City Council Meeting
Minutes
May 14, 2007
Non-public session in
accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss contract negotiations, Langley
Parkway; followed by non-public session
in accordance with RSA 91-A: 2, I (b) to discuss collective bargaining.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval of the April 2, 2007 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Rogers moved approval of the April 9, 2007 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Rogers moved approval of the April 16, 2007 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
- Consent Agenda Items -
Action: Councilor Rogers moved approval of the consent agenda, as amended, with items 8, 11, 12, 26, 28, 31, and 33 removed to be discussed at the end of the agenda. The motion was duly seconded. City Manager Tom Aspell clarified that item 21 should read $9,320 in place of $9,300. The motion to approve the consent agenda, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Note: Those items listed as pulled from the consent agenda will be discussed at the end of the meeting following unfinished business.
Referral to the Rules Committee
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Referral to City Administration and the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee
Items Tabled for a June 11, 2007 Public Hearing
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
From the City Manager
Consent Reports
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
Action: This item moved to the end of the agenda for discussion.
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
Consent Communications
38. Street closure request from Nicole Armaganian, 59 Hampton Street, for a neighborhood block party to be held on Saturday August 11, 2007 from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
39. Street closure request from the Organizing Committee for the 2007 Ocean National Bank Rock’N Race to be held on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, asking that the previously approved street closure request be amended to include an additional 30 minutes to the initial request. (2-58)
Appointments
40. City Manager’s appointments to the Library
Board of Trustees.
Eleanor Stark and Marilyn Fraser
**End of Consent Agenda**
41. May 14, 2007 Public Hearings
A. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 26, Building Regulations; Article 26-16, Fire Prevention Code, Section 26-16-3, Amendments to the International Fire Code/2000; together with report from the Fire Department. (4-9)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this ordinance change would establish a means for the permit holder to apply and receive a refund through a pro-rated program and at the same time, establish a comprehensive vehicle for assessing penalties for work that is underway without a fire prevention permit.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
B. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title III, Building and Housing Codes, Chapter 26, Building Regulations, Article 26-16, Fire Prevention Code; Section 26-16-4; together with report from the Fire Department. (4-10)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that there is currently no inspection fee in place for places of assembly. He added that many communities have these fees and noted that there is a new mandate entitled “crowd management training” to conduct training exercises. He explained that staff felt that there should be an inspection fee in place to help cover the cost of attending these trainings.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether each of the organizations would have to apply for this permit and pay a fee each time they have a dinner or gathering. Mr. Aspell responded that the idea of this ordinance is that the staff would go to the places of public assemblies on a semi-annual basis to inspect them. He added that these inspections are done now but the city does not currently charge a fee for them.
Councilor Blanchard pointed out that the City Manager has indicated that the inspections would be done semi-annually but that the staff report indicates that the permits are issued annually. Deputy Fire Chief Tim McGinley explained that the RSA requires two inspections per year; one that is scheduled in which a detailed technical inspection is performed and one that is unannounced in which the size of the crowd is assessed and to determine whether the egress is blocked. He clarified that the permit is issued once but that staff performs two inspections a year. Councilor Blanchard clarified that the permit fee is $100 a year not $100 each inspection. Mr. McGinley indicated that to be correct.
Councilor McClure inquired as to how many places of assembly are inspected each year. Deputy Chief McGinley responded that approximately 180 permits per year are issued. Councilor McClure inquired whether the second inspection is briefer than the first inspection. Mr. McGinley indicated that to be correct. Councilor McClure inquired whether it is a correct statement that the first inspection of a new place of assembly would take more time and that the following year it wouldn’t take as long because staff would have the information needed and would be checking to ensure everything is working properly. Mr. McGinley indicated that to be correct explaining that the most difficult inspection is the first inspection of a place of assembly. He explained that the more technical inspection can get rather involved because there are a lot of records to be checked. Councilor McClure asked for an explanation of the fees in other communities pointing out that Manchester charges $100 but that most other communities charge between $25 to $65. Mr. McGinley responded that there are very few communities, if any, that are performing the crowd management training. He explained that the city, once a month, will bring in employees of the places of assembly to instruct them with the classes ranging from 45 to 90 minutes. Councilor McClure inquired whether part of the permit fee is covering the cost of training the employees. Mr. McGinley responded that part of the permit fee is the all encompassing management of the city’s places of assemblies. Councilor McClure inquired whether the training is required. Mr. McGinley responded that the individuals that are designated as crowd managers for their functions need to attend an annual training. Councilor McClure inquired whether each place needs to designate a crowd manager. Mr. McGinley responded that each require one if they have an occupancy greater than 300 or have live music.
Councilor Coen noted that as he understands it there is new training involved and there is a cost through the Fire Department to do the training. Deputy Chief McGinley indicated that to be correct. Councilor Coen inquired as to the cost in the past to the department. Mr. McGinley responded that the cost was borne by the department and explained that this is a recent change within the last two years as a result of the nightclub tragedy and was an immediate change that NFPA made to the Life Safety Code. Councilor Coen inquired whether the $100 fee is enough or too much. Mr. McGinley responded that he feels that it is a place to start.
Councilor McClure inquired as to who made the change to the code. Deputy Chief McGinley indicated that the change was made by the National Fire Protection Association, the author of the Life Safety Code.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether 180 buildings are currently inspected within the city. Deputy Chief McGinley responded that approximately 180 permits are issued that represent 160 separate buildings. Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether the majority of these include churches. Mr. McGinley responded that the majority are privately owned businesses.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
C. Resolution appropriating the sum of $2,173.50 in grant funds from the New Hampshire Highway Safety Agency to the Join the NH Clique Seat Campaign; together with report from the Police Department. (4-11)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the Police Department will conduct enforcement patrols relative to motoring the public’s compliance with wearing seat belts adding that the program will run between May 1st through June 30th.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
D. Resolution appropriating the sum of $572.56 in grant funds from the NH Highway Safety Agency for Concord DWI saturation patrols; together with report from the Police Department. (4-12)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that no matching funds are required further stating that these funds will allow an officer to have two six hour shifts on the road which will be conducted immediately.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
E. Resolution appropriating the sum of $15,000 from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation Community Technical Assistance Program (CTAP) for the preparation of an aquifer protection ordinance; together with report from the City Planner. (4-13)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that at the February meeting, Council suggested that staff prepare an aquifer protection ordinance. Mr. Aspell added that the city applied for a grant in March and received notice in April that the city received the grant to undertake the aquifer protection ordinance.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to why the grant originates from the Department of Transportation. Mr. Aspell responded that they control the Community Technical Assistance Program dollars and added that aquifer contamination is caused by vehicles, road systems and road drainage.
Mayor Donovan indicated that there are a lot of communities throughout the state that have already adopted these ordinances and there may be models available and inquired as to what will cost the city $15,000 to undertake this ordinance. Mr. Aspell explained that the $15,000 grant would cover working with the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission to undertake this task. He added that the city received this amount when it was applied for but feels that it may not cost the entire $15,000 amount. Mayor Donovan inquired whether any remaining amount of the grant could be used elsewhere. Mr. Aspell indicated that he will look into whether there are extensions on the grant such as digitizing for the GIS system. Mayor Donovan inquired whether the source of this money is associated with the I-93 widening mitigation program. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct explaining that dollars are made available in that area and if the city applies for those dollars they can be used to offset contamination.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
F. Public hearing on the (CIP) Capital Improvement Projects out years: 2008-2012. (Public testimony from John Sokul, Cleveland Waters and Bass on behalf of Merchants Nissan regarding Manchester Street)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview pointing out two items: 1) a report on the consent agenda entitled “report from City Engineer recommending the addition of a new CIP project” for the sidewalk/bicycle lane on Canterbury Lane that corresponds with the city’s bicycle and pedestrian plan; 2) at the capital budget workshop, discussion had occurred as to how to handle the work to get completed on Route 3 Corridor North and North State Street and at the same time, how this would impact what is also the desire to get done on Manchester Street. He explained that Council moved the North State Street/Fisherville Road section up first and asked that Manchester Street be brought back as a priority. He added that there will be an item within the budget for Manchester Street to do a section of Manchester Street from where the state left off at Dunkin Donuts to Airport Road, amounting to approximately $140,000 for an overlay to keep this together for approximately four to five years. Mr. Aspell explained that at the same time, there is a capital budget item for $2.1 million to do improvements on Manchester Street from the Airport Road intersection with Integra Drive all the way to the Pembroke town line. He explained that the reason that the is bringing this forward is because there are pieces within this that are important to note including a $690,000 grant available to the city to do improvements to the drainage in the road section that is not part of the city’s urban compact all the way to the Pembroke town line. Mr. Aspell indicated that there is approximately $560,000 in impact fees and that the city would come up with the rest through a bond noting that he is going to suggest doing the intersection with Airport Road and Integra Drive and do the widening all the way to Pembroke Road town line as part of the fiscal year 2009 budget. He explained that the reason it is within the 2009 budget is because currently the city is proceeding with the acquisition of the rights of way along Manchester Street and at the same time utility work needs to be done.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether it would be appropriate to hear public testimony this evening and then table action on the out years of the CIP until after Council receives the budget with the new six year program and having one action at some point during the budget where Council adopts the entire CIP. Mr. Aspell indicated that it would be more efficient.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to why this item was placed on this evening’s agenda.
Mayor Donovan indicated that Council is catching up on the last CIP pointing out that normally discussions are restricted during budget time to the current year being considered and then deferred the long range CIP to a meeting in the fall. He noted that the meeting never occurred this past fall and took place in April instead.
Councilor Brochu inquired whether the overlay would include grinding or just a straight overlay over the existing road. Mr. Aspell responded that he believes that it will be a straight overlay over the existing road. Councilor Brochu inquired whether the overlay will be one or two inches. City Engineer Ed Roberge responded that since the road is out of shape, the road will be leveled and then overlayed. He added that the overlay is generally one and a half inches. Councilor Brochu inquired whether the catch basins would need to be lifted. Mr. Roberge responded that structures would need to be adjusted and the shoulders would need to be leveled.
Mayor Donovan declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Ruth Perencevich, member of the Concord Public Library Foundation, thanked Council for funding the Concord Public Library needs assessment. Ms. Perencevich highlighted the updates on the needs assessment process explaining that it is an organized and educational process joining the efforts of library staff, the trustees and the foundation with the city. She noted that an RFP for the needs assessment was publicized on January 1st; on February 2nd several proposals were received and evaluated; in mid-March candidates were interviewed by the committee; in April a consultant was chosen. Ms. Perencevich explained that the proposed project schedule calls for much work to be done including: community description, community input, library service description, space needs analysis, and a revised mission statement, vision and goals. She added that consultants will also look at current facility evaluations, preparing design options and budget estimates. She explained that an interim report will be due August 15th and that a final report will be due by October 15th from the consultants ultimately presenting a voting program with three to five options allowing for a combination of facility improvements, program recommendations, schematic floor plans, and a range of cost estimates. She added that input from all directions and all parts of the community is needed, welcomed, and valued as part of this process.
Stephen Hengen, member of the Library Board of Trustees, explained that the library space was increased by 10,000 square feet in 1965 with the population of Concord at approximately 29,500 and the collection at this point numbered 116,966 volumes and in 2005 the population had increased to 42,200 with the collection increasing to 138,000 volumes. He noted that the population grew forty three percent in forty years and the collection, in this time period, grew by eighteen percent. He added that the population projection from the State Office of Energy and Planning projects a population in 2030 of 51,000 stressing that there is no more room in the library for expansion. He pointed out that space, staffing, technology, and parking are critical issues.
Councilor Black inquired whether the City of Manchester is ahead of Concord in library facilities. Mr. Hengen indicated that Manchester has recently undergone a rehabilitation of their building.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether a bookmobile is seen as a possible suggestion that may come out of the assessment. Mr. Hengen responded that this has been a recurring subject of conversation because there are individuals who want to have access to the collection and materials who can’t get to the library.
Tenley Callaghan, member of the Concord Library Foundation, noted that it is important to find out how people are using the library and how they want to use it in the future. She thanked Council for the vision and the willingness to engage in a needs assessment of the library. She explained that during this phase of the assessment, input is being seeked from members of the community indicating that two focus groups of library users are being gathered: adults and teens. She added that questionnaires are being handed out to all individuals who check out books and an online survey is intended to be developed to solicit responses from people regarding the library usage. Ms. Callahan indicated that the consultants are meeting with 25 to 30 community leaders from all areas to ask these same questions. She added that a community meeting will be held at the library on June 6th at 6:30 p.m.
Amy Sheridan, Concord Library Foundation member, thanked Council for their support of the needs assessment. She explained that members of the foundation have been visiting other new libraries over the last two years to see what other communities have done. Ms. Sheridan indicated that the city’s economic development plan that was prepared as part of the master plan process specifically calls for Concord to foster it’s attractiveness as a cultural and arts center in the region. She pointed out items within the plan including identifying and encouraging high end residential development as well as commercial and industrial development as the main ways for Concord to significantly increase it’s tax base and that the quality of life portion of this was an emphasis on Concord’s cultural offerings which include an addition to all the many non-profits in the city, including the library.
Mayor Donovan indicated, for public record, that written testimony was received from Attorney John Sokul on behalf of the Singer family owners of Merchants Nissan near the intersection of Manchester Street and Airport Road, advocating the importance of the improvements to Manchester Street.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
May 14, 2007 Public Hearing Action (Tabled from the April 9, 2007 meeting)
42. Report from the City Engineer recommending final design approval in conjunction with the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Enhancement (CMAQ) Project 14426 (Federal project X-A000 (366), to design and construct a roundabout at the intersection of Liberty, Auburn and Centre Streets, CIP #29. (3-10) (4-27B; 4-30) (Public testimony; together with communication from the City Engineer in response to public comment received) (Supplemental report from the City Engineer; together with report from the Fire Chief submitted)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that Council received new material on some alternative options.
City Engineer Ed Roberge indicated that as a result of expressed concerns at the April public hearing, Council requested that staff come back with several points of additional information looking at five additional options and some variations to these. He noted that staff was asked to look at enhanced pedestrian safety in terms of shortening crosswalks in a four-way all stop intersection; look at an option of a five leg roundabout; as well as looking at a proposed four leg roundabout which is the preferred option.
Gene McCarthy, McFarland-Johnson, explained that there were six options presented in the original report and based upon the comments received at the previous Council meeting, it had been looked at to improve and enhance several of these options and in addition to develop a seventh option which is the five leg roundabout. He explained that the first one that was looked at was option two which was to essentially change the current five legged intersection that has four stops and make it an all stop condition; adding a stop sign on the eastern leg of Centre Street. He indicated that additional traffic calming measures were looked into at all of the legs of the intersection to try to improve the pedestrian safety. He indicated that some of the areas would be converted from pavement to either hardscaping or streetscaping which is inline with the model that was just completed on Franklin Street where, at certain intersections, the road is narrow and the crosswalks are a shorter distance. He explained that in terms of the operations, this does not change the fact that for the Centre Street leg there is a poor level of service because of the high volume. He added that it improves pedestrian safety but does not address the fact that adding the stop sign does create a problem for the Centre Street approach. Mr. McCarthy indicated that the next option that was looked at was a variation of option three, a four way stop with Liberty Street one way. He explained that traffic calming was looked at as well as addressing some of the geometric issues adding that it does require an impact to an Auburn Street property. He noted that to optimize for vehicular safety, this improves the geometry and addresses the pedestrian safety by shortening the crosswalks and providing some additional calming. He added that from an operational standpoint, it is safer but there is still a level of service “F” on the Centre Street approach. Mr. McCarthy indicated that he also looked at a variation of option four, a four way intersection which leaves Liberty Street as a two way street and in doing so it would require taking Auburn Street, which has the lower volume of traffic, and terminate it on Liberty Street. Vehicular and pedestrian safety would be optimized for the four way intersection but Mr. McCarthy pointed out that there is still an issue with the levels of service and adding stop signs creates a lot of delay and queuing. Mr. McCarthy explained that the preferred roundabout option is 104 feet in diameter and does include impacts to both Dewey School and an Auburn Street parcel. He noted that from a geometric standpoint, it optimizes all of the movements and provides all of the turns that the Fire Department and the trucks require. Operationally, he explained that overall it is a level of service “B” and all of the legs operate at acceptable levels.
Councilor Brochu inquired whether this option includes making Liberty Street one-way. Mr. McCarthy responded that this option shows two-way on Liberty Street. Councilor Brochu inquired how there could be two-way traffic with the island that is on Auburn Street. Mr. McCarthy explained that there is an opening.
Mr. McCarthy indicated that the next option is a five legged roundabout, 150 feet in diameter, explaining that the reason that the diameter is so great is the acute angle between Auburn and Liberty Streets. He noted that this could be a smaller roundabout if the approaches are realigned.
Mr. McCarthy explained that the compromised roundabout that was developed in consultation with the Engineering Department had two goals: to avoid the parcel at 1 Auburn Street and provide a certain level of operation for trucks and the Fire Department. He noted that this option does show a one-way Liberty Street making it a clean five-way intersection. He explained that the diameter has been reduced from 104 feet to 90 feet noting that there were certain concessions made by reducing it to 90 feet such as it limits certain turns for larger vehicles. By reducing the diameter, he explained that impacts to White Park and Auburn Street residences have been eliminated and the only impact would be to the Dewey School property. He added that it operationally functions very well and is a very reasonable compromise. He noted that it is still not as ideal from a traffic operational perspective as the preferred option but is still within acceptable measure.
Mr. McCarthy added that a slight variation of this, not included within the report, was looked at by keeping Liberty Street as a two-way street and have Liberty Street be the fourth leg of the roundabout. He explained that the geometry works very well but as proposed it would realign Auburn Street eliminating left turns onto Auburn Street from the circle.
City Engineer Ed Roberge explained that the biggest concern here is that in the 2020 design year there are some 120 vehicles that are taking the left turn or going up Auburn Street at peak hours, equating to two vehicles per minute, and the vehicles coming down Liberty Street would create a conflict. Understanding that the predominant traffic flow is Centre Street westerly approaching the roundabout, Mr. Roberge explained that if two or three vehicles were trying to make the left turn during the one minute cycle, it could likely affect the performance of the roundabout. He noted that this is a workable and viable opportunity and it is suggested that the final design details be worked out with respect to the conflicting traffic movement on Auburn Street.
Mr. McCarthy added that it is similar with a 90 feet diameter, the same impacts being only to the Dewey School property, and functions fairly well from a geometric standpoint. Mr. McCarthy indicated that he made a trip to Montpelier, Vermont with the City Engineer to look at the roundabout there and met the Department of Public Works Manager of the city in which he updated them on some of the data. He explained that the Montpelier roundabout was installed in 1995 and has had only one reportable accident at that intersection in a twelve year period and added that they did not recall any pedestrian incidents of any sort in this roundabout. Mr. McCarthy explained that he took videos at the Montpelier roundabout and played the video for Council to view.
City Engineer Ed Roberge pointed out that the Montpelier roundabout was the first roundabout constructed in Vermont and likely the first roundabout in all of New England. He explained that this came about as a Montpelier City Council initiative in which they created a committee and was a roundabout project looking for a location. He explained that this was a problematic three legged intersection and was built in 1995 under older standards.
While Council viewed the video of the Montpelier roundabout, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Roberge pointed out the traffic pattern flows and pedestrian crossings.
In closing, Mr. McCarthy showed to Council the model he developed for the project which shows what is expected of traffic at the intersection. He explained that the model shows the true speeds with the city’s volumes projected for the year 2020.
Mr. Roberge indicated that there are a number of options being looked at along with levels of service, pedestrian safety and context sensitive design and whether this truly fits into this location. He noted that what was put together is a good solution and only limits the impact to one property. In summary, Mr. Roberge noted that this is a feasible solution and is consistent with the Council’s traffic management policy. He indicated that staff would continue its public participation process through the final design and would expect to be back to Council with a final design report prior to going to construction appropriation.
Mayor Donovan requested that Council take one option at a time and question each alternate when going through them and then ask general questions after that.
Figure 10, Option 2:
Councilor Lemieux, referencing when the level of service projections were done, inquired whether they were done immediately after the option was initiated. Mr. McCarthy responded that they were done for both the current volumes and 2020 volumes. Councilor Lemieux, referencing each of the alternatives, inquired whether an immediate benefit that would deteriorate over time had been noticed and whether the level of service “F” on Centre Street would be immediately apparent after the installation of a stop sign. Mr. McCarthy responded that with any of the stop alternatives the level of service “F” would be seen immediately once the stop sign is installed.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether it is fair to say that with this option, that the queuing up of traffic back on Centre Street would cause a problem for fire trucks. Mr. McCarthy indicated that to be correct explaining that fire trucks could use the other side of the road if they need to get through because it is a narrower gap to get through.
Councilor Nyhan inquired whether the level of service failures were based on peak hours. Mr. McCarthy responded that they are for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Councilor Nyhan inquired whether there is a level of service “A” and “B” during non-peak hours. Mr. McCarthy responded that, for this particular intersection, during the middle of the day there would be a much better level of service.
Figure 11 – Option 3:
Council had no questions regarding this option.
Figure 12 – Option 4:
Councilor Blanchard noted her concerns with increased pollution. Mr. McCarthy indicated that the queuing that will be seen on Centre Street during the peaks will be substantial. He noted that the grant received for this is a congestion management grant for this purpose.
Councilor Coen inquired whether property would need to be taken on Auburn Street with this option. Mr. McCarthy responded that the intent is to avoid an impact to property on Auburn Street.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether there are any price projections with moving forward with this option or any of the other options. City Engineer Ed Roberge responded that cost projections have not been explored on these other alternatives at this time. Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether it could be guessed whether the cost would be more or less than $170,000. Mr. Roberge guessed that it may be within that range but may exceed the $170,000 match.
Figure 13 – Option 5:
Mayor Donovan, referencing the truck movement from Auburn Street coming down and trying to take a right onto Centre Street, inquired whether all the other truck movements can get through here all right. Mr. McCarthy indicated that there may be instances where a very large truck could not get through but in most cases, the fire trucks can get through. Mr. Roberge added that he feels that Centre Street eastbound to the right turn on Liberty Street southbound will likely be the same explaining that its geometrically tight.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether a truck heading westbound on Centre Street could make the movement over to Liberty Street. Mr. McCarthy confirmed that that movement could be made indicating that this was looked at because it is one of the predominant movements for the fire trucks.
Councilor Brochu, referencing the diamond shaped figures in the diagrams, inquired whether these were optional stops. Mr. McCarthy responded that these represent yields.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether it is known where all the traffic is coming from and going to in the peak hours. Mr. McCarthy explained that at times, Centre Street is going to encounter some queuing because there is more delay for that particular leg with the roundabout versus the way it currently is in which there is free range to move through the intersection. Councilor Blanchard inquired whether queuing would occur on other legs. Mr. McCarthy responded that queues will develop at different times for all the different movements. Mr. Roberge added that it is more likely that in the a.m. traffic the dominant movement is Centre Street westbound to left onto Liberty Street and is somewhat reversed in the p.m. peak hours.
Councilor Lemieux, referencing the truck movement highlighted within the presentation from Auburn Street onto Centre Street, inquired whether this would be better, worse or the same as it currently is now. Mr. McCarthy responded that the layout is almost the same. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether there would be any truck movements that would be worsened with the roundabout. Mr. McCarthy indicated that when coming down Centre Street westbound and coming around to southbound Liberty Street there is currently an easy left turn and with a roundabout they would need to go through this. Mr. Roberge added that the truck movement on Auburn Street southbound and Centre Street eastbound would improve with the roundabout because it gives them the opportunity to do a full circular without land encroachment onto somebody’s land.
Councilor McClure noted that it has been stated that traffic is higher on Liberty Street southbound than on Auburn Street eastbound and inquired whether within the model that the extra traffic was put from Liberty Street onto Auburn Street. Mr. McCarthy indicated that to be correct.
Councilor Black noted that the right hand turn could be improved if a small parcel was taken from 1 Auburn Street. Mr. McCarthy indicated that to be correct explaining that this design moved the center of the circle to the east to avoid that property noting that there is a compromise in terms of truck turns.
In regards to the video, Councilor Nyhan inquired whether this is a similar size diameter. Mr. McCarthy responded that it is the same. Councilor Nyhan inquired whether it can be concluded that the same speeds are being looked at. Mr. McCarthy indicated that to be correct noting that it is between a 12 to 15 mph range.
Councilor Bouley noted that the Montpelier roundabout is a three legged intersection and that it has been stated that this proposed 4 ½ legged intersection is a viable option and inquired whether the comparison between the three legged and 4 ½ legged is comparable. Mr. McCarthy responded that he feels that they are comparable. Councilor Bouley indicated that to have a successful four-way roundabout, in all the alternatives provided, Liberty Street has been made one-way. Referencing the Fire Department’s report, Councilor Bouley inquired whether the two concerns of the Fire Department could be commented on including the delay in response times and the isolation of the neighborhood. Mr. Roberge explained that what is being done is to try to promote as much safety at one intersection as can possibly be done. He noted that those concerns are real issues and indicated that the option to this roundabout location and consider maintaining Liberty Street two-way and looking at Auburn Street as a limited access may be the reasonable solution to consider given the Fire Chief’s concern with emergency response. He noted that he feels that this addresses two points: creates a four-way safer roundabout and it eliminates the one-way travel on Liberty Street and somewhat eliminates the isolation of the Auburn Street neighborhood. Mr. Roberge added that staff could look at, in final design, a detail of a mountable island with signage so that fire trucks if they had to they could go through the roundabout and take the left turn by traversing a mountable curb.
Councilor McClure, referencing the realignment to the east thereby making it slightly less optimum in terms of its geometry but avoiding the 1 Auburn Street property, inquired as to how this affects the safety of the roundabout. As far as the safety is concerned, Mr. Roberge explained that there are two safety features being talked about: pedestrian safety and vehicular safety. He noted that as far as vehicle safety, all four legs are covered and from a traffic management standpoint, the levels of service seen with this alternative is comparable to what was seen before and from a pedestrian safety standpoint, it is the same and includes reduced crosswalk lengths, limited crosswalk lanes and adds the opportunity to look at a White Park entrance. He indicated that this is a balance in striking the accord with the Liberty Street concern, the Fire Department concern, the neighborhood concern and potentially, neighborhood isolation.
Referencing the five-way intersection in front of the high school, Councilor Black noted that this appears to work well with a traffic light and inquired how that is different from this. Mr. McCarthy explained that the traffic signal was not presented this evening indicating that it appeared from the last meeting that not many seemed to prefer this option. He noted that an evaluation of a traffic signal was done and it was the only other option that actually had an acceptable level of service and worked reasonably well from a traffic perspective and also worked well from a pedestrian safety perspective. Councilor Black inquired whether it is felt that the traffic signal at the high school works well. From an operational standpoint, Mr. Roberge responded that he would not characterize it as working well because the level of services are struggling within this area.
Figure 14 – Option 7:
Councilor Bennett noted that he feels that this is the best option. Mr. Roberge noted that from an operational standpoint, this is probably the best option. Councilor Bennett noted that he feels that if this is going to be done, it needs to be done correctly because if it is not done right the first time there may not be a second chance to do so.
Councilor Brochu noted his concerns with the land taken from White Park and on 1 Auburn Street for this particular option. He stated that he feels that option five is an adequate option.
Councilor Black inquired as to how costly this option would be compared to the others. Mr. Roberge responded that with the right of way impacts and the considerable amount of earthwork due to the slopes of the different properties it would exceed the $470,000 budget that is currently in the program and is likely a $600,000 to $700,000 project.
Original Option 5:
Councilor Coen, referencing the level of services, inquired whether because Liberty Street is one-way that there is a level of service “A”. Mr. McCarthy explained that the older graphic does show Liberty Street as two-way and that essentially the level of service “D, B” is the combined volume because in the analysis it was assumed that all the traffic coming down from those two roads would enter the roundabout as one volume of traffic and that is the level of service value seen. Councilor Coen noted that Auburn Street would be a “D, B” and Liberty Street would be a “D, B”. Mr. McCarthy indicated that to be correct explaining that they would be functioning together.
Councilor Black inquired whether Liberty Street is one-way. Mr. McCarthy responded that it could be either way noting that it is drawn as two-way but that it would be preferable to have Liberty Street as a one-way for this design.
Mayor Donovan, referencing the report, inquired whether a one-way Liberty Street is being recommended against. Mr. McCarthy responded that the recommendation is for the roundabout and that it is felt that it can be made to work whether Liberty Street is one-way or two-way.
Referencing a two-way Liberty Street, Councilor Lemieux inquired as to how the conflicts would be resolved between the vehicles leaving the roundabout turning left onto Auburn Street with vehicles southbound on Liberty Street. Mr. McCarthy responded that the left turn would not be allowed from northbound Liberty Street onto northbound Auburn Street. Councilor Lemieux clarified that if Liberty Street is two-way then Auburn Street would be restricted to making the immediate left turn northbound. Mr. McCarthy responded that they would only be able to make the right turn to enter the roundabout and would not be allowed to make the left turn indicating that an island would block those movements between Liberty and Auburn Streets.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired that if Council were to make a decision on a roundabout this evening, would a decision need to be made on exactly the traffic confluence of whether Council wants Liberty Street one-way or two-way or is staff looking for a decision to proceed ahead with a roundabout and will continue to talk with the Fire Department and come back on a preferred option. Mr. Roberge indicated that he considers this final design details. Mr. Roberge indicated that he would like Council to approve a plan and move forward not only with staff but also with the public participation process that goes along with the final design effort. He noted that staff could get a direction on what the Council feel is and if the Council supports Liberty Street two-way, they can make that indication to staff this evening. City Manager Aspell explained that the more direction Council gives this evening, the cheaper it can be done.
Mayor Donovan asked if it is being suggested that Council make a decision this evening but leave the decision hanging of whether Liberty Street is to become one-way or two-way. Mr. Aspell responded that he would prefer that Council make the decision this evening whether they want Liberty Street one-way or two-way.
Councilor Lemieux noted that he would like to hear from the Fire Department.
