| August 10, 2009 Meeting Minutes |
|
City Council Meeting
Minutes
August 10, 2009
Non-public session in accordance
with RSA 91-A: 3, II, d
to discuss property negotiations for Parcel #46-4-13
City
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval of the July 13, 2009 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded. Referencing the third paragraph on page ten, Councilor McClure noted that “piece mail” should be changed to “piece meal.” The minutes, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Werner, Committee Chair, thanked Linda Darveau, from the Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Farag and Jim Potter, of UNH, for attending this evening to give a presentation. He explained that last December, the City of Concord committed itself to the EPA Community Energy Challenge and by doing so, gained access to a tool which allowed the benchmarking of the buildings and understand what is going on with the city’s energy use as a way of deciding what kinds of strategies the city is going to be able to follow to continue to make improvements. He pointed out that it is very important to recognize that the data that has been inputted goes back to 2004 because the city has done good things prior to the formation of the committee and it needs to be captured and those efforts acknowledged in order to be fair in terms of how they were being measured.
Linda Darveau, Environmental Protection Agency, thanked Jim Howard for spending many hours helping them collect the data to put together this presentation. She thanked Dr. Farag and his intern Jim Potter who has worked tirelessly this summer to serve many NH communities. She noted that the City of Concord is a recognized leader in environmental issues and tomorrow the EPA will be sending out a press release to celebrate 150 communities in New England joining the Community Energy Challenge and Concord will be one of four communities highlighted within the press release. She explained that this presentation is to give a snapshot of portfolio manager so they can see what the software tool can do and to hopefully convince the city to keep using it in the future to track energy use.
Dr. Farag, Professor of Chemical Engineering at UNH, indicated that the big incentive to cut down on the use of energy is the savings in money, reduction in pollution and cutting down on the alliance of imported oil. He explained that EPA developed this Community Energy Challenge Program challenging cities and towns to benchmark buildings within their communities and to reduce their energy by ten percent or more, with no time limits. He indicated that this program is in its third year and has grown to approximately 150 communities in New England and over thirty percent of the population of New England has been part of it. Dr. Farag explained that EPA developed the portfolio manager to determine how much energy is being used and can be used to benchmark buildings, taking the data from the Department of Energy statistics that had been done a few years ago.
Jim Potter, Senior Chemical Engineering student at UNH, indicated that he had worked with Jim Howard in getting all of the city’s energy bills inputted into the portfolio manager software which rates them against other buildings of the same type compared to energy efficiency. He explained that, for municipal buildings, some of the information that he needed for the portfolio included: the growth floor area; zip code; address; year the building was built; the number of computers; occupants/employees; operating hours; how many months per year the building was in use; energy bills. He explained that he created a data analysis for some of the city buildings including the Green Street Complex, the Fire Stations, the Libraries, the Water Treatment Plant and a few other city buildings. He explained that he did an example profile of the Comf in which considerable capital improvements had been done to this building because he wanted to study the usage between 2004, 2008 and 2009 period. He indicated that what portfolio manager does is takes all the energy usage and puts it in terms of kilo btu usage and then you can compare it to the square footage of the building and create inner building comparisons. He pointed out that the Comf got 7 million kilo btu’s per year in 2004 and 6.3 million kilo btu’s per year in 2009 making this a considerable reduction in the energy use for this building. Mr. Potter noted that another useful statistic that the portfolio manager generates is the energy use intensity adding that the Comf, being studied as a maintenance facility, came in under the national average in 2009. He explained and showed some additional comparisons on slides noting that fourteen buildings had been included.
Councilor Werner thanked the guests for their presentation and all the work they have done and that the cooperation that the city has shown has been exemplary. He noted that now that a number of members of the committee they will be able to input the data received on a monthly basis and be able to take this information and make recommendations.
Councilor Coen indicated that fourteen buildings had been surveyed and questioned how many the buildings the city has. City Manager Aspell responded that there are many more than this in varying sizes. Mr. Potter explained that these fourteen made up a significant portion of the energy use.
Mayor Bouley thanked the guests for their presentation and thanked members of the committee.
Councilor Werner recognized committee members within the audience.
- Consent Agenda Items –
Note: Items listed as pulled from the consent agenda will be discussed at the end of the meeting following unfinished business.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval the consent agenda, as amended, with items 18, 32, 37, 38 and 39 removed for discussion at the end of the agenda. Mayor Bouley pointed out that item 8 within the agenda was not pulled from consent and that it should be correctly listed as item 18. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Action: This item was not removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Items Tabled for a September 14, 2009 Public Hearing
From the City Manager
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Consent Reports
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Consent Resolutions
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Consent Communications
Appointments
**End of Consent Agenda**
A. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 35, Classification and Compensation Plan, Schedule D of Article 35-2, Class Specification Index, Deputy City Solicitor, Director, Office of Management & Budget and Budget and Management Analyst; together with reports from the Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations and the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (7-10)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this is in exact accordance with what was presented in the FY2010 budget. He indicated that Mr. Howard would like to make one change with one of the titles.
Jim Howard, Deputy City Manager – Finance, explained that the Budget and Management Analyst title should be changed to Management and Budget Analyst.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
B. 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, Broad Cove Drive, W. Parish Rd and Graham Rd, Snow Pond Rd; together with report from the Traffic Operations Committee. (7-11)
Action: Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
C. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-1, Stopping, Standing , and Parking; Section 18-1-8, Parking Time Limited in Designated Places, Schedule III, Short St; together with report from the Parking Committee. (2Sus1)(4-32) (7-12)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the Parking Committee had discussed this request at their June 23rd meeting and after hearing from the residents of Short Street they unanimously recommended that Short Street be changed from all day parking to two hour parking.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Public Testimony
Rob Rayner, corner of Rumford and Short resident, inquired whether the section of Short Street is the upper section between Huntington and Rumford Streets or the section between Rumford and Spring Streets. Mr. Aspell clarified that it is the section between Rumford and Spring Streets.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
D. Resolution determining the proposed project has a public benefit and approving an application by Alex T. Moody, on behalf of William R. and Claire A. Moody, for Community Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive - RSA 79-E, for redevelopment of land and buildings at 285-289 Village Street in Penacook; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Community Development. (7-13)
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the redevelopment proposal to a 2-bay automotive repair shop into a self-service Laundromat. He added that the estimated value of the proposed improvements is $84,725. He indicated that it is the Community Development Department’s opinion that this project minimally enhances economic vitality in the downtown specifically in contrast with the current use of the automotive repair shop. He explained that staff could not find any additional public benefit per RSA 79-E that can be derived from this application. Mr. Aspell indicated that if Council were to approve this tax relief for the property the incentive to the applicant would be approximately $2,000 per year. Based on the fact that the application only meets one of the public benefit criteria and does not add a tremendous amount of redevelopment value to the tax base, staff recommends that a one year relief be granted.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Public Testimony
Alex Moody, applicant, thanked Council for all their support on the project so far to date. He thanked Ken Lurvey for his help in guiding him through the process. He further thanked Carlos Baia and Matt Walsh. He indicated that it is his feeling that they do offer a significant economic benefit to Penacook and requested that Council consider extending the period to the full maximum allowable time under the statute which is five years, giving them time to offset their debt service as a result of this project allowing them to gain profitability. He noted that this profitability will be the foundation upon which himself and others like him are going to benchmark the viability of investing in Penacook. In closing he noted his gratitude to Code, Planning, Council and Councilor Blanchard on their support.
Councilor Keach asked what is anticipated to be the potential job creation from this. Mr. Moody responded that as far as job creation, they are unattended and therefore would be minimal job creation from the specific Laundromat. He noted that they will be employing cleaning staff and will employ at some point if the economic criteria they are looking at meets it; it would be no more than one or two part-time staff members beyond the cleaning staff.
Referencing the staff report, Mayor Bouley he pointed out that it indicates that they only meet, in staff’s opinion, one of the four criteria asking whether Mr. Moody concurred with this. Mr. Moody noted that he is not familiar with the four criteria as they relate to the application.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
E. Resolution appropriating the sum of $15,371 in unmatched grant funds from the New Hampshire Department of Justice enforcing underage drinking laws grant program; together with report from the Police Department. (7-14)
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Blanchard questioned as to what is considered a success up to this point in curbing underage drinking. John Duval, Police Department, responded that the most recent compliance check had over ninety percent compliance in comparison to other jurisdictions in particular, the southern part of the state, which had twenty to thirty percent failure rates, the city is doing outstanding.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
F. Resolution authorizing the expenditure of $25,000 and authorizing the issuance of $25,000 in bonds and notes for supervisory, control and data acquisition (SCADA) refurbishments and upgrades at the Hutchins Street Water Treatment Plant, CIP #124; together with report from General Services. (7-15)
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
G. Resolution authorizing the expenditure of $170,000 and authorizing the issuance of $170,000 in bonds and notes for the purchase of Sewer Fund Equipment, CIP #121; together with report from General Services. (7-16)
Action: There being no Council objection, the public hearings for G, H and I were opened together. City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview.
There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing for items G, H and I.
H. Resolution authorizing the expenditure of $110,000 and authorizing the issuance of $110,000 in bonds and notes for the purchase of Water Fund Equipment, CIP #121; together with report from General Services. (7-17)
Action: Public hearing for this item taken with item G.
I. Resolution authorizing the expenditure of $370,000 and authorizing the issuance of $370,000 in bonds and notes for the purchase of General Fund Equipment, CIP #121; together with report from General Services. (7-18)
Action: Public hearing for this item taken with item G.
J. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 1, Government Organization; Article 1-3, Miscellaneous Regulations, Section 1-3-6, Reporting of Campaign Contributions and Expenses; together with report from the Rules Committee. (7Sus5) (Substitute ordinance submitted)
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire, Rules Committee Chair, explained that the Mayor requested that the Rules Committee look at drafting an ethics ordinance and the committee met and felt that they should extract out one section, the reporting of campaign contributions and expenses, that can be done in advance. He indicated that the new ordinance includes a definition section which the current ordinance does not; includes what one can do with campaign contributions aside from money such as in kind donations (example: printing of flyers); providing an address of contributor; the use of surplus funds after the campaign – what one would do with those funds; covers political communications including electronic communications.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
K. Report from the General Services Director and the Deputy City Manager – Finance relating to the City of Concord’s participation in the Concord Solid Waste Co-Op/Single Stream recycling plan. (7Sus6) (Additional report submitted)
Action: Chip Chesley, General Services Director, provided an overview indicating that although there was not a quorum present, the consensus of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee was to support Concord’s participation in the single stream project that the Co-op is pursuing subsequent to meeting four conditions: 1) that the Co-op secures fifteen year commitments from municipalities within and outside of the Co-op to provide 25,000 tons per year of recycling material to the facility; 2) the Co-op secures long-term commitments for an additional 5,000 tons per year of recycling material from other sources; 3) the Co-op Joint Board adopts a resolution that does not require full amortization of the project over the fifteen year period in order for the facility to provide competitive pricing; 4) the Co-op secure these commitments during the next twelve months and prior to proceeding with construction of the project. He noted that the Co-op has been pursuing a single stream facility for close to three years and when it was first envisioned the Co-op understood that it needed to secure recycling materials from not only Co-op community members but other municipalities outside of the Co-op because the Co-op communities by themselves, if they all participated, could not generate or probably would not generate sufficient recycling materials to support construction of the single stream facility. When the project was envisioned almost three years ago, the economy was in a much better position than it is now and materials that people would pay for recyclable materials was much higher. Mr. Chesley noted that late last summer, the commodity market dropped precipitously and the economics for constructing this facility also changed dramatically as well. He indicated that when the Co-op began their process they were at the very height of the market and set forth a resolution that they would like to use funds that they have already put aside for the construction of the landfill, capitalize this project and pay those funds back over a fifteen year period. He noted that at the time when those markets were high that may have been a plausible course of action but since this time the markets have dropped and become very difficult for the Co-op to commit to pay back over fifteen years. He explained that the Co-op does have a long term financial commitment to construct and close an ash landfill in Franklin with an estimated cost of $4 million. He indicated that based on information provided by the Co-op, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee feels that it is important to secure sufficient bonds from the municipalities to move forward which is approximately 25,000 tons; to secure an additional 5,000 tons from other sources; provide some relief resolution that the joint board had originally passed. From Concord’s perspective, Mr. Chesley noted that there are some benefits to the project should the project proceed: the Co-op would provide Concord with a host fee of $125,000 per year which would be indexed to a CPI so as time passes on, the host fee would increase accordingly; the extension of Whitney Road; there is sufficient room on the property to construct a transfer station which could be of value to the city in the future; approximately 25 new jobs with the construction of the facility. He indicated that for the last few years, the Co-op has been diligently looking for more commitments to recyclable materials and to date have secured a total of 18,731 tons of recyclables which includes approximately 3,700 tons from Concord. Relative to the governance of the project, Mr. Chesley explained that currently it’s constructed to be just under the 2/3 threshold which is from a parliamentary procedure’s note means that certain budgeting issues need 2/3 vote so there would need to be the support of all communities.
Referencing the staff report, Councilor Blanchard indicated that there is a paragraph that mentions that this is contingent on the city’s current contract with BestWay that they will take the recyclables to that particular facility. She inquired as to where they were in regards to this. Mr. Chesley responded that the current contract with BestWay is five years with two one-year renewals and that it is their responsibility to move the materials to secondary markets. He explained that through the negotiations with BestWay, the city was perfectly clear with them that there is a strong possibility that the Co-op project could come to fruition and that the city would want to direct the material being collected in Concord and deliver it to the facility on Whitney Road. He noted that there is an opener in the contract in which the city can open it up eighteen months from this July if they want to have them move the material from where they are taking it now to Whitney Road and that there are also provisions on how to adjust costs as well. Councilor Blanchard asked what would happen if they didn’t want to do that. Mr. Chesley responded that he feels that it would be theirs and the city’s best interest if the project goes forward with the economies that the project on Whitney Road has favorable economics and they would want to do that. Councilor Blanchard questioned whether the city would receive a firm commitment from them before making a commitment to get to the single stream facility. Mr. Chesley responded that to be correct indicating that they currently have a commitment. He pointed out a graph and noted that until it gets up to 30,000 tons, it then becomes financially viable for BestWay to consider this as a location.
Councilor McClure asked for clarification and background on the graph. Mr. Chesley explained that there are two axis’s on the charts: the vertical axis and the horizontal axis. When moving upwards on the vertical axis, this is receiving revenues and if moving downwards, your spending costs; the horizontal axis is how much material the facility is processing. He explained that the top curve on the top line, is based upon the Co-op not paying back any capital and as moving left to right it shows that if it brings in more material into the facility its financial performance improves. Referencing the green line, he indicated that this is another alternative that the Co-op could pursue and in this it takes a portion of those revenues and to use those dollars for finishing their obligations for ash landfill in Franklin. He explained that the black line options are to pay back a more significant portion of the project. Referencing the bottom lines, Mr. Chesley indicated that this is trying to pay back the entire project. He added that for it to make economic sense for Concord, it is necessary to secure additional tonnage to spread this large fixed cost over a larger base so that the per ton cost comes down.
Councilor Coen asked if what is currently being done with the recycling works. Mr. Chesley responded that to be correct. Councilor Coen indicated that what he is hearing here is that this is an alternative to what the city is currently doing and that the alternative could be more expensive in the short term but going out over a longer period of time, if the economy and tonnage moves in the correct direction, that this would potentially be very successful. He noted that based on what he has heard this evening there are a lot of “ifs” and may not be successful. Mr. Chesley responded that there are two pieces: as the economy improves, commodities are going to have higher value at this facility and other facilities and as the economy declines it will affect this facility as well as others. Councilor Coen noted that he feels that it would be cheaper for the city the way it is currently being done for the next few years until the commodity prices increases and the tonnage increases.
Councilor Nyhan, Solid Waste Advisory Committee Chair, explained that the committee spent a lot of time looking at the finances and the pro forma of this project and feels that the one good thing about the project coming forth at this point in time compared to a year ago is that the chart reflects a worse case scenario. He explained that what they really focused on, at the committee level, was that there are some benefits to Concord. Councilor Nyhan indicated that what the city is dealing with right now is that in order to make this project viable for next year the Co-op is looking for approval right now. Whereas there have been a lot of other tonnage committed from other municipalities, they didn’t want to derail the project by saying count us out. He noted that if the city has to make a decision today, he is not voting for this because they don’t have the tonnage but wanted to give them another year to go ahead recognizing that now is not the right time, go out get the other tonnage and come back to city to find out its commitment. He indicated that what the committee is recommending to the Council is not to derail the project but give them a letter of commitment that says if they can get their tonnage then the city is on board. He added that, in the future, the long-term benefit is that this may be a revenue generator for the city.
Councilor St. Hilaire asked whether has been any discussions, assuming the city’s contract expires and the city moves somewhere else with their own facility, to talk to the people that the city contracts with to ask them to bring in all of their other customers in this facility. Councilor Nyhan responded that there have been discussions but the discussion takes place outside of the city. He indicated that the company that currently collects the city’s tonnage also has commitments to bring tonnage to other facilities. He explained that they are looking at Concord by nature of the facility being built and managed by a recycling management firm, they are able to help consolidate some of the regional tonnage at this facility.
Referencing the fifteen year commitment, Councilor McClure questioned whether the Co-op currently has commitments of any length from these municipalities or are they being asked to make sure that they get fifteen year commitments. Councilor Nyhan noted that the staff report indicates which tonnage has already been committed. Councilor McClure noted that it has been stated that this project needs 30,000 tons per year to be viable. Councilor Nyhan responded that the rationale for this is that from day one this project was presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee as needing 25,000 tons of committed municipal recycling. He explained that there are other sources for tonnage but the critical mass for the municipalities is 25,000. Councilor McClure inquired whether the additional 5,000 is a condition. Councilor Nyhan responded that the additional 5,000 is a condition however it will be coming from somewhere else. Councilor McClure if the city is suggesting requiring that the board adopt a resolution that does not require full amortization how does the city have control over how much it’s amortized. Why wouldn’t the city want to come up with some sort of percentage. Councilor Nyhan responded that the way the voting works in the Co-op, Concord has close to 25 percent of the vote and has a very weighted say in how this functions. He indicated that the tipping fee is kept low by not paying back that money and there are obvious benefits to paying themselves back and is really about making this economically viable. He added that the other thing that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee considered is the monies that are being used to capitalize the project are monies that the Co-op communities have paid in over the years, approximately $13 million of fund surplus; $4 million which would be designated for the Franklin ash landfill and $9 million set aside for capital on the single stream facility. He indicated that if the capital was used to keep the tipping fee low, they are essentially subsidizing other communities in bringing their trash to that facility. He indicated that wording it the way that they did ultimately it says that they don’t have to pay back the amortization and when revenues go up above zero dollars and are making revenue, he feels that they would certainly want to pay that back for the long-term future of the Co-op fund. Councilor McClure inquired whether or not the $125,000 host fee is a contingency. Councilor Nyhan responded that it is not a contingency but is a requirement.
Councilor Keach noted that he doesn’t feel comfortable with a model that doesn’t stand on its own two feet and that this is all contingent upon surplus from the Co-op He indicated that he understands that the $4 million is committed because the ash has to be capped but still would leave $10 million to $13 million and asked whether it is possible that this could be returned to the communities that participated in the trash co-op. He inquired as to what would happen to that surplus money if this recycling facility didn’t move forward. Mr. Chesley responded that there has always been discussions as to whose money it is and thinks ultimately that the funds belong towards taxpayers of various communities and how the Co-op elects to use those funds to offset operating costs in the future, they could see benefit of it. Councilor Keach questioned whether the decision would be contingent upon Concord’s 85 votes. Mr. Chesley responded that Concord is 85 of the votes. Councilor Keach asked if it was accurate to say that the surplus is propping up the pro forma. Mr. Chesley responded yes. Councilor Keach noted that his concern is that the surplus that belongs to all these communities that have participated over the years is being used for a venture separate from solid waste and doesn’t feel that it is the best use of that. He added that he feels that the funds need to be returned back to the community at some point if this doesn’t move forward.
Councilor St. Hilaire noted that if this gets voted down and the city does not want to participate but the Co-op decides to move forward with the construction project hoping it gets its tonnage, that the reality is that the city is still a member of the Co-op even if not participating in the program. He stated that, in reality, the city’s funds are being used to build this whether participating or not. He inquired whether there has been a calculation of determining of what the city’s costs would be simply by not participating. Mr. Chesley responded that the Co-op feels that the project would not move forward without Concord’s participation. City Manager Aspell added that being that the city controls 24 percent of the votes, it would probably require that, for the project to move forward, it pay all the funds back. He indicated that by paying all the funds back, the price of the tonnage will be so high that they would never attract anybody to do business there and would go out of business in a very short time. Councilor St. Hilaire noted that the numbers show that the majority signed up asking why they wouldn’t just give the city back their money. Mr. Aspell responded that if the city’s 85 votes were taken out it would be below 50 percent and they would not be able to control the way the budget works.
Councilor Keach questioned if the issue here is the actual recyclable tonnages that are potentially delivered to the facility or the votes that free up the money on the solid waste side to allow this to move forward. Mr. Aspell clarified that what has been said to the committee is that without the City of Concord’s tonnage, the project is not viable.
Councilor Nyhan added that the third leg of this the commodities pricing explaining that all the graphs shift upward as the commodity prices increase. He stated that all three things come into play in all of this and that is why the real key here is the tonnage.
Councilor Lemieux asked whether Manchester and Nashua were asked and declined to commit their tonnage. Mr. Chesley responded that it is his understanding that Nashua has been asked and has declined and understands that the Co-op may be going back to talk to them again. He was unsure whether Manchester had been formally asked. He explained that when Nashua was first approached it was predicated on paying back everything over fifteen years and was unsure whether the Co-op and Nashua had a subsequent conversation with a new thought process. Councilor Lemieux asked whether it would be reasonable to assume that if either Manchester or Nashua found it to their economic advantage to participate it would. Mr. Chesley responded that he would think that if it was to their advantage they would come to that conclusion reiterating that he doesn’t know if the Co-op and Nashua has had additional discussions.
Mayor Bouley pointed out that they had come to the conclusion of the 30,000 tons and that he had looked at a memo from CMA that seemed to do their projections based on 35,000 tons per year. He noted that he was concerned that they make sure that the tonnage is high enough in terms of commitment before the city moves forward because he doesn’t want the city to find themselves putting the taxpayers at risk for high tipping fees. He asked why 30,000 and not 35,000 tons. Mr. Chesley responded that he believes that the data in the memo may have been before the Co-op made that decision about paying back the fund fully amortized. Referencing the host community fee, Mayor Bouley asked if it was correct to state that currently the city does not receive one. Mr. Chesley indicated that to be correct. Mayor Bouley inquired whether it had been looked as to what Rochester or some of the other communities receive asking why $125,000 and why not $250,000. He noted that if the city could develop that property with something else, the city could expand its tax base but once this facility is put there the city is making a long-term commitment and is concerned as to whether $125,000 is enough for a host community. Mr. Chesley responded that this is something that they could look at.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Public Testimony
Jonathan Gregory, Concord resident, noted that it sounds like tonnage is the most important factor from his point of view. He indicated that that he feels that several things can be done to increase that tonnage. He indicated that he walks around the city and sees that residents are still throwing away recyclables and feels that there is a lot of room for increasing the city’s tonnage over the next year. He noted that if the city chooses not to sign on to not to give it up but to propose some ideas that can be instilled over the next year or two.
Elaine Kellerman, Concord resident, indicated that she has attended all of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee meetings since March and at the last meeting she was confused stating that she had thought the Co-op was going to be given more time to produce the needed tonnage before saying they were going to table it for another year. She pointed out that the construction bids for this project is only good through the end of September so if this does get put off down the road it would have to be rebid and most likely those construction costs would escalate considerably if the economy improves. She noted that there is also no guarantee that the municipalities that have committed will do so down the road. She further noted her concerns with the costs that have been put into the planning of this project.
Councilor Nyhan, Solid Waste Advisory Committee Chair, indicated that the Co-op has exhausted roughly $650,000 in engineering and design of the facility. He explained that the construction bids are good some point in the fall. He explained that the committee’s recommendation is that the Council approve a letter of commitment which would be contingent upon getting the tonnage.
Elaine Kellerman added that the state does not have a recycling facility and that it would be wonderful to have one in this state so that recyclables do not have to be shipped to Maine or Massachusetts.
Rob Rayner noted that he understands the Co-op’s desire to be the first in the state to have a recycling facility. He stated that the location at Whitney Avenue is good but would be even better if there is a rail spur there. He noted that the potential for the city to use it as a futuristic transfer station is also a benefit to the city as a whole. Referring to those speaking this evening, he indicated it was always a single stream recycling facility and asked why it isn’t just a recycling facility. He indicated that he feels that a lot of the focus is on the price for commodities and everybody seems to look at the economy and that, yes, the economy is a big player but it is not solely dependent on the economy. He added that it is his strong belief that as the amount of communities that participate in recycling programs increases and the volume of recyclables increases, the price for those is going to diminish – it’s going to be a supply and demand situation. He noted that he supports a recycling facility being in Concord but everybody seems to be fixated on a single stream recycling facility and the appropriate way to move forward is for the Council to perhaps add another contingency that says that this facility has the ability to also operate and have enough design flexibility to operate as a split stream recycling facility.
Jim Presher, Concord Regional Solid Waste Resource Recovery Cooperative Director, explained that they looked at all the different possibilities over the last four years to see what is the most efficient and the most economical way to proceed and single stream has proven over the last 12 to 14 years to be the way to go. He noted that the major reason they are looking at single stream is that it is best for the taxpayer explaining that the Co-op is a partnership of communities and has been for over 25 years. He explained that this facility would include the ability to take segregated loads but has found that once a community has gone single stream they never go back to dual stream again. Referencing the host fee, Mr. Presher stated that the $125,000 is close to what the City of Franklin gets paid and that is where that amount originated from. He indicated that if they were to increase that that would be fine but all the communities will pay that including Concord. He noted that it may be possible to move forward without the City of Concord but that they probably wouldn’t seriously consider it. He indicated that they are not for profit and are here for the taxpayers, they do not need to make a profit on this but only need to cover their costs and share the revenue if there is any revenue and share the cost if there are any costs equally. Mr. Presher explained that he had met with the Lamprey Community Cooperative which is 15 communities in the Durham-Exeter area and they voted 11-0 to enter into negotiations with the Co-op to bring their material to Concord. He noted that they have a potential of 7,000 tons.
Referencing the Lamprey Community Cooperative, Councilor Nyhan inquired whether it was the whole Co-op in which the tonnage would be picked up. Mr. Presher responded that the whole Co-op has 5,000 or 7,000 tons but not every community would come in right away.
Mayor Bouley questioned whether the Co-op had lost a commitment. Mr. Presher responded that they had Portsmouth and Nashua in the likelys. Mayor Bouley inquired as to what is the minimum threshold that is needed. Mr. Presher responded that as far as the base for municipal commitments is 25,000 tons; an additional 5,000 tons from other haulers; and beyond this would be the commercial. He indicated that to get 35,000 tons would be in the optimum range for this facility to work.
Councilor Keach noted that he is struggling with the question of why surplus solid waste moneys should benefit non-co-op recyclers. Mr. Presher clarified that they are not surplus funds they are designated funds for landfill. Councilor Keach stated that the $4 million is but that there is money in excess of that. Mr. Presher responded that there is approximately $15 million in landfill expansion that has been set aside as a designated fund. Councilor Keach inquired as to how landfill equates to recycling and why should those non-co-op communities benefit from these surplus funds. Mr. Presher responded that the Co-op has about 15,000 tons within itself that is committed to get this facility started and 25,000 tons is the absolute minimum to make this work. He indicated that joint board realizes that they have to go outside the Co-op and pick up additional tonnage and that additional tonnage would come from those communities that Councilor Keach is inquiring about. He explained that the Co-op would provide the funding for the facility up front at no specific cost to them to entice them to bring their tonnage here so that the whole group benefit from a facility and a lower tipping fee.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing
August 10, 2009 Public Hearing Action
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley expressed his thanks to the Traffic Operations Committee stating that they continue to do good work and are very thorough in everything they do.
The motion to approve passed on a voice vote.
48. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-1, Stopping, Standing , and Parking; Section 18-1-8, Parking Time Limited in Designated Places, Schedule III, Short St; together with report from the Parking Committee. (2Sus1)(4-32) (7-12)
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Blanchard moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley pointed out that this is only for a one-year period. Councilor Keach inquired whether this would come before Council for additional years. Mr. Aspell replied that it would only be a one-year shot.
The motion to approve passed with one dissenting vote.
Action: Councilor McClure 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 15-0 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, Keach, Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner voting yes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed 15-0 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, Keach, Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner voting yes.
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed 15-0 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, Keach, Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner voting yes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed 15-0 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, Keach, Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner voting yes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the substitute ordinance. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley thanked the Rules Committee for their efforts and for doing an outstanding job. He indicated that this goes towards what they have worked towards as a Council which is open transparency in government and this contributes to moving that forward.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the report submitted this evening subject to the four conditions. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Coen noted that the $125,000 appears to be based upon what the City of Franklin is being paid. He asked if there was any way to change this to read that it would be a “minimum of $125,000.” Mayor Bouley asked if the recycling facility was not there, would the city receive more in tax revenue if it were developed. Carlos Baia, Deputy City Manager – Development, explained that the property is an industrial zoned property which would most likely house a distribution facility or some type of manufacturing facility. He noted that rather than highlight the property tax part of it staff looked at issues of jobs, wages, etc. because they all play into this discussion. He indicated that based upon the size of the recycling facility staff analyzed if this were a distribution facility how many full-time equivalent employees it could employ. When this was done the figure estimated 74 full-time equivalents as high as 112; if it were a manufacturing facility it would likely be in the range of a maximum of 160. Mr. Baia explained that the recycling facility is planning to employ 35 at its capacity. In terms of wages, he stated that when comparing distribution facilities to a recycling facility it is probably on par and as far as manufacturing, there is little left in the state but the wages are still at high level with the average wage in 2007 in NH at $55,453; an employee at the recycling facility earning an average of $18,000 to $20,000 range. He indicated that as far as the property tax goes, the host agreement payment at $125,000 is probably higher than what would necessarily be generated from a comparable manufacturing or distribution facility. He gave examples of what businesses pay based on their current assessment: Boyce Highlands pays approximately $36,000; NH Distributors pays approximately $150,000.
Councilor Keach amended the motion to change the 25,000 tons to 30,000 tons from municipalities in the first bulleted item contained with the conditions. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Nyhan commented that getting the 25,000 tons is a very tough challenge and 30,000 tons will be very difficult. He noted that he is comfortable with the 30,000 tons from municipalities but feels it may jeopardize the project. He added its just a matter of what the Council is comfortable with explaining that the key here is 30,000 tons however they get it.
Councilor Keach clarified that he just wants to hit that 30,000 tons however it happens to come. He noted his concern with the 5,000 tons coming from non-co-op entities.
Councilor Nyhan noted that the benefit of having the municipal tonnage is that it specifies a 15 year commitment. He added that he is comfortable with a 30,000 tonnage municipal commitment but just know that it will be more difficult to hit that number.
Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that he is comfortable how it reads the way the report was generated.
Councilor Keach withdrew his amendment to the motion.
Following additional Council discussion in regards to tonnage, Councilor Nyhan’s motion passed on a voice vote.
Reports
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Bennett moved to table this report until next month to give the Parking Committee the opportunity to bring forth further recommendations for next winter’s cycle. He indicated that there was an agreement amongst the committee that they will be willing to go until midnight instead of 11:00 p.m. on snow emergencies and MainStreet Concord members will be meeting as to how this may affect them the following morning. The motion to table was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this is data from the first month’s activity.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether Council will be receiving regular status reports. Mr. Aspell responded that staff would provide quarterly reports. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether future reports could also include comparison costs from the current month or quarter.
Councilor Lemieux moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Fire Chief Dan Andrus provided a brief overview explaining that there was a post-incident review of this fire two weeks ago and had a very thorough review of operations. He noted that they identified some improvement opportunities around ways to approach these fires. He added that in general this was a very successful operation.
Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor McClure reported that there was $241,414 in either gifts or grants on this evening’s agenda.
Councilor Patten recognized the efforts of Police Officer Joe Wright and the Concord Police Department on the successful evening of the National Night Out event. He recognized Alex Bass, General Services, for speaking on behalf of the department. Councilor Patten also thanked the City Manager for sitting in at the dispatch center at the Police Department.
Councilor Keach expressed his gratitude to the Fire Department for allowing him to ride on the Engine 4 truck.
Councilor Lemieux indicated that he inappropriately accepted the Mayor’s compliment to the Traffic Operations Committee and wanted to make sure that the proper credit was given to the City’s Traffic Engineer, Robert Mack, for coming up with the suggestions that were approved this evening.
Councilor Shurtleff pointed at that last Saturday the Contoocook River Improvement Society celebrated their 100th birthday and thanked them for all that they have done in the past and what they continue to do in the future to make the Contoocook River such a viable and attractive place.
Mayor Bouley complimented the Beaver Meadow Golf Course for the course being in outstanding condition for the Futures Tour. He also noted that the golf advisory committee has really turned a corner in making the golf course an even better facility than it has been in the past. He also indicated that the National Night Out was a great event and a great display of all the wonderful folks employed in the city. Referencing Memorial Field, the Mayor recognized Tom Wright, General Services and David Gill, Recreation, and the city in putting together the U16 Girls Softball Babe Ruth World Series. He noted that the team had presented the city with a banner signed by the players.
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 18, 32, 37, 38 and 39 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
Action: Councilor Blanchard pointed out the accolades given to the Fire Department, Marc McGonagle, Police Department, and Colette Osgood, City Clerk’s Office.
Councilor Blanchard moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Shurtleff spoke on Mr. MacMaster’s behalf by thanking Carlos Baia and Ed Roberge for their help and assistance. He indicated that Mr. MacMaster is not happy with the staff recommendation and feels that with this bump out being erected when North State Street was repaved is going to have a negative impact on his business by losing spaces. He explained that the City Engineer was able to increase the spaces in front of the business from 1 ½ spaces to space for 2 compact vehicles and feels that this may not be adequate. Councilor Shurtleff indicated that Mr. MacMaster’s other concern about the bump out involves bicyclists and feels that it would push bicyclists more out towards the path of the general flow of traffic instead of closer to the side of the road away from traffic. He explained that Mr. MacMaster doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize the construction project by delaying it any way but did want to express his thoughts to the Council.
Councilor McClure moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with one dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor McClure indicated that at the beginning of the meeting she had passed out a memo that was sent to her by Kit Morgan, Conservation Commission Chair, explaining that there was supposed to be notice to the holder of the conservation easement so that they would be able to testify at the Zoning Board hearing. She indicated that in discussion with Mr. Morgan he requested that the commission be given the opportunity which they legally should have had. She moved that Council accept the report from the Planning Board but make it contingent upon another hearing at the Zoning Board.
Councilor Keach noted that he would vote against this request because as he reads the statute it reads the commission should have the opportunity to submit comments explaining that they had an opportunity at a publicly advertised hearing. He indicated that he does not feel that it is fair to burden the applicant for an oversight of city staff.
Councilor Blanchard noted her agreement with Councilor Keach explaining that she feels that it is not Council’s place to decide whether the Zoning Board has another hearing or not.
Councilor McClure responded that it was not the Zoning Board’s omission and that the notification is something that was left to the applicant and the applicant was not apprised or was not aware of having to notify the owner of the easement. She noted the concerns with not delaying this, that is why she made the motion the way she did explaining that she feels that it is very important for the different boards and committees to be able to communicate and when a holder of an easement is not given notice along with all the other abutters then there is a problem in the process and she is trying to remedy the process so that communication happens at the most expedient way possible.
Councilor Coen noted his agreement with Councilor Keach.
Councilor Shurtleff noted that he concurs with Councilors Keach and Coen stating that it may have been an error but it is not a fatal error to a process.
Councilor McClure’s motion was duly seconded and failed on a voice vote.
Councilor Keach moved acceptance of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Bouchard noted that she had pulled this report because it was actually a recommendation on the efforts put forth by City Engineer Ed Roberge, Associate Engineer Martha Drukker and NHDOT employee Bill Watson to find other money so that this project would go forward. She thanked them for their hard work so this project could move forward.
Councilor Patten inquired as to when the project will begin and whether the neighborhoods have been notified. City Engineer Ed Roberge responded that the final design of the project will be moving forward over the next several weeks. He explained that the residents on Chase Street should be receiving letters in a day or so and it is the intent to bid the project and build the pieces of the sidewalk this fall.
Councilor Bouchard moved acceptance of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Patten asked if this was the overall project that was talked about that the whole length of Manchester Street will eventually get done inquiring as to what part of this is. City Manager Aspell responded that this is the second phase explaining that the first portion was Exit 13 to Old Turnpike Road and this is for the realignment of Integra Drive and Airport Road all the way to the Pembroke line. Councilor Patten inquired whether traffic lights will be installed. Mr. Aspell responded that there will be traffic signals as part of that project. Councilor Patten inquired as to when this will begin. City Engineer Ed Roberge responded that they are going through final design at this time and anticipate a 2010 construction and may have an 18 month duration due to the size of the project and the traffic in this area.
Councilor Patten moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Consideration of Suspense Items
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to suspend the rules and consider the suspense item not previously advertised. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
8
Sus1 To be set for a September 14, 2009 Public Hearing
Resolution authorizing the City Administration to enter into a purchase
and sales/development agreement with Duprey Acquisitions, L.L.C., concerning
redevelopment of the so-called Sanel Block; together with report from the
Assistant for Special Projects.
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Lemieux moved to set this item for a September 14, 2009 public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Adjournment
City Clerk Janice Bonenfant indicated that filing period for the vacant District 11 State Representative seat which encompasses Wards 4, 8, 9 and 10 begins August 17th through August 24th. She noted that filings are accepted at the City Clerk’s Office on August 17th and 18th and the rest of the period the filings are accepted at the Secretary of State’s Office. She also indicated that from September 4th through September 14th begins the filing period for Council and Ward Officials for the November 3rd Municipal Election.
Referencing Sus 1, City Manager Aspell asked the Clerk to read back the motion. City Clerk Janice Bonenfant stated that the motion was to set that item for a September 14, 2009 public hearing and not to accept the report. Mr. Aspell asked to revisit this item and asked whether a motion could be made to accept the report.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved acceptance of the report included within Sus 1. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
The time being 10:15 p.m., Councilor Nyhan moved to enter into non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II, d to discuss property negotiations for Parcel #46-4-13. The motion was duly seconded and passed 15-0 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, Keach, Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner voting yes.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk