City Council Meeting
Recessed Meeting Minutes
March 19, 2007
Non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 2, I (b) to discuss
collective bargaining and non-public
session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss contract negotiations,
Penacook Mill and Scandia Hall following the meeting.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
- 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.
March 12, 2007 Public Hearing Action (Tabled until March 19, 2007)
Action: Councilor Bennett moved to take this item off the table. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
City Manager Tom Aspell, referencing a March 16th correspondence from Attorney Jim Raymond, Upton & Hatfield, explained that Mr. Raymond has worked with Capital Region Development Council and the Planning Department. Mr. Aspell pointed out an attached revised covenant in strikethrough form which indicates that the changes with the two major elements have been addressed: 1) the gap between the zoning ordinance change and the covenant; 2) concerns brought up during the public testimony of which the Planning Department and CRDC thought were necessary.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether these protections will remain in effect if the aquifer protection ordinance is not as strong. Attorney Raymond indicated that to be correct explaining that if the city adopts an ordinance that is less restrictive, these will still control and stay in effect. Mayor Donovan inquired whether the City Solicitor had the chance to review this covenant to ascertain as to whether these protections will remain in effect if an ordinance is indeed not as strong. Attorney Raymond explained that paragraph one, the lapse provision, was entirely removed so that it doesn’t lapse and would therefore stay in effect.
Councilor Stetson inquired as to the enforcement of the covenant. Attorney Raymond responded that this is a covenant put on by the landowner, CRDC, and that typically the city has statutory powers of enforcement. He explained that the landowner cannot grant statutory powers and therefore cannot incorporate within the covenant statutory enforcement because as a private landowner, CRDC doesn’t have that right. Mr. Raymond clarified that the Planning Board could, as an expressed condition to any approvals on the lots, incorporate this therefore automatically bringing the statutory enforcement rights.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to the mechanism of inspection as well as the enforcement. Attorney Raymond explained that covenants are private landowners granting to somebody either certain restrictions or rights. He indicated that covenants don’t have in the two parties, somebody who makes decisions. He added that they wanted the covenant to be black and white because there is no third party arbitrator explaining that when the Planning Board grants site plan approval, they can add to these restrictions and can be the group that makes those judgments.
Councilor Brochu questioned as to what prevents the landowner from removing one of the covenants. Attorney Raymond responded that because they are granted with the right of the city, the city would have to approve of the change. He noted that it could be added into the covenant that expressly states that any change has to be approved by the city. Councilor Brochu inquired whether the city has the power over everything that takes place regardless of what the covenant is by the landowner. Mr. Raymond indicated that to be correct explaining that the enforcement section gives enforcement power to CRDC and the other lot owners, because they want to be protected from their neighbors, and to the city. He explained that as a recent State Supreme Court case it talks about who gets enforcement rights and noted that they had wanted the city expressly included within this power.
Mayor Donovan noted that he feels that there should be a provision that does not allow it to be amended without the approval of the city. Attorney Raymond noted that he agrees with this statement and he feels this should be included within the covenant.
Councilor St. Hilaire, referencing wording within the covenant, “no such regulated chemicals and substances…” indicated that it appears that one could dispose of chemicals that are not regulated. He added that when reading the entire document, it appears that there is not any prohibition from disposing of chemicals regulated or not. Attorney Raymond responded that this wording had been taken from the model explaining that it is not intended to grant any further rights than a property owner has by law anyway. He explained that if there is not the right to do something and if these covenants do not restrict it, it doesn’t mean that one has the right noting that this is just an additional layer. Attorney Raymond indicated that this was intended to go with the rezoning because there is going to be some additional permitted uses to go with the industrial use but that they wanted to ensure there are restrictions on these additional uses. Attorney Raymond explained that many of the provisions within the model that were used were intended for aquifer protection noting that this is why this wording had been used. Councilor St. Hilaire noted that the model act is not in place which is why Council is discussing the covenants this evening. Attorney Raymond indicated that to be correct. Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that Council needs to ensure that everything is included within this document that would be included to protect groundwater. Attorney Raymond responded that this was proposed because of the rezoning explaining that this is not a substitution for the city adopting an aquifer protection ordinance in general. He noted that the purpose of this was because CRDC was requesting a rezoning of four lots to expand the permitted uses from more office park to some distributional warehouse facilities and wanted to ensure that any additional risk proposed by those uses would be prevented until the city adopts an aquifer protection ordinance which will likely look at the model act as a guide. Councilor St. Hilaire, referencing the top of page 2 of 4, which lists substances that are allowable and excludes a list of substances including ammonia, sodium, hypo chloride, etc. and inquired if the reader of this document is to assume that these chemicals can be disposed of on these properties. Attorney Raymond responded no that they can be used on the property because these chemicals are used in normal processes that are allowed and are not included within the federal or state standards as creating the risk that the others do. Councilor St. Hilaire inquired as to what prohibits their disposal. Attorney Raymond responded that this is not intended as the complete statement of what can and cannot be done with hazardous materials and is only addressing the additional aquifer protection issues by the zoning change. He indicated that if they are subject to other restrictions, this doesn’t change that.
Mayor Donovan indicated that as he understands, this doesn’t actually covenant that these standards are going to be effective on this land but does covenant that the Planning Board may apply these standards. City Planner Doug Woodward explained that this started off as a draft presented by CRDC and from there the Planning Board asked that staff review this, look at the state model and give a copy to the Town of Pembroke for their comments. Mayor Donovan inquired whether the City Solicitor had reviewed the document. Mr. Woodward responded that he had forwarded a copy of the document to the Solicitor’s office. Mayor Donovan inquired whether any comments had been received from the Solicitor. Mr. Woodward explained that this process began in November and indicated that there had been brief discussions with the Solicitor and added that he also had discussions with the Fire Department and Code Administration. Mr. Woodward indicated that the list of regulated chemicals is actually a federal list that the EPA publishes and those particular ones left off of the list was the first thing that the Planning Board had questioned. Mr. Woodward noted that it turns out that the ones specifically exempted are items that are actually used in water treatment processes and have been deemed by the experts that if they are spilled or dumped will not do any permanent damage indicating that this was the explanation that he had received from the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Woodward, referencing a map, explained that the area at Industrial Park Drive and Chenell Drive is already in an industrial zone where uses are not bound to any of this and that the only restriction that was added in recent years to the zoning was the prohibition of the retail sale of gasoline in this area. He noted that in relative terms, four lots are being restricted of which the good that can become of this might all be reversed by something that is a hundred yards away indicating that it is the hope that the city have an aquifer protection ordinance in the future.
Councilor Coen noted that it was his understanding at the last Council meeting that the idea was to find a bridge between the two documents because if this is done there may be a point in time in which there may be a gap and the city is trying to solidify the protection.
Mayor Donovan noted his concern, referencing the first paragraph, which reads that it allows the Planning Board to put the standards in effect and noted that he feels that it should read “that the following standards shall apply to the land covered by this covenant”. He indicated that it would make it clear if the intent is that these standards apply, not that it is optional for the Planning Board to do it, and that it needs to clearly to state that the following standards shall apply to the land covered by these covenants if this is the intent. Attorney Raymond noted that to avoid this interpretation of the actual prohibited uses in the restricted outdoor material, II, and performance standards to stand on their own in paragraph one under the site plan application requirements still would fall under the Planning Board. He explained that this is something that they would look at and assess and that the others would be the absolute prohibitions indicating that this would accomplish both giving the Planning Board tools and the absolute restrictions that the Mayor suggested noting that the wording can be interpreted as making it all up to the Planning Board to enforce and that this is not the intent.
Councilor St. Hilaire, referencing paragraph one on page one, the sentence “no such regulated chemicals and substances used in any manufacturing process” inquired as to what if chemicals that are not used in a manufacturing process are disposed of and further questioned as to how this would be enforced. Referencing the prohibitive uses on page three, Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that the last one added was the operation of a hazardous waste disposal facility which makes it sound like a business and questioned that if the business was disposing chemicals but not deemed in the business of disposing chemicals and they dump chemicals on the property that they were not using in the manufacturing process explained that he feels that this section appears to be a loophole.
Mayor Donovan indicated that he is uncomfortable with adopting what he feels to be a loosely drafted legal document.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to table this item until the April Council meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Mayor Donovan noted that he feels that the Solicitor should look at this document and report on it in some manner.
Action:
Councilor Blanchard 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 St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Reports
Action: General Services Director Chip Chesley introduced Ted Siegler from DSM Environmental Services, Inc. Mr. Chesley explained that the report represents the first comprehensive update of Concord’s Solid Waste Management Plan since 1991 and is intended to ensure compliance with the New Hampshire Solid Waste Management laws and also to provide guidance as the agreement between the Concord Regional Solid Waste Resource Recovery Corporation (COOP) and Wheelabrator Concord Company approaches its termination. He noted that Council is reminded that the agreement was recently extended for a five year period until 2014 with a provision that it can be extended until 2019 upon the mutual concurrence of both parties to this agreement. Mr. Chesley indicated that in 2019, the electric rate order which supports much of the economic viability of the waste energy facility expires and that Concord, from a historic perspective, has been a leader in fostering regional solid waste solutions.
Ted Siegler, DSM Environmental Services, Inc., explained that he has been working with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee over the last few years on the development of this plan. He explained that it is intended to ensure continued compliance with New Hampshire state law as well as provide a road map looking forward to the end of the contract with Wheelabrator and the COOP. He stated that state law encourages regional cooperation and as noted, Concord has historically taken the lead in promoting regional cooperation in this area noting that today, Concord has successfully been sending its refuse to the Penacook Waste Energy Plant for fifteen years, has privatized the collection of refuse, established the downtown solid waste district, and implemented comprehensive citywide biweekly curbside collection of recyclables. Mr. Siegler explained that one of the primary issues is how this is funded and what the revenue sources are. He indicated that in FY05 which is when this plan was completed, property taxes were used to pay $1.3 million of the total of $3.2 million of the solid waste budget and that the amount of property taxes required has been reduced in most years primarily through a surplus from commercial waste disposal fees and also some small revenue sources, grants, licensing for private haulers, vehicle registration surcharge, and billing of the school district for collection disposal. He noted that the largest revenue source other than property tax is the commercial solid waste disposal fee explaining that all commercial waste is delivered to the waste energy plant at a higher rate than what the city is required to pay under its agreement with the COOP and the difference is used to control property taxes. He indicated that in FY05, this was roughly $416,000 and this current year it is projected to be approximately $385,000. Mr. Siegler explained that one of the issues that was of greatest concern when looking forward, was the ability to keep the property tax revenue stable and continue to fund the current curbside recycling collection program and refuse program for residences while the tipping fee increase at the waste energy plant is projected to rise and to deal with the upcoming requirement to stop delivering yard waste to the waste energy facility. He noted that the concern is that as the tipping fee increases, the ability for the city to manage the spread between the property taxes and the revenue sources from the commercial sector will decline because there will not be any control over the delivery of waste from the commercial sector to the waste energy plant and if the city continues to increase the tipping fee and it gets higher than the standard tipping fee in other facilities in New Hampshire, then the city will start to lose the waste therefore the city will have to fall more heavily on the property tax to continue to pay for residential collection. Mr. Siegler explained that one of the ways to solve this problem, d a way that has been implemented in 38 other municipalities within New Hampshire, is to have a pay as you throw or a user fee system for residential solid waste collection and indicated that one of the recommendations of this plan is that the city investigate the potential of implementing a pay as you throw or a user fee system for solid waste. He explained that one of the benefits of implementing a user fee system in addition to be able to control property tax revenue is that the city already has a curbside collection system for recycling in place in which a fixed fee is in place and its irrespective of the amount of tonnage that gets collected and the more tonnage that is put in the truck, the lower the per ton costs are. He explained that the current per household rate is approximately 325 pounds per household as being recycled and the database indicates that for a city this size, it should be up to 400 to 450 pounds per household per year for recyclables. He indicated that a user fee system would encourage people to put more materials out in the recycling bin and less material out for solid waste disposal. He noted that a red flag is the city’s ability to control the amount of property tax revenue that is assigned for solid waste collection disposal is going to start to become a problem and that the city should consider implementation of some type of a user fee to address this issue looking forward.
Councilor Brochu noted that he feels that the pounds per household being recycled is a low amount. He indicated that residents need to become more aware and do more recycling, throwing less waste away.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to what 400 to 450 pounds represent as a percentage of the total waste that a family would generate. Mr. Siegler explained that as an overall household waste in Concord would be shooting for approximately 25 to 30 percent of the material going into the recycling bin and the remainder going into the refuse bin mainly due to the fact that recycling is lighter material as opposed to wet food waste. He added that a strongly recycling household could generate 40 to 45 percent of waste going into a recycling bin. Councilor Blanchard noted whether it is possible and probable that the community could recycle 40 percent of the trash. Mr. Siegler indicated that realistically because not everyone participates, if a goal of 30 percent is hit, this would be doing quite well in terms of getting high participation rate for recycling and high participation for diversion of yard waste. Councilor Blanchard questioned whether a community would receive more participation if recycling was done every week as opposed to every other week. Mr. Siegler indicated that to be correct indicating that there would be an approximate five percent increase in the amount of material that gets put out and noted that there is obviously a corresponding cost associated with this. He explained that the city’s desire to implement curbside collection and the processing facility available, every other week was a really good way to start the program and as processing facilities become available to take single stream materials so they can be mixed together and as the program matures, the city may find that it makes sense to change this to every week some time in the future.
Councilor Coen referencing the $1.3 million currently spent on noncommercial, questioned that if the city implements a user fee would this reduce that $1.3 million amount. Councilor Coen noted that he feels that the perception is that the $1.3 million would stay and that another fee is being added. Mr. Siegler responded that it depends on what percentage of the cost of solid waste management that is placed on the bag as opposed to continue to carry through property tax revenue. He explained that it is not unusual for municipalities to carry a portion of the cost on the bag and a portion of it on the property tax noting that this is often the case and that it is often started off this way and as people get used to it and realize there is a recycling program, the city can then begin ramping it up until it covers the entire cost of residential collection and disposal at which case everything else being equal the city would be saving $1.3 million on the property tax revenue. Mr. Siegler added that every penny that is put into the bag fee is money that doesn’t have to be raised either through an increase in the commercial disposal fee or an increase in the amount of property tax revenue. Councilor Coen inquired as to how many communities have implemented the pay as you throw technique and of these, how many have any gone back to the old method discontinuing the pay as you throw method. Mr. Siegler responded that he had researched this and is not aware of any municipalities in New Hampshire that have abandoned the pay as you throw once it has been implemented. Councilor Coen, referencing page 13 of the report, noted that 303 households or two percent of the community participates in the annual household hazardous waste collection program and inquired whether this a good or bad percentage. Mr. Siegler responded that he believes this to be typical explaining that even though these events are publicized many do not participate for a variety of reasons. He indicated that some kind of a curbside collection program for household hazardous waste is typically prohibitibly expensive so it is not done and that in some places there are permanent drop off programs. He indicated that the city’s program is typical and is what is happening in other communities.
Councilor Stetson indicated that there are many apartment complexes within the city and feels that the basis of this is to try to reduce the tonnage going to the incinerator. He noted that most apartment waste is placed in dumpsters noting that apartment complexes don’t typically have the availability of recycling questioning whether there is any way to address this problem. Mr. Siegler responded that the city is unique because it serves all the apartment buildings and noted that having a contract for commercial collection through dumpsters of apartment waste drops the cost for the apartments so that the apartment owners and renters are seeing some economic benefit from the fact that the city has asserted itself in the contracting process. He explained that ways to handle this if the city implements a user fee system and the issue of recycling is twofold: 1) the city can decide whether to exclude apartments from the user fee system or not – if the city wanted to include them, the city would have to be a little more creative in terms of the way the city designs this user fee system for the dumpsters probably in terms of a per cubic yard size per apartment dwelling that would be billed and they would pay more over and above; 2) expand the curbside recycling collection system to include the apartment buildings using rolling cart toters that would be set out in location selected by the complex where recyclables could be placed and then the same truck that is collecting the residential curbside recycling would be used to collect the toters.
Councilor Black inquired whether recycling materials generated any money. Mr. Siegler indicated that to be correct explaining that typically the collection of recycling is more expensive than the collection of refuse because it is lighter weight and there is less per stop and from an efficiency point of view it is cheaper to collect it as refuse noting that it is made up on the processing side. He noted that there is a charge for processing recyclable materials but depending on which plant the material is being delivered to and how the contract is arranged, revenue can be received back especially from the sale of paper which represents approximately seventy percent of the recyclable material.
Councilor St. Hilaire referencing communities that participate in the pay as you throw program, inquired whether there are any communities that also participate in curbside recycling along with this. Mr. Siegler responded that almost every community that does participate in the pay as you throw program participates in both. He explained that there are two forms of communities in New Hampshire that have pay as you throw: 1) transfer based systems where everyone brings their garbage to the transfer station with drop offs for recycling there; 2) sixteen curbside collection communities in which there is curbside collection refuse and almost all of these have a curbside collection of recycling with many having a yard waste collection program as well. Councilor St. Hilaire inquired as to whether there was an increase of recycling in any of these communities. Mr. Siegler responded that an increase was definitely seen explaining that there has been a lot of work in the United States looking at what this increase is and noted that it varies fairly widely but on average there is an anticipation that if one goes with a relatively comprehensive user fee system, that the amount of waste being set out at the curb as refuse would drop somewhere between 20 and 25 percent and of that perhaps 15 percentage points would be increased recycling.
Councilor Blanchard inquired that if the city had a good education program to educate residents on the rationale of recycling and increase the recycling to the maximum, would this eliminate the need for a pay as you throw system. Mr. Siegler responded that it is certainly possible to increase the recycling rate by a good public education program but that pay as you throw programs tend to be the most efficient way of increasing recycling explaining that it is hard to sustain a public education program that works consistently over time. Councilor Blanchard questioned whether it would pay for the city to do its own recycling collection in view of the fact that there is potential revenue here. Mr. Siegler responded that very few municipalities have gone to private collection and then come back and offered it themselves. He explained that there are some primarily in situations where there isn’t very much competition in the waste collection business and cities are worried that they are not getting a really competitive bid.
Councilor Nyhan inquired whether there are other programs that have been implemented other than pay as you throw concepts or general tax increases. Mr. Siegler responded that most of the other options are hybrid of some combination of a charge to the user and property tax revenue. He explained that there are many ways to implement the user fee such as on a per bag basis or a different charge depending on the size of carts that individuals get. He added that there are some municipalities who don’t like a rate on the property tax and have a flat rate that they bill on a water or sewer bill for solid waste.
Councilor Black inquired whether the impact on property taxes is due to the fact of reduced tipping fees. Mr. Siegler responded that it is a combination of reducing tipping fees, which is the smaller combination, and the larger combination is revenue received from the user fee itself.
Councilor Nyhan inquired based upon current household volumes, as to what is the incremental cost that the city is looking at in 2009. General Services Director Chip Chesley explained that the tip fee is established by the COOP and its twenty six members noting that there is recognition amongst the COOP’s members that there is a much larger tip fee in the future when coming into the new contract and what happens after 2014. Mr. Chesley indicated that Concord’s position has been to keep the tip fee as low as possible and if there is a big step in the future, let’s face it in the future. Mr. Chesley explained that there are other communities at the table that would like to put some money away now to help in the impact of the size of that step. He explained that at the last COOP meeting, the majority of the membership saw it the way that Concord sees it. Mr. Siegler added that there are two cost components associated with this system: 1) the tipping fee at the waste energy plant; 2) the collection contract costs. Mr. Siegler explained that collection typically represents seventy percent of the total system costs and that relatively high increases have been seen in collection contract costs over time noting that collection contractors are being faced with new diesel engine requirements, higher worker compensation costs, higher health care costs, and higher fuel costs which are translating into higher collection costs. Mr. Siegler indicated that it is easier to predict what the COOP’s costs are likely to be than what the next round of refuse collection or recycling collection costs are going to be when going out to bid two to three years from now.
City Manager Tom Aspell asked that Mr. Chesley touch on two pieces including the change with the sale of energy and the fact that the city’s tipping fee is so low compared to what the commercial sector is charged and how this revenue will disappear when the city’s rates start to go up versus what the market is.
Mr. Chesley explained that the city’s tipping fee with the incinerators is approximately $42.50 per ton and commercial tippers pay approximately $54.50 per ton. He indicated that when the new agreement starts there will be higher tipping fees that will continue to grow. He explained that there is a ceiling that is in effect where a commercial hauler may look for another option to dispose of the waste that is more economically viable for them for example they could send their trucks to Auburn instead of Penacook and the revenue stream that the city is currently realizing could disappear fairly quickly and have a dramatic impact on the property tax because the city has historically relied upon these revenues to support solid waste disposal. Mr. Chesley referencing the Carter Administration, explained that the federal government provided financial incentives to investors to build waste energy plants and hydro-energy plants where the investors were guaranteed a hard and market electric rate, which they derive revenues from the solid waste that is generated as a twenty six member community in tipping fees and generate revenue from the electricity that they sell to the local utility companies. Mr. Chesley explained that Concord has perhaps one of the highest electric rate orders in the country and cannot candidly find a plant that has a higher rate. He indicated that when that rate order disappears in 2019, the economic viability of a waste energy facility begins to evaporate.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to when the commercial tipping fee was last raised. Mr. Chesley responded that he believed it to be two years ago. Mayor Donovan inquired as to what was the difference between the commercial tipping fee and to what was paid in those days. Mr. Chesley responded that he did not recall these numbers. Mayor Donovan inquired as to why, in the short term, the city wouldn’t want to retain the margin. Mr. Chesley responded that he feels that the city wants to make as much margin as it can but not charge such a fee that would cause a commercial hauler to look elsewhere to dispose of their waste. Mayor Donovan inquired as to how the Auburn facility is charging. Mr. Siegler responded that there is a fairly substantial range called the spot market tipping fee which is what a hauler can get on any given day by calling. He indicated that on average there are disposal fees ranging between $65 and $75 per ton on a contract basis. Mr. Siegler noted that the city is currently between $54 and $55 and is getting close indicating that there are two balancing acts: 1) currently the city is giving Concord businesses a good deal because its lower than the spot market tipping fee, it’s a fair price for getting rid of their waste and it is assured that it will get 95 to 100 percent of the material; 2) as the city starts to go up to or above $65, the deal for the Concord businesses isn’t as great and the leakage starts to increase at the same time.
Mayor Donovan, referencing the licensing of commercial haulers, inquired whether they are required as part of the license to take their Concord waste to the Penacook incinerator. Mr. Chesley indicated that to be correct indicating that there is a local flow control ordinance. Mr. Chesley noted that it is his understanding that there have been some challenges to local flow control ordinances in other jurisdictions. Mayor Donovan questioned whether this had been decided that this is illegal anywhere. Mr. Siegler responded that if the flow control rulings are followed, it would be a tough case to force the private haulers collecting from a private business to deliver to the city’s facility even with a licensing agreement. He explained that the Supreme Court recently heard a case within the last month that is very specific to this and is expected to rule in the spring and it will be known how much authority municipalities will have to direct the flow of commercial waste once this decision is made. Mayor Donovan inquired whether it is being suggested/proposed that if the city implements pay as you throw that the city reduce this commercial hauling fee. Mr. Chesley responded that this has not been discussed. Mayor Donovan indicated that there did not appear to be any recommendations within the executive summary and inquired why the executive summary does not recommend anything in specific. Mr. Siegler responded that this was the way the staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee had wanted the report to be written, to provide ideas and then have the discussion follow in terms as to what is the best course of action for the city. He explained that he was not specifically asked to lay out how it is recommended to go forward and was asked more to do the analysis in terms of where the city is at and where the city might go. Mayor Donovan questioned if Mr. Siegler was specifically asked not to make recommendations. Mr. Siegler responded that the tenor of the plan was to give the information and let the city make the decisions in terms of how the city would move forward.
Mayor Donovan, referencing pages 30 and 31, pointed out that there was six bulleted sections within the report entitled recommended actions and asked whether these are actions that is felt that the city should be taking. Mr. Siegler responded that the plan for the bulleted items listed are ways in which the city could ramp up participation in recycling collection starting from the easiest and working towards the harder and/or more costly. Mayor Donovan, referencing the last bulleted item, asked for clarification as to whether this item would only cost $50,000 more per year to go to weekly recycling. Mr. Siegler responded that this was the best guess given the bid prices at the time. Mayor Donovan noted that he had thought that this number had been greater and inquired whether staff concurred with this number. Mr. Chesley responded that he believed that this number was correct but would confirm it. Mayor Donovan inquired what specifically was being recommended that the city do in respect to the yard waste and leaf program. Mr. Siegler responded that there will not be much of a choice except to collect yard waste separately from refuse once the ban on delivery of yard waste to the waste energy plant is in place. He explained that as with curbside collection of recyclables there are various ways to implement the program indicating that there is typically a big discussion with municipalities in terms of what is a reasonable way to do this noting that the standard is to offer weekly collection of yard waste for six weeks in the spring and six weeks in the fall and biweekly collection in the summer when its drier and there is less material. Mayor Donovan, referencing commercial recycling on page 35, indicated that it is noted that Portsmouth made commercial recycling mandatory four years ago and noted that Concord only has seven cardboard bins in downtown and inquired as to how this gets included in the downtown solid waste district charges. Mr. Chesley explained that these costs are carried by the downtown solid waste district and the location of all the solid waste and recycling receptacles within the district is worked out jointly amongst the landowners in the area along with the assistance of the downtown solid waste district. Mayor Donovan inquired whether the downtown district is receiving a lower cost to use the recyclable dumpsters. Mr. Chesley indicated that the downtown solid waste district contracts with Bestway who serves all the receptacles, both cardboard and solid waste. Mayor Donovan noted that there is therefore no incentive from a financial point of view for the downtown businesses to use the cardboard recycling bins. Mr. Chesley responded, that at this juncture, the incentive would be in that if they are actively recycling cardboard, this material is not brought to the incinerator and would avoid this cost.
Councilor Bouley, referencing the pay as you throw system, inquired whether the downtown solid waste district would be affected by this. Mr. Siegler responded that they would not unless they wanted to become involved and participate. Mr. Chesley explained that the one impact that they may perhaps be favorable to is that they may wish to put controls on their dumpsters. Mr. Siegler added that one of the downsides of a user fee system is that individuals will look for other ways to not have to put their bag out on the curb. Councilor Bouley, referencing construction demolition waste on page 8, inquired whether there is currently a moratorium on this or whether it is just for burning. Mr. Siegler responded that the moratorium is just for burning noting that construction demolition can be disposed of at land fills. Councilor Bouley indicated that land fills were listed on page 46 and noted that Auburn was not listed. Mr. Chesley responded that Auburn is a transfer station.
Councilor Rogers, Solid Waste Advisory Committee Chair, noted that she did not recall the committee giving the direction of not giving any recommendations. She explained that the committee and the plan had mentioned a modified pay as you throw which was brought up in light up public concerns and asked whether this could be elaborated upon. Mr. Siegler indicated that it is similar to a lifeline type of fee system in that the city says that it doesn’t need to raise 100 percent of the revenue through a pay as you throw program so in order to make sure that low income residents are not adversely impacted by a pay as you throw program, the city would set a base level service that is offered at no cost to the household and would charge for everything over that for example: the first bag each week is free and any bag over that would be paid for. He explained that another is that the city can decide how to handle the dumpster waste at apartment buildings and whether to make these subject to the pay as you throw program and if so, at what level.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether there is anyway of knowing what percentage of the waste stream is actual garbage. Mr. Siegler explained that typically in a bag system there are two different size bags in which the smaller bag can be priced substantially lower. He noted that in terms of food waste, it is the heaviest part of the waste stream and approximately twenty five percent of the amount of waste.
Mayor Donovan inquired as to what is being requested of Council explaining that there are a lot of ideas included within the plan with no specific recommendations. City Manager Aspell explained that there are two major pieces: 1) the operations of how residential waste management, commercial waste management, the leaf and yard waste collection systems are handled and what type of operations the city should be moving forward with; 2) costs associated with these. Mr. Aspell noted that he feels that the operational pieces need to move forward the same time with the cost discussions. He added that the operational pieces would need to be worked over with staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and the financial pieces would need to be worked over by a different set of staff, using some of the same staff, and Administration working with the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee. Mr. Aspell explained that the study listed six ways to address each one of these sections and it needs to be determined as to which one of these needs to start being implemented and developed over the next year and to have these in place come 2009.
Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Mr. Hollingshead, Fay, Spoffard & Thorndike, explained that the study began in 2005 in which there was a public advisory committee with the focus of this group to review study findings to help set directions for the studies, comment on the improvement projects, and review the study and its findings in the end. He noted that one of the big items that came out of the public advisory committee was a set of goals that they tried to tailor the study to meet: planning a functional multi-modal corridor to be able to process pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles; refining the corridor’s character by influencing streetscape; manage the physical and safety conditions on the corridor; make all these improvements while minimizing impacts on private property. Referencing average daily twenty four hour traffic volumes from 2005 in three locations along the corridor, Mr. Hollingshead indicated that in the northern part there is approximately 9,400 vehicles, in the south, south of Bog Road, the number increases 15,300, and further south towards the Concord business district, the number further increases to18,600. He explained that the big flow in the morning hours is heading into the downtown area and in the afternoon, it is the reverse with much less volumes heading towards the downtown area. He explained that once all of the traffic data had been collected, the question was how the road operates and indicated that manual turning movements counts were taken and calculated through a computer program and reported out using a concept called level of service (los). He explained that similar to a report card, los-a is good and los-f is bad. Pointing out the a.m. and p.m. 2005 level of service at the nine locations that were looked at, he indicated that there are a lot of f’s in the corridor and noted that something to remember when looking at these levels of services of f’s and e’s is that these are the levels of services for vehicles that are trying to turn onto Route 3. Mr. Hollingshead indicated that traffic was calculated through 2030 explaining that there would be intensifying congestion on the roadway and that it would be harder to access Route 3 in the future. He noted that they also looked at crashes and safety throughout the nine locations between 2000 to 2003 and what the data indicated was that overall the accident rate on the Route 3 corridor was not considered excessive by normal standards.
Bill Moore, Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, explained that they did an extensive evaluation of existing conditions and mobility such as crosswalks, bus stops, and how people get along on sidewalks. Referencing sidewalk conditions, he indicated that on a large amount of the corridor in which there is sidewalk it appears to be in fair condition and that there are a few areas in which it appears to be in good condition due to recent repaving. He added that there are poor condition sidewalks which are usually located where the roadway and roadway shoulders are in poor condition and has failed over time for a variety of reasons. In summary, Mr. Moore noted that over the entire length of the corridor, considering both sides of the road, about sixty five percent of it has sidewalk in which fifteen percent is in very poor condition, seventy three percent is in fair condition and seven percent is in good condition. Referencing roadway, drainage, shoulders and pavement conditions, Mr. Moore indicated that these are the key parts to the corridor. He pointed out longitudinal cracks that parallel the roadway and transverse cracks explaining that this is part of the pavement condition noting that it is a unique construction built years ago in which there was an approximate twenty foot slab of concrete underneath Route 3 and on top of this over the years, it was overlaid with pavement and gradually widened out to provide a shoulder on either side and in some areas, a sidewalk was developed. He added that there are no curb or defined gutter systems along the edge of the roadway and when it rains, the water has nowhere to go so it just goes to the lowest spot and seeps into the shoulder gravel.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether the twenty foot slab was a uniform width. Mr. Moore responded that as best as he can tell, it appears to be a uniform width and over time it was built out against it so that there is differential settlement.
Mr. Moore explained that they looked in detail at roadside hazards along the corridor noting that many are hazards that have just developed over time. He indicated that the goals are to avoid property impacts, to provide a multi-modal corridor and to manage the pavement condition in the roadway. He explained that what was established with the advisory committee was a minimum typical section, the minimum improvement that should be accepted along the corridor. Mr. Moore explained that it established that there should be a minimum of eleven foot lanes in each direction, a minimum of five foot shoulder/bike lane, and a sidewalk on one side of the road or preferably both sides. He added that in areas where there is more room, whether the right of way is switched one direction or another, there is a possibility that there could be four foot grass strips and areas for trees which requires a six foot grass strip. Mr. Moore explained that they have proposed signalization at key location intersections that would provide acceptable level of service for individuals trying to get in and out of side streets to access Route 3 and explained that those key locations are at Sewalls Falls Road, Bog Road, Manor and Borough Roads, Washington Street and at East Street. He explained that signals could not be provided at all the locations so at the other locations safety type improvements are being recommended. He explained that the project started at Penacook Street and pointed that the first stretch of road up to Rumford Street is the most urbanized stretch explaining that in this area they would apply the typical section of five foot shoulders and sidewalks and improve the merge situation; continuing in this area towards Rumford Street, he noted that they want to make use of bump outs to define on street parking and reduce the length of crosswalks; at Rumford Street, an intersection not being signalized, it is being proposed to improve how this street intersects Route 3 in a more perpendicular angle for better sight distance and more definition of where people are going; at McGuire Street a left turn lane is being proposed in each direction; at Knight Street it is being proposed to tighten up this area and eliminate the parking to improve sight distance and define the intersection as well as the entrance into the parking lot; signalization is being proposed at Sewalls Falls Road because it warrants signals because of the high volume; Bog Road would be proposed as a signalized location involving realigning a driveway so that it is directly across from the intersection so that the two approaches could work together and would include a crosswalk under signalized control with a sidewalk on both sides of the road along with five foot shoulders for bike use; Borough and Manor Road intersection is proposed to be improved to include five foot sidewalks on all four sides and a crosswalk under signalization across Borough Road; a balanced improvement concept is being proposed for Penacook Village which would balance the need for capacity improvements with the potential to impacts to the businesses and in particular to parking. He noted that a left turn lane is provided for to Washington Street but not provided for to East Street or Summer Street explaining that if left turn lanes are provided to these two roadways, it would eliminate parking on one side of the street and it is felt that these roadways work acceptably in the future condition with this scenario.
Mr. Moore, referencing improvement priorities, explained that priorities were based on pavement condition, what was visible without knowing how the condition was underground, with the idea that the better the pavement the more economical sense it makes to improve that pavement first. He explained that as pavement deteriorates, it becomes much more expensive to bring it back up to a condition that can be maintained and if it’s in very poor condition, it should be held off and that the funds are better put towards in those areas that are in good condition and can be brought up to be maintained at a cheaper level. He explained that this was taken into consideration as well as the logical manner for completing the improvement plan i.e.: where should there be sidewalks, where should there be traffic signals, and where should there be additional shoulders. He noted that the first priority was to signalize Bog Road and provide sidewalks with the next part of this priority to complete Bog Road to Manor Road, completing the sidewalk on both sides of the road all the way up to Borough and Manor Roads. He explained that the construction cost is approximately $805,000 not including whatever right of way cost that may be associated, construction services, design or any escalation to the time this gets completed. Priority two was Penacook Street to Rumford Street where this is an introduction into the corridor and indicated that the pavement is in good condition and there would be a construction cost of approximately $380,000. Priority three would be from Rumford Street up to the Bog Road intersection project with construction costs of approximately $3,915,000. Priority four included Penacook Village with the intersection at Washington and East Streets and construction costs of approximately $900,000. Priority five included Borough and Manor Roads and would cost approximately $1,075,000. Mr. Moore noted that the total cost comes to approximately $8,150,000 for the entire corridor project.
Councilor Brochu inquired as to whether this only included construction costs. Mr. Moore responded that this amount was just for construction cost. Councilor Brochu inquired whether this included the purchase of land. Mr. Moore responded that this total is purely for construction costs explaining that it was not known what the land cost would be.
Mayor Donovan noted that some of the numbers did not match the numbers that were listed on page 4-35. Mr. Moore noted that it is realized that some of the numbers did not match explaining that a few changes were made including the area from Bog Road to Manor Road noting that originally Bog Road was included in priority three but it was felt that because of the recent accidents in the area and the need to push up Bog Road, it had been moved up to priority one.
City Engineer Ed Roberge explained that this study is essentially a follow up to the study that was done in the early 80’s on the Route 3 corridor north. He noted that the previous study recommended a four lane highway section which included a lot of right of way taking and significant expansion. Mr. Roberge explained that the call for improving safety, while at the same time enhancing the mobility within the corridor itself and controlling access with a two lane roadway is what the difference is between the two studies. He added that this plan is developed within the existing right of way with the possibility of additional right of ways needed at some of the key intersection areas but for the most part it is at grade and essentially within the existing right of way limits.
Mayor Donovan asked for a summary of what staff is recommending within their report to Council in response to Councilor Stetson’s request. Mr. Roberge responded that in response to Councilor Stetson’s request that staff look at design costs for the raising concern with the Bog Road vicinity as a result of the accidents, he submitted a supplemental report which recommends that Council approve the report which essentially takes the funds that were appropriated in fiscal year 2007 for the design development of comments or even the first priority and essentially assigning those funds that were appropriated for staff to commission the design of priority one which would include a signalized intersection at Bog Road as well as the segment of roadway from Bog to Borough Road. Mayor Donovan inquired as to whether the $100,000 is the full amount of the money that Council had appropriated within this years budget. Mr. Roberge indicated that to be correct.
Councilor Blanchard indicated that there had been some discussion within the advisory committee in regards to Lilac and Meter Streets near the furniture store and noted that there is nothing within the report that addresses this area. Mr. Moore explained that this is a difficult intersection that was found within the constraints there and it had been ultimately decided that the concepts within this area was beyond the reach of this study and was decided that this area would be maintained to what is currently there. He explained that there is the possibility to shift the alignment as close to Bonney Street as possible to improve this area.
Councilor Coen inquired whether it is fair to state that Route 3 is part of the main artery north and south in Concord as far as traffic flow in this area. Mr. Moore responded that to be a fair statement. Councilor Coen noted that since 2005, there has been additional development within this area in 2006 and 2007 and indicated that he feels that these numbers would appear to be higher than the one percent suggested because of the amount of construction. Mr. Moore indicated that to be correct explaining that the way this is captured is by looking at the historic growth rate based on the Department of Transportation’s traffic counts on the area and when they knew of specific developments in areas, he explained that they had specifically generated those trips at those locations and loaded these trips onto the highway network. Councilor Coen indicated that as he understands it, this is one of the most critical roads within the city as far as traffic flow. Mr. Moore responded that for north and south travel it would be the primary roadway when not using the interstate. Councilor Coen indicated that this had been built as a state highway in the 30’s or 40’s and noted his concern as to what the road was built for originally and what it is now are two different things further stating that he feels that it should be upgraded. Mr. Moore noted his agreement indicating that the idea in the prior study was that the city wanted to bring this back to its original concept as the major north and south connector. Councilor Coen inquired whether anyone had looked at another way to access I-93. Mr. Moore noted that they realized that there is a concept being studied in detail under another study for an Exit 16 ½ which would be located at the end of Sewalls Falls Road and explained that what they tried to do with this study was to try to use the Regional Planning Agency’s model explaining that the model is designed to be a regional model and to look at a big picture and is not designed to look at such a fine grained location as one new interchange. He added that they worked with the model for quite some time but could never really get it to give them the level of detail that was needed.
Councilor Coen, referencing the dollar amount, inquired whether there is a percentage that could be added to this to determine what the design and right of way costs would be. Mr. Moore responded that a reasonable percent is approximately ten percent for design and construction engineering. Referencing right of way, Mr. Moore explained that he feels that they have a concept that works well within the right of way noting that there may be isolated locations, such as a corner of an intersection, that may require purchasing a piece of property. He indicated that there are no impacts to buildings or the need to acquire a full piece of property.
Councilor Brochu inquired whether any of the storm sewers in the area from Rumford Street in front of the cemetery to the prison will need to be replaced or added. Mr. Moore responded that there are very few curb systems and in the area mentioned there is a gutter storm drainage system along the northbound side of the roadway. He indicated that the current gutter storm drainage system would be insufficient for the proposed condition and that the proposed improvement plan would include a brand new drainage system. Councilor Brochu inquired whether the study had included looking into the railroad bed from Second Street to Storrs Street as a potential parallel road for access to the city from the Penacook area. Mr. Moore responded that alternative routes such as this had not been looked at explaining that the study remained within the corridor.
Councilor Stetson, referencing advisory committee discussions regarding traffic counts and trip generations, inquired whether an analysis of this had determined that sixty percent of the traffic on this corridor is from outside of Concord. The consultant responded that he did not believe that it could be established that sixty percent of the traffic is from outside of Concord explaining that what was seen when moving down the corridor in the morning, was a big jump in traffic volume between the south side of Manor and Borough Roads and the south side of Bog Road moving down towards Sylvester Street. Councilor Stetson explained that in the committee, the traffic calming effect of the signalization of some of the key intersections had been discussed along with the possibility that it may divert some of the vehicles at the further northern end to use I-93. Mr. Moore indicated that to be correct noting that this was a goal that the city had when looking at this that if the flow of the traffic on the corridor is slowed by elongating the length of the trip in time, people may divert to another route because it may be faster.
Councilor St. Hilaire noted that the traffic is currently slow and these improvements will allow traffic to get onto the road but doesn’t do anything for the consistent parade of vehicles on the road. He inquired whether any consideration had been given to adding a reversible third lane. Mr. Moore indicated that this had not been looked at. Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether this was viable. Mr. Moore responded that this had not been looked at because it would require significant property impacts in many areas and it was felt that this was outside the goals of the project. Councilor St. Hilaire noted that he is an advocate for pedestrian walkways and bicycles but indicated that the fact of the matter is that this would be helping three to five percent of the traffic as opposed to ninety five percent which is vehicular traffic. Although it adds to the ambience, Councilor St. Hilaire noted that he does not see this adding to alleviating the bottlenecks created by the constant flow of traffic. Mr. Moore explained that this will help to alleviate people starting to back up because of left turns noting that there are a lot of dedicated left turn lanes so that vehicles can get around one another therefore smoothing out some of the shock waves of traffic. Councilor St. Hilaire explained that the problem is not waiting for other vehicles to turn, it’s just that there is a constant flow of traffic. Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether it would be wise to look at Exit 16 ½ because if the road is already at peak capacity, those numbers are going to vastly increase by 2030. Mr. Moore explained that the charge of this study was to try to come up with improvements that would be more within the right of way. Councilor St. Hilaire inquired as to whether it would make sense if the concern of the Council is to taking land that it is prudent to add the third lane and forego the bike path because it is more important to have the third lane. Mr. Moore responded that this would be a study within itself to understand how the third lane would work and how to control the idea that it is reversible.
Councilor Nyhan inquired whether the study looked at the average travel time between Penacook Village and Rumford Street. Mr. Moore indicated that they drove this a few times explaining that they didn’t do a real specific travel time. He added that they drove this road in the morning peak hour two or three times down to the center of the city and duplicated this trip on the interstate noting that the interstate was always faster.
Councilor Bouley explained that there are some vehicles in the northern end that will travel on I-93 but that between Sewalls Falls Road and Manor Road where there is a high concentration of apartments he noted that he finds that these are the individuals that travel to Mountain Road in the morning. He inquired whether any counts had been done on vehicles traveling over the Sewalls Falls Bridge in the morning. Mr. Moore indicated that there are turning movement counts at Sewalls Falls and Sylvester Street not for Mountain Road.
Councilor Stetson explained that during the study meetings, the residents that were in attendance were afraid that if a third lane was added it would turn the road into more of a high speed highway. He added that another concern for the residents is that they did not want it turned into another Loudon Road with excess lanes.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether there are any other traffic calming measures between Sewalls Falls Road and Penacook. Mr. Moore explained that there are no other traffic calming measures that would provide gaps such as a signal or a roundabout. Mayor Donovan indicated that the only gap for the K Street area and some of the side streets between these two points will occur from whatever the timing release is at Sewalls Falls Road. Mayor Donovan, referencing the linear plan presentations asked whether an explanation could be given regarding the construction techniques. Mr. Moore explained that they first went out and looked at what the existing pavement condition was based upon observations and based on this, jumped to the conclusion as to what was thought needed to be done. He indicated that in some areas it was thought that the existing concrete pavement was deteriorating and based on the signs of what was seen on the surface, determined that the whole roadway would need to be reconstructed, full depth reconstruction, to include new roadway, new pavement, new gravel, new sand, and a new drainage system. Mayor Donovan inquired whether the concrete slab would need to be pulled out. Mr. Moore responded that the concrete slab would either be pulled out or keep the existing slab underneath by rubbleizing it and having it as part of base system noting that the core of the concrete would need to be analyzed. Mayor Donovan inquired as to what is meant by rubbleized. Mr. Moore explained that it means to break it all up so that it becomes a gravel base material. Referencing the sketch on page 4-17, Mayor Donovan inquired whether this is done when it is milling down. Mr. Moore explained that this sketch is an example of maintaining the existing concrete pavement and build the shoulder and whatever widening that would need to be done with the shoulder being built of the same full depth materials previously mentioned and would be built next to the existing concrete paver which would remain in place. He noted that over the years there has been an overlay of pavements on top of the concrete and that would be ground off and new pavement put down for a better structural strength to be able to handle the load indicating that in some areas it may be possible to maintain the pavement already there and not having to ground it off. Mayor Donovan inquired as to how it is known when working at the edge beyond the twenty foot slab at each side that there will not be a differential settlement there at some point recreating the longitudinal cracks in the future. Mr. Moore, referencing a project in Maine, indicated that he had spoken to the pavement company that had done a variety of studies and it is not a guarantee that you won’t get longitudinal cracks along the edge of the concrete pavement but what they do is that they construct a good solid base material next to the concrete and provide adequate drainage so that water cannot get into the gravel. He noted that what the company found is that with a structural mesh that goes across the concrete to the shoulder it will create somewhat of a bond between the two materials and help prevent water from getting into that longitudinal crack which has been shown to provide additional life to the roadway. Mr. Moore added that the whole idea of providing different options for improving the roadway is that this is 5.4 miles of concrete that is twenty feet wide and they don’t necessarily feel that it makes economical sense to remove all of it because it is an extreme cost to the roadway where there are areas where it could be left in place and constructed to last in a reasonable amount of time. Mayor Donovan inquired as to the cost of the two options. Mr. Moore responded that was a complicated question and that he was unsure as to that amount this evening. Mayor Donovan inquired whether he could get this figure to Council. Mr. Moore indicated that he could and added that it is substantially more expensive to remove it versus leaving it in place and overlaying it. Mayor Donovan questioned whether leaving it in place has been done enough to know that it actually works. Mr. Moore indicated that he could provide Council with documentation to give a sense of what has been found. Mayor Donovan, referencing the washboard effect of the road where one slab abuts another slab, inquired how this problem will be alleviated if the slabs are left in place. Mr. Moore explained that this is a product of poor drainage noting that the areas in which there is a dramatic washboard effect is where it is being recommended that the slabs come out and in other areas the process of sealing the cracks before overlaying would be the recommendation.
Councilor Bennett questioned as to what would be a reasonable amount of time for maintenance. Mr. Moore responded that approximately every five years. Councilor Bennett noted that he feels that this should be done so that the city doesn’t have to go back every five years to do reclamation projects.
Mayor Donovan reiterated that Council would like to know the cost differential between the two and would like to receive some of the studies that have been done as examples.
City Engineer Ed Roberge explained that the next step that follows this is essentially adding the program to the CIP and revisiting this within a month or so looking at the effective cost of the corridor improvements and where this places along the priority list. He indicated that they could roll in the cost options for complete removal of the slab and at the same time pull together the technology information on those treatments to look at either preserving partial or sections of concrete slabs versus full removal or rubbelizing of the slab.
Councilor Stetson moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Coen inquired as to what is being done with the acceptance of this report. He noted his concern with the signalization at the intersection of Bog Road for safety issues and inquired whether this ties in with accepting the report and how does it go from here to at least starting this.
Mayor Donovan indicated that by accepting the report, Council is just accepting the general concepts laid out. He further indicated that as plans develop the appropriations and designs for the plans will come back before Council
Councilor Coen noted that he feels that this intersection is a high priority.
Councilor Rogers complimented staff and the consultants noting that she feels that this has been one of the best presentations given on corridor studies since she has been a councilor.
The motion to approve the report passed on a voice vote.
64. Supplemental report from the City Engineer recommending approval of funds previously appropriated for the design of improvements in conjunction with recommendations outlined in the Route 3 Corridor Study Report (CIP #35).
Action: Councilor Stetson moved to accept the report with respect to allowing the $100,000 that is in this year’s budget to be allocated and spent on beginning the engineering design for phase one which is Bog Road to Mayflower Drive which includes the intersection improvements as well as the sidewalk improvements. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Presentation of this item to be held at the April Council Meeting.
New Business
Unfinished Business
Action: Mayor Donovan explained that the reason that this item is being ratified is because Council added members to the original draft of the ordinance which changed the section that dealt with the terms of the members.
Councilor Rogers moved to ratify the changes that staff made to implement the motion that amended the ordinance. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: This item remains on the table.
Action: This item remains on the table.
Action: This item remains on the table.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor Bennett indicated that the Facilities Naming Committee looked at a piece of property within the Broken Ground area to be named in honor of former Mayor Coeyman and explained that this property is jointly owned by the city and the school district noting that this property had been chosen because it abuts the land in which his residence was. Councilor Bennett inquired whether Council feels that there would be any problems with the committee approaching the school district in regards to this.
Councilor Coen inquired whether Council could find out the status of the house that was burned across from the state prison indicating that he feels that this is a hazard.
Councilor Coen noted that he feels that one of biggest impacts on traffic within the city, especially on the west side, is the traffic of the Concord High School through the medical profession on Hopkinton Road noting that this is why there are issues about traffic flow going through there adding that traffic is being fed through residential areas. He inquired whether a report or study had been done on the traffic flow within the Pleasant Street area. City Manager Tom Aspell responded that there is an item within the capital budget scheduled in 2012 to look at this indicating that it is estimated at approximately $5 million. He explained that he believed that after Langley Parkway phase two was built, there would be a reshuffling of traffic in this area and Council would determine what the outcome of this was and see if there is any change in traffic movements.
Councilor Black indicated that Langley Parkway north is going to impact the Pleasant Street corridor and the Route 3 corridor.
Comments, Requests by the City Manager
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 18, 21, 26, 27 and 29 were pulled from the March 12, 2007 consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items at the recessed meeting.
From the City Manager
Action: Mayor Donovan indicated that he had pulled the calendar was that so Council could schedule the CIP session explaining that for the past three or four years Council has scheduled a special meeting outside of the budget to review the out years of the capital improvement program.
Councilor Stetson inquired as to how long it the meeting would take. Mr. Aspell explained that the presentation would take approximately a half hour and from there it is questions on specific projects.
Discussion regarding the date for scheduling the CIP session ensued.
Councilor Bouley moved to schedule the CIP session on April 2nd following the Community Forum meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Consent Reports
Action: Mayor Donovan indicated that Councilor Blanchard had left the meeting early and had indicated that this item could be put back on the agenda.
Councilor Rogers moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Donovan, referencing page two, indicated that as he understands it the city last year collected approximately $361,000 more in incremental tax revenue in the TIF than was actually needed to pay the bonds and inquired as to why this can’t be added towards the tax rate. Mr. Aspell indicated that it could be added to it. Finance Director Jim Howard indicated that this could be done explaining that the amount of the TIF assessment a couple of years ago that was made available for just that purpose and has continued to be made available for that purpose. He explained that these funds that are accruing are in excess of that amount. Mr. Howard noted that what would need to be done to accomplish this is to analyze the assessment that relates to this excess tax collection going into the TIF fund and apportion this back to the assessment as was done in the first instance. Mr. Howard indicated that those dollars that are being collected in excess of what is needed to pay the debt back are being collected on assessments that are either due to the TIF district or to be split between the school, county and the city. He noted that the city doesn’t want to get into the situation where it simply diverts TIF revenues that are going to a TIF district that are really in a sense coming off assessed values that should be apportioned to the three taxing entities noting that he doesn’t feel that the city would want to divert this to supporting the city’s budget alone noting that one third of this amount of excess revenue would go into the city with fifty five percent going to the school and eleven percent to the county.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether the $361,000 includes the money that is going back or whether this is excess amount. Ken Lurvey, Business Development, explained that in the past $300,000 of this excess revenue has been placed back in the general fund noting that this is over and above what it cost to pay off the debt service. Mayor Donovan inquired whether the $361,000 includes the $300,000 that is already going. Mr. Lurvey indicated that to be correct explaining that Council needs to decide each year whether to do this. Mr. Howard clarified that Council does not have to decide on the assessment explaining that they made a decision within the budget to apportion the assessment back to the general fund.
Councilor Brochu indicated that it was his understanding that any surplus money from the TIF fund would automatically go back to the general fund.
The motion to accept the report passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Donovan indicated that he had inquired as to how much of these bills that are sent out are actually paid by candidates with the secret service and noted that the response was that they are never paid.
The motion to approve the report passed with no dissenting votes.
Consideration of Suspense Items
Action: Councilor Rogers moved to suspend the rules to consider the suspense items. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
3 Sus1 Referral to the Planning
Board
Communication from residents of Parmenter Road requesting amendments to City of
Concord’s Zoning Ordinances.
Action: Councilor Stetson moved to refer this item to the Planning Board. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
3 Sus2 Referral to the Recreation
and Parks Advisory Board and the Friends of White Park
Communication from Steve Leavenworth, on behalf of the Centennial
Squires, offering the Bandstand currently located at the Centennial Senior
Center to the City of Concord for placement at a city park.
Action: Councilor Brochu moved to refer this item to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and the Friends of White Park. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
3 Sus3 To be set for an April 9,
2007 Public Hearing
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.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved to set this item for an April Public Hearing. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
3 Sus4 Street
closure request
Street closure request for the
Turtle Pond Circuit Race to be held on Saturday, April 21, 2007.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved approval subject to city requirements. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Bouley noted his concern with closing down Cemetery Street from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and directly affecting an entire neighborhood and asked that staff work to keep the neighborhood apprised and the neighborhood representative apprised of this situation.
Councilor Rogers asked that the Police Department work with the Ward Ten Councilor to ensure that this event has the least impact as possible within the neighborhood. Mr. Aspell indicated that he would have the Police Department contact the Ward Councilor.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
3 Sus5 Street
closure request
Street closure request for a
multicultural festival to be held in Concord on Saturday, June 23, 2007 from
3:00 – 10:00 p.m.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved approval subject to city requirements. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Adjournment
The time being 10:25 p.m., Councilor Bouley moved to enter into non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 2, I (b) to discuss collective bargaining and non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss contract negotiations. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Bouley, Brochu, Coen, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux, Nyhan, Rowe and St. Hilaire voting yes. Councilors Rogers and Stetson voted no.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany Deputy City Clerk