| March 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes |
|
City Council Meeting
Minutes
March 8, 2010
Non-public session to discuss the City Manager's Annual Evaluation in
accordance with RSA 91-A: 3, II to be held at 6:00 p.m. prior to the Council
meeting.
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1. Mayor Bouley called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Invocation by Reverend Father Christian Tutor, All Saints Anglican Church.
3. Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Roll Call. Councilors Bennett, Blanchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Bouchard, Coen, DelloIacono, Grady, Keach, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner were present.
5. Approval of the February 8, 2010 meeting minutes.
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the February 8, 2010 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded. Councilor Blanchard referencing the second paragraph on page 8 pointed out that, in Mr. Roberge’s response, a comma needed to be inserted after the word “no” and before the word “explaining”. The minutes, as amended, were approved with no dissenting votes.
6. Agenda overview by the Mayor.
- Consent Agenda Items –
Action: Mayor Bouley asked that items 14 and 15 be removed to be discussed at the end of the agenda. Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the consent agenda, as amended. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to General Services
7. 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.
Referral to the Facilities Naming Committee
8. Communication from Councilor Patten requesting consideration of the installation of signage on Regional Drive as “Officer Michael Briggs Memorial Drive”.
Referral to Community Development
9. Communication from Councilor Shurtleff requesting East Street, located in the village of Penacook, be renamed Canal Street.
Referral to Recreation, General Services and the Recreation & Parks Advisory Committee (RPAC)
10. Communication from the Concord High School Softball Booster Club pledging dollars towards the replacement of the softball dugouts at Memorial Field.
Items Tabled for an April 12, 2010 Public Hearing
11. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 1, Government Organization, by amending Schedules I and II of Article 1-5, Fees, Fines and Penalties; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance.
12. Non-ordinance fees. (Corrected pages 47 through 49 submitted)
13. Resolution appropriating the sum of $1,586,000 and authorizing the issuance of bonds and notes for Route 3 Corridor (North) Improvements, CIP #35; together with a report from the City Engineer.
14. Resolution approving a Steam Cost Performance Agreement with Concord Power and Steam, LLC for a guaranteed steam cost payment; together with a report from the Deputy City Manager—Development.
Action: This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
15. Resolution approving an agreement for the payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for Concord Power and Steam, LLC, for the construction and operation of a renewable generation facility producing electricity and steam; together with a report from the Deputy City Manager--Development.
Action: This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
16. Resolution authorizing the expenditure of $350,000 and authorizing the issuance of $350,000 in bonds and notes for raw water metering and process improvements at the Hutchins Street Water Treatment Plant, CIP #88; together with report from the General Services Department.
17. Resolution authorizing the expenditure of $75,000 and authorizing the issuance of $75,000 in bonds and notes for the refurbishment of the chemical feed equipment at pump station #2, the Pembroke Well Field, CIP #345; together with report from the General Services Department.
From the City Manager
18. Positive Citizen Comments.
19. Council meeting date calendar.
Consent Reports
20. Monthly Appropriation Transfer Report: February 2010.
21. Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Recreation Director requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $500 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council. (Skate House Donations)
22. Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Library Director requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $95 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.
23. Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Fire Chief requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $788.92 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.
24. Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Fire Chief requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $500 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.
25. Report from the Legal Department in response to a communication from Joseph Haas requesting review of the current oaths of office signed by municipal officers. (2-8)
26. Report from the City Solicitor updating Council on the outcome of the legal case U.S. Cellular v. City of Concord, Planning Board.
27. Quarterly Status of Pending Court Cases report from the Legal Department.
28. Report from the Engineering Services Division regarding Langley Parkway post-construction transportation and noise assessments.
29. Report from the Fire Chief on the Community Emergency Response Team.
30. Report from the City Treasurer on January 2010 Bond Sale.
Consent Resolutions
31. Resolution adopting a cash management policy; together with report from the City Treasurer.
32. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application for a moose license plate conservation grant from the New Hampshire State Library to implement the preservation of the City of Concord City Clerk’s Historical Records; together with report from the Deputy City Clerk.
Consent Communications
33. Street closure request from Code Administration for Concord Market Days to be held July 15, 16 and 17, 2010
34. Street closure request for Concord Farmers Market to be held Saturday’s June 5, 2010 through October 30, 2010.
Appointments
**End of Consent Agenda**
35. March 8, 2010 Public Hearings
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. (1-22) (2-30J; 2-40) (Public hearings must be held in February and March 2010)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this is the second public hearing on this resolution.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
B. Resolution modifying the Elderly Exemption for the City of Concord pursuant to the provisions of RSA 72:27-a; together with report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments. (2Sus2)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the Tax Exemption Policy Committee has recommended amending the income limits for both the single and married applicants for elderly exemptions for fiscal year 2010. He noted that the increase would be 9.1 percent; increasing the current $29,000/single and $39,000/married amounts to $31,600/single and $42,500/married. He added that the asset levels do not change as the value within the neighborhoods have not been increasing. Mr. Aspell explained that there are no recommended changes for the blind, the veterans tax credit, the totally and permanently disabled veteran credit, and the widow of veteran killed during active duty.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
C. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-1, Stopping, Standing, and Parking; Section 18-1-6, Parking Prohibited at All Times in Designated Places, Schedule I; together with report from the Parking Committee in response to a communication from Victoria Avery, 21 Federal Street, requesting City Council consider no-parking on Federal Street. (1-12) (4-26) (2-12)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the Parking Committee agreed that placing “no parking” signs on Federal Street prohibiting parking would be appropriate in this situation given that the width of the street makes it difficult for vehicles to pass.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Public Testimony
Andrea Garneau, Federal Street resident, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
D. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 34, Personnel Rules and Regulations; Article 34-11, Leave, Section 34-11-1, Annual Leave; vacation severance packages for newly hired department heads; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (2-9)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the proposal in this change provides an option for the department heads to accept a higher rate of annual leave accumulation for the first ten years of employment in exchange for the lump sum benefit, which already exists, upon separation of employment after five years with the city.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
E. 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, proposed Pavement Marking and Signage Technician position; together with reports from the Acting Director of Personnel and Labor Relations and the General Services Director. (2-10)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
F. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 17, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 17-4, Operation of Motor Vehicles; Section 17-4-1, Stop Required Before Entering a Through Street; Schedule V; Stop Intersections, Schedule V, Yield Right of Way; together with report from Engineering. (2-11)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that these are housekeeping updates to the ordinance pursuant to change at intersection and traffic control as part of several intersection improvement projects that have been done recently as part of the capital improvement program.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
G. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code; Chapter 30, Boards and Commissions, Public Safety Board; together with report from the City Clerk. (2-13)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
H. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title IV, Zoning Code; Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance; together with report from the Planning Board. (2-14)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the intention is to adopt an amending ordinance for the flood hazard overlay district to the zoning ordinance incorporating the updated flood insurance maps. He indicated that the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend these changes. He added that FEMA has notified the city that it has until April 19th to adopt these changes otherwise there will be no flood insurance for people in town.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
March 8, 2010 Public Hearing Action
36. 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. (1-22) (2-30J; 2-40) (Public hearings must be held in February and March 2010)
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
37. Resolution modifying the Elderly Exemption for the City of Concord pursuant to the provisions of RSA 72:27-a; together with report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments. (2Sus2)
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
38. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-1, Stopping, Standing, and Parking; Section 18-1-6, Parking Prohibited at All Times in Designated Places, Schedule I; together with report from the Parking Committee in response to a communication from Victoria Avery, 21 Federal Street, requesting City Council consider no-parking on Federal Street. (1-12) (4-26) (2-12)
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
39. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 34, Personnel Rules and Regulations; Article 34-11, Leave, Section 34-11-1, Annual Leave; vacation severance packages for newly hired department heads; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (2-9)
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
40. 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, proposed Pavement Marking and Signage Technician position; together with reports from the Acting Director of Personnel and Labor Relations and the General Services Director. (2-10)
Action: Councilor Bouchard moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
41. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 17, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 17-4, Operation of Motor Vehicles; Section 17-4-1, Stop Required Before Entering a Through Street; Schedule V; Stop Intersections, Schedule V, Yield Right of Way; together with report from Engineering. (2-11)
Action: Councilor Blanchard moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
42. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code; Chapter 30, Boards and Commissions, Public Safety Board; together with report from the City Clerk. (2-13)
Action: Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
43. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title IV, Zoning Code; Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance; together with report from the Planning Board. (2-14)
Action: Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Reports
44. Report from the Mayor's Ad-Hoc Parking Study Committee recommending changes to the City's Parking Fund.
Action: Mayor Bouley thanked and commended members of the committee: Councilor Nyhan, Councilor Bennett, Councilor Werner, Jeff Bart, Jim Corrigan, Will Delker, John Hoyt and Charlie Russell.
Carlos Baia, Deputy City Manager-Development, explained that the committee was tasked with making the parking fund healthy and began meeting at the end of September. He summarized each of the options contained within the discussion part of the report. 1. Sale of Parking Garages - Mr. Baia indicated that one of the items they ran across, as a committee, was the notion that in real estate, value to an asset is usually determined by how many limitations one may have. In other words, the more limitations or encumbrances on an asset, the lower the value will go. He noted that, as the committee delved into this, they ascertained that the Durgin and Firehouse garages had a considerable amount of limitations for example: 38 of the 75 leasable spaces in the Firehouse garage are well below market and the reason for that is because the garages were created as part of an economic development package and there were certain concessions made in terms of rate and long term agreements; 172 of the 279 leasable spaces in the Durgin garage are below market and the additional wrinkle in this garage is that there is a clause in which when the long term leases that are projected to expire in 2055 the owner of the garage is required to negotiate with the tenant and come to a mutually acceptable extension of those terms and if the owner cannot come to an agreement then the owner has to find, within a one block radius, land to accommodate 45 ground surface parking spaces. He noted that the committee decided that it did not make financial sense to pursue the sale of the facilities and would defer to come back to this topic perhaps in 2011 when some of the Firehouse garage spaces come off of their existing lease.
2. Pay Stations - Mr. Baia explained that another item that the committee tackled was the notion of convenience in terms of using the parking system. He noted that they looked at pay stations and determined that those systems actually generate a significant amount of revenue over what can be obtained using meters and that there are two reasons for this: being able to pay using a credit card, the natural human tendency is to charge more than one may need; with this pay station system, once a person leaves the space it eliminates remaining paid time on the meter for another vehicle that pulls into that space. He added that it is projected that the city would be looking at the purchase of 70 pay stations and is projecting that the additional revenue generated would off set any costs to acquire the stations because they are anticipating using bonding for the ten year bond at 4 ½ percent to purchase the stations. He pointed out that this recommendation alone was projected to foster over $130,000 in new revenue for the parking fund.
3. Meter Violation Penalties - Mr. Baia indicated that the committee recommended changing the meter penalty from $5.00 to $10.00 and the violator will be given ten days to pay. If not paid within ten business days, the fee would jump to $20.00 and if not paid by the 21st business day the fee would then go to $40.00. This recommendation would generate approximately $28,000 in additional revenue to the fund.
4. Free Holiday Parking – Mr. Baia explained that historically merchants approached City Council seeking an exemption to the parking enforcement for a period during the holiday season. He indicated that at some point, it became a matter of practice for the community. He pointed out that the city, by forsaking this revenue for two weeks is losing approximately $2,000 a year to the fund based upon current rates. He explained that the committee looked at this noting that one member is a downtown retailer who remarked during the deliberations that this system does not really meet the goal for what it was originally designed for. He indicated that the committee determined that this program does not work effectively and recommends that this program be eliminated. This recommendation would result in approximately $16,000 increase in revenue to the fund.
5. Differentiated Rate Structure – Mr. Baia noted that this is based upon market principles of supply and demand and currently the rates are $0.50 per hour, however with this system there is no incentive to get parkers from Main Street to move somewhere else when parking for a long period of time so there is not the turnover at the principal areas of business in the downtown. The committee suggested $1.00 per hour for on street spaces and maintaining the garages at $0.50 per hour. This recommendation is projected to generate over $160,000 in new revenue to the fund.
Weekday Evening Enforcement & Residential Permit Program – Mr. Baia noted that the committee is only recommending that if the Council were to take the recommendation to pursue meter enforcement from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays that they only do so upon the creation of a residential permit program. If Council were to proceed with this item, it would generate $100,000 in new revenue to the fund.
6. Saturday Enforcement – Mr. Baia noted that the committee did not recommend enforcement on Saturdays.
7. Storrs Street Parking – Mr. Baia explained that the committee felt that, in light of the fact that construction on the Sanel block project within the next few months and those spaces will likely be encumbered by construction activity, now would be the time to eliminate the free parking in this area.
8. Allocation of Expenditures to Correct Fund – Mr. Baia explained that the parking fund currently has a historical trend to it where it is housed within the purview of the Police Department and over time there was an allocation of cost to cover a police officer and a police administrative specialist from the parking fund. He indicated that the officer and the administrative specialist, despite the fact that their salaries and benefits are being charged off to the fund at 100 percent, are not spending 100 percent of their time working solely on parking issues. The committee recommends that those percentages be allocated correctly to the fund. He noted that the Police Department has come up with a solution that works for their payroll which basically meets the goal of the committee’s recommendation.
9. Theatre Street Parking Lot – Mr. Baia indicated that the sale of this lot is an element of the Sanel block project which is projected to generate approximately $200,000 from the sale. The committee recommends that these funds be credited to the parking fund.
10. Capital Commons Garage – Mr. Baia indicated that the committee, in recommending the pay station system, noted that one of the benefits of this system is that there aren’t any gates. He explained that the committee feels that if the first phase of installation of the kiosks is successful and the Council should at some point expand the kiosk system, perhaps at that point they should consider using the same for the Capital Commons Garage. It would be the committee’s hope that the current pay stations at this garage at that point perhaps could be sold on a secondary market.
11. Annual Rate Review – Mr. Baia indicated that the committee recommends that an analysis be done, of the parking fees, every year as part of the overall city analysis in preparation for its budget.
12. Bottom Line – Mr. Baia noted that if all these recommendations are implemented together the bottom line to the fund balance will be approximately $368,000 at the end of FY2011.
Councilor Nyhan thanked the members of the committee for their time and effort and the staff for their support and resources. He added that the committee felt very strongly that this should be a package of recommendations that was brought forth to Council. He noted that there will certainly be a tendency to look at the potential revenues that each item could generate. He indicated that the committee felt that as a package it would best solve the deficit in the parking fund and a caveat as to why “a la carte” selection may not work is that if they are all in agreement with the kiosk system and the rates are not raised, the city will not have the revenues to pay for those kiosk systems.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to how staff would control the two hour parking on the street asking whether the most that can be charged on the kiosk is two hours. She further inquired as to what is the farthest anyone would have to walk to the nearest kiosk. Parking Manager Dave Florence responded that none of the kiosks would change any of the time limits as to what the meters currently have. He explained that the kiosk would indicate the maximum amount of parking for a particular space. He noted that Manchester, Portsmouth and Hampton Beach looked at the farthest distance that they wanted someone to go to a kiosk is five vehicles and this is what the city would be looking at so that no one would have to walk more than five spaces to and back to put the ticket on the dashboard. Mr. Baia added that placing the ticket on the windshield would only be applicable for on street parking and in the garages, all you have to do is remember the number of the parking space and enter it into the machine and walk away without having to place a ticket on the dashboard. Mr. Florence indicated that to be correct noting that on street it will be called “pay and display” where you display the receipt ticket with the amount of time you paid for; in the garage it is “pay by space” in which you put your space number in and the desired amount of time, pay and walk away. Mr. Florence added that all the machines in the garages would be tied together and the officer has a device that downloads all the spaces that are not paid so that they can simply go to those spaces.
In regards to the kiosk, Councilor Blanchard noted that it doesn’t seem to make sense to pay when one gets to a space as opposed to paying when one leaves because it may not be known how long someone will need to park in a space. Matt Walsh, Assistant for Special Projects, responded that this process is not any different than parking on the street because one is going to assume that they are going to be there for a certain period of time so it is no different in the parking garages as it would be for the on street spaces under the kiosk system. Councilor Blanchard noted that there is a maximum time that one can park on the street but in the garages there is not. Mr. Florence responded that the garages have ten hour parking meters and someone can currently pay for ten hours of time which would be the same as the kiosk system. Mr. Baia indicated that one of the advantages to this type of system is that it would eliminate the gate in the Capital Commons Garage and the system to pay at the end, there is a gate element to try to control that. He added that with this process, there wouldn’t be a gate so it would eliminate a lot of the challenges that come up with malfunctioning gates or a need for staff to address issues because of problems with the equipment. Councilor Blanchard asked what it would cost to install a system in which one pays when they leave. Mr. Florence responded that that is the system that is currently in place in the Capital Commons Garage.
Referencing the current $270,000 deficit in the parking fund, Councilor Coen questioned whether staff identified what was causing this deficit. Councilor Nyhan responded that he believes it was a series of issues and certainly one of the key pieces is the Capital Commons Garage. He noted that if every meter was occupied every hour of enforcement today in the garage, it would still function at a deficit and will remain that way until rates increase and/or until the bond payments have been paid off. He stated that it is his understanding that when Council voted on the Capital Commons Garage there was an understanding that that garage would function at a deficit for a certain period of time. He noted that the Capital Commons Garage is currently performing the way it was envisioned when voted upon; in regards to the on street rates, the rates haven’t been kept up with market rates; the other garages are functioning below peak levels because of the encumbrances upon those primarily because of the long term below market leases. He pointed out that within the revenue projections for this upcoming year, it shows it going from a $270,000 deficit to a $368,000 surplus; $200,000 of that surplus will be directly related to the one time transfer from the Theatre Street parking lots.
Councilor Coen noted that he feels that it is important to break down from going from a $270,000 negative to a $368,000 positive and that $200,000 of this is selling property that is going back into the fund. Councilor Nyhan indicated that they had looked at a series of spreadsheets of the pro forma in all of the garages and the parking system as a whole out to 2021. He noted that in the first year there will be an increase in surplus because of that one time transfer then there does become a dip in the surplus and then starts to increase over time, a cumulative surplus increase. He explained that the reason that it does begin to increase later on is because those bonds will be paid off and revenues will increase.
Councilor Keach remarked that one item that is absent from the report is the cost of enforcement and opportunities there might be to streamline this. He asked what the total revenue raised is versus the cost of enforcement. Councilor Nyhan indicated that the revenue projections given encompass increased enforcement activities relative to the additional hours of staffing. He noted that the committee also discussed what the impact to enforcement would be. Councilor Keach asked for an explanation of the role parking takes in creating a vibrant downtown and the whole idea of turning over spaces. Councilor Nyhan replied that if the parking fund doesn’t do something to sustain itself, the general fund will have to maintain the parking fund. He stated that a healthy parking fund will allow the city some leverage for maintaining the parking fund moving forward whether it be for subsequent purchase of kiosk machines and maintenance. He added that, in recent memory, during budget discussions last year the Council scrambled for an additional $50,000 for snow removal on Main Street while a vibrant parking fund that has $168,000 surplus makes finding those additional revenues to keep Main Street open during the winter a much easier task. In response to Councilor Keach’s earlier question in regards to enforcement costs, Mr. Baia responded that the way the compensation line item is portrayed within the spreadsheet, it combines a number of different elements so they are unable to break them down right now but can prepare this for the next meeting. Councilor Keach asked staff to also back out the police officer compensation.
Referencing an editorial in the Concord Monitor, Councilor Shurtleff noted that it highly commended the committee for the work they did and that it was also commented/suggested that the city look into the viability of providing access to the Capital Commons Garage off of South Main Street. He inquired whether the committee had taken up this suggestion. Councilor Nyhan responded no. He added that he was unsure whether this was a mindful exclusion and not within their scope and noted that there was an understanding that the capital costs associated with that project wasn’t something that they were willing to tackle. City Manager Tom Aspell added that the City Council had reviewed that option before the Capital Commons Garage was built and came to the conclusion that the proximity of the entrance to the Pleasant Street intersection would be too close to make the traffic function and there would be constant back ups on Main Street.
Referencing enforcement from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Councilor St. Hilaire questioned whether staff looked at what the overtime costs were for employees; the cost of permitting to the residents; if they are going to enforce the metered spaces between the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., does that now mean that all other spaces will be enforced during that time as well, such as the spaces outside of City Hall. Mr. Baia replied that staff did look at the overtime costs and the fund balance reflects the overtime costs and are built into the pro forma. He responded that, as far as the permit cost, they did not go into any detail about the resident permit in terms of logistics and is something they anticipated looking into with direction from Council if it is something that they want to pursue. Councilor Nyhan indicated that the context of the committee’s discussion was primarily along the lines of metered spaces and that most of the discussions involving non-metered spaces were focused upon the portions of southern Main Street, south of Hills Avenue, and had envisioned this as part of phase 2 that if the kiosk system worked it would be pushed further south. He noted that the question relative to parking in front of City Hall is a good one but wasn’t something that the committee discussed, it was really at looking at the existing metered spaces and how they are currently enforced. He added that they made the conscious decision not to look at expanding enforcement beyond the current enforcement zone. Councilor St. Hilaire asked if it was safe to say that the revenue estimate might be lowered once costs are factored in for permitting of people who live in the neighborhood. Councilor Nyhan responded that they discussed the impact of the permitting program relative to the evening enforcement hours so that the revenue projections represent the anticipated residential permits. Councilor St. Hilaire inquired as to why evening enforcement is preferred over Saturday enforcement where they wouldn’t need to go through the permitting process. Councilor Nyhan responded that it came down to a revenue decision explaining that they did not have the projected revenue numbers for Saturday enforcement because the committee didn’t recommend this.
Councilor Grady questioned whether the committee considered altering or extending any of the time limits on parking spaces for example: changing a two hour limit meter to a 3 hour limit. Councilor Nyhan responded no. Councilor Grady inquired whether there was any discussion about any impacts this proposal might have on local businesses. Councilor Nyhan replied that those discussions were had as far as potential impacts and is what led to initial comments. He noted that the committee had three meetings with downtown merchant groups and there seemed to be a passive acceptance. He added that there seemed to be a general consensus that turnover in those spaces were more important than any sort of long term parking. With regard to the evening enforcement, the committee discussed the potential impact to restaurants and ultimately decided that people going out dining wouldn’t be dissuaded by paying $2.00 for parking. Councilor Grady indicated that people may not be dissuaded by paying $2.00 but may be dissuaded if they had to interrupt their meals to go out and feed the meter. Councilor Nyhan noted that this may be dissuasion to some. He explained that the discussions primarily revolved around potential events at the Capitol Center where people are not charged for parking for events. He added that they could modify those kiosks on a day to day basis.
Referencing Saturday enforcement, Councilor Patten noted his concern with events taking place, for example a parade, on a Saturday morning. Councilor Nyhan responded that the committee is not recommending Saturday enforcement. Councilor Patten asked what would happen if there was Saturday enforcement. Councilor Nyhan noted that if there was a Saturday event, the city would have the flexibility to charge or not charge. Councilor Patten inquired in regards to handicap parking. Councilor Nyhan indicated that he would anticipate that handicap parking places would remain as they currently are; a parker wouldn’t pay and would just display their placard. Mayor Bouley added that there are no meters in handicap parking spaces. Councilor Patten questioned whether there were any thoughts to having valet parking downtown. Councilor Nyhan replied that the committee did not discuss this but it would be a great opportunity for an entrepreneur.
Councilor DelloIacono asked whether costs were looked at in managing residential permitting. Mr. Baia responded that they did discuss some of the logistics that would be necessary to enact and run a permitting program but did not get into any level of detail as to what those specific costs might be. He added that they wanted to give Council an opportunity to review the report and if they felt so inclined to pursue this recommendation, at that point staff would come back with the details as to how the permitting program would work. Councilor DelloIacono asked whether staff could bring forth a $0.75 rate instead of a $1.00 rate. Mr. Baia responded that they did look at a $0.75 rate and the numbers didn’t work as part of the overall package but staff could take a look at it again if that is what Council wants.
Referencing the permitting program, City Manager Aspell noted that one thing to keep in mind before staff does the research on it, Council may want to have a policy discussion in terms of where they are going to apply this in the city. Councilor Nyhan commented that when the committee recommended that the only condition if proceeding with evening enforcement would be a residential parking permitting system restricted, that point in time, to the area that would be subject to the kiosk controls.
Councilor Stetson asked whether staff knows what the net revenue is for the 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. enforcement. Mr. Baia responded that the gross revenue is $100,000 and the additional overtime cost is approximately $44,000. Councilor Stetson asked whether this would be a net of $56,000 until adding in the residential permitting. Mr. Baia indicated that it does not include residential permitting. Councilor Stetson referenced the Durgin Block garage parking pro forma and with 61 or 62 percent of the spaces leased below market, is it producing enough revenue to cover the taxes on those spaces plus the maintenance on the structure. Mr. Baia responded that the lease spaces have taxes incorporated as part of their lease payment and the garage itself is revenue positive despite the fact that it has a number of underperforming leases. Mr. Baia added that the Firehouse garage is slightly negative. Councilor Nyhan added that this is a reflection of the fact that the initial capital bonds have been paid off and the only outstanding debt on these garages is related to maintenance and improvements.
Referencing the increase in the parking rates, Councilor McClure noted that Manchester and Portsmouth had been mentioned and also noticed that in the committee’s October minutes that Mr. Florence was going to prepare a report that was a market study that looked at some other communities in the state. She questioned whether this had been developed. Parking Manager Dave Florence responded that he is working on not just on street and garage daily rates but also lease rates. He noted that staff hoped to have this for the Parking Committee this month. Councilor McClure asked whether staff had anything that has just meter rates compared to other communities. Mr. Florence responded that they do not currently have anything.
Referring to the kiosks, Councilor Blanchard asked what if somebody did not have a credit card. Mayor Bouley responded that the kiosks do not only take credit cards but also take cash. Councilor Blanchard noted her concern with merchants allowing their employees to park in the spaces during the holiday free parking. Mayor Bouley pointed out that it is not only the retail merchants but there are a lot of different types of individuals that work downtown other than retail businesses.
Councilor Bennett noted his agreement with the Mayor and added that there are certain individuals downtown who are known to other merchants that allow their employees to park on Main Street. He noted that it is an issue and doesn’t know if it will ever be addressed to everybody’s satisfaction.
Councilor Grady noted that if someone were to use their credit card and purchase two hours of parking and wanted to go back to put another two hours on it, are they prohibited from doing so. Mr. Florence explained that the way the ordinance is currently established you cannot meter feed a two hour meter which means a vehicle cannot remain in that one spot for longer than two hours. Councilor Grady inquired whether the kiosk would know to prohibit the use of the same credit card from meter feeding, could somebody get around this. Mr. Florence responded yes.
Councilor Stetson indicated that if someone parked in a space all day a few years ago, they received a ticket every two hours. He inquired whether this is still the practice. Mr. Florence responded that every 120 minutes at a metered space a vehicle could receive a ticket. Councilor Stetson asked whether this is currently being done. Mr. Florence responded yes.
Referencing Councilor McClure’s question in regards to comparable communities, Mr. Baia noted that he wanted to clarify that the Parking Manager did in fact look at other communities as part of this ongoing process. Mr. Florence indicated that what he had looked at was Manchester, Portsmouth, Keene, UNH, and Portland, Maine. He noted that what they were looking at was a broader area to get more of what the New England area is charging. For these areas the rates are: Manchester - $1.00 on Elm Street, $0.50 in outlying areas; Portsmouth - $1.00 in downtown area; Keene - $0.50 on street meters; UNH - $1.00; Portland, Maine – ranges from $1.00 to $3.00.
Councilor Bouchard inquired whether these communities had evening enforcement. Mr. Florence responded that Manchester has event parking but is unsure whether Elm Street goes into evening hours or not; Portsmouth does; Portland, Maine does and has Saturday enforcement as well.
Councilor Grady questioned whether it is known whether these other communities have a negative or positive in their parking fund. Mr. Florence responded that he did not know but could find out.
Councilor Bouchard inquired whether there was any discussion about diversion, people not wanting to pay the extra and where that traffic may go and park. Assistant for Special Projects Matt Walsh responded that the experience when raising the rates last in 2005 was that even though the rate increased, there was only a gain of roughly 47 percent in revenues from the on street system. He noted that staff is anticipating that there will be some aversion of patrons from parking in downtown, at least in metered locations. He explained that typically they go further into the neighborhoods or take advantage of other privately owned parking lots elsewhere downtown. He indicated that it will take a period of time for people to adjust to the rate increase and eventually come back to using the metered system.
Councilor St. Hilaire asked whether the committee discussed the loss of revenue experienced when the legislature is in session and all the meters that are bagged. He asked if once the meters are gone how are those spaces going to be bagged. Councilor Nyhan replied that if there are not meters it is very difficult to bag a meter to let them park for free. He noted that someone will have to come up with a way to let them park for free. Mayor Bouley indicated that when the legislature is in session, there are not enough parking spaces in the garage for them to park. He commented that the individuals in charge of parking at the state have gotten better at how they administer the bags; he noted that they used to leave them on for the whole day and now if someone is showing up, they will go out and remove the bag(s) so that it opens up a space for someone else. The Mayor noted that, according to the individuals who administer the bags, all the bagged meters are for individuals who have a handicap placard.
Councilor Keach asked where the authority is for the state to bag the meters. Mr. Florence responded that it is his understanding that the city and the legislature has an agreement for fifty bagged meters that are administered by the State House and are all individuals that qualify or have a disabled placard already. He stated that if they got rid of the program they would be parking for free in the downtown area and this agreement has them closer to the State House. Councilor Keach questioned whether it is limited to just fifty spaces. Mr. Florence responded that to be correct. He indicated that the state has fifty bags and they take the bags off of individuals are not showing up by 11:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. at the latest so that they can free those spaces up. City Manager Aspell noted that if anyone sees that this is not the case, to let staff know so that they can take care of it.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether it was ever considered to sell the parking spaces in the garages. Mr. Aspell responded that the garages downtown that were built 20 to 30 years ago have leases that expire in 2055. He indicated that this was done out of necessity because people gave up property space so that those garages could be constructed and in exchange for that they received these long term leases.
Mayor Bouley stated that this is simply a report but Council is being asked to 1) give the Manager direction to include some of these changes in the preparation of the budget for the next fiscal year; 2) ask the Administration to put forth the necessary ordinances to make these changes. Mayor Bouley noted that he is going to go through what he understands to be what is being asked for preparation of the ordinances:
Weekday Evening Enforcement & Residential Permit Program – the Mayor indicated that staff is not recommending and will not be presenting an ordinance to change the meters extending from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. and will not be presenting an ordinance for residential permit program unless Council directs staff to do so
Mayor Bouley asked Council if they understood this the way he outlined it.
Councilor Grady questioned whether some determinations would be made this evening and others contingent upon a public hearing.
City Manager Aspell clarified that Allocation of Expenditures to Correct Fund – action will be taken as part of the budget in June; Saturday enforcement – making a decision this evening not to proceed with by accepting the report and the same thing with Weekday Evening Enforcement & Residential Permit Program.
Councilor Nyhan noted that he was unclear to the last piece explaining that when the committee set forth the report, it was to direct staff to prepare the Residential Permit Program to permit the city to implement evening enforcement hours. Mayor Bouley noted that is not how he understood it. Councilor Nyhan indicated that it was the committee’s intent to ask the Council tonight to direct staff to start preparing the Residential Permit Program so that the city could go ahead with Weekday Evening Enforcement hours as outlined within the report. He noted that he is unsure whether this requires an ordinance or some other type of action. Mr. Aspell noted that his understanding is that this will be done only if Council chooses to move ahead with this. Councilor Nyhan responded that to be correct.
Councilor Grady noted her confusion with Councilor Nyhan’s explanation. Councilor Nyhan clarified that the intent of this report and the intent of the committee is that this Council give direction to staff this evening to start developing the Residential Permit Program, thereby also directing them to develop the ordinance that would go with this so that Council can take action on this in May.
Mayor Bouley, referencing item 5, Weekday Evening Enforcement & Residential Permit Program, noted that it indicates that this recommendation is anticipated to generate over $100,000 in new revenue. He pointed out that on the chart contained on page 8, it is his understanding that this $100,000 is not included in the proposed recommendation. Mr. Baia responded that it is included within the chart.
Councilor St. Hilaire indicated that it was clarified earlier in response to a question asked by Councilor Stetson that $45,000 should be subtracted so the reality is that it only generates approximately $55,000 because of the cost of permitting, staff time and education. Mr. Baia responded that to be correct explaining that the $517,000 that was presented at the very outset of the report was the gross revenue number.
Councilor Stetson noted that this points out the problem that he has with the report. There are recommendations that will generate an “x” figure of additional revenue but doesn’t have a figure of what is the net revenue. Referencing the last page of the report, Mr. Baia indicated that the middle row, proposed recommendations, is the fund balance that will be the remaining dollars at the end of the fiscal year, it is cumulative so it is not precisely for that one year but gives an understanding of the impact of the net.
Councilor Grady noted her concerns with the vote on the items this evening. Mayor Bouley noted that he feels that Council should go through the items individually to indicate how they would like to proceed.
Councilor Nyhan added that the committee recognizes that there may be changes to the overall recommendation package and, in the interest of the budget timeline, if Council were to proceed with any of these recommendations by accepting the report and directing staff to prepare the ordinances as well as the permitting fee, it will allow for the opportunity in May to remove or add in but by not doing it this evening, they take the option off the table in its entirety to be effective in the upcoming fiscal year.
Councilor Keach noted that he feels that it is important to have this process move forward, come back at the next meeting to have all the questions answered and have public input. He indicated that to stall it at this juncture would impact the upcoming budget.
Mayor Bouley indicated that he would go through each item individually for Council to decide what to move forward with:
Councilor McClure noted that if there is going to be some tweaking of some of these other items, she indicated that she would be interested in increasing the penalties for parking violations to offset those other tweaking. She indicated that she wants staff to know that she thinks it is a great incentive to pay for the parking if the fines are really high.
Referencing the fine structure, Mr. Baia clarified that if Council increases it so much there be less return because people will learn so they will stop violating the law which means revenue will also get impacted.
Councilor McClure stated that she understands the balance but feels that it is a good incentive to get people to pay.
Mayor Bouley indicated that he would like staff to bring back the comparisons to some of the other communities.
Weekday Evening Enforcement & Residential Permit Program – with a show of hands, Council decided not to ask staff to proceed with this.
Councilor DelloIacono inquired whether the idea is to install kiosks in this area following the construction of the Sanel Block project. Councilor Nyhan replied that the city cannot collect revenue from these spaces while it is under construction so following construction, Council can revisit this idea. Councilor DelloIacono noted his concern with the cost of the kiosk installation today versus in two years. Councilor Nyhan replied that the cost per kiosk with the system being proposed relative to cost in the Capital Commons Garage is a significant major difference. He agreed that costs will go up in a few years and fortunately the fund is projected to post a positive balance and the city will have the money to pay for those at that point in time. Matt Walsh, Assistant for Special Projects, added that the first phase of the kiosks wouldn’t be south of Hills Avenue so there won’t be any kiosks near the Capitol Center for the Arts. He indicated that if staff is to come back after the Sanel project is done it would be a logical timeframe to roll it into that second phase if indeed the kiosk system has been deemed successful by the community.
Councilor Nyhan explained that the committee was split on this item as to whether to do it at the same time or to wait to see when the other recommendations would be successful. He added that there are certain economies of scale that would suggest doing this now would be the appropriate thing to do and one thing that they were really hoping to have by this evening is some more tangible numbers that they could associate with how much revenue the sale of the gates would net off of the additional costs.
Mayor Bouley indicated that he would ask that Administration bring forth an ordinance changing the Capital Commons Garage as well explaining that he feels that there is some value in creating one system downtown not two systems.
Council came to a consensus to direct Administration to bring forth an ordinance to change the Capital Commons Garage.
11. Annual Rate Review – no preparation, part of the budget.
12. Bottom Line – Councilor St. Hilaire noted that many changes have been made and is assuming that staff will provide Council with a new bottom line. Councilor St. Hilaire asked that staff also include net revenue and expenses not just gross revenue.
Councilor Bouchard noted her agreement with Councilor St. Hilaire and also requested that staff identify that one time sale of $200,000.
Councilor Nyhan moved to accept the Ad-Hoc Parking Study Committee’s recommendations for inclusion in the FY2011 city budget and direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinances and reports for the setting of a public hearing in May as outlined through the each of the individual items. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
45. Report from the Deputy City Manager – Development regarding the Grappone Automotive Group of Bow’s request to connect to the Concord municipal water supply. (10-7) (12-8)
Action: Carlos Baia, Deputy City Manager – Development, explained that in September 2009 the Grappone Automotive Group of Bow sent in a request seeking to connect to the city’s municipal water supply. He indicated that they requested this as a result of the history of well contamination that they have had at their property in Bow. He explained that within their correspondence they included back up from the NH Department of Environmental Services affirming the contamination and stating that they are at a point in which Grappone would have to institute a rather expensive treatment tool to address their water issues and even if they were to address the contaminants, the corrosive nature of the water would not be alleviated. He noted that they are seeking to tie into the water line which is just over the municipal border. Mr. Baia added that there is a rather long history with requests of this nature for water and/or wastewater. He indicated that there were two requests in the 90’s seeking this similar water connection and at the time Council debated this issue and focused primarily on notions of economic development and looked at the disparity in the tax rates between Concord and Bow and felt that it was not in the best interest of Concord to pursue the connections and the requests were tabled indefinitely. He noted that in 2001, the Town of Bow made a request to add capacity to the Hall Street Wastewater Plant and similar issues were raised about economic development and the City Manager at that time proposed that if this is something that Council was going to entertain perhaps sharing some of the added tax benefit that the Town of Bow would receive from such added capacity. Mr. Baia explained that the Engineering Services Division looked at this problem as if it were something within the city and analyzed the fact that there is currently a water line that goes down South Main Street and one down Hall Street and to connect the two to make a loop, to help regulate water pressure which helps the health of a system, an anticipated worst case estimate would be $1.8 million. He noted that staff was also trying to get a feel for what the financial commitment was from the Town of Bow for this type of project. He indicated that Harold Judd, Board of Selectman Chair, Bow, wrote urging the Council to approve this request to move forward on this. Mr. Baia stated that there wasn’t any specific reference to cost sharing however Mr. Judd did recommend that a working group be established between the two communities to look at not only issues like this one but other potential issues that may impact development. He explained that General Services had a different suggestion with their option being placing a meter at the city line and in essence can sell the water to a retailer. He stated that Pennichuck Water Systems has approached the city and indicated that they would be inclined to be a customer of the city and potentially distribute the water on the Bow side handling that element of the project. In this case, there is a potential for the city to charge a premium for water however it is unlikely that the premium would ever recoup any significant portion of those costs. He noted that, in light of the public nature of this request, the Chamber of Commerce analyzed this request and at their meeting there were a lot of comments made to the effect that this is an economic development issue and that communities should strive for regionalization. The Chamber Committee did not take a vote on this issue. He added that the Economic Development Advisory Council (EDAC) did review this and echoed many of the same sentiments in regards to regionalization and recommended approval of the request however Chairperson Chris Carley did note that they recommend against taking any action without first vetting all the financial issues and any type of technical or legal issues to make sure that the city’s interests are protected and also to make sure that it’s protected specifically with the amount of water that is to be provided. He pointed out that this is an important consideration because the city’s water master plan indicates that by the year 2027 the city will be at capacity for its current sources which are the Contoocook River and the Penacook Lake and will likely have to draw water from the Merrimack River. He indicated that the study does not foresee providing water to the Bow Junction to any significant extent so if any direction is given to pursue this, one thing that staff would recommend is that there be a study done so that the city’s utility users are protected. In conclusion, Mr. Baia stated that what staff is seeking this evening is direction on whether to go forward with this adding that the water study is not only an investment of time but also of resources and there will also need to be significant legal review.
Councilor Blanchard asked whether it is known what the potential revenue would be. Mr. Baia replied that staff does not have a figure on that explaining that they don’t know the exact water that is going to be used. Councilor Blanchard commented that it is her understanding that the city would meet capacity at 50,000 in population and at this point are at 43,000 and asked whether this demand on the city’s water supply would be at capacity. Mr. Baia responded that he is unsure explaining that this is part of the reason why staff is saying that if Council were to pursue this staff would need a lot more detail to ensure that those types of questions are answered in the right way.
Councilor Coen noted that he is not in favor of the city spending a lot of money but the city currently has an agreement with Boscawen with the wastewater and currently in Bow, sewage from the Dunkin Donuts flow into Bow and that there are some residential homes in Bow that are on the city’s water. Referencing the legal ramifications, he noted that he would think that the city has gone through this prior to have these current tie ins. Councilor Coen stated that even though this is a company outside the city limits, they also own property in Concord and the corporation and the family has done a great deal for the city for many years. He inquired whether the city is currently doing this, to a certain extent. Mr. Baia confirmed that the city is doing it to a certain extent and from what he understands, there are 18 residences that were linked to water along the Hall Street corridor and believes that this was a result of some federal or state environmental action due to contamination in well water and that there was probably funding for this to allow these connections to be made. He added that, as noted earlier, there is sewage provided. Mr. Baia pointed out that in the report and was echoed throughout the other committees that reviewed this, everyone recognized the importance of the Grappone Group and the Grappone family in terms of the underpinning of the local economy and that it was important to note that there are issues beyond just the Grappone, there are bigger macro-issues here.
Mayor Bouley noted that everyone appreciates the value that the Grappone family has brought to the community and the city is very grateful but this is a much bigger issue and hopes that Council could keep their remarks to the issue which is selling water to the Town of Bow.
Councilor Coen inquired whether it was possible that instead of the city incurring the cost of doing the research and the legality that it is placed upon the Town of Bow.
Councilor Nyhan noted that what he fails to see right now is any type of commitment from Bow as far as finances and cost sharing and asked what their involvement or intent is besides setting up a committee. He indicated that he does not want to spend a lot of time and resources investigating a solution or an option until they know they have an interested business partner with the Town of Bow.
Councilor Shurtleff noted that he would like to see the Town of Bow step up since they are the ones who are going to generate revenue because this property is going to appreciate now that it will have water and sewerage. He stated that he does not feel that the city’s taxpayers should have to subsidize this project.
Councilor Keach questioned whether there is a quantitative number the city could put on what water would provide in assessed value to that business. If it could be demonstrated that the assessed value suddenly increases by 25 percent, is there a way that the city could approach Bow and say that we will supply the water but because the assessed value now is increased by “x” amount, we are going to capture that value. He inquired whether there is a legal mechanism to do this. Mr. Baia responded that there probably is a mechanism and was something that was brought up 9 years ago and that he could not tell by the minutes as to where it went but was never implemented as part of their discussion on wastewater. Councilor Keach noted that he is supportive of the idea of regionalization but at the same time he wants to protect the planning and commitment that the City of Concord has done. He noted that he would like to find a middle ground.
Councilor Bouchard indicated that she does not think there is a middle ground and doesn’t understand as this was reported in 2001 by the former City Manager, why would the city create an economic competition for the City of Concord. She noted that by providing water, the city would be doing that and feels that this is a responsibility of Bow and the Bow taxpayers to develop their own business and industrial area as the city has done with Regional Drive.
In regards to regionalization, Councilor Blanchard indicated that some sort of study needs to be done to look at this issue and that Bow would need to be brought into it without the city footing the whole bill. She noted that she is not for granting this request at this point.
Mayor Bouley noted that he does feel that there is a tremendous value in regionalization but in this particular issue one of the things that he thought of is what the city would be losing in tax base for those businesses that may pop up because they now would have access to water. He indicated that he is very concerned that the city would be adding $135,000 in debt service to the residents of Concord to cover the bond for building a $1.8 million loop. He added that if Council is truly looking for a middle ground, he feels that the only middle ground is for the Town of Bow to come back to Council to say that they would be willing to pay for it plus pay the 15 percent premium that the city can charge under the metered approach and that they would compensate the city for the loss of the tax base. He added that he did not want this conversation to be about one particular family because the people that made the request have been wonderful corporate citizens but in terms of the city’s community and the responsibility to its taxpayers, he doesn’t feel that this is financially feasible at this time.
Councilor Coen noted that it is his understanding that there are two options: to do a loop which is $1.8 million; to have a meter installed at the end of Hall Street. He stated that his feeling is that there is no cost to the city that all this would be done by the Town of Bow or Pennichuck Water Systems.
Referencing a tour of the wastewater treatment plant and water treatment facilities, Mayor Bouley stated that on this tour one of the things that was discussed was what is the capacity of the water supply in the community. He explained that over the past two years, the city has not had to pump out of the Contoocook River because of a lot of rain or snowfall. He added that there is a cost associated when looking at the water capacity and with an increase in population and using water, the city is going to see the need to pump out of the Merrimack River in which there will be a significant capital cost to get the water from the Merrimack River to Hutchins Street. He stated that the city needs to look at their own needs with water before moving on to giving it to somebody else.
Councilor Bouchard moved to direct staff not to move forward with this request. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Keach questioned whether there would be any harm in extending this discussion for a month or two months longer. He noted that he feels that it is important to gather a little more information about the economic benefit to the city.
Mayor Bouley asked who would be recommended to do this analysis. Councilor Keach responded that he is not sure but is unsure this is worthy of a vote this evening based upon the amount of information received. He noted that he understands both sides of the issue and it has so many elements to it that he doesn’t feel that Council has vetted out all those issues. He added that this is an issue that historically comes up every ten years and would personally feel more comfortable if it had more discussion.
Councilor Blanchard noted that she feels that at some point in time a task force should be appointed to study the regionalization aspect.
Councilor Keach moved to table this item explaining that the report does not recommend to Council one way or another and does a very good job at presenting both sides of the issue but it is right on the fence. He noted that he would like a bit more discussion on this issue. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure noted that she feels that what Council is saying is that they are not necessarily interested in the city expending funds to study this or develop a proposal right now and that it costs money for staff to do that work. She stated that Grappone had the opportunity to provide a different proposal to Council and still do and they can come back with a new proposal. She asked what tabling this item really do. She noted that Council can express their decision this evening and that Grappone could come back with another proposal.
Councilor Keach noted that it begs the question of Grappone, Bow and other interested parties to come forward and provide that information. He indicated that he is in agreement and feels that the city should not spend a cent in this direction. He stated that if they can demonstrate: 1) how they can pay for it; 2) how it’s going to benefit the city in addition to themselves, he would be wide open to it.
Councilor Bouchard stated that they are in a state in which its economy is based on the property tax and anything that the city does to encourage businesses to develop somewhere else just takes away from the city’s own economic development and its own revenue source. She noted that she would not be supporting the tabling motion and feels that Council should direct the staff not to move forward with it.
Councilor Shurtleff indicated that he would be voting against the tabling motion. He noted his surprise with the Town of Bow’s communication to the city and added that it makes no sense for the city, to its taxpayers, and business community to subsidize an industrial area in the Town of Bow.
Following additional Council discussion, the motion to table failed on a voice vote.
Councilor Bouchard’s motion to direct staff not to move forward with this request passed on a voice vote.
Unfinished Business
46. Fiscal Monitoring Report. (2-45)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a detailed overview of the Fiscal Monitoring Report.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
47. Discussion regarding the annual setting of the tax rate target. (2-46)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell explained that at the last Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee meeting the vote was 5 to 1 to recommend that he prepare two budgets; one with a 3 percent tax rate increase and one with a 5 percent tax rate increase. He noted that there was one individual who requested that instead of a 3 percent and 5 percent that the range really should be 3 percent and 4 percent.
Councilor Nyhan explained that during the last Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee meeting the numbers that really stuck out for him was the increases in the budget next year that they really don’t have any control over whatsoever because they are either contractually designated or the cost of doing business, such as: compensation increase, 3.3 percent; health insurance, 2.3 percent; retirement costs, 1 percent; and retiree health insurance, 0.6 percent. He noted that whether they raise taxes 3 percent, 5 percent or somewhere in between, staff still has to come up with some really significant reductions in core services. He indicated that the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee in recommending 3 to 5 percent is trying to be fiscally prudent as far as keeping the tax rate down but recognizing the fact that there are still some major hurdles to overcome as far as expense reductions in the upcoming year.
Councilor Blanchard inquired as to what point the city has a serious safety issue from cutting services. Mr. Aspell replied that the last few weeks depicts the value of having excellent police and fire and really do not want to reduce public safety beyond what it is at this point right now. He added that if Council does make reductions that is where they are going to need to go because that is where the dollars are.
Mayor Bouley pointed out that they are only talking about targets and not, by any means, saying to the community that ultimately this is what it is going to be. He noted that what he is taking away from this is, from the recommendation of the committee, no matter what comes back for a target, you are going to see reductions in city services.
Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the target tax rate increase of 3 to 5 percent. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Keach noted that he is not happy with a 3 percent increase and reluctantly went along with it. He indicated that he does think that the community needs to realize that the potential cuts in public safety would be such that is unacceptable to him and that they just have to be at a fiscal point where a tax increase might possibly be necessary because of public safety issues.
Mayor Bouley asked when the City Manager goes through the budget this year, is he taking the same approach he took last year, a zero based approach where everything once again is on the table and he is evaluating every line by line. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct. Mayor Bouley clarified that it’s not just about public safety; everything is going to be considered.
Councilor Nyhan’s motion passed with no dissenting votes.
48. 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) (Report tabled at the September 14, 2009 City Council meeting)
Action: Item remains on the table.
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor McClure reminded everyone that there is a community forum open house tomorrow evening between 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. sponsored by the Mayor’s Task Force for a 21st Century Library for public input to give thoughts and ideas and to learn what the task force has been doing.
Councilor Patten thanked the Police Department in regards to the incidence that occurred at the Barley House which could have been a dangerous situation in which the officers quickly diffused the situation. He also thanked the Fire Department and General Services for their help during the wind storm.
Councilor Coen requested a report from the Traffic Engineering Department on the intersection of Shaker and Mountain Roads which was redesigned two years ago to see how it is working.
Councilor Grady indicated that there will be a flashlight Easter egg hunt at White Park on Friday, April 2nd at 7:30 p.m. to be held rain or shine for kids in grades 5 through 8. She further indicated that on Saturday, April 3rd at 10:30 a.m. there will be an egg hunt for kids in grades 4 and under which will be held Keach, White, Rollins, Rolfe and Merrill parks. She added that volunteers are needed to hide eggs and, if interested, to contact the Recreation Department at 225-8690.
Councilor Blanchard assured Penacook residents that Community Drive and High Street will be paved this year.
Councilor Bouchard informed Council and city residents that the Recreation Department 2010 Camp Guide is now available and registration is now under way for over 20 camps offered.
Councilor St. Hilaire noted that during spring clean up in the near future, the city will be picking up sticks if they are bundled properly. He was informed by the City Manager that the city will be sending out notices for this to residents.
Mayor Bouley indicated that he had the opportunity to coach 5th and 6th grade boys’ basketball this year which really gave a first hand experience dealing with the Recreation Department. He stated that there are outstanding individuals who work there tirelessly. He thanked Karen Billings from the Recreation Department for what she does.
Comments, Requests by the City Manager
City Manager Tom Aspell noted that the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee, at their previous to last meeting, had entertained the Chairman of the Conservation Commission and discussed closing the $3.11 million budget gap. He indicated that the recommendation of the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee to the full Council is that the Conservation Commission consider providing the principal and interest payment for this year’s budget for money that the general fund has borrowed for the purchase of bonding of open space which is roughly between $97,000 to $100,000. Mr. Aspell asked that City Council officially ask the Conservation Commission to consider this in which the Conservation Commission would need to have a public hearing to do so.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to refer the communication so that the Conservation Commission may consider having a public hearing. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley noted that the Conservation Commission Chair did participate in the discussion of this item but needed something more formal.
Councilor McClure agree explaining that the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee meetings reflected the fact that it was going to be the Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee that was going to recommend this to Council. She noted that they didn’t need anything more formal, that’s the way the minutes read. She added that they needed the full Council to vote to ask for them to give $100,000 of the Conservation Fund to the General Fund.
Councilor St. Hilaire’s motion passed with one dissenting vote.
49. Discussion on the timing of non-public sessions.
City Manager Aspell indicated that he wanted to discuss whether or not the Council would entertain having non-public discussions prior to the regular Council meetings. He noted that he could work with the Mayor to determine which ones could be fit in before hand.
Mayor Bouley indicated that the consensus seems to be to take them on a case by case basis but Council is not opposed to doing some earlier. He noted that if a regular meeting is going to run short, there is no reason why they can’t hold the non-public afterwards.
Councilor St. Hilaire stated that the next non-public session, March 15th, was scheduled for 6:00 p.m. but was told by Commissioner Blanchard that the County Delegation is going to voting on the county budget that night at 6:00 p.m. and four Councilors will not be able to attend the non-public session scheduled at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Bouley inquired whether they would be unavailable all evening or whether they just need to push back the non-public time. Councilor Blanchard responded that she feels that they would be able to make it for 7:00 p.m.
Councilor Bouchard indicated that the public hearing begins at 6:00 p.m. and that they will immediately go into the delegation meeting and feels that they should be done by 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Bouley asked that the non-public for March 15th be posted for 7:00 p.m. for the purposes of discussing the City Manager’s evaluation and contract negotiations.
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 14 and 15 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
Action: Referencing both items 14 and 15, Mayor Bouley noted that he supports the idea of renewable power but in reading the development agreement, the proposal is to bind the city for 17 years and feels that if they are going to enter into this PILOT he would like to ask the Council if they would consider seeking outside legal counsel, someone specifically who has expertise in utility to make sure that the city is getting the best possible deal for themselves. He stated that he has full faith in the city’s legal counsel but this particular practice is very specialized and feels that it would be the city’s worthwhile to get an opinion to make sure the city is getting a good deal. He indicated that he would like them to both go on the agenda to be set for an April 12th public hearing. He noted that it is his understanding that staff has made requests to the individual owners of these companies for some information yet to be received and would like to make sure that Council has this in hand before making any decisions.
Councilor St. Hilaire moved to recommend the city obtain outside counsel to do the analysis and to give a legal opinion on this and further, to set items 14 and 15 for public hearings on April 12th. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Action for this item taken with item 14.
Adjournment
The time being 10:43 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