|
City Council Meeting
Minutes
September 14, 2009
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Cary Gladstone, Concord Asset Building Coalition, introduced Helen Greene, CATCH Neighborhood Housing, and Joceline Champagne, NH Bar Association. He indicated that they were in attendance to promote the Franklin-Concord Savings Challenge and the idea that in this tough economic time individuals should begin placing money into a savings account. He noted that the question that many encounter is where to find the money to put into a savings account and noted that individuals take a look around their homes in which according to the Consumer Federation of America the average household has $90 in loose change. He urged residents to take their loose change to one of the participating banks to deposit into a savings account beginning this Saturday through the following Saturday to be enrolled into a drawing for a $100 savings bond. He pointed out that at the end of the week all the entries will be comingled for a grand prize drawing of a $1,000 savings bond. He noted that they just wanted to promote a little easier way that individuals can take control of their savings, offer some incentives and make it a little more fun in a tough economic time.
Joceline Champagne indicated that the Low Income Taxpayer Project, Bar Association’s Pro Bono Program, stands behind this because this a time when individuals need hope and a lot of the low income families don’t feel like they have any.
Councilor Coen asked what the challenge was. Mr. Gladstone responded that it is just a friendly competition, a social marketing campaign, to make a personal challenge to yourself to save for emergency reserves for household expenses.
Mayor Bouley presented a proclamation for the Franklin-Concord Savings Challenge.
- 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 27, 30, 31 and 36 removed for discussion at the end of the agenda. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Items Tabled for a October 13, 2009 Public Hearing
From the City Manager
Consent Reports
Action: This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Consent Resolutions
Action: This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Action: This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Consent Communications
36.
Report from Mayor Bouley creating an Ad-Hoc Parking Study Committee.
(Pulled from consent by Mayor Bouley)
Action: This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
**End of Consent Agenda**
A. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 5, Public Works; Article 5-1, Highways and Sidewalks; by adding Section 5-1-22, License and Permit Required for the Installation of Monitoring Wells on Public Property or in a Public Way; together with a report from the City Engineer. (8-9)
Action: There being no Council objection, the City Clerk read the titles of public hearing items A through C.
City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the ordinance authorizes the City Engineer to establish and publish rules, regulations and procedures including general permit instructions and construction requirements related to ground water monitoring well permits and to prescribe the forms necessary for the management and operation of monitoring well permit program. He noted that the permit fees have a proposed fee structure including an administrative and inspection fee representing the cost associated with managing the permit fee program as well as costs for the inspection staff. He indicated that the proposed administration and inspection charge is $240 per permit for monitoring wells installed within the public right of way or city property; additionally an annual right of way occupation charge of $120 will be assessed for each monitoring well within the public right of way or on city property. Mr. Aspell explained that the proposed ordinance establishes penalties and fines for violations and enables staff to immediately stop work for installations that are considered hazardous or constitutes an immediate threat to public safety. He added that the proposed fines range from $100 to $1,000 dependent upon offense and frequency.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearings open for items A through C. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearings.
B. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 1, Government Organization, by amending Article 1-5, Fees, Fines and Penalties, Schedule I. (8-10)
Action: Public hearing on this item taken with item A.
C. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinance, Schedule II, Fines and Penalties appended to Chapter 1, Government Organization; Article 1-5, Fees, Fines and Penalties; Section 1-5-2, Fines and Penalties. (8-11)
Action: Public hearing on this item taken with item A.
D. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 5, Public Works; Article 5-1, Highways and Sidewalks; by replacing Section 5-1-4 Permit Required to Excavate In or Open a Public Way in its entirety; together with a report from the City Engineer. (8-12) (Revised ordinance submitted)
Action: There being no Council objection, the City Clerk read the titles of public hearing items D through F.
City Engineer Ed Roberge provided a detailed overview of the history of this ordinance. Referring to studies, he indicated that they had concluded that street cuts do in fact degrade and shorten the life of pavement structures and led to a number of communities nationwide to develop a program that includes an assessment of fees to recover these long-term street damage costs. He explained that the proposed ordinance was created through a public process; on June 22nd the staff had released the final documents to the public and distributing them to all the utilities that work in the city, developers, attorneys, the Local Government Center and the Public Utilities Commission. He added that there was zero public input at a scheduled July 21st public meeting and there was overall very limited comments. Referencing the fee structure, Mr. Roberge explained that it is called a two-tier because it involved two things: the administration and inspection aspects of running the program and street damage charge, $5.00 per square foot for street damage and $2.50 per square foot for sidewalk and ancillary infrastructure damage. He explained that the enforcement measures include fines and penalties; allows staff to establish a stop work order; a fine structure for multiple offenses. He indicated that the city has not had a lot of repeat issues but this would allow the city to have the enforcement capability. He noted that the most important aspect is the protection of streets which essentially establishes a five-year pavement no-dig moratorium to allow the infrastructure to realize its value when pavement is put down and would not allow any digging in the streets for a five year period. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance does allow for certain exceptions such as not prohibiting digging on an emergency condition nor prohibiting digging on new development. Referencing the General Permit Conditions and Construction Requirements document, Mr. Roberge explained that it outlines the application requirements, the permit conditions, specific construction requirements in this annual review approval process. He noted that the intent would be for Council to approve this, signed by himself, the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, and placed on file at the City Clerk’s Office. He highlighted numbers of permits issued and fees collected in FY2009 and the proposed numbers and revenues for FY2010.
Councilor Blanchard noted that within the last year she had received a call from a constituent who wanted to place natural gas onto a property on Abbott Road and he was told, as was she, that he could not do this because the road had been recently paved. She indicated that it was stated that the city did not have an ordinance that prevented excavation of a recently paved road asking what would have been the reason he was denied if this was so. Mr. Roberge responded that there was not an ordinance but the fact was that there was an informal in-house procedure. He noted that in this particular situation, the connection was made because the city really had no way to deny this explaining that they looked at alternative methods and were able to minimize a street cut.
Referencing no digging for five years, Councilor Coen indicated that three examples of exceptions were given on the slides and inquired as to what else fall into this. Mr. Roberge responded that any state or federal mandates to relocate a utility. Councilor Coen indicated that it seems that the utilities or the contractors would pay for the permit fee but questioned whether this would be transferred to a homeowner if they are switching to natural gas rather than being absorbed by the utilities or contractors. Mr. Roberge responded that in this case, the utilities would absorb this cost.
Councilor Keach questioned whether there are any taxes generated from any of these underground utilities. Mr. Roberge responded that he is not aware of any. Councilor Keach noted that the City’s Sewer and Water Departments would be exempt from these fees and because they are enterprise funds, inquired whether any consideration was given to the fact that some cost should be recovered from those funds because they are in fact doing damage to those streets. Mr. Roberge responded that since 2005, the city has created a structured formula that recovers costs from the water and sewer funds on an annual basis to account for this.
There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the hearings open for items D through F. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearings.
E. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 1, Government Organization, by amending Article 1-5, Fees, Fines, and Penalties, Schedule. (8-13)
Action: Public hearing on this item taken with item D.
F. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Schedule II, Fines and Penalties appended to Chapter 1, Government Organization; Article 1-5, Fees, Fines and Penalties; Section 1-5-2, Fines and Penalties. (8-14)
Action: Public hearing on this item taken with item D.
G. Resolution appropriating the sum of $6,500 from the Episcopal Church, Diocese of New Hampshire; together with report from the Episcopal Diocese Committee. (8-15)
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
H. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept and appropriate $11,795 from the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources Certified Local Government Grant Program to be used to apply for National Registry of the Blossom Hill Cemetery; together with report from the General Services Department. (8-16)
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
I. Resolution accepting and appropriating the sum of $207,544 in grant funds from the United States Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, FY2009 COP Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP), Funds Designated for the Hiring and Retention of Sworn Law Enforcement Personnel; together with report from the Police Department. (8-17)
Action: City Manager Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether this would be for a new person and not a currently existing person. Mr. Aspell responded that it would be for a new person.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
J. 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. (8Sus1)
Action: Assistant for Special Projects Matt Walsh pointed out that there are renderings on the wall giving the picture version. He explained that Mr. Duprey is planning to acquire the Sanel Block, sub-divide that parcel into two development sites; on the development site on the S. Main Street side he will build a roughly 80,000 square foot five-story mixed used office building and on the Storrs Street side he plans to work with CATCH Neighborhood Housing to build a roughly 45 unit affordable housing development. He noted that as part of this project, Mr. Duprey would also be acquiring some surplus real estate that the city owns along Storrs Street, south of Theatre Street. He indicated that both of the parcels together total 1.3 acres and he plans to build a parking lot there to service his development. Mr. Walsh gave a broad overview of what the development agreement entails explaining that there are three pieces that the city is committing to as part of this agreement: 1) to lease a quantity of spaces as part of a master lease within the Capital Commons Parking Garage; 2) the sale of the real estate on Storrs Street to build a new surface parking lot to add more parking for his project; 3) for the city to commit granting an RSA 79-E tax relief incentive for the Sanel Block Project. He gave a detailed explanation of each of these outlined within his report. He pointed out that as part of this agreement, Mr. Duprey is responsible for building all the off-site improvements and that the city isn’t building sidewalks or streets or doing any utility extensions or relocations. Mr. Walsh explained that his entire development whatever square footage of the 12,500 square feet in the new office building will be subject to a covenant held by the city requiring payment of property taxes on that development in perpetuity forever regardless if the property is acquired by a tax exempt entity or occupied by one. He added that as part of the deal, Mr. Duprey is compelled to become a member of Main Street Concord and make a meaningful financial contribution to them. He explained that there are roughly a dozen out clauses for Mr. Duprey within the agreement. He added that in the longer term this project will probably necessitate the city to review how it manages on-street parking in this part of downtown which he believes the Planning Board is going to address as part of their review. In summary, Mr. Walsh highlighted some of the benefits of project include: helps to revitalize a blighted property and implement the long standing goals that are articulated in the city’s various master plans; create or preserve anywhere between 250 to 300 jobs within the city; after the expiration of the 79E benefit, all the tax revenues associated with the project would flow to the city’s general fund as well as the school district, county and state; the project is intended to include relocation of the headquarters of the League of NH Craftsmen which would be a great success and help to build a synergy with the Capital Center for the Arts, Red River Theatre, Concord Community Music School and Annicharico Theatre; in the Capital Commons Parking Garage it will create much needed revenues for the city’s struggling parking fund; in the short-term the city’s general fund will benefit through the receipt of development permitting revenues, building permit fees, impact fees; it is the city’s sincere hope that the project will heighten development interest in other nearby properties.
Councilor St. Hilaire asked if are their any deed restrictions that prohibit that parking lot on Theatre Street from competing against the Capital Commons Parking Garage or any other garage that could be built if the building gets sold to another entity. Mr. Walsh responded that there is not a non-compete clause within the agreement concerning that particular parking lot that will be built at that property.
Councilor Lemieux asked in there are any down sides to the project. Mr. Walsh responded that there are no glaring down sides that he can think of at this point in time.
Referencing RSA 79-E, Councilor Blanchard noted that as she recalled it was especially geared to owners of old buildings and the incentive to renovate and inquired whether there is any interest from downtown landlords to do this. Mr. Walsh explained that there have been two uses of 79-E in Penacook to encourage some redevelopment there. He added that Main Street Concord with Main Street Concord’s Economic Development Committee along with city staff has been talking to property owners about using this tool to help create market rate housing at some properties in downtown.
Referencing the out clauses, Councilor Nyhan questioned at what point is the city assured that this project goes forward. Mr. Walsh responded that this will occur after three things happen: Mr. Duprey has to go through the city’s and state’s permitting process and secure the development permits he needs and find out if any conditions placed upon the project are fatal or not; following these he will be moving towards finalizing tenancy agreements; closing on his financing. Mr. Walsh noted that he suspects that most of these will not occur until after the first of the coming year. He added that the city is not going to be conveying or selling the Theatre Street property to him until these items happen along with some other conditions.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Five Minute Public Testimony
Jim Baer, Concord resident, indicated that the rendition on the wall is very different to what was presented in the Concord Monitor several weeks ago and that in both cases he doesn’t think that this particular building is any great architectural addition to the city. He noted that he feels that the city’s downtown is a gem and the city has managed to retain buildings that have interest and architectural integrity and over the years some have been destroyed due to fire or being demolished and feels that Council has made some terrible errors in the past. He asked Council that when the permitting process continues that Mr. Duprey is asked to do something a bit better aesthetically and a tribute to the citizens of Concord now and in the future.
Steve Duprey in response to Councilor St. Hilaire’s previous question about whether the expanded Theatre Street parking lot could ever compete with the Capital Commons Parking Garage indicated that there is a provision contained within the development agreement which indicates that it may only be used to serve this building. He noted that this means that neither him nor any future owner could ever offer those spaces to any other property owner in the neighborhood.
Councilor Keach asked what the assessed value of the sliver that runs southerly. Mr. Duprey responded that he believes that it is currently $410,000 in the city appraisal but he will have to pay to have it currently appraised with some of the restrictions that are being placed on it which likely would reduce the vale.
Councilor Nyhan asked Mr. Duprey to comment on the aesthetics of the building. Mr. Duprey explained that they first had a very modern design because if reading about downtown designs, the last thing you want to have on a linear Main Street, which is what Concord has, is a monolithic 18th or 19th century mercantile building because then the Main Street all looks the same. He added that at the same time they didn’t want to be as modern as Capital Commons. Mr. Duprey explained that they took the first cut of designs to the Design Review Committee and they had indicated that they didn’t want to see anything modern at all. He added that he would be happy to receive any suggestions explaining that they will be before the Design Review Committee next month.
Roy Schweiker, Concord resident, in regards to the parking lot noted that he feels that the agreement should include that while Mr. Duprey has the option to not buy it if the price comes in too high the city should have the option to not sell it if it comes in too low. He further noted that he feels that it is wrong for the city to suggest that any private organization give money as part of a development agreement. Mr. Schweiker also noted his concern with giving Mr. Duprey the spaces in the parking garage and more concerned about locking the price in for twenty years for the same rent. Lastly, referencing RSA 79-E, he indicated that this is for projects that are of a particular benefit of the city and noted that he is not sure whether this project is a particular benefit to the city.
Jessica Eshleman, Mainstreet Concord Inc. Executive Director, spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors in support proposed development agreement between the City of Concord and Duprey Acquisitions LLC. She noted that they support the agreement because it stands to fortify the city’s ongoing downtown revitalization efforts in a number of ways. These projects will aid in stimulating the local economy; will help to augment the growth of the creative economy; the new buildings and off-site improvements to be made by the developer will significantly enhance a major gateway to the downtown; vastly expand the city’s tax base. Lastly, she noted that they support the project and the agreement because it also supports goals put forth in a number of city master plans.
Three Minute Public Testimony
Roy Schweiker, Concord resident, noted that whenever there is a project such as this you have to consider not only what is being gained but also what is being lost. He indicated that while Mr. Duprey is committed to try and find new homes for the businesses he’s displaced but sometimes this is easier than others and sometimes not as good as one thinks. He gave examples of businesses that were formerly displaced.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
September 14, 2009 Public Hearing Action
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved to substitute the revised ordinance submitted. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes. Councilor McClure moved approval of the revised ordinance. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux read from an email that he had sent to City Engineer Ed Roberge: “kudos on the proposed ordinance change regarding work in our streets. You are always looking out for Concord’s best interest.” He noted that finally the city is going to recover some of the costs that have been endured for years from utilities cutting up the streets and not restoring them properly. He indicated that he feels that this is a good ordinance and supports the approval of it.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
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 with no dissenting votes.
Action:
Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion
was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley asked that Chief Barry bring back a message to Lieutenant Taylor that his efforts are very much appreciated.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Keach stated that as a Council they look at different projects in the context of how they are presented and how that is going to help either open space for parks, barns, or commercial space and this is an example of how this could really be a stimulus for that area. He indicated that he is in favor of this project and hopes that Council votes in favor of it.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
Reports
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved to table this item. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that this issue in regards to signage has been before Council several times and feels that it is appropriate to have one of the appropriate groups that is already reviewing zoning changes and zoning ordinances review the issue, come back with some guidelines and present them to the Council.
Mayor Bouley noted his support of the tabling motion. He indicated that this fall they will be looking at what to do with zoning changes. He explained that EDAC has been looking at, reviewing and are close to making some recommendations. He stated that he has met with 20/20 and they have offered to put up some money to set up a forum so that members of the public could be invited to offer input. He noted that he feels that this would be appropriate, since it is within the zoning ordinance, if someone wishes to talk about this item they could do so at that time. He added that from this, Carlos Baia, Deputy City Manager-Development, would consolidate some of the comments and bring them to Council.
Councilor Keach inquired as to the length of time of this process. Mayor Bouley responded that it would be approximately two months.
The motion to table passed with no dissenting votes.
Unfinished Business
49. Status report from the Police Department - Parking Manager regarding enforcement, snow removal, and towing for the downtown overnight parking area. (7-9, 7Sus4) (Action on this item tabled for one month at the August 10, 2009 City Council meeting, pending further review by the Parking Committee)
Action: This item was not taken off the table.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor Stetson asked whether the Council agendas could be printed on both sides of the paper.
City Manager Tom Aspell asked that Council take a vote on this request. Mayor Bouley inquired whether there would be a cost savings. City Clerk Janice Bonenfant responded that she did not believe there was a cost savings because the outside printer charges per page given to them but that it would save paper.
Councilor Stetson moved to have the Council agendas printed on both sides of the paper. The motion was duly seconded. Councilor Stetson clarified that they be on both sides to the extent possible because one item would not be printed on the back of another item. The motion passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Keach acknowledged the work that the Police Department did when a young girl on Warren Street called 911 when an intruder broke into her house.
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 27, 30, 31 and 36 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
Action: Councilor Blanchard noted that everything that she has heard on television and contained within the report are precautions not to spread the flu but what she finds missing is telling people how to prevent getting sick by eating a healthy diet and boosting their immune system.
Councilor Stetson moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Coen noted that he finds this incredibly important as a financial manager for the city going forward. He asked for a brief synopsis from staff on it. Jim Howard, Deputy City Manager-Finance, recalled that over the last several years the city has been working to address the liability that arises from another post employment benefits. He explained that this is a project that was initiated under government accounting standards board, statement #45 and that the city finds itself at a point where the requirement for implementation of this is going to affect the city’s fiscal 2009 financial statement. He noted that the city will be disclosing this liability for the first time in the comprehensive annual financial report. Mr. Howard indicated that they have been working on this for some time and began to explore this liability in 2005 and 2006 well before the requirement became effective to understand it and begin to take some action to try to reduce it. He indicated that the initial analysis on an actuarial study that was done on this identified a $60 million liability requiring a $6 million annual required contribution in order to fund this liability. He explained that the analysis led the city to look at what was the cause of this and what can be done to first reduce the liability and some actions taken by the City Administration with the support of the City Council in connection with the fiscal 2009 budget allowed the city to reduce this liability by nearly one-half down to $32 million. He added that the reality is that it is not likely that the city is going to be able to eliminate this liability without significant cost to the city potentially in litigation and a dramatic impact on a number of both current employees who are eligible for this benefit when they retire as well as the number of retirees. In connection with the bond sale, he explained that the matter having moved from simply one of planning and investigation to now full disclosure of the rating agencies are questioning what steps are being taken to address this realizing that this is something that affects communities throughout the country and many of them are in far worse condition than the city. Mr. Howard stated that the city finds itself at a point where they need to consider taking some steps to begin to fund this liability in combination with continued efforts at reducing it and understanding it and getting participation from all those who are involved in it. He explained that item 30 is a resolution that allows the transfer some unspent funds from the 2009 budget that were raised for the purposes of paying for principal and interest on borrowed debt explaining that the city did not issue debt during fiscal 2009. He explained that what is being proposed is to take $300,000 of that savings and direct it to another long-term liability adding that there are other items that are of far lesser import in this resolution. Referencing item 31, Mr. Howard explained that this is the creation of the trust document that would receive the funds for this purpose. He added that one thing to understand about this particular document and this particular trust is this trust is a revocable trust established by Council and can be dissolved by City Council. He explained that what it does is that it begins the process of being able to put money away, earn interest, and help reduce the liability. He indicated that in order to gain the full advantage of putting this money away, is that they are waiting for the state to sign a bill allowing them to create an irrevocable trust for the same purpose and once this authorization is received from a legal stand point the money would be transferred into that trust and they will be able to receive credit for a higher return on investment which will reduce the liability associated with this obligation. Together these two documents puts the city in the position to begin to fund this requirement which is one leg of the effort to be able to get control over it.
Referencing the discussion portion of the report, Councilor Blanchard asked why the city was coming up short on Phase Two of the Fisherville Road project. City Manager Aspell responded that bids had come in too high.
Councilor McClure asked whether, if the legislature doesn’t pass the bill or Council decides to keep it in a revocable trust, the city would still derive benefit as far as the rating agencies are concerned. Mr. Howard responded that the city would still be able to get credit for putting it in a trust and beginning to fund the liability. He added that they would see some difference in the strength of the commitment behind where the funds are placed.
Councilor Patten indicated that he would not like to see Keach Park funds taken out to fund Memorial Field.
Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the resolution. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Bouchard moved to remove item #2A the Keach Park transfer to Memorial Field from the final report. Her motion was duly seconded. Following Council discussion Councilor Bouchard withdrew her motion. Councilor Nyhan’s motion to approve the resolution passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Stetson did not participate in the discussion and did not vote citing Rule 6A.
31. Resolution establishing a trust under RSA 31:19 for other post employment benefits (OPEB Trust); together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (Pulled from consent by Councilors Coen, Stetson and Blanchard)
Action: Councilor McClure wanted to ensure that it is clear from this motion that it is a revocable trust. Mr. Aspell responded that to start with it is. Councilor McClure clarified whether staff would come back to Council if establishing an irrevocable trust. Mr. Howard responded that the authority for an irrevocable trust would be a separate RSA so staff would have to come back to Council.
Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Stetson did not participate in the discussion and did not vote citing Rule 6A.
Action: Mayor Bouley indicated that this is a follow-up on the City Manager’s transmittal letter recalling that in May Council was presented with the budget and one of the items he asked Council to consider is what they would like to do and how they would like to move forth with the parking operations and parking structures. Referencing the language contained within the first paragraph, he read the charge of the membership. He added that he tried to identify and include a cross section of individuals. He indicated that this is an ad-hoc committee and will report back by December with the goals being that whatever the recommendations are the will be able to be used for budget preparation for next fiscal year.
Councilor Stetson moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Consideration of Suspense Items
Councilor McClure moved to take up suspense items not previously advertised. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
9 Sus1 Street closure request for the Merrimack Valley High School Homecoming Parade to be held on Thursday, September 24, 2009 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Allen Street, Village Street, East Street, and Community Drive.
Action: Councilor Blanchard moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
9 Sus2 Referral to Community
Development – Code Administration
Communication from the residents of Community Drive, Penacook, NH
regarding the residents of 84 Community Drive, Penacook, NH.
Action: Councilor Shurtleff moved to refer this item to Community Development – Code Administration. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor McClure moved to take item 30 off the table. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Mr. Howard explained that there was an appropriation in 2008 that hadn’t been fully funded through bond authorization and with that opened unfunded bond, they were removing it to finish project 58 which was for lighting improvements at Doane Diamond. He explained that what they would have to do is go to the bond market for those dollars instead of using money left over from the Keach Park project.
Councilor Bouchard withdrew her amendment and moved to approve item 30. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Stetson did not participate in the discussion and did not vote citing Rule 6A.
Adjournment
The time being 9:25 p.m., Councilor Stetson moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk