explained that this is an issue that was before Council last year in which Council voted not to hold a public hearing on. She explained that this involves a blind student at Concord High School and the request for a stop sign on School Street at the Fruit Street intersection.
Mayor Donovan explained that on June 19, 2006 Council considered this request and voted not to hold a public hearing. He further explained that since this is still the life cycle of this Council, it would take a motion to reconsider.
Councilor Blanchard moved to reconsider the vote taken on June 19th on this request. The motion was duly seconded and failed 6-7 on a roll call vote with Councilors Stetson, Black, Blanchard, Bouley, Coen, and St. Hilaire voting yes. Councilors Bennett, Brochu, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, and Rowe voted no.
Councilor Nyhan referencing information item 20 questioned whether there is any value of Council putting forth a similar resolution to take a written position and to formally ask the state delegation to bring these concerns back to the state.
Mayor Donovan indicated that Council voted on this once before. The Municipal Association’s position was to get one member on the board and the City of Dover wanted to try to convince the legislature to put three members on the board and Council voted not to support Dover’s position. Mayor Donovan indicated that Council did vote to support the Municipal Association’s position to get one member on the board.
Councilor Nyhan clarified that he is not advocating three over one representative but just to formally put into writing to the state that Council supports representation explaining that going to the Municipal Association and expressing concerns verbally has not done much but that if every community sends in a written request it may make a difference.
City Manager Tom Aspell suggested that the Mayor produce a letter reminding the delegation of the City Council’s vote on the position and that Council continues to support this position.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that he feels that would be appropriate.
Councilor Stetson noted that in light of the recent pedestrian accidents occurring on Fisherville Road and the Route 3 Corridor Study presentation that will be given to Council at the March meeting; he would like to see staff come forward with costs associated with signalizing the Bog Road intersection as well as the intersection north of Bog Road. Councilor Stetson clarified that he would like to see staff investigate full and/or just pedestrian signals. City Manager Aspell indicated that staff would come back to Council with recommendations.
Councilor Coen referred to the roundabout that is being considered for the intersection of Auburn and Centre Street wondering how important it is to move forward with the installation of a round-a-bout when considering Fisherville Road. Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that the majority of dollars that will be involved in the construction of a roundabout at that intersection, if approved, are grant dollars.
Mayor Donovan referenced the recent visit to Concord High School by Hilary Clinton inquiring as to whether or not the City of Concord would be reimbursed for Police and Fire Services that were provided. Councilor Stetson suggested that staff look into what the Secret Service requirements were for that particular event explaining that that is the only presidential candidate now that has Secret Service protection, costs which may be required by the Secret Service.
City Manager Aspell explained that the city isn’t doing anything different now that hasn’t been done for the last many elections. Mayor Donovan noted that there hasn’t been this type of activity for many years and inquired whether there is some way to get money up front for this type of event.
City Manager Aspell indicated that staff would report back to Council next month as to what the City of Concord is typically reimbursed for when considering these types of visits to the City.
Councilor Bennett notified Council that the Communications Committee has set the date for the next Community Forum for Monday, April 2nd from 7:00 p.m.to 9:00 p.m.
Comments, Requests by the City Manager
City Manager Aspell reminded Council that in March discussions will begin on different zoning pieces that will be coming forward noting that some members of Council had inquired about having a zoning course. He indicated that anyone that if members of City Council were interested he would like them to let him know this week so that he can find a time that will work for everyone
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 18, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 44 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
Action: Mayor Donovan indicated that he believes that a majority of the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee supported this with the idea that the money, the up to fifty percent, would be going into the street paving fund. He indicated that he was going to suggest that this be amended to change paragraph two at the end to where it now reads “shall be deposited into the city’s general fund” to “shall be deposited into the city’s paving restoration fund”. Mr. Aspell responded that the reason that this was worded this way was because it is the understanding under RSA Chapter 79-A that those funds have to go to the general fund and then they are taken out of this fund and placed into other funds. Mr. Aspell indicated that the intention was to transfer the funds out of the general fund and transferred into the highway reserve.
Councilor Nyhan moved to amend the amount to one hundred percent to the general fund. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Stetson referencing the $5 million bond used for conservation easements and purchases inquired as to what repays this if the city borrows from it. Mr. Aspell responded that the general fund does.
Mayor Donovan noted that his understanding of the fifty/fifty proposal is one that the Conservation Commission is not likely to object to but that they may object if it is changed to one hundred. Mayor Donovan suggested that it remain as the City Manager has proposed at least until the public hearing on this item.
Councilor Lemieux referencing the amendment inquired whether all of the funds would go to the paving program. Councilor Nyhan indicated that he feels that they should go to the paving program. Councilor Nyhan explained that the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee as part of their consideration in setting the tax rate has already moved the incremental two percent in the paving program that was budgeted and that this would certainly be an attempt at restoring the city to its targeted two percent in the paving program in 2008.
Councilor Nyhan’s motion to move one hundred percent to the general fund passed 7-6 on with a show of hands vote.
Councilor Nyhan moved to set this item, as amended, for a March public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor McClure thanked the committee for reviewing the criteria for social service agency grants and indicated that she has since determined that the Human Services Department has spent close to three quarters of a million dollars. She pointed out that it reads that they must demonstrate that they meet one or more of the following criteria and feels that they should meet all five of the criteria being: 1) the agency primarily serves Concord residents; 2) provides a service that the City of Concord would otherwise be obligated to provide; 3) the services provided by the agency directly or indirectly reduces city expenditures; 4) a financial need be demonstrated; 5) the services enhance the quality of life for the Concord community. She noted that she would hope that any grant that the city gave to a non-profit group would satisfy all these criteria and wondered if this should be included within the recommendation.
Councilor Stetson indicated that he feels that two more requirements should be added for grant submission 1) that a copy of the agencies audited financial statement should be required and 2) require a copy of the IRS form 990 that the non-profit has to file. He noted that this would give a clearer picture of where they actually are in need of financial assistance.
Councilor Blanchard explained that there is an application that the agencies will be required to complete that is a modified United Way application and noted that she believes that this requires the information that Councilor Stetson is requesting. Referencing Councilor McClure’s suggestion she noted that she did not have a problem with changing that to include the five criteria.
Councilor Blanchard moved to adopt the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure moved to amend the report to read that the agencies must demonstrate that they meet all five of the following criteria. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Stetson referencing criteria two indicated that he is not sure that the city gives money to any other organizations for services that the city is obligated to provide adding that he is not sure all the agencies that are given money would meet this particular criteria. Councilor Bouley explained that as an example, he believes that the city is required to provide an animal control officer but the city does not employ one but does contract with the SPCA to provide this service to the city, covering this obligation.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that the committee did discuss whether or not all five criteria should be met and based upon the situation brought up by Councilor Bouley, as well as some organizations that do not primarily serve Concord residents, it was left as is because of groups that may not meet all five of the criteria.
Councilor Bouley asked Council to adopt what is being proposed by the committee explaining that the committee met numerous times with the task to come back to Council with a standard streamlined process. He noted that all of Councilor Stetson’s concerns are handled within the application process which is tailored to fit the City of Concord. He explained that in terms of general guidelines, the committee felt that the five guidelines were guidance for the City Manager and it is the City Manager’s responsibility to come back with his recommendations to Council and if Council does not agree with the recommendations at that time; they don’t have to accept them. Councilor Bouley indicated that Council will have all the back up documentation as to exactly who applied for the money, who was denied getting on the list, and who got on the list that wasn’t on before. Councilor Bouley added that Council will be able to see a process in which Council can compare organizations to each other because they will all be filling out the same applications.
Councilor McClure asked for clarification as to whether each one of these will be considered in developing criteria for the agencies that apply. Councilor Bouley explained that the City Manager will be considering these because he is putting together the budget. Councilor McClure inquired whether the committee is creating guidelines that the City Manager needs to include in his analysis of how they satisfy each one of these and not only saying that they only have to satisfy one. Councilor Bouley indicated that to be correct.
Councilor McClure withdrew her amendment.
Councilor St. Hilaire pointed out that what is missing is the grant application which is huge and includes a lot of questions. He noted that this report gives the impression that only five questions are being asked.
The motion to accept the report passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Blanchard inquired how much of developable land requires wells and septic systems and how much acreage is required when both are needed.
Councilor Bouley moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
City Planner Doug Woodward explained that the urban growth boundary essentially divides the area where there are utilities versus no utilities noting that 2/3 of the city is not served by municipal water and sewer. He indicated that a lot size for water and sewer can generally go down to ¾ of an acre.
Councilor Blanchard referencing a cluster of housing inquired whether there can be a well and septic system every ¾ of an acre. Mr. Woodward responded that he believes that this is the smallest area allowed dependent on good soils noting that there are separation distances. He explained that wells are supposed to have a 75 foot protected radius around it noting that there are some areas that can accommodate this but most of them cannot. Mr. Woodward explained that this is the lowest limit that it can go if the lots are clustered in one area.
Mayor Donovan asked for clarification as to the next steps referenced within the report. Mr. Woodward explained that there is an outline of all the different chapters and essentially the board is completing a number of these and the goal is to compile these into a document that they would have as a unified draft to take out to public hearing. He added that he was trying to put together an executive summary of this so that it is easier to publish for the public to receive. Mayor Donovan noted that it indicates a draft in March pending the board’s concurrence with the framework and inquired whether the board has concurred with the framework yet. Mr. Woodward indicated that the board has reviewed it and given some feedback. He noted that they have not had a formal vote explaining that at every meeting they take up areas of the master plan. He explained that he has given the board a rough draft of the land use chapter and that they will be receiving a final draft at their next meeting. Mayor Donovan noted that it is indicated that there will be a draft master plan presented to the Planning Board in March but there appears to be a lot of things that need to happen first that have not happened. Mayor Donovan inquired whether or not the Planning Board will have a draft master plan before them in March. Mr. Woodward responded that he does not believe that the Planning Board will have that in front of them for March. Mayor Donovan inquired as to when the Planning Board may have one before them. Mr. Woodward indicated that it may be possible that they may have one for April.
The motion to accept the report passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Bennett noting asterisks under spring appraisal and under Upton and Hatfield which states that the smaller cost were incurred and inquired whether costs had been left out. Mr. Aspell clarified that all the costs were included within the report. Councilor Bennett inquired as to the asterisks which stated similar costs were incurred. Mr. Aspell explained that the city spent some dollars on the Gabby Lane property and on other properties.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether Mr. Spring was paid $14,540 just to appraise the Tuttle’s property or did it also include other appraisals. Mr. Aspell responded that it included two appraisals for that and for other properties looked at.
Councilor Black inquired as to the status of the Tuttle house. Mr. Aspell explained that staff has met with utility companies, has received estimates of $32,000 to $40,000 to move the house, and the plan is to have the house moved to Gabby Lane by April.
Councilor Bennett moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux inquired in regards to the landscaping costs that were incurred. Mr. Aspell explained that when the property was originally acquired, Gabby Lane was only one parcel that needed to be subdivided noting that when the property was subdivided the owner of the property indicated that he would be glad to help the city out, sell a piece of property however they didn’t want to be able to see the house. He explained that a large landscape buffer with mature stock was created along the new subdivision line.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to how many appraisals were included within the $14,540. Mr. Aspell explained that included the two for the Tuttle house and looking at some other properties. Councilor Blanchard asked how many other properties. Mr. Aspell responded that he was unsure and would need to look into this.
Councilor Bennett added that it was his understanding that the Tuttle’s were shown a lot of properties.
Following brief Council discussion, the motion to approve the report passed with no dissenting votes.
Consideration of Suspense Items
Mayor Donovan indicated that he had received a request from a constituent who is suggesting that consideration be given to naming a parcel or trail within the Broken Ground area after the late former Mayor Coeyman. Mayor Donovan asked that Council suspend the rules to consider this item.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to suspend the rules to consider this item. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to refer this communication to the Facilities Naming Committee. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Adjournment
The time being 11:10 p.m., Councilor Nyhan moved to enter non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss contract negotiations, Penacook Mill and Scandia Hall. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouley, Brochu, Coen, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Rowe, St. Hilaire voting yes. Councilor Stetson voted no.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk