| March 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes |
|
City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes
March 9, 2009
Non-public session in
accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II to discuss the City Manager's Evaluation
followed by non-public sessions in accordance with
RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss property acquisition, Penacook Tannery, Sanel Block and NHDOT property. Non-public sessions to follow the
meeting.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Action: Councilor Blanchard moved approval of the February 9, 2009 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the February 17, 2009 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided an overview explaining that in fiscal year 2009 the city faces an $800,000 deficit with projected overruns in welfare and snow removal services. He indicated that with engineering cost savings throughout the organization, keeping a lot of positions open and the reduction of many expenditures throughout several departments has anticipated saving $800,000. In addition to this, he explained that using all the contingency funds for welfare cost overruns and using the spring paving program to handle the winter maintenance budget it is felt that if the city remains vigilant for the remainder of the year, it would bring in the fiscal year 2009 under budget. Referring to fiscal year 2010, he noted that the last time he spoke before Council the city was facing a $3.3 million budget gap after deductions were taken for the pay-as-you-throw program and a million dollar reduction in capital expenditures. He explained that shortly thereafter the state’s proposed budget came out which increased that $3.3 million gap to $6.5 million. He added that on Friday afternoon the city received word that the governor has reconsidered and is providing the rooms and meals tax revenues, which is legally due to the city, in the amount of $1.7 million back to the city, leaving a gap of $4.8 million. He explained items that are being looked at to overcome that $4.8 million budget gap: reduction in dedicated units providing police functions including street forces (patrol officers); reductions in fire equipment, life safety apparatus and associated staffing positions in the fire department; significantly reduce road programs; reduced street and sidewalk snow removal; significant reductions in library services; significant reductions in recreation services including maintenance of fields and parks; reduce hours of operation of public business activities; reduction in development activities and dramatically reduced or eliminated funding to outside agencies. He indicated that when he is putting together the budget, these will be many of the policy issues that Council will be discussing about which ones have priority and which ones are mandated or not. Mr. Aspell explained that the organization in its entirety will be restructured to reduce costs and noted that a portion of the reductions of service will be achieved through the elimination of many positions which are held open and layoffs. He added that in April, he anticipates rolling out some aspects of this newly restructured organization that will be implemented prior to July 1st and providing Council with an overview of these changes prior to implementation and specifics on a greater focus. He noted that any changes he enacts before July 1st will not impact in any way delivery of service to the public. He further noted that changes that will impact service of delivery to the public will be part of the fiscal year 2010 budget deliberations.
Councilor Bouchard inquired whether $3 million of the gap is a city problem and the other million is a state problem. Mr. Aspell explained that the $3.3 million is the original budget gap the city had and approximately $1.4 million between the change in the retirement fund and the revenue sharing from the state. Councilor Bouchard questioned whether there was a plan to inform the rest of the delegation on how this budget impacts the city. Mr. Aspell responded that he and the Mayor had talked about this to make sure the message is clear and that everyone has the same information. Mayor Bouley added that he will be inviting the Concord delegation back to the April Council meeting.
Councilor St. Hilaire asked the City Manager to speak on the stimulus package and whether money will be available for the city through the federal government. Mr. Aspell explained that information has just started to come out over the last few days and it appears there may be some money coming particularly for police services most of it relating to equipment and some of which has to be shared with Merrimack County. He noted that the numbers that the city has seen in the past that was received from the state is usually in the range of $11,000 but may be approximately $180,000 this year. He added that the city will have to find out what type of strings are attached to it explaining that a lot of stimulus dollars appear to be geared towards providing new services or ramping things up.
Councilor Werner noted that he had read somewhere that unless cities were 200,000 or over in population, they were unlikely to receive so-called direct aid and asked if the City Manager is talking about things that are different in terms of categorization. Mr. Aspell responded yes explaining that these would be dollars that would be coming to the state and then distributed to the cities and towns.
In terms of the stimulus package, Mayor Bouley indicated that he has reached out to the federal delegation to receive input and information they had. He noted that Senator Larsen did provide the City Manager with a fairly detailed list of what might be available but what is being found is that there is not a lot of information available at this time. He added that there are all types of dollars available but are not operating dollars in which is the $1.4 million the city has lost. The Mayor indicated that he would work with the City Manager to come up with a draft letter to forward to Council after which will be forwarded to the Concord delegation. He added that it is his assumption that the City Manager is preparing a budget based on the loss of those revenues. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct pointing out that some communities are not. He noted that he is anticipating worst case scenario and these dollars not working their way back into the budget. Mayor Bouley indicated that the budget is being set up such that there is the worst case but if things get better, it will enable Council to put the services back.
Mayor Bouley encouraged residents to reach out to their delegation and encourage them to put these dollars back.
- 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 Shurtleff moved approval the consent agenda, as amended, with items 15, 23, 25, 31 and 32 removed for discussion at the end of the agenda. The motion was duly seconded. City Manager Tom Aspell pointed out that item 36 within the consent agenda, a street closure request for Concord Market Days, had incorrect dates and that the correct dates should be July 16, 17 and 18th. The consent agenda, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Referral to Community Development
Referral to the Planning Board
Items Tabled for an April 13, 2009 Public Hearing
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
From the City Manager
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.
Consent Resolutions
31. Resolution transferring the sum of $140,000 from the Operational Contingency Account and $10,000 from the City Council Contingency Account to Human Services Welfare Aid Account to cover extraordinary welfare aid payments made, due to the declining U.S. economy; together with report from the Director of Human Services and the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (Pulled from consent by Councilor Blanchard)
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
32. Resolution transferring the sum of $245,178 from General Fund Balance for FY2009 Winter Snow Operations in the General Services Department; together with report from the General Services Director. (Pulled from consent by Councilor Blanchard)
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Consent Communications
Appointments
37.
City Manager’s proposed appointments to the Conservation Commission.
James Owers, Tracey Boisvert and Kristine Tardiff
38.
City Manager’s proposed re-appointment to the Heritage Commission.
Frederick Richards
39. City Manager’s proposed re-appointment to the Heritage Commission.
Robert V. Johnson
40. Mayor Bouley’s proposed appointment to the 21st Century Library Task Force.
Maura Carroll
41.
Mayor Bouley’s proposed appointment to the Municipal Housing Commission.
Brenda Perkins and Monica Porter
42.
Mayor Bouley’s proposed appointment to the Recreation and Parks
Advisory Committee.
William Watson
A. Resolution authorizing the annual appraisal of real estate at market value per RSA 75:8-b; together with report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments. (1-13) (2-39C; 2-42) (Public hearings on this item must be held in February and March)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview recommending that Council allow staff to move ahead with the annual real estate appraisal at market value.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
B. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title IV Zoning Code, Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance, Article 28-2, Zoning Districts and Allowable Uses, Section 28-2-3, The Zoning Map, Kyle Road and Emily Way; together with report from the Planning Board in response to a communication from Ray D’Amante on behalf on the Vineyards Condominium requesting the rezoning of property north of the Vineyards on Bog Road in Concord, NH. (8-9) (1-24) (2-39H; 2-47)
Action: There being no objections, public hearing items B and C were opened together.
City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview of the Planning Board recommendations contained within the report.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearings for items B and C.
C. Report of the Planning Board requesting that Council hold a public hearing, pursuant to Section 16-3-6 of the Code of Ordinances, on a proposed mapped line of a future street between Bog Road and Kyle Road, and to authorize the Planning Board to certify the mapped lines of this future street. (1-47) (2-39I; 2-48 (Resolution submitted)
Action: Public hearing on this item taken with item B.
D. Resolution appropriating the sum of $1,462,800 and authorizing the issuance of bonds and notes; changing the purposes of previously issued general obligation bonds; and closing and completing certain capital projects and transferring remaining balances to CIP #35, Route 3 corridor (north) improvements; together with a report from the City Engineer. (2-13)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided an overview explaining that the fiscal year 2009 work program includes design and construction or improvements in what is called priority area two for North State Street/Fisherville Road from Bog Road to Lake Street. He indicated that the total project funds approved in fiscal year 2009 budget were $2,523,545 which included transportation improvement funds, highway block grant funds, traffic impact fees and the amount of $120,000 from bonds appropriated with a previous resolution. He noted that staff is looking at closing out projects throughout the community that no longer need to be done or have cost savings from other places. He added that by taking a look at reducing some projects and some money by bringing projects in under expenditure, there is approximately $671,000 available and when combining this with the other money, the city can reduce the amount that they were going to originally bond for this project which was $2,253,700 to $1,462,800 saving the taxpayers $790,900 in bonding and construct the project the way it was originally proposed and was approved after a public hearing. He recommended that Council allow staff to bond these dollars, match them with the other parts of the program and construction can be started sometime this April.
Councilor Keach inquired whether this would free up any additional money if this project was not bonded. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct explaining there are several components to this project including bonds, impact fees, and capital outlay dollars. He indicated that for the most part it is bonds in which you pay six months interest next year and pay the principal interest payments each year thereafter.
Referencing unexpended money, Councilor Blanchard asked whether the city has this money and whether it is unbonded. Mr. Aspell responded that the money that is unexpended is from dollars from completed projects under budget or from not doing projects that the city anticipated doing.
Councilor Keach asked if there was a legal requirement to use the money that has not been used from projects that have been bonded for similar projects. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct explaining that if the money has already been borrowed it needs to be spent on like projects. He added that if the money has not been borrowed yet, they could rescind the bond to a lower number.
Councilor Coen questioned when the project would start and end. City Engineer Ed Roberge responded that this phase two picks up where it left off at Bog Road and heads south to Lake Street. He indicated that it is anticipated that construction will begin as soon as the weather breaks which will hopefully be in April with completion of this phase in November.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether this is part of the area in which the cement slabs will be uncovered and ground into gravel for reuse. Mr. Roberge indicated that to be correct.
Mayor Bouley asked how many people showed up at the forum. Mr. Roberge responded that just over fifty residents and Council members were in attendance. Mayor Bouley inquired as to the general feedback. Mr. Roberge responded that he felt it was quite positive noting that it is a corridor that is well overdue and the neighbors really reflected this.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
E. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title IV, Zoning Code; Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance; together with report from the Planning Board in response to a communication from Richard Uchida, on behalf of Gerald P. McCarthy, Trustee for the Chenell Drive Trust, with a proposal for the rezoning of property located at 44 Chenell Drive in Concord. (12-12) (2-14)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend that the zoning ordinance be amended to include the two changes outlined within the report.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
F. Resolution approving the acquisition of open space property southerly of Gully Hill Road tax map parcel 114/1/8 (Bartlett) in accordance with CIP #352, and authorizing the expenditure of up to $58,000 from the Conservation Fund for this purpose, as approved by the Conservation Commission, CIP #352; together with a report from the Conservation Commission. (2-15)
Action: There being no objections, public hearing items F and G were opened together.
City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that items F and G are recommended by the Conservation Commission and noted that the funds would come from the Conservation Fund which is generated through current use penalty and does not impact the tax rate or funds that are generated through the taxpayers directly.
Councilor St. Hilaire questioned whether the acquisition of the properties prohibits the use of the land for park space if the city wanted to do this years down the road. Mr. Aspell responded no explaining that the idea is to try to keep this all in mind of all the other park space and would be usable in the future if the city wanted to use it for recreational purposes. He explained that for the immediate time, the land is leased back to the farmers who currently use it to generate revenue for the city and those dollars would go into the conservation fund for maintenance of the property.
Councilor Lemieux questioned how the amount the user pays for the lease compare to the taxes. He further questioned whether taxes are collected once it becomes conservation land. Mr. Aspell responded that there are no taxes paid once it becomes conservation land. He explained that the when the city gets the leases for certain properties, if any governmental property is used for commercial use there is a tax associated with this. He further explained that the predominant amount of the money would be going back to the conservation fund. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether there is a net loss when comparing the loss in taxes to the gain in leasing fees. Mr. Aspell explained that because the property is in current use to begin with there is not a lot of taxes generated off of it.
Referencing the current arrangement in which current use penalties are going to the conservation fund, Councilor Keach questioned whether this is set up by statute or just an arrangement here in the city. Mr. Aspell responded that this is determined by the City Council in which fifty percent goes into the conservation fund and fifty percent goes into the highway maintenance pavement program.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Public Testimony
Christopher Morgan, Conservation Commission Chair, indicated that the commission has been working on this area, behind the post office, for several years and it has been in the open space plan and in the master plan since at least 1993 as a priority for acquisition to preserve agricultural land and to preserve open space along the Merrimack River. He noted that of the 29 acres, approximately 18 acres are prime agricultural soils with 450 feet on the river. He added that they have an option on the middle parcel and, if at some point there is the opportunity to acquire this, the city would own the bulk of the farm land between the post office and Manchester Street. Mr. Morgan added that the taxes paid on the parcel are $180 per year since it is in current use explaining that the lease payments are not significant but are more than that.
Mayor Bouley noted that he has heard that they would like to consolidate the land that they farm. Mr. Morgan responded that this is a possibility as the area gets busier and traffic gets heavier it gets more difficult for them to go back and forth with their equipment.
Referencing the $180 paid for taxes, Councilor Coen inquired as to how long this dollar amount has been in effect. Mr. Morgan explained that that is based on the current use value of the property as agricultural land and those values are revisited periodically by the current use board. He added that he did not know how long this has been in effect.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
G. Resolution approving the acquisition of open space property southerly of Gully Hill Road tax map parcel 114/1/8A (Larrabee) in accordance with CIP #352, and authorizing the expenditure of up to $58,000 from the Conservation Fund for this purpose, as approved by the Conservation Commission, CIP #352; together with a report from the Conservation Commission. (2-16)
Action: Public hearing for this item taken with item F.
H. Request for discretionary preservation easement in accordance with RSA 79-D for property at 174 Little Pond Road owned by the Katharyn S. Hok Trust. (2-17)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Lemieux questioned what the city receives in return for this exemption. Mr. Aspell explained that the idea is that the owners will actively work to maintain the structure therefore the savings achieved here allows them to know that the community values the asset and that they will maintain the asset in a reasonable fashion. He added that staff monitors this on a regular basis to make sure money isn’t just being pocketed and that it is actively going into the structures themselves. Councilor Lemieux inquired whether the owner signs an agreement. Mr. Aspell responded yes.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Public Testimony
Katharyn Hok, owner of the property at 174 Little Pond Road, indicated that extensive renovations have been done on the main barn and is an excellent example of a historical barn built at the end of the 1800’s. She explained that the one smaller building which was requested to be covered does need some repair and feels that this will be done within the next two years.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
I. Resolution appropriating the sum of $2,000,000 for biotower refurbishment; authorizing borrowing such amount from the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) or otherwise and the issuance of bonds and notes under the Municipal Finance Act and RSA 486:14. (CIP #104); together with report from the General Services Department. (2Sus4) (Revised resolution submitted)
Action: There being no objections, public hearing items I and J were opened together.
City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Lemieux asked if Council approves this resolution whether they would be approving regardless of whether the city gets the stimulus funds. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct.
Mayor Bouley indicated that the NH Department of Environmental Services has been holding meetings regarding the stimulus package and this particular fund and inquired whether staff has been attending those meetings. Mr. Aspell responded that staff has been attending and added that the city is the first in the state to apply for these dollars. Mayor Bouley questioned whether staff felt the city would be awarded both of these items. Mr. Aspell responded that it is the hope that both will be awarded to the city.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
J. Resolution appropriating the sum of $275,000 for Scada Implementation; authorizing borrowing such amount from the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) or otherwise, and the issuance of bonds and notes under the Municipal Finance Act and RSA 486:14 (CIP #104) (2Sus5)
Action: Public hearing for this item taken with item I.
March 9, 2009 Public Hearing Action
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Shurtleff moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure asked for an explanation of the level or type of development that would occur in the wetland area north of the road. She further asked why wetlands would be zoned to be developed. Assistant Planner Steve Henninger indicated that in this instance they are trying to put the geometry on land that is very irregular. He explained that some of the wetlands were included in the RS zoning district however those are not developable. He indicated that they incorporated some of the wetlands and most of the buildable land within the RS district north of the Vineyards property to the area north of the wetlands. He added that the wetlands were included because it is hard to draw boundary line around such a difficult area. Councilor McClure, for clarification, asked whether it was correct to state that none of the land around the wetlands or north of the wetlands will be developed even though it is being rezoned. Mr. Henninger responded that none of the wetlands themselves will be adding that the wetland buffers are protected also. He noted that there is still a number of acres of good buildable land that will be incorporated in the RS zoning district which will allow a single family residential development as a primary use. Councilor McClure inquired as to how this area would be accessed. Mr. Henninger responded that it would be accessed off of Kyle Road, the extension of Kyle Road, the extension of Emily Way and proposed line of the future street which is the next item on the agenda. Councilor McClure questioned whether the wetlands would have to be crossed to get to the development. Mr. Henninger responded no.
Councilor Stetson noted that approximately two years ago Council referred a request to the Planning Board, a request for an aquifer zone. He explained that a study had been done on this through a grant but the Council has never received a report back on this. Mr. Henninger responded that it is currently underway. Councilor Stetson inquired whether this was taken into consideration as far as this area of the city is concerned. Mr. Henninger indicated that from a standpoint they looked at municipal water and sewer service in this area and that it is available. Councilor Stetson asked whether the south end of the new proposed road and some of the area where there will be more development is actually below grade of the sewer system. Mr. Henninger responded that there may be a need to establish a private pump system similar to many of the new developments that provide access to sewer.
Councilor Blanchard asked what the number of units currently allowed versus the number of units allowed under the zoning changes. Mr. Henninger responded that it would be approximately 100 more units.
Following brief Council discussion, the motion to approve passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux noted his concerns about this proposed street in that it may encourage cut-through traffic through the Kyle Road neighborhood. He indicated that building this connection would knock a half of mile and two traffic signals off of the trip between locations on Bog Road and the Thirty Pines area. Referencing the staff report, he noted that it reads that “the proposed future road is intended to be a local residential street to be developed in a manner to not encourage cut through traffic”. He asked how this could be done. Mr. Henninger, Planning, responded that there will be more traffic because there will be more development accessing the neighborhood and will be in a position where the Bog Road signalization involved will dramatically improve the ability to people to get out. He explained that it is envisioned to be a circuitous route and it is envisioned that the two traffic circles on Alice Drive will be rebuilt to modern standards to slow traffic down. He added that it will see some traffic but that it would primarily be the people residing between Kyle Road and the Vineyards property. Councilor Lemieux noted that he doesn’t see that as cut-through traffic and stressed that he is concerned with the traffic in which the trip begins and ends outside of the neighborhood. He indicated that he does not feel that the new road would be a circuitous street because it would be a half mile shorter than the arterial route following Bog Road and Fisherville Road and would also eliminate two traffic signals. He added that people look to avoid traffic signals particularly going through neighborhoods where there are no traffic signals.
Councilor Stetson noted that as he understands, this is only a mapped line for a future street. He inquired as to who would be the owner of this new street once it is built and what the specifications would be that it would be built to. Mr. Henninger responded that the mapped line is a process which establishes intent to connect roadways through there. He explained that the Planning Board’s responsibility when development occurs would be, as each development comes through, looking for a road that would be built to city standard by that development as each phase comes through. In this case, he indicated that this would be affecting three different properties and expects it to be built in three different phases. Councilor Stetson noted that as he understands it, when the Vineyards were originally built they were supposed to be connected to Kyle Road down through Merlot Court or Cabernet Drive to Bog Road. He asked if it is left to that developer to build this new road that is proposed, how would it be ensured that it is not such a small street that people cannot get from point A to point B. Mr. Henninger responded that both sides of the issue will need to be considered and will need to look at: that it is large enough to provide activity but not too large and expensive to encourage people using it as a by-pass. Councilor Stetson indicated that the problem that he has with this street is that it’s not known what it will look like when it is built or whether the city will be asked to maintain it. He noted that there are guidelines of fifty foot right of way for a city street and it doesn’t sound like what this is going to be. Mr. Henninger responded that it would be a fifty foot right of way for a city street and that the question that they are looking at is what physical design plan is going to be developed over time. Referencing the narrowness of the street in the Vineyards, Councilor Stetson asked whether this is what is being looked at for this new road. Mr. Henninger responded that they are not looking at something that would be as narrow as the 22 foot streets within the Vineyards but would like to incorporate some type of traffic calming feature. Councilor Stetson inquired as to the total number of units there are going to be in Vineyards to add to the neighborhood traffic. Mr. Henninger indicated that there are roughly 25 remaining units to be completed and likely to be another 40 or 50 to be constructed in the expanded area. Councilor Stetson asked how many were currently there. Mr. Henninger responded that there are currently close to 100 units.
Referencing the proposed road being built as a city road, Councilor Blanchard stated that she has a problem when people get concerned with cut-through traffic because a public city street can be used by anybody and doesn’t know why people want to discourage cut-through traffic on a public city street.
Councilor Coen asked how many stop signs there would be on the proposed street. Mr. Henninger responded that he is unsure at this time.
City Manager Tom Aspell clarified that the Planning Board is saying that they would like to send a message to the developers who own this property that when they bring in their development plan, they want to see an interconnected road system that resembles this and located in this general location. He added that the issues of the actual design of the road, sidewalks, curbing and traffic calming measures will be done at the Planning Board level.
The motion to accept passed 11 to 4 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, Keach, McClure, Nyhan, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff and Werner voting yes. Councilors Blanchard, Lemieux, Patten and Stetson voted no.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Shurtleff noted that the residents of Penacook, West Concord, the Manor and Riverhill appreciate that the city is moving forward with this road improvement.
Mayor Bouley pointed out that this is a savings of approximately $790,000 to the city the way they are approaching this bonding. He noted that he is pleased the Council is continuing it’s commitment to the citizens to complete this road.
The motion to approve passed 14 to 0 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Black, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, Keach, Lemieux, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner voting yes. Councilor McClure was absent during the vote.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion was duly seconded with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion was duly seconded with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the revised resolution. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Keach questioned whether the fact that the city authorizes the issuance of bonds in any way places the city at a disadvantage when competing for federal dollars. Mr. Aspell responded no.
The motion to approve passed 15 to 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 to 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.
Reports
New Business
Unfinished Business
Action: Mayor Bouley noted that he feels that since the city is currently dealing with the budget as a whole it might make sense to table it to the Finance Committee to be dealt with when taking up the budget.
Councilor McClure moved to table this item to the Finance Committee. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor St. Hilaire noted that the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center had their grand opening this past weekend. He indicated that it was a success with almost 6,500 people in attendance over the weekend to view the new facility. He encouraged people to visit the center.
Councilor Patten commended the Fire Department for their response to the fire on Rumford Street.
Referencing the Merrimack Valley Annual School District meeting, Councilor Blanchard indicated that they did put the dollars into the budget to make up the difference for the police officer that is in the school.
Councilor Lemieux requested a report for April on the increase or decrease in usership of the Capital Commons garage and also on the revenue changes since Council approved the expenditures approximately six months ago.
Comments, Requests by the City Manager
City Manager Tom Aspell read a correspondence from the NHDOT to inform the city of “an important development that could affect your community if you are awarded safe routes to school grant. Federal Highway Administration will require that the NHDOT include language in local agreements to require communities to maintain sidewalks built with federal funds in the same manner as the roads. In the past, the agreements have required communities to maintain such sidewalks in the same manner it maintains other non-federal sidewalks. The new policy means that communities will have to keep sidewalks clear and from ice and snow in the winter. Sidewalk snow removal policies vary from community to community and in some circumstance the old policy meant that snow removal could be left to property owners or simply not done at all. Unfortunately federal funds cannot be used for maintenance and sidewalk plows or other similar equipment are not eligible for federal funds under SRTS. I understand that the policy be reviewed as a new expense for municipal budgets, however, it is recognized that snow covered sidewalk can be a barrier to a safe walk to school”. Mr. Aspell indicated that the city will have to be very careful about funds they accept from the state or federal government because it could dramatically impact the city’s ability to fund operating expenses and if the time came to change those operating expenses, it may be locked in changing those.
Councilor Bouchard inquired whether this would also apply to designated safe routes to school. Mr. Aspell responded that they are trying to make this apply to ones funded in previous years even though that wasn’t a requirement.
Councilor McClure questioned whether it is known yet that it is going to require the city to plow all the sidewalks. Mr. Aspell responded that is not known. He pointed out that the NHDOT has been fighting against this. He explained that the federal government would like to require this be done but those were not the strings attached to the previous money. He noted that right now they are essentially saying any new ones coming down, be prepared to have all the operating costs that are associated with it no matter where it is in the community. Councilor McClure asked whether this applied to Fisherville Road. Mr. Aspell responded that the city is not accepting federal dollars for those. He explained that what is occurring is that the city is going to have to become more self sufficient and not rely on federal and state money. Councilor McClure questioned whether there would be an opportunity to structure the funding in the future so that the city accepts federal dollars for the road but no the sidewalk. Mr. Aspell responded that that was an interesting perspective but was unsure as to whether this could be done.
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 15, 23, 25, 31 and 32 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
Action: Councilor Coen indicated that he had some questions about what this ordinance is really going to do citywide. Referencing item 11 within the consent agenda, he noted that Attorney Uchida had brought up some points in which he had not received the opportunity to discuss with the Planning Board since they did not hold a public hearing.
Councilor Coen moved to send item 15 back to the Planning Board for further review; give Council a report back on item 11 and table item 15 for a public hearing in May. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure noted her opposition to the motion because she feels that this process should be moved along and feels that the community expects Council to move forward with the process rather than derailing it midstream. She noted her appreciation of the need to get more information and believes that both can be done. She indicated that there are two options to consider: this item could be set for a public hearing in April and the Planning Board could review Mr. Uchida’s letter and consider the issues that he has brought forth and provide a report back to Council before the hearing; or to allow more time, Council could set the public hearing for May which would allow the Planning Board more time to consider the issues.
Councilor Coen indicated that as he understands, if Council votes on this tonight for a public hearing in April or May that this ordinance comes in effect once it is posted for a public hearing. City Manager Tom Aspell indicated that to be correct. Mr. Aspell asked when public hearing notices would be published as a legal notice. Deputy City Clerk Michelle Tiffany responded that public hearing notices would be published on Friday. Councilor Coen asked whether the ordinance would then go into effect this Friday. Mayor Bouley responded that it wouldn’t go into effect until Council adopts it but it puts a hold on it. Mr. Aspell explained that both ordinances are in place but that the more restrictive one rules once advertised. Councilor Coen indicated that is why he would rather wait until May and have the Planning Board come back with their recommendations.
Mayor Bouley inquired as to when the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled to be held. Doug Woodward, City Planner, replied that the next meeting is scheduled for March 18th. Mayor Bouley asked whether there is time for the Planning Board to take this item up for a report back to Council for an April public hearing. Mr. Woodward responded that it could be added explaining that the board just discussed this fully at the last meeting so it wouldn’t be like introducing a new topic and would be a matter of discussing the new items in Mr. Uchida’s letter. He indicated that if Council wants the Planning Board to have its own hearing, then the board would have to do so in April. Referencing Mr. Uchida’s letter, Mayor Bouley pointed out that one of the issues that he raises is that he did not get a chance to speak at the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Woodward explained that the Planning Board didn’t schedule a public hearing and just had a business discussion on it. He indicated that his only question of Council is whether they want the Planning Board to have its own hearing or if they just want the opinion of the board as an addendum of what they previously submitted.
Councilor Keach noted his agreement with Councilor Coen.
Councilor Bennett noted that people expect Council to move along with items but also feels that they expect Council to give every item a thorough hearing.
Councilor Coen noted that he would like to amend his motion to request a public hearing with the Planning Board. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley asked when the Planning Board would be able to hold their public hearing. Mr. Woodward indicated that he would ask the board next week to set it down for April giving them the background and Mr. Uchida’s correspondence.
For clarification, Councilor Shurtleff asked whether the motion is to ask the Planning Board to hold a public hearing and to hold a public hearing a month later by the Council. Mayor Bouley indicated that is how he understands the motion. Councilor Coen responded this to be correct.
Councilor McClure asked why the Council public hearing couldn’t be set this evening for May knowing that the Planning Board will have time in April to hold a public hearing on this item. She indicated that this gives certainty to the fact that indeed things are frozen and that before any decisions are made, all the information comes in to either the Planning Board or the City Council before any decision is made. She noted that she feels that Council owes it to the residents who may be affected by this all over this city because this proposal will essentially affirm where zoning boundaries lie and that they are very secure except for the ability to get a variance or to do a zoning change.
Mayor Bouley clarified that the motion made by Councilor Coen is for Council to hold a public hearing in May and for the Planning Board to also hold a public hearing. He noted that upon the comment of the City Planner, it was indicated that the Planning Board could hold a public hearing in April.
Councilor Coen clarified that what he is asking is not to vote on this ordinance this evening because his concern is that if Council decides to hold a public hearing in May, the new ordinance would take effect on Friday.
Mayor Bouley asked for clarification of the ordinance taking effect versus being adopted. Mr. Woodward explained that statute RSA 676:12 says that once the City Council sets the public hearing notice, effectively the building inspector cannot issue a building permit that is contradictory to that ordinance. He indicated that if there is some presumption that proposed ordinance would be more restrictive or change something from the current ordinance. He explained generically that the proposed new ordinance is essentially in effect for an interim period until the Council votes and if Council adopts the proposed ordinance, it would continue on but if they don’t adopt the proposed ordinance, it reverts back to the code that is current. He noted that the notice would create a sort of interim holding pattern that prevails. Mr. Woodward indicated that his only question is that if Council decides to hold a public hearing in May, he is not sure whether that notice would be sent out now as opposed to in time for the May meeting, noting this would be a procedural question.
Mayor Bouley pointed out that years ago there was a question with Broken Ground in which there was a hearing set for a future date and that notice had gone out following the meeting and that the city had been sued.
Councilor Blanchard asked if it was up to the Council and not the Planning Board because it involves a zoning change and/or correction. She noted that as she understands, the Planning Board cannot really make that decision. Mr. Woodward responded that zoning is a law and a vote of the city. Councilor Blanchard noted that she is wondering the validity of the Planning Board holding a public hearing and asked what this is supposed to accomplish.
Councilor Keach responded that he feels that it addresses the issue of transparency and opportunity to be heard and that these two things did not happen at the last meeting.
Councilor Lemieux questioned whether Council is voting not to set this item for a public hearing in April and not also set it for a public hearing in May.
Mayor Bouley indicated that the motion before Council is to table item 15 for a May public hearing; to take item 11, which has already been referred to the Planning Board, and to further ask them to not just give a response to the referral but to have a public hearing in April regarding this.
Councilor Coen noted that if Council sets the hearing date then this proposed ordinance will temporarily supersede the original ordinance until the public hearing. Councilor McClure responded that this is the way it is any time the Council set items for public hearings.
Councilor Coen amended his motion to wait to set the hearing date until after Council receives the report back from the Planning Board. The motion was duly seconded.
To further clarify, Mayor Bouley indicated that what he hears Councilor Coen saying is that he did not realize the original impact of it and his motion is to: take item 11, which was already referred to the Planning Board, and moved that they hold a public hearing in April and get back to Council on their response and also moved to table item 15, not for a public hearing but to simply table this item. Councilor Coen indicated this to be correct.
Councilor Blanchard noted her concerns with a Council public hearing not occurring until June.
Councilor Coen’s motion to have the Planning Board hold a public hearing in April and to table item 15 passed 8 to 7 on a show of hands vote.
Action: Councilor Patten indicated that he has been working with the Recreation Director to see if this could be salvaged noting that he does not want the July 4th celebration to be cancelled. He noted that he would like to delay this until the April meeting so that he has the chance to talk to organizations/businesses in the city.
City Manager Aspell indicated that the firework display company needs an answer by March 20th. He noted that if the money is raised by March 20th, the city would move forward and contract with the company. He further noted that if the money is raised after the 20th, the city could contact the firework display company to see if arrangements could be made indicating that there may be available openings if other communities are facing the same challenge. Mr. Aspell explained that this report is more of a notice that time is running out, there is not enough money and as the plans are currently, there is not enough money for the July 4th fireworks. He added that if money does come forward staff will work with Councilor Patten but doesn’t want anybody surprised if there are no fireworks on July 4th.
Councilor Bouchard pointed out that Mr. Gill has been working very hard since the last fireworks to try to find some private money to get the fireworks for Concord.
Councilor Nyhan echoed Councilor Patten’s concerns. He suggested calling the fireworks display company to see if they will grant the city an extra thirty days to make a decision. Referencing the cost of $12,000 to $15,000 for a fireworks display, he asked what would prevent the city from cutting back the length of the fireworks display therefore cutting the costs to something that is more manageable. City Manager Aspell indicated that staff could definitely explore these suggestions.
Councilor Patten moved to take up the City Manager’s suggestions. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Patten noted that he received the answers to his inquiries this afternoon and asked the City Engineer to come forward to refresh Council that this is already in place.
City Engineer Ed Roberge explained that this is part of the CMAQ grant project from the state regarding sidewalks. He indicated that the project is scheduled for this summer and is funded as a CMAQ project which is eighty percent state grant funds and twenty percent city match. He explained that this was within the 2008 program and they are moving this forward and there will be public participation that needs to occur and exactly where those sidewalks fall.
Councilor Patten moved acceptance of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Coen inquired whether there is any federal money available for this sidewalk. Mr. Aspell responded that CMAQ funds are generally federal dollars.
Councilor Keach inquired as to what the city’s portion of twenty percent will be. Mr. Roberge responded that this is a $476,000 project of which $200,000 was committed by state funds. He indicated that the rest, $276,000 was city funds. He explained that the grant project was limited by just the amount of dollars that the fund would allow at the time and the city elected to match more than was required.
Referencing the report, Councilor Bouchard pointed out that the sidewalk is scheduled in FY2015. Mr. Roberge explained that what he mentions within the report was that anytime the city gets any new projects it goes to the back of the program. He noted that this piece on Branch Turnpike was part of the Heights program and any new requests would go to the end of the program but in this case, it is actually part of this 2009 construction project. Councilor Bouchard asked whether Councilor Patten would still want to accept the report because the report indicates it will be done in 2015. Mr. Aspell explained that it is his understanding that the report would be approved based on what the City Engineer had stated.
Councilor Patten’s motion passed on a voice vote.
31. Resolution transferring the sum of $140,000 from the Operational Contingency Account and $10,000 from the City Council Contingency Account to Human Services Welfare Aid Account to cover extraordinary welfare aid payments made, due to the declining U.S. economy; together with report from the Director of Human Services and the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (Pulled from consent by Councilor Blanchard)
Action: Councilor Blanchard explained that she removed this item from the consent agenda in order to vote on it separately so that the public would know what impact the economic crisis is having on the city’s current budget.
Councilor Blanchard moved approval of the resolution. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley noted that he feels that it is important for the community to understand what the impact of this economic downfall has been and that the city is seeing unprecedented numbers coming through.
Councilor Lemieux indicated that he has read an article that suggested that a lot of people were moving from rural areas to cities as a way of dealing with the crisis because the services are better in cities. He asked if there was any reason to believe this was happening in Concord. Mr. Aspell responded yes. Councilor Lemieux asked to what extent this was happening. Mr. Aspell indicated that staff was unsure of the extent. He explained that people are constantly on the move and are going from area to area but one of the things that compounds it is having the prison nearby because when they are released, they end up at their local welfare office in which the city happens to be the local welfare office for the state prison. Councilor Lemieux noted that he feels that people should know that the city is spending a lot of this money on people who didn’t live here before they needed it.
Councilor Keach inquired whether staff will be back before Council asking for more funds before the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Aspell responded no explaining that Jackie Whatmough and Jim Howard worked to calculate out where this would be.
Councilor Blanchard’s motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
32. Resolution transferring the sum of $245,178 from General Fund Balance for FY2009 Winter Snow Operations in the General Services Department; together with report from the General Services Director. (Pulled from consent by Councilor Blanchard)
Action: Councilor Blanchard indicated that she wanted to vote on this item separately so the public would know the impact the winter has had on the city’s budget.
Councilor Blanchard moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Consideration of Suspense Items
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to suspend the rules to consider items not previously advertised. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
3 Sus1 Referral to the Election
Review Committee
Communication from Linda Abbott, Mike Hogan, Jackson Amrol and Yvonne
Stahr requesting Council consider extending polling times for Federal Primaries
and Federal Elections for Presidency and Vice Presidency.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved to refer this communication to the Election Review Committee. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
3 Sus2 Report from the Public Transportation Committee on the CAT bus “fixed route” service.
Action: Councilor Lemieux indicated that the Public Transportation Committee is a sub-committee of the Transportation Advisory Committee and which has been looking into the operation of CAT. He explained that they have had numerous amount of the public showing up and testifying noting many residents within the city have problems with the buses the way they are operated. He explained that the committee wants to look at options located on the third page of the memo and all they want from Council is an indication as to whether all of these items should be left on the table and if there is anything that should not be left on the table, this is the time to find out about it.
Councilor Lemieux moved acceptance of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Stetson noted that Councilor Lemieux’s point is very valid and that it would be very helpful if the Council could give some direction on those five options listed on page three of the report.
Councilor Black inquired whether the city has considered smaller buses.
Councilor Lemieux responded that the committee has not gotten to this point and has spent most of its time listening to the public and planning a future course. He added that this would entail capital expenditures and is not sure that CAT is ready to assume those responsibilities.
Councilor Bouchard indicated that if there are smaller buses there would still maybe be the same operating costs with less fuel costs. She noted that there is only so much money that the city gives CAT for operating and asking them to expand the routes and have more frequent pick up would also require more money from the Council. She added that they have been looking at public transportation at things they can do without requiring more money such as better bus schedules and better bus stops. Referencing the stimulus package, she indicated that there is money available for transit for buses but it’s to get more buses not to help operate the bus systems within the city.
Referencing smaller buses, Councilor Stetson explained that this was taken up a few years ago and what was found was that the capital cost would be quite expensive. He noted that the smaller buses have all the same ADA requirements as the larger buses and the operating costs would go up because if there are smaller buses, there would need to be more drivers.
Mayor Bouley asked whether there would be a potential for more riders.
Councilor Stetson responded that there hasn’t been a study done to indicate whether or not that would work.
Councilor Keach asked to what degree the third option, reducing or eliminating funding, was discussed. Councilor Lemieux responded that this has not been discussed yet explaining that all the items under options are what will be discussed at Council’s option.
Councilor Blanchard questioned whether there has been any indication that there might be a big ridership due to the economy. Councilor Lemieux indicated that when the price of gas rose to $4.00 per gallon ridership rose insignificantly.
Councilor Nyhan noted that it is his recollection that the city funds are a very small portion of the operating expenses for CAT and that a lot of money is federal. Councilor Lemieux indicated that to be correct. Councilor Nyhan noted that he feels that there are some ways to explore some financial savings. He asked if it was known what the percentage was. Councilor Lemieux responded that he believes that operating costs are funded fifty percent and capital costs are funded eighty percent federal and twenty percent city.
Councilor Bouchard explained that when CAT was first conceived it was more for ADA and seniors and wasn’t conceived to be an actual inner-city bus system. She noted that she feels that if they want to move it that way and to get people to use CAT as another form of transportation, it will require dollars from the city.
Mayor Bouley asked whether Council accepts the report as is with the idea that the committee looks at all five of the options or whether there is a desire to prioritize these options.
Councilor Blanchard indicated that she would prefer that the committee looks at prioritizing these options.
Councilor Lemieux noted that he has heard a lot of comments regarding the trolleys and wants to make it clear that the city has no money in the trolleys and that these are entirely federal and private funded.
Councilor Nyhan inquired as to who operates the trolleys. Councilor Lemieux responded that the trolleys are operated by CAT.
Councilor Keach asked whether there was a way to fold those in together. Councilor Lemieux responded no explaining that the trolleys are funded by federal congestion mitigation air quality funds, CMAQ funds. He explained that since they were funded in answer to a specific proposal then the service can’t be changed without changing the proposal, it would be a change of scope and may make in ineligible.
Councilor Lemieux’s motion to accept the report passed with no dissenting votes.
Reconsideration of Item 15
Councilor Blanchard, being on the prevailing side, moved to reconsider the vote taken on item 15. The motion was duly seconded and passed 8 to 7 on a roll call vote with Councilors Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Shurtleff and Stetson voting yes. Councilors Bennett, Black, Coen, Keach, Patten, St. Hilaire and Werner voted no.
Councilor Blanchard moved that Council hold a public hearing in May on this proposed ordinance and to instruct the Planning Board to hold a public hearing in April. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Coen pointed out that if this is done, it would mean that the ordinance before Council would supersede the current ordinance until the public hearing in May.
Councilor Shurtleff asked what Councilor Coen’s concerns were for setting this for a public hearing in May to hold off any permits being issued until a decision is made by this Council.
Councilor Coen responded that he is not comfortable with the new ordinance as it is written and if it is voted on this evening, then this proposed ordinance will become in effect for the next two months.
Councilor Nyhan noted that it is his understanding that the proposed ordinance is more restrictive thereby preventing a developer from doing something without the Council approval. He indicated that by doing nothing tonight, a developer can proceed as he or she planned and this motion would say give it time, let’s talk about it and let’s have a consistent set of rules. He added that he doesn’t see any harm in waiting.
Councilor Keach asked if it was entirely fair to hold up potential projects now when developers have acted in good faith and have acted within the ordinances that exist. He added that he feels that the current motion establishes a defacto ordinance for a minimum of two months and changing the rules midstream noting that he does not see this as fair.
Councilor Nyhan pointed out that the Planning Board did not hold a public hearing and that he would like to see this happen. He noted that he does not see this as a fairness issue as much as what is right for the city.
Councilor Blanchard’s motion that Council hold a public hearing in May on this proposed ordinance and to instruct the Planning Board to hold a public hearing in April passed 10 to 5 on a roll call vote with Councilors Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Lemieux, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff and Stetson voting yes. Councilors Bennett, Black, Coen, Keach and Werner voted no.
Adjournment
The time being 10:00 p.m., Councilor McClure moved to adjourn the meeting and enter into non-public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II to discuss the City Manager's Evaluation followed by non-public sessions in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss property acquisition, Penacook Tannery, Sanel Block and NHDOT property. The motion was duly seconded and passed 15 to 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