Mayor Donovan noted that as he read the Chief’s report, it was his understanding that the Fire Department is opposed to making Liberty Street one-way. Fire Chief Robert Vezina responded that he would ideally like to see it remain two-way but noted that it could be one-way adding that his concerns is how far one-way goes north on Liberty Street. He indicated that the shorter it is, the better it is for the Fire Department. Mayor Donovan noted that at the last meeting, Council was told that the Penacook Rescue uses this route and inquired as to what would happen to this movement if Liberty Street is made one-way. Chief Vezina indicated that they would have to come down North State Street and up to Centre Street. He added that the concern with Liberty Street one-way from the circle to Franklin Street is that it creates one-way into the neighborhood. He explained that geographically the neighborhood is isolated because Forest Street is so steep and coming down the hill is not a viable option for the Fire Department. He added that there are workable solutions but noted that he feels that making Liberty Street one-way from Centre to Franklin Street is too long of a section. Mayor Donovan questioned as to how much the additional delay it is for the Penacook Rescue. Chief Vezina noted his concern that the major response route to get to the hospital from the north and the east is going to become slower and more bogged down.
Councilor Blanchard noted that she had experienced an ambulance coming from Penacook and going up Hutchins Street and it seemed like a fairly quick route. Chief Vezina explained that this is a route being used more often and a lot of this has to do with the construction work on North State Street.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether it had been understood how this would operate with the Engineer’s description. Chief Vezina indicated that the last one he had seen from Engineering which is the southbound Auburn Street to westbound Centre Street as being a difficult turn for the trucks and would require going around the circle. Councilor Lemieux explained that the difference, as he understands it, is that Liberty Street would operate as a two-way street and Auburn Street would empty traffic into the roundabout but you wouldn’t be able to turn from the roundabout onto Auburn Street and would leave traffic flowing freely as two-way traffic on Liberty Street. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether this is acceptable by the Fire Department’s standpoint. Chief Vezina indicated that he feels that he can work with this but that he would need to look at it in more detail.
Councilor Coen inquired whether the Fire Department has the same issue in the south end with West Street being one-way. Chief Vezina explained that the south end has many one-way streets but there are parallel streets that run in the opposite directions so that there are alternatives.
Councilor Lemieux moved to direct staff to move forward with a roundabout at this intersection using easterly relocation. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux noted that he has been to two or three public meetings in which this has been discussed in the neighborhood and what he has heard from individuals who live in the neighborhood and individuals who travel the area frequently is that a roundabout is their preferred solution. He noted that there are some individuals opposed to it but that the record shows that there are more individuals who favor the roundabout given that it can be worked out to handle the traffic. Councilor Lemieux noted that he likes the idea of reducing the size from 104 feet radius to 90 feet radius and if this still works there is the added benefit of not affecting any private property, removing another objection from individuals.
Councilor Blanchard noted her support of the motion.
Councilor Coen indicated that he does not support the motion and noted that he feels that the true issue here that is not being resolved is the difficult intersection of Liberty and Auburn Streets which is what causes the accidents currently. He further noted that another problem is that there are elevation issues with streets.
Councilor Bennett noted that he would vote against the motion indicating that he feels that if the city is going to put in a roundabout, it needs to work properly and noted that he believes the only way this will work is if Council goes with option seven.
Councilor Nyhan noted that all of his original concerns, for the most part, have been alleviated and commended the consultants and staff for their work.
Councilor McClure noted her support of the motion in terms of safety and environmental issues indicating that it seems clear that a roundabout is safer than any of the other options presented.
Councilor Black noted that he feels that the intersection cannot be left as it currently is and noted his support for a roundabout.
Mayor Donovan noted his support for a roundabout even though he has reservations about the possibility of Liberty Street being one-way. He indicated that he feels that Council needs to make the decision on whether a roundabout is wanted or not.
Councilor Brochu inquired whether this would come back for another vote at a later date.
Mayor Donovan explained that the motion, if it passes, would authorize staff to move forward with the roundabout and by majority vote one way or another, Council is going to work out Liberty Street and Auburn Street.
Councilor Lemieux’s motion passed 8 to 6 on a roll call vote with Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, St. Hilaire, Black, Blanchard, and Bouley voting yes. Councilors Rogers, Rowe, Stetson, Bennett, Brochu, and Coen voted no.
Councilor Nyhan moved to proceed and design a four-way roundabout with Auburn Street realigned, Liberty Street remaining a two-way street along with the installation of a median that would prohibit left turns onto Auburn Street. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Donovan clarified that this option would have a median which prohibits a left turn into Auburn Street. Councilor Nyhan indicated that to be correct.
Councilor Nyhan noted that the consultants and staff has done a very good job at looking at a way to make this work and indicated that he feels that this solution is the best option.
Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that he did attend one of the public meetings regarding the roundabout and feels that this option minimizes anybody’s view that would be against doing anything at all. He noted that most of the people did prefer to have a roundabout in this area and those concerned with the option were concerned that Liberty Street would become one-way and some were concerned that their own property would be taken to make these improvements.
Councilor McClure indicated her agreement with this being one of the best options. She noted her concern with the elimination of the left turn up Auburn Street because there is a considerable amount of traffic that does make this turn and if it is blocked off it will cause diversion to other areas of the neighborhood. She indicated that the City Engineer noted that it might be possible to allow the left hand turn motion to exist and monitor the situation to see if it causes any problems with the roundabout before any final divider is permanently built.
Councilor McClure moved to amend the motion and allow for left turns onto Auburn Street for a while monitoring the intersection to see if any problems occur with the roundabout and left turns onto Auburn Street. Councilor McClure noted that if problems occurred and this did not work staff could come back to Council. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Nyhan noted that he does not like the concept of making a left hand turn on Auburn Street and does not accept the amendment.
Councilor Coen noted his agreement with Councilor McClure that traffic will move to other parts of the neighborhood and place a burden on other streets.
Mayor Donovan noted his concern as to where the traffic will divert to if they are unable to turn left on Auburn Street. He indicated that he prefers the configuration that was originally proposed which would have brought Liberty Street into Auburn Street as the solution.
Councilor Rowe inquired whether Council has already approved the bond issue for this item. City Manager Aspell responded that all the funding has already been approved. Mayor Donovan added that it was not a bond issue.
Councilor St. Hilaire noted that he would like to see something done that minimizes the impact on traffic so that there is no cut through traffic but also includes the safety and quality to the intersection. He noted that he feels that the amendment proposed would do this.
Councilor Nyhan asked for a summarization as to what the amendment would include.
Using the model, Mr. Roberge pointed out what the amendment would entail.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to how many amendments were on the floor.
Mayor Donovan responded that there is only one amendment which would cut the median back so that the left turn can be made onto Auburn Street.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that he would modify his motion to cut back the restrictor island and allow for the left hand turn onto Auburn Street with the understanding that this will be monitored.
Councilor Lemieux suggested that the City Engineer come back to Council if it should become desirable to close the left hand turn.
Mayor Donovan questioned whether the width of the actual travel way around the roundabout is only enough for one vehicle. Mr. McCarthy responded that it would be a single lane roundabout. Mayor Donovan noted that if there is queuing it will queue up back to Centre Street and if vehicles coming north on Liberty Street to continue on Liberty Street it is going to queue up this movement to an extent. Mr. McCarthy explained that it wouldn’t be that dramatic from the amount of turning vehicles being talked about.
Councilor McClure noted that she is hopeful that this will work because the current geometry is very close while this appears that this is two or three car lengths before turning left onto Auburn Street. She indicated that it is worth trying and would reduce the redirection of all the traffic if this can be done.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether queue could be lengthened by taking some of the triangle of private property and whether this is worth exploring. Mr. Roberge responded that this is a final design detail and this is the type of thing that staff will try to maximize that setback to accomplish this.
The motion, as amended, passed 9 to 5 with a show of hands vote.
May 14, 2007 Public Hearing Action (Tabled for 60 days at the March 12, 2007 Council meeting)
43. Public hearing regarding the removal of an easement across the property at 13 Rolinda Avenue, parcel 9C-1-19, together with report from the Planning Board. (11-12) (1-20) (2-59G; 2-66) (3-45A; 3-46) (4-38) (Report from the City Solicitor submitted; communication from Councilor McClure and public testimony receive in Feb) (Supplemental information from the City Planner submitted) (Public hearing continued from February 12, 2007) (Supplemental report from the City Manager submitted)
Action: City Manager Aspell explained that shortly after Council received the report, he received a call from David Mesiti the owner of South Concord Meadows in which he explained that at this time he is not prepared to discuss granting the city any type of access easement or discussing acquisition of an access easement by either Mr. Brown or by the city. He informed Mr. Aspell that he will be in touch at a future date when he is prepared to do so.
Councilor Brochu inquired as to who pays the property taxes on the easement. Mr. Aspell responded that Mr. Brown pays the taxes on that property. Councilor Brochu inquired whether the estimate is the value of that land. Mr. Aspell indicated that it is the value of the easement. Councilor Brochu inquired as to what was swapped for the easement at the time. Mr. Aspell indicated that typically when projects come forward, the Planning Board would ask that access points be left to other pieces of property that are beyond them.
Councilor Rogers moved to take this item off the table. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Rogers moved to grant the request. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure noted that she is going to vote against granting the request because there is not a viable option for another access to a potential recreational area for the city.
Councilor Nyhan noted that he favors having an alternate access path to Russell Martin Park and whereas the city is unable to manufacture one at this point of time, he does not support the city removing the easement from that property.
Councilor McClure, Planning Board Council representative, explained that the Planning Board has reviewed this twice and voted unanimously to retain the easement.
Councilor Black noted that he does not feel that South Concord Meadows has been given enough time to possibly give an easement there.
Mayor Donovan indicated that it is his understanding that the owners of South Concord Meadows are not interested. Mr. Aspell indicated that they are not interested but that they will be willing to talk to the city in the future if they do become interested.
Mayor Donovan noted that he will be voting against the motion explaining that there are two strong recommendations from the Planning Board.
Councilor Rogers noted that there have been negative views of using this access including being a long wooded wet area, the difficulty in developing it and policing it, and the safety involved. She noted that she feels that holding onto this access because there is not another option is not a fair way to handle it.
The motion to grant the request failed 5 to 9 on a roll call vote with Councilors Rogers, Rowe, Stetson, Black and Bouley voting yes. Councilors Nyhan, St. Hilaire, Bennett, Blanchard, Brochu, Coen, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux, and McClure voted no.
Councilors Brochu and Coen noted their confusion with the vote and indicated that they meant to vote for the motion.
May 14, 2007 Public Hearing Action
Action: Councilor Black moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Stetson moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure noted that she will be voting against approving the fee indicating that she has concerns with charging an annual fee to these businesses and non-profits that provide meeting space for a variety of organizations and groups within the city often for free or at a low cost. She indicated that she does not feel that the city should be discouraging this and should not be increasing fees on businesses and non-profits that are providing community service. Councilor McClure explained that she understands the need to inspect these areas and would allow for a fee for the initial inspection to ensure that these places are providing a place that is safe and that they have followed all the codes. She noted her disagreement with the National Fire Protection Association that these places need to be inspected twice a year and doesn’t feel that the city should be placing that type of burden of $100 a year on the businesses that are providing these services.
Councilor Blanchard indicated that she will be voting against this item noting her agreement with Councilor McClure.
Councilor Rogers explained that this originated with the national standards because of the nightclub fire in Rhode Island in which a number of individuals lost their lives. She noted that she feels that the $100 fee is worth it so that it prevents what happened in Rhode Island to happening here.
Councilor Coen noted that as he understands, the $100 fee goes towards training the personnel from these facilities on how to react to a disaster.
Mr. Aspell explained that staff is required to conduct the training which is a new requirement.
Councilor Coen indicated that it was his understanding that the fee would help defray the training of personnel.
Mr. Aspell explained that the city currently inspects twice a year and trains the personnel. He explained that the city is trying to bring in revenue to offset those costs.
The motion passed 10 to 4 on a roll call vote with Councilors Rogers, Rowe, St. Hilaire, Stetson, Black, Bouley, Brochu, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux and Nyhan voting yes. Councilors Bennett, Blanchard, Coen and McClure voted no.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved to table this item and refer it to Council as a whole for consideration and action during the FY2008 budget review. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Blanchard moved approval of the appointments. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action:
Councilor Black moved approval of the
appointment. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action:
Councilor Bouley moved approval of the
appointments. The motion was duly seconded and passed 11 to 3 on a roll call
vote with Councilors Bouley, Brochu, Coen, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux,
McClure, Nyhan, Rogers, Rowe, St. Hilaire, and Black voting yes. Councilors
Blanchard, Stetson and Bennett voted no.
Reports
Action: City Engineer Ed Roberge provided a brief overview explaining that the report before Council summarizes the current status of both major capital projects. He explained that staff has outlined the current schedule as to where the work stands today along with the financial status.
Mayor Donovan indicated that he was looking for a little more detailed explanation of construction costs. He noted that it appears that it is in common excavation and inquired as to what embankment in place is which appears to be where a lot of it is. Martha Drukker, Engineering, responded that they really go hand in hand throughout the excavation process explaining that they ran into different areas throughout Langley Parkway that needed to be over excavated and in order to bring the road up to final grade in turn the embankment had to be increased so that the final grade remains the same. Mayor Donovan inquired whether the excavation was deeper and wider or just deeper. Ms. Drukker explained that it was related to the top soil and unsuitable material. She indicated that at the farm fields all the borings indicated that the top soil ranged between three inches and twelve inches and there were certain pockets that were in excess of three and a half feet. She explained that in addition, behind McKerley’s, they had stockpiled a lot of material and during the October hurricanes in the mid to late nineties, a lot of this material washed out and encountered up to ten feet that had to be removed across the parkway bed. She added that there was also a stump dump behind the Hitchcock Clinic that needed to be excavated and removed. Mayor Donovan inquired as to why the test borings had not picked this up. Ms. Drukker responded that test borings had been done along the center line of the corridor every 150 feet and this is what the estimates were based upon. She explained that where this material was encountered wasn’t really within the center line of the road.
Councilor McClure questioned the statement within the report which indicates that “this project fords access for recreational uses on the White Farm” noting that her impression of this project is that it actually restricts recreational use because a road is being constructed through the farm. Ms. Drukker responded that there are two areas of recreation for the parkway project; vehicle and pedestrian safety on South Fruit Street for the Memorial Field Regional Recreation Center and throughout the design of Langley Parkway primarily the main concern was the cross country skiing trails and accommodations were made in the design both through an underpass and during construction to allow the skiing to occur while the road is being built. She explained that it is not really restricting access to the White Farm it is just altering the route to make it a more defined route.
Councilor McClure noted that she feels that it hinders recreational access for Nordic skiers because of there being no snow in the tunnels. Councilor McClure indicated that one of the problems she has had with this project has to do with giving up access to the road through St. Paul’s School. She noted that she knows that the city retained recreational access through St. Paul’s School on the right of way and inquired as to what the city’s responsibilities are to maintain this route, what St. Paul’s School responsibilities are, and whether it is going to stay on the existing road and if it can be moved then who makes that decision. Referencing the recreational easement through the campus, Ms. Drukker explained that the current agency agreement states that that would be maintained by St. Paul’s School and must be allowed for public way. She noted that in the future if they wanted to change the location of that public access or move it within their campus, they have the option to do so and if they pursue this option that has to come back before the city and the design has to be approved to city standards, not just current standards but future standards as it relates to pedestrian and bicycle travel. She indicated that since the agreement was signed, St. Paul’s School has gone through some administrative changes and the detail of the maintenance and discontinuance of the Dunbarton Road was discussed and all parties agreed that this should be a more definitive agreement specifically related to this discontinuance and the details associated with this explaining that this would be coming before Council prior to the opening of Langley Parkway. Councilor McClure indicated that the details of those obligations on both parts will not be known until the parkway is finished. Ms. Drukker responded that she is assuming that if the current agreement is amended it is going to stipulate a more detailed description of the conditions concerning Dunbarton Road. She added that currently the agreement states that they have to allow public access, it has to be maintained for safe public travel, and any alterations to this has to be approved by the city to the city’s specifications. Councilor McClure inquired whether it is maintained for public access as in being paved for bicycle use and the maintenance cost and paving cost is borne by St. Paul’s School. Ms. Drukker indicated that she believes that the details of how they maintain that discontinued portion when it is discontinued is going to be up for discussion with City Administration and St. Paul’s School Administration.
Councilor Bennett commended the Engineering Department noting that this has been a long and difficult process.
Councilor Coen inquired whether a lot of the cost override was due to the boring testing. Ms. Drukker explained that typically borings are done in a 100 foot cross section in the center line of the roadway every 200 feet and indicated that it was done every 150 feet within this corridor.
Councilor Lemieux, referencing the report, indicated that there are five items that add up to the million dollars but that it does not include a breakdown. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether staff could give this breakdown. Referencing the third column of the spreadsheet, Ms. Drukker explained that this gives every item in the contract that the staff is estimating to go over. She explained that the bottom of the page, the total as of the beginning of March was $631,000 and since that time staff has processed a change order for $38,000 and is currently in negotiations with the state because there was some under drain that was removed that was put in by District Five that they are requesting be replaced. She further explained that the city is in negotiations on whether or not it is felt with the reconstruction of the road and improvements being made to that portion beyond the urban compact that that is not necessary. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether the rest of the amount is for legal expenses. Ms. Drukker indicated that the rest is itemized in the spreadsheet before. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether there is any contingency built within the million dollars. Ms. Drukker responded that there is very little.
Mayor Donovan indicated that as he understands these spreadsheets, the projection on the construction contract is $631,000 which is a fourteen percent overrun on the construction contract. He inquired as to where the other $370,000 is. Ms. Drukker explained that all the expenses are broken down item for item on the spreadsheets to include: $50,000 for legal expenses; $5,000 for surveying/monitoring platforms; $15,000 for spring appraisal; $6,000 for the contract with the historic consultant; $20,000 for legal counsel associated with the acquisition of the properties; $700,000 for construction costs which are itemized on the 11x17 second set of spreadsheets; $35,000 for consultants; $3,000 to verify unsuitable material and retest for compaction; $5,000 for completion of drawings and specifications for the Pleasant Street intersection; $170,000 completion of the move of the Tuttle house from the existing location to Gabby Lane; $41,000 for contingency. She added that in the current budget, from the FY06 appropriation, that there is $100,000 that has not been encumbered at this point to date.
Referencing the $1 million, Councilor Blanchard inquired whether this amount is to be split three ways. City Manager Aspell responded that that is to be determined by the Council and the parties. Councilor Blanchard questioned whether this is the intent. Mr. Aspell indicated that this was the purpose of the non-public discussion.
Mayor Donovan indicated that there was no commitment on the part of the partners to pay at the time this was entered into, approximately a year ago, relative to what happens if more money is needed.
Councilor Coen inquired to the total cost of the move of the Tuttle home. Ms. Drukker responded that very little has been spent to date because the negotiations have just begun. She explained that the amount originally estimated was $300,000 to $400,000 and indicated that based upon the estimates she has now, those amounts seem to be close to this. She explained that some of this depends on the route that is taken to move the house and how the negotiations work out with the legal counsel. Councilor Coen inquired whether this can be recouped if the city acquires the Tuttle house and sells it in the public market. Mr. Aspell responded that there is a chance to recoup dollars depending on which way the project goes.
Mayor Donovan thanked Ms. Drukker for the overview of the spreadsheet but noted that he was looking for a comparison of what the estimates were a year ago and where the other $300,000 is. He asked if staff could prepare a follow up report that just pins down everything, other than the construction, vis-à-vis where staff thought they were a year ago when Council was last asked to appropriate money. Mayor Donovan noted that the overrun is approximately fifteen percent and noted his concern with the statement that this is typical with major capital projects in page two of the report. He stated that he hopes that when Council gets to the point of what they think is the final appropriations for major capital projects that they will not be looking at fifteen percent overruns all the time.
Mr. Aspell noted his agreement indicating that he feels that the issue here is the ten year delay in the construction, making it an untypical project.
Councilor Nyhan moved to accept the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor Lemieux explained that the race has been cancelled and postponed until next year. He noted that he feels that the city should be looking forward to this event because it is a great opportunity to showcase Concord and will bring in thousands of visitors to the city.
Councilor Lemieux moved to accept the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
New Business
Action: Mayor Donovan noted that he feels that a fitting tribute to the late Councilor Marjory Swope is if Council names the Gold Star Acquisition the “Marjory Swope Conservation Area” in recognition of her efforts in Concord, the State and Merrimack Valley.
Councilor Nyhan moved to suspend the rules to take action on this item. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to accept the memo recommending naming Gold Star Open Space Acquisition the “Marjory Swope Conservation Area.” The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Unfinished Business
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that he hopes that staff has provided Council with all the information needed to make a decision to move forward with this project.
Councilor Bennett noted that he feels that if Council moves forward with this, he recommends that they move forward with option one, to move these bus shelters north of Park Street. He explained that he feels that Council should move forward with this because of the advent of the trolleys that will be running this summer and to give individuals who use these busses on a daily basis a place to be sheltered from inclement weather.
Councilor Bennett moved to remove this item from the table. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor McClure commended staff for trying to get this item resolved and indicated that she was impressed with the options that were presented within the report. She noted her agreement with Councilor Bennett’s statement for option one. Councilor McClure asked that Council hold a public hearing on all three options to receive public feedback on all three and then come to a decision.
Councilor McClure moved to set all three options for a public hearing at the June meeting. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Donovan inquired whether there are any problems with respect to this item and whether it needed to be moved upon quicker. Assistant for Special Projects Matt Walsh responded that the State is aware of the pace that the city is working at and that he currently has a request to them for an extension because he is not sure that this project can be completed by early October.
Councilor McClure indicated that the staff recommendation is to have the shelter inside Eagle Square but that it is stated that the sight distance between the shelter and the bus is not optimal because individuals will not necessarily be able to see the bus from the shelter in this location. She noted that she doesn’t feel that the shelter would get used if they can’t see the bus from the shelter.
The motion to set this item for a public hearing in June passed with no dissenting votes.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Mayor Donovan indicated that he was pleased to read in the report on the Capital Commons project that the parking spaces in the garage are moving very quickly. He noted that there is already a waiting list for the 150 public lease spaces and it appears that the parking projections were on target. City Manager Aspell noted that staff had been conservative in terms of revenue and Council’s decision to keep the extra level on the deck is going to pay off handsomely for the city. Mayor Donovan inquired whether this information could be placed on the Manager’s weekly memo. Mr. Aspell indicated that he would include this within the memo.
Referencing the parking garage, Councilor Bennett noted that he feels that Council made a good decision by going larger rather than smaller.
Councilor McClure indicated that she was pleased with the way the parking garage looks.
Councilor McClure commended the Engineering Department noting that she has had three individuals, within the last few months, tell her how much they have appreciated the time that the Engineering Department has spent responding to their concerns.
Referencing the open space acquisitions that are coming up for hearings next month, Councilor McClure requested that staff present information showing just how those acquisitions fit in with the open space plan so that Council can see that they are part of a grander plan.
Councilor Coen inquired as to when the master plan is to be completed. Mr. Aspell responded that it will be this year. Councilor Coen inquired as to why there is a delay. Mr. Aspell responded that there are many factors involved. Councilor Coen further inquired as to how many years this process usually takes. Mr. Aspell responded that the ones that he has seen going on around the Greater Merrimack Valley area seems to take approximately four years. Mr. Aspell explained that many items outlined with the Mayor’s Task Force for better development and review tie back to sets of regulations such as zoning, subdivision and site plan regulations which tie back to the master plan. Councilor Coen noted his concern with the time it is taking for the completion of the master plan.
Councilor McClure indicated that she will relay Council’s concerns to the Planning Board. She indicated that the Planning Board has received half of the draft master plan to review and are starting to get into this in more detail.
Comments, Requests by the City Manager
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 8, 11, 12, 26, 28, 31 and 33 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
Action: Councilor Nyhan indicated that he has informed Mr. Watrous that he will not concern himself with any matters involving CCTV prior to the current contract. He explained that what is before Council is a request by Mr. Watrous for the City Council to direct the City Manager to direct the City Solicitor to conduct an investigation into CCTV for misuse of public funds. He indicated that he does not feel that this is a valid use of city money. Councilor Nyhan explained that Mr. Watrous has asked that this communication not be referred to the Rules Committee and noted that he does share some of Mr. Watrous’s concerns with the Rules Committee. He explained that as a way of expediting this item he has pulled this from consent to find out whether or not Council wants to direct the City Manager to direct the City Solicitor to conduct an investigation.
Councilor Nyhan moved to have a roll call vote on whether or not Council should direct the City Manager to direct the City Solicitor to conduct an investigation of misuse of public funds at CCTV. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Rogers explained that the Rules Committee has been looking at this issue for almost two years and indicated that the committee has allowed Mr. Watrous to speak to the committee on several occasions. She explained that there is a sub-committee that has met to look into some of the records that Mr. Watrous wants released to him personally and that the Rules Committee will be meeting on Wednesday to hear from the sub-committee. Councilor Rogers noted that she feels that by ordering another investigation of the same charges that have been made she feels that using the City Solicitor’s time and the City Manager’s time in a way that is duplicitous and not useful.
Councilor Bennett indicated that he feels that Mr. Watrous’s questions have been asked and answered further stating that he feels there is no need for any more investigation on these issues.
Following brief Council discussion, the to direct the City Manager to direct the City Solicitor to conduct an investigation failed on a roll call vote with Councilors Nyhan, Rogers, Rowe, St. Hilaire, Stetson, Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouley, Brochu, Coen, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Lemieux, and McClure voting no.
Action: Referencing both items 11 and 12, Councilor Lemieux explained that when the Parking Committee considered the possibility of limiting parking on Union Street it was in the middle of winter when the streets become narrower making for hazardous parking conditions. He indicated that there is no reason to prohibit parking on both sides of the street during the summer.
Councilor Lemieux moved to remove items 11 and 12 from a public hearing next month and refer them back to the Parking Committee. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Action on this item taken with item 11. This item was removed from a public hearing next month and referred back to the Parking Committee.
Action: Councilor Blanchard indicated that she has been informing constituents that construction will begin in June and at the charette held Saturday an announcement was made indicating that construction will be starting at the end of summer or beginning of fall.
Councilor Blanchard moved to accept the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Blanchard moved to accept the Finance Committee rules. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Donovan explained that all votes are tentative until adoption of the final budget; reconsideration of a tentative vote only occurs at the next meeting; meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. and end at 9:00 p.m.; and presentations are limited to fifteen minutes.
The motion to accept the Finance Committee rules passed with no dissenting votes.
Mayor Donovan indicated that he submitted an alternate budget review schedule explaining that he feels that receiving the budget on Wednesday evening and having the overview the next evening seemed too short of a period to be able to review it and suggested that the meetings begin either next Monday or Tuesday.
Councilor Bouley noted that he would like to have some time to look over the budget before beginning the meetings.
Mayor Donovan explained that if the meetings begin the following week, it would move the budget adoption from June 18th to June 25th and place a reserve session on June 21st.
Councilor Rogers indicated that on June 7th she will be attending a conference and would like to be present for the Fire Department budget and inquired whether the Police and Fire budgets could be done on the same evening as done in the past.
Mayor Donovan noted that he will not be present on June 7th and would like to be present for the public safety budgets. Mayor Donovan inquired whether the Fire Department budget could be placed before the Police budget on June 4th and Social Service Agencies moved to June 7th. City Manager Aspell indicated that Police and Fire were scheduled in one night last year.
Mayor Donovan questioned whether it is anticipated that Social Services will take an entire evening. Mr. Aspell noted that being that there will not be public input at that point, it may not take the entire evening.
Following additional Council discussion, Councilor Bouley moved to accept the revised schedule to move the budget overview to Tuesday, May 22nd and to move the Fire budget before the Police budget on June 4th and move Social Services to June 7th. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to suspend the rules to allow the meeting to go until 11:30 p.m. The motion was duly seconded and passed with a show of hands.
Action: Councilor McClure explained that this area is known as Healy Park and is used recreationally. She requested that the Engineering Department ensure that the aspects of the park are not compromised by the drilling and that the granite sign out front is protected.
Councilor McClure moved to accept the report with her request. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Mayor Donovan requested that this item be tabled until the June meeting. He explained that he did not feel that all of his questions were addressed within the report and noted that some of them had been addressed in an email response but feels that they should be made available to all of Council.
Councilor Bouley moved to table this report until the June meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Consideration of Suspense Items
Action: Councilor Bouley moved to suspend the rules to take the suspense agenda items. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
5 Sus1 Report from the Facilities Naming Committee in response to a communication from Robert Washburn requesting consideration be given to naming a parcel of city owned land in honor of former Mayor C. David Coeyman. (2Sus1) (3-26)
Action: Councilor Bouley moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
5 Sus2 Report from the Facilities Naming Committee in support of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee recommendation to name sections of the Dog Park at Terrill Park in memory of Jack Hickey and Sandy Sanel.
Action: Councilor Stetson moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
5 Sus3 Referral to the Human
Services Department
Communication from Cheryl Killam, NH Governor’s Commission on
Disability, notifying the City that complaints have been received regarding
accessibility to the Human Services Department on Pleasant Street.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved to refer this communication to the Human Services Department. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
5 Sus4 To be set for a June 11,
2007 Public Hearing
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a storm shelter at
Beaver Meadow Golf Course donated from Havenwood Heritage Heights and Cobb Hill
Construction; together with report from General Services.
Action: Councilor Bouley moved to set this item for a June public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
5 Sus5 Street
closure request
Request to close a portion of
Shaker Road from Pekoe Drive to Shaker Road on the evening of June 1, 2007 from
7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. for the Concord High School Levee (Prom).
Action: Councilor Bouley moved to grant the street closure request subject to public safety and administrative requirements. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Bouley explained that they have had a successful prom for many years and that the Shaker School is kind to donate their facilities for the use of the prom. He noted that this will be an improvement to the parking and traffic within Ward Ten.
The motion to grant the street closure request passed on a voice vote.
Adjournment
Mayor Donovan reminded Council of the upcoming June 5th Special Election for Ward Five and urged residents of that ward to cast their vote at the election.
City Manager Aspell indicated that the Personnel Director is unavailable to attend the collective bargaining non-public meeting and suggested that the non-public session be limited to Langley Parkway.
The time being, 11:25 p.m., Councilor St. Hilaire moved to adjourn the meeting and enter into non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss contract negotiations, Langley Parkway. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouley, Brochu, Coen, Mayor Donovan, Councilors Rowe, St. Hilaire and Stetson voting yes. Councilors Lemieux, Nyhan and Rogers voted no.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk