|
City Council
Meeting
Minutes
August 9, 2010
Non public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss
contract negotiations, Concord TV followed by non public meeting with counsel
pursuant to RSA 91-A:2(b) to be held after the City Council meeting.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1. Mayor Bouley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. No clergy was present for invocation
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Roll Call. Councilors Bennett, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, DelloIaocono, Grady, Keach, Nyhan, Patten, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner were present. Councilors McClure and St. Hilaire were excused.
5. Approval of the July 12, 2010 meeting minutes.
Action: Councilor Grady moved approval of the July 12, 2010 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
6. Mayor Bouley presented a proclamation to Leslie Ludtke, on behalf of the NH Cycling Club, for the 30th Annual Concord Criterium Bicycle Race
7. Agenda overview by the Mayor.
- Consent Agenda Items –
Note: Items listed as pulled from the consent agenda will be discussed at the end of the meeting following unfinished business.
Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the consent agenda, as amended, with items 22 and 29 moved to the end of the agenda for discussion. The motion was duly seconded. The consent agenda, as amended, passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to General Services
8. Communication from Margaret Barry requesting that City Council address annual water quality issues that arise during the summer months.
Items Tabled for an September 13, 2010 Public Hearing
9. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 35, Classification and Compensation Plan, Schedule D of Article 35-2, Class Specification Index, by adding a System Administrator II position; together with report from the Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations.
10. Resolution appropriating the sum of $39,788 in Edward F. Byrne grant program funds from the State of New Hampshire Department of Justice for the replacement of a Police Officer assigned to the New Hampshire Drug Task Force; together with report from the Police Department.
11. Resolution appropriating the sum of $65,000 including the authorization for the issuance of bonds and notes in the amount of $65,000 for surface preparation and re-coating of metal structures on two clarifiers at the Hall Street Wastewater Treatment Plant. CIP# 104; together with report from General Services.
12. Resolution changing the purpose of a portion of a previously issued wastewater bond, closing a capital project account and transferring remaining funds to fuel island construction, CIP #323; together with report from General Services.
From the City Manager
13. Positive Citizen Comments.
14. Council meeting date calendar.
Consent Reports
15. Monthly Appropriation Transfer Report: July 2010.
16. Report from General Services in response to a communication from Robert Baker suggesting the City of Concord investigate the possibility of using “Big Belly” solar trash compactors at local parks. (4-11)
17.
Supplemental report from General Services in response to a communication from
Mary Gile inquiring as to what the City of Concord is doing to protect
residents, particularly children, from potentially harmful chemicals at city
parks and fields. (3-7) (4-41) (Re-referred back to General Services at
the April 12, 2010 City Council meeting)
18.
Report from the City Solicitor in response to suggested language from
Alexander Lee, Project Laundry List, requesting consideration be given to
amending the Code of Ordinances relating to the drying of clothes through the
use of clotheslines within city limits. (6-12)
19. Quarterly Land Use change Tax Status report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments.
20. Annual Report on Leased Parking Spaces – in accordance with Ordinance No., 2232, passed August 11, 1997.
21. Semi-Annual Report of Contracted Solid Waste and Recycling Services.
22. Report from the Legal Department in response to a communication from Gail Williams, Penacook School Karate, requesting permission for their After School Program to paint a mural on city property, specifically the underpass on Storrs Street where Loudon Road crosses overhead. (7-9) (Pulled from consent by Councilor DelloIacono)
Action: This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
23. Report from the Police Department in response to a street closure request for a Run/Walk to be held in memory of Sue Ann Martin on October 10, 2010. (7-36)
24. Status report from the City Engineer on the Rockingham Street Sidewalk Project, CIP #17.
25. Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Library Director requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $134.16 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.
26. Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Police Department requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $500 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.
27. Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Police Department requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $500 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.
28. Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Police Department requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.
29. Report from the Deputy City Manager-Finance and the Fire Chief on Emergency Medical Services Revenue. (Pulled from consent by Councilor Coen)
Action: This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Consent Resolutions
30.
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application to the National
Association of Drug Diversion Investigator’s Law Enforcement Grant Program for
funding to be applied towards prescription drug diversion investigations;
together with report from the Police Department.
Consent Communications
31. Street closure request for a block party to be held on Saturday, September 4th from noon to 10:00 p.m.
**End of Consent Agenda**
32. August 9, 2010 Public Hearings
A. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-1, Stopping, Standing and Parking, West Washington Street; together with report from the Parking Committee. (7-10)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Bouley Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
B. Resolution appropriating the sum of $170,000 including the authorization for the issuance of bonds and notes in the amount of $170,000 for ambulance replacement, CIP #4; together with report from the Deputy Fire Chief. (7-11) (Revised resolution; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance submitted)
Action: Councilor Shurtleff moved to substitute the revised resolution with the one that was previously submitted. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
C. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 12, Dogs; together with report from the Legal Department in response to a communication from Councilor Shurtleff requesting consideration be given to amending the Code of Ordinances to prohibit dogs in municipal cemeteries as well as implementing fines and penalties for those that do so. (6-11) (7-12)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the proposed ordinance is applicable only to city cemeteries and includes a reference by definition to various types of helper dogs defined in RSA 167-D.
Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
D. Resolution accepting and appropriating the sum of $39,643 in unmatched grant funds from the United States Department of Justice, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, funds designated for law enforcement related programs; together with report from the Police Department. (7-13)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the grant will be $34,643 made available to the city and $5,000 made available to the Merrimack County Sheriff’s Department.
Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
August 9, 2010 Public Hearing Action
33. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-1, Stopping, Standing and Parking, West Washington Street; together with report from the Parking Committee. (7-10)
Action: Councilor Bennett moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
34. Resolution appropriating the sum of $170,000 including the authorization for the issuance of bonds and notes in the amount of $170,000 for ambulance replacement, CIP #4; together with report from the Deputy Fire Chief. (7-11) (Revised resolution; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance submitted)
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the revised resolution. The motion was duly seconded and passed 13 to 0 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, DelloIacono, Grady, Keach, Nyhan, Patten, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner voting yes.
35. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 12, Dogs; together with report from the Legal Department in response to a communication from Councilor Shurtleff requesting consideration be given to amending the Code of Ordinances to prohibit dogs in municipal cemeteries as well as implementing fines and penalties for those that do so. (6-11) (7-12)
Action: Councilor Shurtleff moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Shurtleff stated that last spring he had visited the North Cemetery and was disheartened to see the amount of dog waste in the cemetery. He indicated that he did nothing about it until he read the article in the Concord Monitor by Mike Pride which is what prompted him to come up with this proposed ordinance. He noted that there are a lot of people that use the cemeteries, that bring their dogs and are responsible but sadly there is a small minority that just doesn’t seem to care. Councilor Shurtleff stated that the city has an outstanding Police Department but their duties and responsibilities are so great that they do not have time to police the cemeteries which was one of the reasons he brought forth this ordinance. He stated that cemeteries are the last resting place of former citizens and of loved ones and it shows disrespect to have people use them as dog parks.
Councilor Werner inquired as to the situation now in terms of signage discouraging such behavior. Councilor Shurtleff responded that, to the best of his knowledge, there isn’t any signage that he has noticed.
Councilor Keach indicated that initially he was opposed to this ordinance but feels that Councilor Shurtleff’s argument is very compelling and that he is also reminded of ample open space in the city for dogs and recreation. He added that he does not feel that this causes undo hardship to the citizens and is in support of this proposed ordinance.
Councilor Coen asked how the ordinances regarding dog on leashes is currently being supervised or police. He questioned whose responsibility it was. Mr. Aspell responded that it is the Police Department’s responsibility. Police Chief Barry explained that the patrol officers, as part of their duties, are responsible for enforcing all the dog regulations. He indicated that complaints about dogs in cemeteries come in occasionally and is not frequent by any means and is usually after the fact. Chief Barry stated that it is not a very high priority item for the department and doesn’t believe they have issued a ticket or an ordinance violation summons for improperly disposing animal waste in at least ten years.
Referencing this proposed ordinance being adopted, Mayor Bouley asked whether it would change the Police Department’s behavior. Chief Barry responded no and added that responsible dog owners won’t take their dogs in cemeteries if this is passed and feels that the people that are ignoring the dog waste ordinance will ignore the dogs in the cemetery ordinance as well.
Councilor Stetson asked whether it would be easier for officers to enforce this ordinance than the waste ordinance because all they have to do is see them in the cemetery and they can take action on that. Chief Barry responded that it would be easier.
Councilor Bennett pointed out that he has observed many dog owners that carry bags to pick up dog waste but do not use them.
Councilor Werner wondered, given the reality of resources and what is presumed that the behavior to be, whether strong warning signs might be an interim step and to see if this would make a difference.
Councilor Patten inquired as to how often the officers check the different cemeteries. Chief Barry replied that it depends on the cemetery; Blossom Hill gets checked quite frequently because of issues with people who park in the back to access the quarries and the cemetery in the north end by the Walker School is very difficult because it is not a frequented area by the officers to drive through. Councilor Patten questioned whether the cemeteries are open in the winter. Mr. Aspell responded yes adding that there are thirteen public cemeteries that the city maintains.
Referencing this proposed ordinance being passed, Councilor Coen asked whether it would include signage at each cemetery entrance. Mr. Aspell responded that staff may have to bring back an appropriation item to Council for this because there are multiple entrances into cemeteries which would be a considerable cost. Referencing the city parks, Councilor Coen inquired whether there is signage about the dog ordinances in the entrances. Mr. Aspell replied that he believes that there are some.
Councilor Bouchard asked whether Councilor Shurtleff had considered the unintended consequences of someone perhaps bringing their pet with them for comfort to visit a loved one in the cemetery. Councilor Shurtleff stated that he did and to this he would leave it to the officers’ discretion leaving it up to them to do what they feel is appropriate.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that what he sees this ordinance doing is providing the city’s police officers with another tool for enforcement.
Mayor Bouley asked that if the city has an ordinance on the books that prohibit dog in cemeteries and an officer runs across a situation in which there is a dog in the cemetery, a clear violation of the City of Concord, is it up to the officer to enforce this or not. Chief Barry responded yes explaining that the officer has discretion not to issue a summons. He added that this is similar to exceeding the speed limit. Chief Barry noted that he would expect his officers to use a great degree of judgment. Mayor Bouley noted that Councilor Shurtleff presents a very compelling argument and is offended by the fact that some people do use the cemetery as a dog park. He added that he was approached by a constituent who takes care of his family’s gravesites and that he does bring a family dog that does provide comfort. Mayor Bouley indicated that this gentleman was very upset that he could no longer bring the dog to the cemetery. He noted that he would vote yes considering that the Chief is telling Council that, in circumstances, the citizens who are truly there to care for their family or friends gravesites and who bring their dogs on a leash, are not going to be receiving a ticket. Chief Barry indicated that he foresees a situation where sometime there will be a difference of opinion between one of the officers and a dog owner. He stated that if Council chooses to pass this ordinance, he will certainly emphasize the point that discretion is very important in this matter.
City Manager Aspell noted that this is cutting it very fine noting that there is an ordinance in place which says that in cemeteries a dog must be on a leash and now what is being said is that the dog must be on a leash but if you are going to visit a grave of a loved one, that is okay versus you are not going to visit a loved one, you are running through on the pathway with your dog on a leash is not soiling the cemetery, that would produce a fine.
Councilor Coen indicated that he was comfortable with this ordinance but during this discussion, the problem is that if there is an error it will be a very emotional situation. He pointed out that there is an ordinance already in place to have a dog on a leash and to pick up after your dog. He stated that the problem is that these two ordinances are not being enforced and are just adding another layer. He noted that if the ordinances that are currently in place were enforced or that there was a minimum of signage, that it would accomplish the same thing and not have the potential of having people upset.
Councilor Bennett concurred with Councilor Coen. He reiterated that there are two ordinances in place; one to pick up dog waste and one to keep your dog on a leash at all times. He stated that he feels that the consequences of this proposed ordinance is too great and does not support it.
Councilor Nyhan indicated that he has the utmost faith that the city’s police officers can exercise discretion. He noted that he is going to support this proposed ordinance because he feels that it is another tool to be able to use.
Councilor Bouchard disagreed stating that she does not feel that this is about discretion because the law will be the law. She noted that she feels that this is a very difficult situation.
Councilor Blanchard asked how many instances would somebody feel it necessary to bring their dog to the cemetery to visit a family grave.
Mayor Bouley noted that it may not happen very often but it only has to happen one time to frustrate somebody. He stated that he is trying to find a balance and to make sure that Council respects the rights of those individuals who are trying to care for their gravesites and loved ones. He indicated that there are individuals in the community that are abusing the privileges of using the cemeteries and use them inappropriately as dog parks. The Mayor stated that he was nervous that they may be putting something in place that may have great harm to a few folks but on the other hand, may be good for many.
There being no further Council discussion, Councilor Shurtleff’s motion to approve passed on a voice vote.
36. Resolution accepting and appropriating the sum of $39,643 in unmatched grant funds from the United States Department of Justice, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, funds designated for law enforcement related programs; together with report from the Police Department. (7-13)
Action: Councilor Stetson moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Referencing the $5,000 to the county, Councilor Blanchard questioned whether there were any stipulations about how that would be used. Police Chief Barry responded that when they completed the application the federal government requested that they identify certain program areas and materials that the money would be used for to make sure that they fall within the perimeters of the overall program. He indicated that the county would have identified items at that point just like the city did.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
Reports
37. Report from the Traffic Engineer regarding the neighborhood traffic impacts of the proposed Kimball School expansion.
Action: City Engineer Ed Roberge summarized details contained within the staff report. He noted that the existing Kimball School will be combined to create a Kimball Walker School and in this the school district is estimating that the population will grow from mid 200’s to approximately 535 students. He explained that the school district hired VHB, a traffic consultant engineer, to summarize what the parking and traffic impacts will be. He noted that staff looked at the VHB study as well as the information provided by the school district explaining that this follows a request from Concord 2020 for staff to look at specific issues. One of the specific issues included looking at a detailed analysis of the Rumford Street and Pleasant Street intersection for right turn only traffic out of that driveway. He stated that what is one of the new aspects in the site design is the driveway through the site where there isn’t one today at the existing school site. He indicated that this driveway will be exiting traffic in a one way direction onto Pleasant Street noting that the analysis report really focused on what are the impacts of those right turn only and would be prohibiting that left turn out of that driveway because the morning peak hour would create a left turn delay and fail that intersection. Mr. Roberge explained that Concord 2020 had requested that staff really focus in on this and what are the impacts to the rest of the neighborhood. He noted that while the VHB study suggested that the school expansion would not significantly degrade the traffic operations over the course of the peak hours, staff expressed concern that the nature of the school itself is within that peak hour but it is in short bursts in that 15 to 20 minute timeframe. He noted that while they would agree somewhat to the nature that the impacts to the neighborhood with the additional traffic demand with a larger population at the school would not diminish it throughout that entire peak hour, staff recognized that there would likely be significant changes in that 15 to 20 timeframe that they wanted to caution City Council about. Mr. Roberge indicated that staff agreed on that left turn deficiency out of the site and that was a critical movement that if this failed, with the traffic as they anticipate now, it would back up within the site and divert traffic along Spring Street and potentially Rumford Street and other parts of the neighborhood. He stated that VHB also considered some additional controls through the process and some of these other items were not supported by city staff and felt some may have a detrimental effect to the neighborhood more so than what is there today. He noted that of greatest concern with the new school arrangement will be the issue of drop off and pick up particularly with those volumes of traffic that is expected with the school populations the way they are proposed. He highlighted this information and options contained within the report and indicated that staff expects to work with the school district as well as their consultant engineer. In summary, Mr. Roberge explained that there will be some impact with a school that is going to grow double in size at this particular location and while there are some inherent improvements that are included, there will be peak hour impacts in that 15 to 20 minute timeframe as there is today. He stressed the importance of being open and free thinking with the school district.
Councilor Bennett inquired as to how many cars can queue up in that driveway. Traffic Engineer Rob Mack responded about a dozen.
Councilor Blanchard asked what the City Council can do about this whether they like it or not.
Mayor Bouley indicated that often times Council hears about traffic neighborhood issues and asked what staff anticipates they will be recommending for changes to the city’s existing streets, signage, parking and speeds. Mr. Roberge responded that it starts with a strong relationship with the school district and stressing that openness and cooperation between the two functions in terms of trying to find the right solutions. He noted that there are three schools that are consolidating together and that each one will have unique impact at each location. He indicated that to assess the full impact today on just a two dimensional plan sheet is difficult and they can predict what is going to happen but that they just need to keep an open mind and adjust as the changes occur. Mayor Bouley noted that he is all for the openness and commended staff for their participation. He asked whether he will be receiving calls from residents who live in the south end in regards to a lot of new traffic being dumped into those neighborhoods. He asked what Council specifically needs to do to address this, questioning whether these will be issues and whether any action will need to be taken. Mr. Roberge responded that there will be issues and what they are trying to lay out now is that there will be increases in traffic through the Conant Drive neighborhood based on the reorientation of the Conant School District; the growth of traffic on South Curtisville Road, Portsmouth Street and East Side Drive because of three schools being combined into one; and on this it is combining two schools into one in a dense urban downtown district. He stated that what is unfortunate is that Council and Engineering receive the first calls when there are traffic issues on the street and they need to be able to respond to that and to make decisions for changes.
Councilor Blanchard questioned whether the school district is willing to change any of their plans to accommodate and alleviate the problems that they are creating. Mr. Roberge responded that the city is responsible for the maintenance of the right of way and what happens on school property is the school district’s issue. He noted that with impact they will need to participate or accept the consequence of potential change in the future. Since some of the sites are tight, it is going to take managing the traffic in a responsible manner as possible.
Councilor Bennett asked staff what is really going to happen here. Mr. Roberge responded that staff believes, in looking at the analysis, that there will be a lot of cars picking up. He stated that drop off will be a little more managed because it is usually a quick drop off and parents are not staying around but during pick up sometimes parents get out of the cars and socialize. He indicated that the school district is going to really need to control this and try to limit how much queuing vehicles are there and what time they get there. He pointed out that the site driveway will help the process but the capacity is a dozen cars so if there are 32 to 50 cars that are going to be showing up on a daily basis, it will impact North Spring Street. He stated that controlling this so that it doesn’t migrate to other streets is going to be the school districts responsibility in teaching parents how to responsibly pick up their student.
Councilor Keach indicated that North Spring Street is currently shut down during the pick up times and inquired whether this would no longer occur. Mr. Roberge responded that he suspects that this will continue in some sort of fashion. Referencing the bus queue on the west side of the building, Councilor Keach questioned whether this would alleviate some of the congestion on the North Spring Street side. Mr. Roberge responded that the intent is to separate vehicles from buses and to put all the buses on Rumford Street and leave the vehicles on Spring Street. He noted that he does not see that as alleviating but sees this in regards to through trips that are coming along Rumford Street in which won’t be impeded by buses that would have been in the travel lane before.
Mayor Bouley asked, as they go forth with the traffic analysis, whether staff considers emergency vehicles and emergency routes particularly on that Pleasant Street corridor. Mr. Roberge responded that, through the planning process, the Fire Department and Police Department are actively involved. Deputy Chief Tim McGinley noted that they have been working with the school district and other city staff during this collaborative effort but their focus is primarily in the construction and the features inside the building to keep the kids safe and outside during an emergency. He stated that secondary they do take an aggressive look at access to the buildings and maintaining the emergency access routes. He indicated that while he feels there will be impact particularly at the Kimball School he does not believe that they rise to any level that they don’t experience almost on a daily basis.
Councilor Shurtleff moved acceptance of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
38. Report from Community Development in response to a report from the Heritage Commission in response to a communication from Councilor Shurtleff requesting East Street, located in the village of Penacook, be renamed Canal Street. (3-9) (5-25) (Report referred to Community Development at the May 10, 2010 City Council meeting)
Action: Carlos Baia, Deputy City Manager-Development, explained that Councilor Shurtleff had made a request to change the name of East Street to Canal Street to reflect its history of the Penacook Village and staff is going through the process of trying to make this happen. He noted that in doing that, it’s been the city’s custom to send letters to the affected property owners to indicate whether they were in favor of this potential change. He indicated that staff only received two responses back that expressed some concern about changing the name of the street. He stated at this point staff is requesting some direction as to whether Council would like to move forward to a public hearing.
Councilor Shurtleff moved to set this item for a public hearing. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley questioned whether this would be for next month. City Manager Tom Aspell asked what particular time that Council would like recognizing the summer and availability of people. Mayor Bouley asked whether some of the properties are apartments. Mr. Baia indicated that to be correct. Mayor Bouley asked if staff notify the tenants as well as the landlords. Mr. Baia responded that he believes that they notify the landlords but since there is a limited amount of property they could look at notifying the tenants as well. Mr. Aspell added that staff can’t guarantee that they have a list of who all the tenants are but will try.
Councilor Nyhan asked how this proposed name change affects any outstanding contracts or any sort of legal work noting that he assumes that would affect a lot of paperwork that is already in the system. He asked whether this could create delays for projects. Mr. Baia responded that it could potentially adding that the city is one of the property owners and has a significant amount of grant funds tied into the property there, the former tannery site, and ongoing grant obligations. He stated that if Council were to change the name midstream there may be some complications when it goes to whatever the funding source now with a different street name.
Mayor Bouley inquired as to the timeframe with this and when it is expected that those details would be completed. Mr. Baia responded that there is most likely still ongoing reporting for grants that would go beyond the next month for example. Mr. Aspell added that it could be several months so if Council decides to move forward, they could set the effective date at a time that it wouldn’t impact the grants otherwise they would have to go back and refile all that paperwork.
Councilor Coen asked when and why Canal Street was changed to East Street. Councilor Shurtleff provided the history of the street name change that occurred in the 1940’s. Councilor Coen questioned the reason why to change it back to Canal Street. Councilor Shurtleff responded that Penacook has a long and proud history of being part of the industrial revolution of the early 1840’s. He added at some point there was a negative connotation with anything to do with mills or factory buildings. He feels that in this day and age this is something that the people of Penacook should be proud of that heritage.
Mayor Bouley noted that he feels that it is a good idea to have a public hearing and to make sure all the tenants and property owners are informed. Referencing the city’s street name change years back, he pointed out that these can be very sensitive issues and shouldn’t be taken lightly. He indicated that it is important that staff come back with a date that does not affect the economic development in this area and would not want this to be jeopardized in any way.
Councilor Shurtleff’s motion to set this item for a public hearing passed with no dissenting votes.
Unfinished Business
39. Report from the Deputy City Manager - Community Development in response to a communication from Holly Carlson on behalf of Manchester Street businesses requesting City Council consider a zoning change to the existing sign ordinance. (4-10) (9-48) (10-39) (11-38) (12-40) (1-53) (2-47) (3-48) (4-61) (5-68) (6-53) (7-54) (Report tabled at the September 14, 2009 City Council meeting; supplemental report submitted to Council April 12, 2010; no action taken)
Action: This item remains on the table.
40. Resolution approving the acquisition of open space property northerly of Clarke Street, and authorizing the expenditure of up to $11,000 from the Conservation Fund for this purpose, as approved by the Conservation Commission; together with report from the Conservation Commission. (5-10) (6-54) (7-55) (Tabled setting this item for a public hearing at the May 10, 2010 City Council meeting)
Action: This item remains on the table.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to why it appears that things have come to a halt at the tannery site in Penacook. City Manager Aspell explained that all the work that has been done is the city’s work and others will be following behind. He stated that he would send her an update on the site.
Councilor Nyhan recognized the Police Department and Officer Joe Wright for putting together a successful National Night Out. He also recognized the Recreation Department for the input.
Councilor Patten also recognized the success of National Night Out. He reminded everyone about the upcoming River Jamboree to be held on August 14th.
Mayor Bouley reminded residents of the upcoming September 14, 2010 State Primary Election Day. He pointed out that Council voted last year that changed the polling hours to begin at 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and that there will no longer be any early am voting at the Audi.
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 22 and 29 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
22. Report from the Legal Department in response to a communication from Gail Williams, Penacook School Karate, requesting permission for their After School Program to paint a mural on city property, specifically the underpass on Storrs Street where Loudon Road crosses overhead. (7-9) (Pulled from consent by Councilor DelloIacono)
Action: Councilor DelloIacono noted that since he pulled this item, Councilor Shurtleff had advised him that there has been a compromise. Councilor Shurtleff explained that the mural will be done on 8 x 4 panels so that it will be movable. Councilor DelloIacono pointed out that the main issue here was with city property but some of the discussion points were in regards to safety hazards which could spill over to someone having a private building that they would like a mural on. He noted that he has a concern that Council is setting a precedent that all murals in Concord are banned and wanted to make it clear that just because Council is not approving this that at least he would be open to private buildings having murals on them.
Councilor Shurtleff indicated that he explained to Ms. Williams the concerns that the City Solicitor and that they had merit. He noted that they were very understanding and decided to paint the murals on 4 x 8 plywood which would allow them to be able to move them from place to place.
Councilor Coen asked whether they would be mounted on the underpass. Councilor Shurtleff responded no that they would be moved to different locations.
Councilor Stetson questioned whether this meant that it would not be on Storrs Street. Councilor Shurtleff indicated that to be correct.
Councilor Shurtleff moved acceptance of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
29. Report from the Deputy City Manager-Finance and the Fire Chief on Emergency Medical Services Revenue. (Pulled from consent by Councilor Coen)
Action: Councilor Coen referenced a portion of the staff report which read: “The Department also conducted a survey as part of its annual fee review for the current fiscal year. The results indicated that the city was significantly below market. Based on these findings, ambulance transportation rates were increased for the four basic categories and charges for incidental treatments were eliminated.” Referencing this excerpt, he inquired as to when the review was done, how far significantly below the market they are, what type of impact will it have on the revenue since increasing the rates, when were the rates increased and what is looked for in the increase of revenue going forward. Fire Chief Dan Andrus explained that staff does a fee review each year as part of the city’s budget preparation process which is usually done in December in which they poll five different cities. He noted that they also looked at Rockingham Ambulance which was a major provider to the cities of Nashua and Manchester. He indicated that when they came up with the fee schedule they were 10 percent over Medicare; Rockingham was typically 25 percent of the urban rate and the city was 25 percent of a lower rural rate. He added that places such as Salem were 35 percent above the Medicare rate; Keene was 15 or 30 percent depending on whether one was a resident or non-resident. He explained that they established a new fee schedule taking the average of the six cities and plotting the city in the middle of this which puts the city at approximately $140 dollars above Medicare which continues to change and is really a moving target for municipalities that are tied to the Medicare schedule. Referencing the effect of this on bottom line revenue, Chief Andrus noted that after discussions with Mr. Howard and Mr. Lebrun they budgeted very conservatively for a level amount of revenue and as the report indicates, the city will be considered a participating provider with the insurance companies. This means that the city accepts what they pay them. He added that approximately 75 percent of revenue comes from three insurers: Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Medicare and Medicaid. Councilor Coen noted that the good news is that staff reviewed it and increased the fees because if this didn’t happen, then they may have been in much more of a negative situation with revenue.
Councilor Keach indicated that as he understands, EMS leaves the city approximately once a day for mutual aid and noted that he is curious whether these calls are handled the same way. He inquired whether the patients are billed or whether the surrounding communities are billed. Chief Andrus responded both depending on whether it’s a paramedic intercept explaining that the city budgets $42,000 a year for these. He explained that paramedic intercept services are billed to the community from which the call originates at $538 and for any other type of mutual aid call, the city picks up the revenue from that call in which typically revenue is approximately $400. Councilor Keach asked whether it would be feasible or as a matter of policy to bill the community and ensure 100 percent collection on those calls to let those communities worry about whether they collect or don’t collect from the patient. Chief Andrus responded that he is not sure whether they can treat that patient differently or that the city could bill the community back. He added that certainly the city has the ability to do so with its paramedic intercepts which are structured in policy but not sure if the city has the ability to do so for this. Councilor Keach added that he feels that this is something worth looking into because the city is effectively providing service to non-taxpayers and in his estimation it ought to be the responsibility of that community to either collect or not collect the fee.
Councilor Blanchard questioned whether the patient always end up with a portion that they have to pay or does the insurance pick the whole amount. Chief Andrus replied that a patient that is not insured, representing approximately 5 percent of the total patient base, would be responsible for the entire bill. Councilor Blanchard indicated that she is referring to individuals who have both Medicare and a supplemental insurance and questioned whether there would still, based on the city’s fees, be a portion that the patient would have to pay. Chief Andrus responded that the patient usually has co-pay in which they would pay a portion of that bill.
Councilor Coen moved acceptance of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Mayor Bouley recognized Elaine Kellerman in the audience. He stated that it is not Council practice. Ms. Kellerman indicated that she had asked the City Clerk about the possibility of getting a citizens referendum on the ballot in regards to the Kimball block. She noted that she received an answer from the City Solicitor and asked if Council knows if there is any way to get something on the ballot that has to do with a school district question. Mayor Bouley noted that he was not privy to the memo Ms. Kellerman received and suggested that she meet with the City Solicitor so that he can explain the answer she received.
Adjournment
The time being 8:35, Councilor Nyhan moved to enter into non public session in accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to discuss contract negotiations, Concord TV followed by non public meeting with counsel pursuant to RSA 91-A:2(b). Mayor Bouley stated for public record that any Councilor associated with Concord TV will not be participating in those contract negotiations in regards to Concord TV. He indicated that those Councilors will be leaving Council Chambers and will not be present. The motion to enter into non public session was duly seconded and passed 12 to 1 with Councilors Bennett, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, DelloIacono, Grady, Keach, Nyhan, Patten, Shurtleff and Werner voting yes. Councilor Stetson voted no.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle
Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk
|