| November 19, 2007 Recessed City Council Meeting Minutes |
|
City Council Recessed Meeting
Minutes
November 19, 2007
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
November Public Hearing Action
47. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 17, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 17-4, Operation of Motor Vehicles; Section 17-4-1, Stop Required Before Entering a Through Street, Schedule V, Stop Intersections, Shaker Road at Cemetery Street; together with report from the Traffic Operations Committee. (8-8) (9-10) (10-12) (Supplemental report from the Traffic Operations Committee regarding improvements to the intersection of Mountain Road/Shaker Road/Cemetery Street following the neighborhood meeting with residents and concerned citizens) (Additional public testimony received)
Action: Councilor Shurtleff moved to approve the “J” intersection, option four presented at the November 13th Council meeting. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Shurtleff explained that he feels that Council has two objectives: to propose a safe, secure intersection that allows for a steady stream of both vehicle and pedestrian traffic; and to agree on a proposal that the citizens of the neighborhood feel comfortable with.
Councilor McClure asked the City Engineer to clarify the expense of this option. City Engineer Ed Roberge pointed out that the source of funding, the highway rehabilitation program, can support any of the options. He explained that the costs outlined within option four were essentially outlining pavement, curb line adjustments, drainage structures and water indicating that this will cost under $20,000. Mr. Roberge indicated that although a detailed analysis wasn’t completed, staff is confident that it supports the existing funding in the highway program. Councilor McClure inquired whether there would be any costs if Council chooses the recommended option. Mr. Roberge indicated that to be correct. Councilor McClure noted that she does not have strong objections to the “J” intersection but indicated that she was struck by the testimony and staff presentation that it appears to her that the existing situation is working. She inquired whether another option would be to continue with what is currently there and assess the area through the winter to see if the perceived problems often related to snow, emergency vehicles and school buses become real problems and to revisit this item in the spring to see if it is necessary to put in the “J” configuration. Mr. Roberge responded that that is what staff may be forced into given the weather constraints. Councilor McClure indicated that if Council moves forward with option four this evening, then there isn’t the option of assessing it and making a decision at a later time. Mr. Roberge indicated that to be correct. Councilor McClure noted that her reservation about the “J” intersection is that she is not sure that it will slow the traffic down the way the current configuration has. Mr. Roberge responded that both reflect a significant improvement from what was previously there. Councilor McClure noted that she would prefer to wait until spring and would be voting against the motion.
Councilor Nyhan inquired whether it would be possible to make the northbound section of Shaker Road, between Mountain Road and Cemetery Street, one-way as well as placing a stop sign at this intersection allowing traffic to be slowed down, opening it up for the northbound traffic, and keep the existing “T” intersection on Cemetery Street and Mountain Road. Mr. Roberge responded that this was discussed and reflected within option 3a and 3b. He explained that the northbound Shaker Road movement was considered with and without a stop condition noting that because this is the predominantly traffic movement of vehicle queuing in the stop condition, if Shaker Road is made one-way stopping it at Cemetery Street, the potential to queue at that intersection all the way back from Mountain Road exists. He added that the staff concern is taking that free movement out of there and creating a stop possibly backing cars up to Mountain Road. Councilor Nyhan indicated that the only testimony that concerned him at the last meeting was the fact that vehicles taking a right onto Cemetery Street when there was a vehicle in the right hand lane and not snug up to the shoulder, it was difficult for trucks to make this turn. He noted his concern with the added difficulty due to snow conditions.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether the $20,000 to do the “J” option would come out of existing highway dollars. Mr. Roberge indicated that to be correct. Councilor Lemieux indicated that given that the same money can’t be spent twice inquired as to what will not be done as a result of spending the money on this project. Mr. Roberge indicated that as he understands because of the favorable bidding costs this year, all the work that has been done is either at or under budget. He noted that he doesn’t feel that anything else will be taken out of the program at this point.
Councilor Lemieux inquired that if the money wasn’t spent whether it would be returned to the city. City Manager Tom Aspell responded that in the past, those dollars were kept in the highway fund and as new dollars were appropriated they were continued to be added to this to do new roads.
Referencing the upcoming weather, Councilor Rowe inquired whether it is too late to do anything. Mr. Roberge responded that it is difficult to predict weather and that the project would be weather dependent. Councilor Rowe indicated that Council will need to approve the ordinance for a stop sign through the winter or it would not be enforceable.
Councilor Coen noted his support of option four explaining that this option seemed to be the compromise based upon the testimony at the last meeting from the abutters and the individuals who use this intersection.
Councilor Lemieux indicated that he would be voting against the motion noting his agreement with Councilor McClure.
Councilor Blanchard noted that she is in favor of the “J” option and added that she went to the intersection and that the stop sign has already been erected. Mr. Roberge responded that the stop sign that is being requested this evening to be added to the ordinance is currently in place explaining that this was done from a safety standpoint.
Councilor St. Hilaire questioned whether staff was planning on making any improvements before the winter if this ordinance were to pass in its present form. Mr. Roberge responded that there is the potential to have work done if there is good weather and if the weather remains as it is currently, it would be difficult to do the work now due to the temperature needed for paving.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley inquired whether it is correct that emergency vehicles have had a difficult time getting access up Shaker Road already and that there are not perceived issues but real safety issues. Acting Fire Chief Tim McGinley indicated that within the last six months the Fire Department has responded out to Shaker Road for a total of nine times. He pointed out that there was one response that occurred at 4:30 p.m. and due to the high traffic volume it didn’t appear that vehicles operators had any option as to where to move so that the emergency vehicle could progress through. He added that after thirty seconds of maneuvering, the vehicle was able to pass through. Mr. McGinley indicated that roughly one out of nine responses resulted in minor difficulty navigating the intersection.
Councilor Nyhan inquired whether any of the other calls during the rush hour. Mr. McGinley indicated that they were not during that time period.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley indicated that he would be supporting the motion for the “J” option noting that he feels that it is a long term solution that will solve the speed issue; takes care of the conflict between Cemetery Street and Shaker Road; reduces the issue of sight line turning out onto Mountain Road. He added that it appears that, if done properly, it will also solve the neighbors’ problems with access to their driveways and mailboxes. He indicated that he feels that the “J” option seems to solve both the immediate neighbors and those living in the vicinity doing it in such a way that there will be no conflict with the “S” turn movements of any emergency vehicles.
Councilor Nyhan noted his concern with the “J” option not being in place until the spring which leaves the city with emergency response vehicle issues during rush hour. Referencing moving forward with the “J” option, Councilor Nyhan inquired whether Council needs to consider other options during the winter season of addressing the emergency vehicles. City Manager Tom Aspell explained that the ordinance before Council this evening is for the stop sign and if the project can be completed with the weather cooperating, staff could come back to Council rescinding this and if not it would stay until such time when spring comes about and the project can be implemented and it would be rescinded at that time.
Councilor Rowe moved to amend the motion to approve the stop sign as proposed by the City Engineer until construction of the project. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Shurtleff’s motion to approve option four, as amended, passed on a voice vote.
48. Report from the Engineering Services Division regarding the status of CIP #24 Exit 16/Mountain Road/Shawmut Street Intersection Improvement Project. (10-49) (Additional public testimony received)
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Nyhan noted his support of the motion indicating that by the time this roundabout is implemented the city will have experience with other roundabouts within the city indicating his hope that Council has the foresight to reconsider this option if other roundabouts don’t work.
Councilor Blanchard inquired to the timeline of this roundabout. City Manager Aspell explained that after Council takes this vote it directs him to include this within the 2009-2014 capital budget.
Councilor Coen indicated that he feels that a roundabout is good at this location because it has the acreage and will benefit the businesses and the intersection.
Councilor Lemieux’s motion passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor Stetson moved approval of the resolution with the addition of another whereas added to the end of the resolution. He explained that the abutters had approached him and inquired whether something could be done by adding to the purchase and sales agreement that it be constructed to include their concerns and testimony from the last meeting including: parking for eight vehicles; drainage; snow removal; buffer zones; setback; other zoning issues; building code issues including the asbestos and lead paint removal; and the decrease in on-street parking for Project Second Start. The motion was duly seconded.
Assistant for Special Projects Matt Walsh indicated that they had spent time with the abutters at the last meeting discussing many of these issues. He noted that all of the issues brought up by Councilor Stetson will need to be addressed with the Zoning and Planning Boards as part of the permitting process. He indicated that language could be added to the purchase and sale that would appropriately document the issues that Councilor Stetson and his constituents are worried about explaining that the issue is that the language is going to have to be to the extent reasonable and as approved by the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. Mr. Walsh noted that the language could probably be accommodated in the purchase and sale to be worked out with Mr. John Jordan, his partner and attorney and be language to the effect of the greatest extent reasonable.
Councilor Coen inquired as to what would happen if some of those issues are not met and the project does not move forward. Mr. Walsh responded that if cannot get development permits and approvals that are acceptable to the developer, staff would have to begin the process over again and Council would have to reevaluate whether any of the issues raised by the abutters were potentially the issues that may have derailed the project and address those in the future.
City Manager Aspell added that the city could either search for another development project or auction the property.
Councilor Coen inquired whether the same constraints and issues would exist. Mr. Aspell explained that if anyone were to purchase the property they would still need to go through the entire Zoning and Planning Board process but the city would lose the control of trying to preserve the building.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley noted that the possibility of auction had not been previously discussed as an option. Mr. Aspell responded that this has always been an option of any property. Mayor Pro Tem Bouley inquired as to how many years the city has held onto this property. Mr. Walsh responded that the city has owned the property since the 1960’s and added that it hasn’t been used since 1994.
Councilor Stetson pointed out that the abutters don’t want to see this project go away they want to ensure that their concerns that they testified to last week are kept in the forefront. He suggested that a copy of their testimonies be sent to the Zoning Board and to the Planning Board so that when they review the plans they will have the testimonies from the abutters and will also see in the purchase and sales agreement that Council is concerned with the concerns of the abutters.
Councilor McClure indicated that she doesn’t see Councilor Stetson’s list as restrictions she sees it as articulating what some concerns are that are to be addressed as the project moves along.
John Jordan, architect, noted that he feels that the mechanisms exist to address the abutter’s concerns in the Zoning Board and Planning Board. Mr. Jordan indicated that the abutter’s concerns are well heard and believes there is ample opportunity for them to be heard more and to be addressed as the project proceeds through the Zoning and Planning Boards. He added that he is unsure as to how this ties into the purchase and sales agreement.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that if the abutter’s list of requirements/expectations is written into the purchase and sales agreement, they do become requirements of the contract and do become restrictions. He added that, as it was pointed out earlier, by allowing the purchase and sales agreement to go forward and using the Zoning and Planning Boards as experts, all the desires can be factored in and the city can still come up with a plan to work for the city. He noted that by adding these requirements to the purchase and sales agreement they may be preventing what they want to happen.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether the proposed project will require zoning exceptions as far as parking and setbacks. Mr. Walsh responded that it is anticipated that three to five variances will be needed to make this project work because of the unique circumstances of the property: size, shape, and the way the building is placed. Councilor Blanchard further inquired whether the drainage issues will be built into the agreement. Mr. Walsh indicated that to be correct explaining that the Zoning Board will look at concepts and determine if it is okay or acceptable to grant certain relief for setbacks or parking configurations. He added that the Planning Board exists to review design merits of the plan; drainage calculations; drainage design; snow storage; lighting; landscaping; buffers to try to protect the interest of the abutters but also to be fair to the property owner and the developer. Mr. Walsh indicated that all the issues raised by Councilor Stetson will inherently be reviewed in the process.
Councilor Stetson clarified that his motion was not to list these items within the purchase and sales agreement as conditions but as concerns of the abutters. He reiterated that he feels that the boards should have a copy of the testimonies from the abutters from the last Council meeting.
Councilor McClure noted that she feels that when the Council votes to enter into a development agreement with the developer it conveys an expectation that the Council hopes that this project will succeed. She added that when a board reviews a project in which the Council has already spoken, there often is a perceived impression that Council wants this to go through and this needs to be kept in mind when considering this project.
Councilor St. Hilaire questioned whether the purchase and sale agreement is contingent upon getting all the variances for the development of the property. Mr. Walsh responded that it is contingent upon getting any relief that may be required from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, any permits required from the Planning Board, as well as the developer securing financing.
City Manager Tom Aspell noted that he feels that Councilor Stetson’s idea is a good idea indicating that it can be added into the resolution.
Councilor Coen noted his concern with the purchase and sales agreement listing the abutter’s concerns.
Mr. Aspell noted that it was his understanding that the concerns be listed as an additional whereas within the resolution. Councilor Stetson indicated that to be correct indicating that he wanted to add a new “now therefore be it resolved” and that the purchase and sales agreement be constructed to include the abutters testimony from the last meeting and their concerns including: parking; drainage; snow removal; buffer zones; setback; zoning issues; building code issues including the asbestos and lead paint removal; and the elimination of on-street parking to allow for their parking.
Mr. Aspell clarified that it won’t be stating that there is going to be a certain number of parking spaces or that the drainage is going to flow at a certain rate just that those issues will be included in there.
Councilor Stetson’s motion passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor Rowe moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor St. Hilaire noted his concerns that nobody will be around from this Council that will remember some of the concerns addressed and that by leaving it to the Conservation Commission he is not comfortable as to whether they will know that Council is concerned with such items as the beaver pond or with the setback. He indicated that he would like reassurance that twenty years from now, items like this were addressed. Councilor St. Hilaire questioned whether there is a way this could be subject to the approval of the City Council.
Attorney Tim Britain, representing Unitil, indicated that the reason that it is subject to the Conservation Commission is that this is where the idea originated and through the process of bringing drafts of documents through the Conservation Commission, they were the ones who wanted to have final approval of the project. He added that it is these types of projects that the Conservation Commission is charged to be responsible for and if there is another appropriate board which the city wants, it can be considered.
City Planner Doug Woodward added that there would be provisions within the deed explaining that public utilities are required to get a conditional use permits. He further added that they would have to go through a regulatory process and a deeded procedure that is required within the easement.
Councilor St. Hilaire clarified that he does not have a problem with the agreement but that he is concerned with the issues brought forward and the future for constituents and abutters when this is built.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley indicated that potential sites were identified at the last Council meeting and inquired how close these were to the backyards on Profile Avenue and Canterbury Street.
City Planner Doug Woodward explained that the perimeter boundaries were intended to be 100 feet all the way around the outer perimeter. Mr. Woodward identified the two potential sites on the map. Mr. Britain clarified that the first potential site was on the easterly side of the right of way 400 to 800 feet from Curtisville Road and the second potential site was located 1,000 to 1,600 feet from Portsmouth Street. He added that these were the two areas identified during preliminary reconnaissance of the property and are still preliminary until getting into some more engineering analysis of the sites. He explained that the language in the conservation easement would be written so that if these two sites prove not to be feasible that any other sites need to be approved by the Conservation Commission.
Councilor Coen noted that these concerns are similar to the ones in regards to Scandia Hall. He inquired whether there are already procedures in place for this. Mr. Woodward responded that there are existing zoning procedures for any public utility infrastructure.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to amend the motion to add to the wording “approval by the Conservation Committee” to include “and City Council.” The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Nyhan inquired whether Unitil would be agreeable to the amendment. Mr. Britain explained that he is unsure whether they had the ability to give an answer to this right now noting that these are documents that need to be approved by senior management of Unitil.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that he does not like the idea of amending the current resolution.
Referencing the amendment, Councilor Blanchard inquired whether this just ensures that whatever time this happens that the concerns will be considered.
Councilor St. Hilaire’s amendment failed 7 to 7 with a show of hands.
Councilor Nyhan’s motion to accept the resolution passed on a voice vote.
Reports
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that Mayor Donovan had requested this report and moved to table this item until the December Council meeting. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to how the motion would affect the forward progress of the project. City Engineer Ed Roberge responded that the design process continues to move forward and that the intent was to have design plans completed within a November timeframe. Bill Moore, Fay Spofford & Thorndike LLC, added that there is a certain amount of flexibility built into the design through the process of doing the study. He indicated that with this in mind they might be able to make an adjustment based on the what decisions come out of the presentation.
The motion to table this item until the December Council meeting passed with no
dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved to table this item until the December meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Rogers moved acceptance of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Deputy City Manager-Development Carlos Baia provided a brief overview of his report indicating that this 3.43 acre parcel was originally intended to be the terminus for I-393 and that over the years a proposal had been made to create an Exit 2 ½ using this parcel of property. He noted that since he has been with the city, there have been two separate development proposals that have come before the development review team that sought to develop the private property immediately to the north. Mr. Baia explained that the access to that private property would have to go through this land to get to Loudon Road. He indicated that staff deferred this issue to the Traffic Operations Committee and they came back with findings that concluded that there aren’t any warrants for an additional exit and that there is enough capacity at both Exits 2 and 3. He indicated that staff is recommending that Council allow staff to move forward to acquire this property and issue a request for proposal from the development sector that would incorporate the property as well as the private property around it allowing the city a level of control and allows the city to foster some development within this corridor.
Councilor Rogers motion passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this is an update and that the study and report will be included within the next Council agenda.
Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and
passed on a voice vote.
New Business
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Bouley explained that there had been a question as to whether Council had accepted the satisfactory or unsatisfactory motion last week indicating that this item would address this issue of a public vote.
Councilor Nyhan moved to accept the report stating a satisfactory rating for the City Manager. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Bouley outlined the proposed compensation/adjustments within the report.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the adjustments. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley explained that if this motion is adopted, the City Solicitor would be instructed to draft up a revised contract to be signed by Mayor Donovan and the City Manager.
The motion to approve the adjustments passed with no dissenting votes.
Comments, Requests by the City Manager
Referencing info item 15, City Manager Aspell pointed out that this is an invitation from the school district to review the elementary master plan proposal. He indicated that this will be held in the Professional Development Room at Conant School on November 27, December 4 and December 11.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor Blanchard asked to revisit the recreational crossing bridge on the Contoocook River that the snowmobile club is in the process of accomplishing. Councilor Blanchard moved to release the $35,000 that was placed in the budget to for the purpose of paying the transportation of the bridge from Idaho because the club had to take out a loan to get the bridge transported by the deadline they had in order to accomplish the contract and to get the bridge for the price they negotiated. She indicated that it was her understanding that when Council made this appropriation that it was understood that funds would not be released until they had finished the bridge. Councilor Blanchard noted that she is dismayed that the process with the city has made it impossible for them to accomplish the project this fall further noting that it now won’t be started until spring.
Councilor Blanchard’s motion to release the $35,000 so that the club does not have to incur interest on a loan was duly seconded.
Councilor Nyhan asked for an update on the project; where it stands and what the risks are to the city by releasing this money.
Assistant for Special Projects Matt Walsh explained that several weeks ago the city issued the Townline Trail Dusters Snowmobile Club a license to install the bridge at Lehtinen Park; the owner of the bridge, the snowmobile club, has prepared engineering drawings in which Engineering has reviewed and approved them; the bridge has been shipped from Idaho and is currently being stored on a private piece of property in Penacook. He added that because of the many issues, not the city’s, the bridge will not be installed until the spring further noting that the owner of the bridge is asking that the city release the money because of financing issues they are experiencing because of the scheduling issues. Mr. Walsh indicated that the one thing that needs to be made perfectly clear is that if Council releases the money as part of the quid pro quo for the license, the city will grant the license and not require any type of financial surety or bond to protect the city in the event that the project starts but is not completed or the project is not executed in the way it should be executed.
Councilor McClure noted that she recalls that there were a number of other sources of funding for this project and that one of the reasons that the city was holding this money to the end is because the city wanted to ensure the project was going forward before putting money into it. She asked for an outline as to how those funding sources are going and whether there is other money that can be used to release this loan. Mr. Walsh responded that it is his understanding that there are a few grants from the State of NH Department of Resources and Economic Development explaining that the state typically releases funds when a project is complete. He added that there are a variety of in-kind and cash donations that have been made to the project. Mr. Walsh indicated that the project has experienced cost overruns that the club thought would come up such as: the disassembly of the bridge in Idaho; and the bridge not being shipped by the National Guard or the owner of the bridge.
Councilor Blanchard indicated that collateral exists noting that it is her understanding that they have twice as much bridge as they actually need and that there is some value to this. She added that the reason that there is not a bond is because there is nobody involved that is able to receive a bond.
Councilor Nyhan noted that he is in support of the motion explaining that he feels that Mr. Murray has proven himself to be committed to the project.
Councilor Stetson inquire whether there was any way that the city could get ownership of the bridge so that it can be used as collateral. Mr. Aspell responded that could be explored explaining that the idea was that once it was completed and inspected, the city would take ownership and maintenance requirements. Mr. Aspell indicated that Council has made the commitment to the $35,000 questioning what would happen if something goes wrong and more money would is needed.
Councilor Stetson indicated that the concern that he has heard is that $35,000 is being given without any guarantee that the city will be receiving anything for it.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to what the city would have to guarantee that there wouldn’t be other unanticipated price increases that would stop the project. Mr. Aspell responded that this has become a private project that was going up on city property with the city contributing dollars now essentially a city project. He explained that this can be looked into adding that negotiating this would be difficult.
Councilor Lemieux moved to amend the motion to include a clause, a personal guarantee, within the agreement indicating that if Council approves the transfer of the funds to make this project happen. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Nyhan inquired as to the value of the bridge. Mr. Walsh responded that the club paid approximately $70,000 for the bridge itself and transportation. Councilor Nyhan inquired whether the bridge can be used as collateral for the project questioning whether this could be factored into the amendment.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether it’s known whether the bridge is not currently unencumbered. Mr. Walsh explained that that is not known.
Councilor McClure noted her concern with the unknowns in regards to this project. She inquired whether staff could comment on what Council should do at this point that would give the city the assurance that nobody is going to come back and ask for more money because the project failed. Mr. Walsh noted his concern with releasing the money because it would weaken the city’s position should something go astray. He explained that he had suggested that the city may be able to give Mr. Murray the $2,800 to cover the interest costs for the next six months.
Councilor Rowe indicated that it was his understanding that the agreement was going to be up to $35,000. Mr. Walsh indicated that to be correct explaining that when Council prepared the FY08 budget, it was a commitment to $35,000 and that the club has informed staff that they intend on seeking the entire appropriation.
Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that perhaps there is a way to draft the agreement that states that the extra sections of bridge be sold and the club can pay the city back for the excess. Mr. Walsh responded that this can be explored explaining that Mr. Murray has indicated that he has already made commitments with the company that manufactures the bridge to trade components for other components he needs to put the bridge together.
Councilor Shurtleff inquired to the cost of finishing the bridge. Mr. Walsh noted that his recollection is that the total budget is approximately $125,000 including purchasing the bridge and assembling it which included a lot of volunteer work and equipment.
Councilor Coen indicated that he was comfortable with releasing the amount of $2,800 for the interest and deducting this from the $35,000.
Councilor Lemieux’s amendment failed 7 to 7 with a show of hands.
Councilor Blanchard’s motion to appropriate the $35,000 failed on a voice vote.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to appropriate $2,800 and to deduct that amount from the $35,000. The motion was duly seconded.
Following additional Council discussion, Councilor St. Hilaire’s motion passed on a voice vote.
Additional Council Comments
Councilor Nyhan thanked Ward Seven for having the highest voter turnout in the city.
Councilor Nyhan reminded Council of the upcoming food drive for the NH Food Bank reminding the Councilors that they can bring in food or monetary donations to the December Council meeting.
Councilor McClure indicated that she received comments regarding the difficulties in using the new garage and asked for an update at the December meeting on what some of the ideas are to making the garage more user friendly.
Councilor St. Hilaire pointed out that Friday, December 7th is Midnight Merriment in Concord.
Councilor Rowe added that the Christmas tree lighting will be held Friday, November 23rd.
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
41. Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit an application to the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company for the purpose of receiving a 2008 Polaris Ranger 6x6 utility vehicle through its operation ranger program in order to enhance emergency incident response; together with a report from the Acting Fire Chief. (Pulled from consent by Councilor Werner)
Action: Councilor Werner explained that the reason that he had pulled this item from consent was because of his concerns with the city having a relationship with a tobacco company. He noted that over the years this company has misrepresented the dangers of smokeless tobacco explaining that he does not feel it is a good precedent to be accepting items from these companies. He noted his support of the city receiving new vehicles and inquired whether this route can be reconsidered and ask that other ways be considered to accomplish this.
Acting Fire Chief Tim McGinley explained that this is a competitive grant program with a deadline of December 28th. He indicated that this grant program dates back to 2002 in which this tobacco company awarded 240 of these ATV vehicles. He added that with his experience with grants, vehicles are getting extremely difficult to come by now.
Councilor Shurtleff inquired whether there would be any markings on the ATV. Mr. McGinley responded that there is no permanent markings on the vehicle explaining that the only obligation that the city would be under is to participate in a small public ceremony.
Councilor Stetson inquired to the chances of obtaining this grant. Mr. McGinley responded that the chances are fairly slim explaining that this is a well publicized grant.
Councilor Coen questioned how important the vehicle would be. Mr. McGinley explained that this was identified, within the CIP, as an area of vulnerability explaining that citizens are accessing areas of the city that the department cannot reliably get to other than on foot.
Councilor Lemieux inquired as to the fair market value of this vehicle. Mr. McGinley responded that it is valued at approximately $9,000 to $10,000.
Councilor Black noted his agreement with Councilor Werner’s concerns.
Councilor Rogers suggested that Council consider a policy for items such as this.
Councilor McClure noted her agreement with Councilor Werner.
Councilor Werner moved to not accept the resolution and direct the Fire Chief to look for alternative funding mechanisms for this purpose. The motion was duly seconded and failed on a voice vote.
Councilor Stetson moved approval of the resolution. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Councilor Nyhan thanked Wal-Mart for the costumes that they donated to the children for Halloween Howl.
Consideration of Suspense Items
Councilor Shurtleff moved to suspend the rules to consider suspense items, not previously. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
11 Sus1 Street closure request from Main Street Concord, Inc for Midnight Merriment to be held on Friday, December 7, 2007.
Action: Councilor Lemiuex moved approval of the street closure contingent upon the necessary administrative approvals. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
11 Sus2 Referral to Community
Development
Communication from the Friends of Concord Crew requesting permission to
lease land to build a boathouse on city property adjacent to the Everett Arena.
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell noted that he feels that this item should also be referred to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee.
Mayor Pro Tem Bouley noted that he feels that this should also be referred to the Fire Department.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to refer this item to Community Development, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee and the Fire Department. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
11 Sus3 To be set for a December 10,
2007 Public Hearing
Petition for the discontinuance of a public highway known as Flaghole
Road in Concord. (9Sus1) (11-26)
Action: City Manager Aspell explained that a public hearing must be held prior to the discontinuance of a street.
Councilor McClure moved to set this item for a December public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Adjournment
The time being 8:47 p.m., Councilor Lemieux moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk