May 10, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes

City Council Meeting
 Minutes
May 10, 2010
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Non-public session to discuss property acquisition in accordance with
RSA 91-A: 3, II (d) to be held at 6:00 p.m.

Non public meeting to discuss collective bargaining in accordance with
RSA 91: A: 2, I (a) & (b) to be held following the City Council meeting.
 

1.      The Mayor 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, DelloIacono, Grady, Keach, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner were present.  Councilor McClure arrived late.

5.      Approval of the April 12, 2010 meeting minutes.

Action:  Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the April 12, 2010 meeting minutes.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

6.      Friends of the Concord City Auditorium Flyspace Project Raffle Drawing. 

Action:  Abby Lange, Friends of the Audi President, provided an overview of the Friends of the Audi and explained that this year is their last big wish on their wish list which is a $200,000 project to replace the current antique fly system with a new, safe and efficient system.  She indicated that to date, they have raised $135,000 and have been very fortunate to have people who are willing to match dollar for dollar.  She explained that they currently have a match which means they only need to raise $32,000 to meet their goal.  She noted that SouthWest Airlines has given them an incentive prize when they heard the logo was “come fly with us” to replace the fly space.  The incentive prize is two roundtrip tickets to anywhere on SouthWest Airlines.  She explained that every person that donated had their name put on a card to be part of the drawing.  They asked the Mayor to pull a card so that the winner can be announced this evening.

Mayor Bouley thanked the Friends of the Audi for all that they do. 

The winners of the drawing for the two SouthWest Airline tickets are Tom and Rita Curtis.

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 St. Hilaire moved approval of the consent agenda, as amended, with items 11, 25, and 26 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 Community Development - Engineering 

8.      Communication from Heidi Barrett-Kitchen, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. on behalf of Floriano Couto, Trustee of the Fernco Realty Trust, requesting City Council consider releasing the city’s right of first refusal on a piece of property on South Main Street in Concord.
 

Items Tabled for a June 14, 2010 Public Hearing 

9.      Resolution re-designating Lehtinen Park as public open space to be managed by the Conservation Commission, and re-designating the Contoocook River Park as a park to be managed by the Recreation Department; together with reports from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Recreation and Park Advisory Committee. 
 

10.  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.

From the City Manager

11.  Positive Citizen Comments. (Pulled from the consent agenda by Councilor Blanchard)

Action:  This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.

12.  Council meeting date calendar.  

Consent Reports

13.  Monthly Appropriation Transfer Report: April 2010.

14.  Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Library Director requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $275 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.

15.  Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Police Chief requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $3,375 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.

16.  Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Police Chief requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $4,482 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.

17.  Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Police Chief requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $7,575 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.

18.  Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Police Chief requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $2,025 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.

19.  Diminimus gifts and donations report from the Recreation Department requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $3,000 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.

20.  Diminimus gifts and donations report from the General Services Department requesting authorization to accept monetary gifts totaling $758 as provided for under the preauthorization granted by City Council.

21.  Nine month report from the Library Director on grants and gifts to the Concord Public Library.

22.  Report from the Facilities Naming Committee in response to a communication from Councilor Patten requesting consideration of the installation of signage on Regional Drive as “Officer Michael Briggs Memorial Drive”.  (3-8)

23.  FY2009 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report and Management Letter Report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance.  (2-7)

24.  Report from the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee regarding a communication from a resident requesting the City implement safety measures in the vicinity of the crosswalk that spans the corner of Westbourne Road and Warren Street to the Concord High School parking lot. (10Sus3)  

25.  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) (Pulled from the consent agenda by Councilor Shurtleff and Mayor Bouley)

Action:  This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.

26.  Report from the City Engineer recommending acceptance of the New Hampshire Hero's Recreational Crossing, a bridge structure located within Lehtinen Park off of Horse Hill Road. (Pulled from the consent agenda by Councilor Blanchard)

     Action:  This item was removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.

27.  Report of the Conservation Commission in response to a request from the City Council that the Commission pay for one year's principal and interest for the general obligation bonds used to acquire the City's interest in conservation land on West Locke Road and Hopkinton Road.

28.  Quarterly Current Use Change Tax report from the Director of Real Estate Assessments. 

29.  Report from the Traffic Operations Committee and the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee regarding a program change request from General Services to implement a twice-a-year application of pavement markings at select roadway locations.

30.  Pay As You Throw Quarterly Status Report from the General Services Director.  

Consent Resolutions

31.  Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application to the Target Grant Program to provide supplemental funding of up to $500 for the 2010 National Night Out; together with report from the Police Department. 

32.  Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application to the State of New Hampshire Department of Justice for the Edward F. Byrne grant program providing funding for a police officer assigned to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Drug Task Force; together with report from the Police Department. 

33.  Resolution in recognition of the services of Patricia Levesque. 

34.  Resolution in recognition of the services of Master Police Office Miguel A. Cebollero.

 Consent Communications

35.  Street closure request for “Celebrating our Multicultural Community,” the Fifth Annual Multicultural Festival to be held on Saturday June 19, 2010 from 2:00 – 10:00 p.m.

36.  Street closure request for the Annual Memorial Day Parade to be held on Monday, May 31, 2010. 

37.  Street closure request for the Annual New Hampshire Law Enforcement Officers’ Memorial (NHLEOM) Ceremony to take place on May 17, 2010. 

38.  Street closure request for the Concord High School Levee to be held on June 5, 2010. 

Appointments

39.  City Manager’s Proposed Reappointments to the Conservation Commission. 
Christopher Morgan, Christopher Kane and Frederick Chormann, Jr. 

40.  City Manager’s Proposed Reappointments to the Heritage Commission. 
Philip Donovan, Elizabeth Hengen, Marilyn Fraser and James McConaha

41.  City Manager’s Proposed Reappointments to the Library Board of Trustees. 
Marilyn Fraser and Martin Ringo

42.  Mayor Bouley’s Proposed appointments to the Energy & Environment Advisory Committee Jonathan Gregory, Randy Bryan, Eleanor Baron and Peter Ellinwood 

43.  Mayor Bouley’s proposed appointments to the Everett Arena Advisory Committee.  Tom Ackerson, Gerry Blanchette, Michael Gfroerer, Robert LaChapelle, David Palisi, Nicholas Wallner and Dan Arndt

44.  Mayor Bouley’s proposed appointments to the Golf Course Advisory Committee. 
Dave Croft, Betty Hoadley, Richard Holden, Frances Hunt, Roger Jobin, Robert       Vachon, Vera Buck and Charles Vanasdalan

45.  Mayor Bouley’s proposed appointments to the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC).  Michael Gfroerer, Nadine Salley and Leo Fraser

46.  Mayor Bouley’s proposed appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC).  Tim Bernier, Chris Carley, Byron Champlin, Larry Gloekler, William Norton, Claudia Walker, Connie Rosemont and Walter Chapin 

**End of Consent Agenda**

47.  May 10,  2010 Public Hearings

A.     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; parking on the southern end of Storrs Street; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Development.  (4-12)

Action:  Mayor Bouley explained that public hearing items A through G relate to parking and asked that the public hearing for these items be opened together.  There was no objection to the request by City Council.

Carlos Baia, Deputy City Manager-Development, provided an overview explaining that the Ad-Hoc Parking Committee had submitted a report with a series of recommendations at the March City Council meeting that would address what was anticipated to be a deficit of nearly $300,000 in the parking fund.  He indicated that the Council reviewed the report, accepting some of the recommendations and chose not to pursue others such as the extended weekday enforcement and Saturday enforcement.  The Council subsequently directed staff to prepare a series of ordinances and appropriation resolution to accomplish the following: increase the on-street parking rate to $1.00 per hour; maintain the garage parking rates at 50 cents per hour; install kiosks in the core of the downtown and all city parking garages, including the Capital Commons garage; eliminate free holiday parking; restrict parking on the southern end of Storrs Street; change the parking violation fine amount and payment structure.  Mr. Baia provided a detailed overview of the proposed ordinances and pro formas.

Councilor St. Hilaire inquired that if the city went out to bid aside from the cost of staff time, is there any additional costs to do this.  Mr. Baia responded that there wouldn’t be any additional costs necessarily but there is the time element so that if the kiosks were installed later than anticipated, then it could impact the revenue projections.  He pointed out that staff also wouldn’t know what the pricing would come to.  Councilor St. Hilaire asked when the last bid was in Portsmouth.  Mr. Baia replied that the bid in Portsmouth was put out in July 2009 and they signed the contract in September 2009.

Councilor Coen noted that the Ad-Hoc Parking Committee came up with a physical space for the kiosks and referring to the south side of Main Street inquired as to how far south and north it goes.  Mr. Baia responded that the kiosks would roughly go, from the north end, at Centre Street and the south end would be Hills Avenue, on the west end it will be North State Street, and on the east end will be Storrs Street.   Councilor Coen questioned whether there were discussions extending them further, making the area larger.  Mr. Baia replied that there was some discussion both at the committee level and administratively about potentially expanding that area.  He pointed out that one of the challenges that the city would face would be, for example, if you go south and get to where there is parking provided that isn’t necessarily metered so there will need to be some policy decisions that are going to need to be made.  He noted that there was a feeling of seeing if this works as it is anticipated to work and if it is successful, the city can look to expand it from that point forward.

Referencing the pro formas, Councilor Blanchard asked where the deficit is in the parking fund within FY2010.  Mr. Baia explained that the deficit they had anticipated was for FY2011 which is what led to the creation of the committee.  He indicated that the pro formas do not reflect the status quo; they reflect changing scenarios so the FY2011 column is the one they are focusing on. 

Referring to the investment in this technology, Councilor Keach asked whether staff anticipated any reductions in enforcement costs.  Mr. Baia responded that this was talked about internally of how this would be enforced and how the Parking Division would be managed in the future in terms of staffing and have been told that enforcement, at the out set of the installation, is stepped up because there are new machines and the city wants to ensure that everybody understands it and so that people get used to using them and complying with the law.  He added that there may be some retirements coming up in the near future that would have staff reinvestigate the way the city currently staffs the office.  Councilor Keach noted that it occurs to him that by replacing the current system at Capital Commons that it’s creating an additional enforcement challenge.  He questioned whether staff saw this as an additional cost.  Mr. Baia replied that there would probably be more time spent enforcing and driving around than currently is done. He noted that the technology itself of the machines in the garage is the way it works is that there is a handheld system that works off of Bluetooth technology so it is not as time consuming as looking at each car.  He stated that he wouldn’t imagine that the enforcement would be that much more than the current practice.

Councilor Bouchard asked how many machines there would be, how far apart and how far does a person have to walk.  Mr. Baia responded that there are 75 machines proposed in the appropriation resolution this evening and they are 10 car lengths per machine so the machine would be in the middle which means there may be 5 to 6 cars on either end so a person would be walking 5 to 6 car lengths to get to a machine.  Councilor Bouchard pointed out that they would have to walk back to place the ticket in the car.  Mr. Baia indicated that to be correct if they are parked on the street because the person would have to place the slip on the dashboard.  He explained that if parked in the garage, all the spaces are numbered so as one parks their vehicle they would walk to the pay station, pay and walk away because you would have to enter the space number. 

Mayor Bouley asked if someone is parking on Main Street and they put an hour on pay station with a credit card and only spend 15 minutes at a store pull out and realize they needed to stop at another store, could the person still use the remaining time on the slip.  Mr. Baia indicated that to be correct explaining that if someone paid at an on-street pay station that person could use the same receipt, if it still had remaining time on it, and use it down the street also.  He explained that where you couldn’t do that is if someone paid in the garage first and then tried to pay on the street because the tickets themselves would be coded differently.

Councilor DelloIacono inquired as to what type of signage is anticipated for this system.  Mr. Baia replied that the uniform traffic code calls for signs that are white with green letters noting that he doesn’t know anyone that would recognize that as a parking sign.  He indicated that his recommendation would be a parking sign with a blue background and a white colored “P” despite the fact that they might not comply with uniform standards but they are the universal recognizable parking symbol leading to a pay station.  Mr. Baia noted that, ideally, they would like to have all the signs match for a clear brand.  He stated that if one of the pay stations doesn’t happen to be working, people can go to the next pay station which provides more convenience and more effectiveness in terms of enforcement.  In regards to cost, Councilor DelloIacono questioned whether the signs are built into the cost of the kiosks.  Mr. Baia responded that $35,000 for signage is built into the appropriation resolution.

Councilor Coen inquired whether the amount for the signage also includes upgrading all the signage in all the parking garages or just along the street.  Parking Manager Dave Florence indicated that it does.

City Manager Tom Aspell stated that one thing to keep in mind with the kiosks is to do something or do nothing, do something with the kiosks or begin the meter replacement program.  He indicated that the Parking Committee has held off for a number of years of doing the meter replacement program because before they invested and replaced parking meters that would cost $65,000 a year for the next 7 or 8 years they wanted to look at a different system to see what the new technology is.  Mr. Aspell noted that some vehicles can pull up on Portsmouth or Manchester with a reader system on their windshield which automatically reads the kiosk system and debits.  He asked if staff had information on this type of technology.  Mr. Florence responded that he believes that he is referring to an in-car parking meter in which the kiosk isn’t used at all, a device is purchased, goes on the windshield and when one parks they simply turn that on.  It’s like a personal parking meter; it faces out so that the officers can see it.  Mr. Aspell asked if this same system can be used in Concord.  Mr. Florence replied that why they haven’t gone farther with research is that a separate account would need to be set up, a device for each community because there is not one that works in all three.  He indicated that it would be GPS based so it would know where a vehicle is parking, what community one is in and charge accordingly to that community.  He added that it hasn’t gotten there yet but is something that the city would definitely want to look at.  Mr. Aspell indicated that he had talked to one of the attendants in another community and they talked about the kiosk communicating back to headquarters and save on labor.  Mr. Florence explained that currently, the parking officers have to check every spot in the garages for expired meters and that the kiosks can be programmed in the garages and the officers can be given a list of every expired meter in a garage so they can just go to those and check.  He indicated that the kiosks will also give a time period as to how long the meter has been expired.

Councilor Bouchard noted that she was looking at outside services listed under expenses and inquired whether there is currently outside services.  Mr. Florence responded that outside services encompasses such items as snow removal in the garages and maintenance contract for the Capital Commons.  Councilor Bouchard questioned whether these expenses are the same or whether the outside services would be more with the kiosks.  Mr. Florence replied that the outside services would be less, minimizing the $19,000 for the yearly contracts for the Capital Commons equipment.

Mayor Bouley opened the public hearings for items A through G.

Five Minute Public Testimony

Mark Ciborowski, resident and downtown property owner, noted that he does like the idea of the kiosks but doesn’t feel that they will work in the Capital Commons garage.  He noted that they would accomplish getting rid of the gates and places a uniform parking system downtown.  He indicated that currently Capital Commons is a safe haven from receiving tickets which is an incentive to using the garage and this is a big downfall of placing the kiosks in this garage.  He stated that another major downfall in the Capital Commons garage is that you need to decide ahead of time how long you will be parking for.  Mr. Ciborowski noted that he feels that a parking garage is best worked when you can stay as long as you want, pay on the way out and when you cannot get a ticket.  He noted that he also feels that there will be a greater enforcement cost with the new system and stated that he further feels that there should be a parking attendant in this garage.  He strongly recommended that if Council keeps the current system in the Capital Commons garage that they consider installing another pay station on the first level and upgrading the systems so you can pay with a credit card.

Roy Schweiker, resident, noted that he doesn’t like to see the parking rates going up but on the other hand he is committed that the rest of the city should not subsidize downtown parking.  He suggested going to the kiosk for $1.00 per hour parking on Main Street and leave the meters on State and Storrs Street at 50 cents per hour which would be similar to averaging a 75 cent rate for a few years.  He noted his agreement with Mr. Ciborowski with having one place downtown where you pay when you leave instead of paying in advance and since there is one place already, it makes since to leave it that way.  He noted his disagreement with a parking attendant in the garage.  He noted that he is in favor of eliminating holiday parking and increasing fines.

Mayor Bouley asked if Mr. Schweiker prefers to stay with the current system and invest the money to have meters.  Mr. Schweiker responded no, that he is in favor of placing the kiosks on Main Street for $1.00 per hour and if the kiosk works, the city can expand it to other streets.

Kevin Curdie, resident, indicated that the kiosks in the parking garages are going to be able to be programmed to enter a parking space number and asked whether this could be done with kiosks on-street because he sees this as being a possible issue during inclement weather.  Referencing signage, he noted that he doesn’t see clearly visible signs within the city pointing drivers to the city’s parking garages and asked that the city place more visible signs to direct drivers to the garages.  He suggested that Council consider expanding the parking on South State and North State Streets to generate more revenue.

Jessica Eschleman, Main Street Concord Executive Director, stated that Council and the Ad-Hoc Parking Committee have performed a thorough and extensive review in order to arrive at the recommendations before them this evening.  She indicated that to help involve and educate the downtown constituents, Main Street has facilitated presentations to the merchants roundtable, Main Street Concord’s Economic Development Committee and hosted a meeting with business owners and employees in which they could offer input and ask questions.  She reported that although not every downtowner is excited about every recommendation, she noted that most have adopted a reluctant acceptance of these recommendations that stems from an understanding of the complexity of the matter and the importance of parking management in general.  She indicated that in all these conversations, they have heard three reoccurring themes: 1) kiosks on-street are favored for their convenience; 2) pay by space in the garages, especially Capital Commons, may have unintended consequences, many think of garages as a safe haven from tickets and could become a deterrent from staying longer downtown; 3) a strong plan for outreach to educate and inform downtown patrons and customers about whatever recommendations that are adopted this evening.

Andrew Hatch, Vice President of the Main Street Concord Board and downtown merchant, noted that as a merchant they are dealing with parking everyday both for employees as well as patrons.  He indicated that he pays his employees to park in the Capital Commons garage and wants the facility to be available as an opportunity to keep people that work downtown from parking on Main Street.  He wants to make sure it’s easy for him, as an employer, to purchase it as it has been up to now.  He indicated that the biggest complaint that he hears is the unavailability of convenient parking spaces.  He noted his concern with the signage for the parking garages not being clearly visible and welcoming.

Sue McCoo, Board Member of Main Street Concord and downtown merchant, suggested that Council consider 75 cent per hour rate for now and then maybe go to $1.00 in the future.  She indicated that she feels that Council should leave Capital Commons as it is for now.  She further indicated that there should be plenty of signage for the parking and that the public should be educated.

Councilor Keach indicated that he is torn about the proposal to eliminate the holiday free parking and asked what Ms. McCoo’s thoughts are on this proposal as a downtown merchant.  Ms. McCoo replied that the free parking is great but there are many employees that park in those spots.  She suggested doing this 3 or 4 days before the holiday.  Councilor Keach asked what percentage she believes are employees parking in those spots.  Ms. McCoo responded that there are a lot.

Mayor Bouley inquired as to, other than the weekends, what are the busiest days for holiday shopping.  Ms. McCoo indicated that most people wait until the last minute.

Rebecca Lavoie, resident and downtown employee, in response to Councilor Keach’s question indicated that 100 percent of downtown employees abuse the meter system whose bosses don’t subsidize the parking.  Referencing free meters on Saturdays, she noted that employee’s park at the meters on Saturdays because the spaces are closer to where you work and you don’t incur the extra risk and trouble of having to walk into a garage that isn’t user friendly.  She added that after 5:00 p.m. when meters are free, employees get their cars and bring them to downtown.  Ms. Lavoie stated that she is a fan of raising the parking rates and for installing the kiosks for convenience and an increased parking rate downtown will be an incentive for employees to use the garage.  She added that she feels that one of the main issues at hand is the user friendliness of the garage.

Stuart Russell, parking meter user, stated that he does like the idea of kiosks and feels that the current parking meter stanchions could be used for signs for a transitional period to direct people to the kiosks.  He noted that he feels that machines that take both coins and cards are a good idea.  In terms of the philosophy of parking meters, he stated that when parking meters first appeared in downtowns their purpose was not to enhance revenue but to turn over the use of downtown parking spaces and feels that they need to keep this goal in mind and revenue should be considered as a secondary item.  Suggested a staggered cost system: 50 cents for the first hour and $1.00 for subsequent hours so that you are not penalizing someone that needs to stop in downtown for a quick visit to one of the retailers.  In regards to the garage, he stated that the issues raised is important and feels that keeping the 50 cent per hour rate is a good idea and further feels that another kiosk is needed on the first level.  Mr. Stuart pointed out that there is no motorcycle parking downtown unless they use a full space and noted that the diagonal spaces at the end of the row would make perfect motorcycle spaces.

Alan Herschlag, resident, referenced expenses on the spreadsheet and pointed out that the reduction of a police officer from the parking fund with that amount of savings and removal of Capital Commons pay station annual expense with that amount of savings and questioned why these savings are carried out instead of disappearing after the first year of savings.

Jim Baer, resident, indicated that he feels that the kiosks are a good idea but had a few questions in regards to them inquiring whether the city can own or lease the kiosks and what happens if the city purchase an X amount of kiosks and several get damaged will the city have extra ones in inventory.  In regards to the Capital Commons parking garage, he noted that he feels this is going to be an issue for years to come and his advice is to get rid of it and move on.  He added that he feels that if it was a private garage it could be run more competently than it currently is at the present time.  Referencing Low Avenue, he indicated that there are a myriad of private parking signs and suspects that there are people parking in these spots that may not be legal.  He wondered if the Engineering Department could do a survey of Low Avenue and find out what the city’s right of way is, mark it clearly and if there people that are parking there that don’t belong there the city should get them over to the parking garage where they belong.

Mayor Bouley clarified that when he had tasked the committee to look at all the issues with parking fund, one of the options that was presented to them was the idea of selling the garages and it turned out not to be one of their recommendations.

Robert Baker, resident, noted that he feels that the proposed $1.00 rate per hour seems like a lot and that the 75 cent per hour rate may be more reasonable at least on the streets that are not on Main Street as was suggested in earlier testimony.  He indicated that his assumption, because none of the proposals say that the parking meters would be eliminated, is that those meters would be continued to be used somewhere else in the city and perhaps to expand the parking region around the city.  He noted that he thinks that the idea that the city won’t be incurring the expenses for meters may not reflect what the city would really do.  Referencing the cost of the kiosks, he questioned whether this was the right year to do this.

Carl Soderstrom, resident, asked what the effect on the businesses if the parking rates increase.  He noted that the problem is that the businesses are going to suffer a decrease in their revenue as the rates go up.  He cited businesses in which consumers can shop in which they do not have to pay for parking and if the city increases the rate downtown, he noted his concern that more people are going to shop elsewhere rather than pay the increased amount.

Three Minute Public Testimony

Stuart Russell referred to the free holiday parking and asked what if the free parking was made available as of a certain time of the day that would enhance shopping for the downtown businesses and eliminate the employees parking in these free spaces.

There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the public hearings for items A through G.

B.     Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-3, Parking Meters; Section 18-3-10, Exceptions, Holiday Parking. (4-13)

Action:  Public hearing for this item taken with item A.

C.     Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 19, Penalties; Article 19-1, Penalties, Procedure for Paying Penalties.  (4-14)

Action:  Public hearing for this item taken with item A.

D.     Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-3, Parking Meters. (4-15)

Action:  Public hearing for this item taken with item A.

E.      Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Schedule II, Fines and Penalties appended to Chapter 1, Government Organization; Article 1-5, Fees, Fines and Penalties; Section 1-5-2, Fines and Penalties.   (4-16)

Action:  Public hearing for this item taken with item A.

F.      Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-3-13, Restrictions on Use of Parking Lots and Parking Garages.  (4-17)

Action:  Public hearing for this item taken with item A.

G.     Resolution appropriating the sum of $665,000 including the authorization for the issuance of parking fund supported bonds and notes in the amount of $665,000 for installation of parking kiosks. (4-18)

Action:  Public hearing for this item taken with item A.

H.     Resolution appropriating the sum of  $155,790 in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) competitive energy efficiency Community Development Block Grant (EEGB) Funds for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy Improvements to various city buildings, facilities and vehicles (CIP #325) and authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a contract for this purpose; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (4-19)

Action:  City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that the city applied for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program and had several proposals which were awarded including: solar domestic hot water -  a grant of $100,000 has been awarded for fully automated evacuated tube solar domestic hot water pre-heat systems for Police Headquarters and all four fire stations; LED traffic signals - a grant of $51,940 has been awarded in which the city will replace a total of 158 traffic signals, 116 Walk/Don’t Walk displays and 42 older style incandescent pedestrian signal heads; anti-idling technology - a grant of $3,850 has been awarded for the purposes of 5 light trucks that will be retrofitted.  Mr. Aspell explained that the city has done many items energy related and are the most energy efficient community in the state and requested that Council appropriate these funds for that purpose.

Mayor Bouley declared the public hearing open. 

Public Testimony

Roy Schweiker, resident, noted that about 50 percent of the time in the last three months one or both of the Don’t Walk lights at the corner of Green Street and Centre Street hasn’t been working.  He asked whether the LED’s will be more reliable or whether the problem is with the cable coming in.  He indicated that he hopes, as part of this grant, some of the money is devoted to testing the system and making sure that the lights actually work.

Mayor Bouley asked whether Mr. Schweiker had reported the outage to the city.  Mr. Schweiker responded that he used to email a person at the Fire Department but has not heard anything back from the person.  Mayor Bouley noted that this is a safety issue and if coming across something like this in the future he hopes the time is taken to report this.  He stated that they can be reported to the City Clerk’s office.

There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing. 

I.        Resolution adopting the Penacook Village Tax Increment Finance Development Program and Financing Plan and Establishing the Penacook Village Tax Increment Finance District; together with a report from the Assistant for Special Projects.  (For public hearing in May and final vote in June).  (4-20)

Action:  Mayor Bouley explained that public hearing items I through K relate to the Penacook Tax Increment Finance District and asked that the public hearing for these items be opened together.  There was no objection to the request by City Council.

Matt Walsh, Assistant for Special Projects, provided an overview explaining that there are three items before Council that will create the Penacook Village Tax Increment Financing District: one responsible for the creation of the district and readoption of RSA 162-K; one appropriating $408,816 for water and sewer improvements which must be done to Crescent, East and Walnut Streets; one for $475,224 which will appropriate the rest of the funds necessary to complete the rest of the off-site improvements that are in Penacook.  He stated that all these improvements are being done to support redevelopment of the Penacook Tannery site, specifically the 4 Crescent Street property which is being undertaken by DEW Crescent Street Properties LLC together with Concord Hospital who’s going to move their Penacook Family Physicians practice there.  He pointed out that all these improvements were outlined within the development agreement that Council approved in February 2010.  Mr. Walsh provided an overview of the district explaining that staff is proposing a district of a little over 47 acres which today has a value of $11.149 million and stretches from the former Rivco complex to the Penacook Tannery site and the Contoocook River.  He added that it has been designed to encompass more than just the tannery site because staff feels that the improvements that will be built there will benefit more than just the tannery site and feels that in the long term it will help with the redevelopment of the Rivco property as well as some other vacant properties on East Street.  He explained that the way tax increment financing districts work is that on the date that the district is created, the value of the district that day the tax revenues on that value will continue to float to the city’s general fund, the Merrimack Valley School District, the county and the state which will happen in perpetuity and will not change, it will only increase or decrease as the overall market conditions in the city increase or decrease.  He explained that new development that is created within the district, whether it be construction of a new building, an addition to a building, significant renovation, tax revenues associated with those activities after the district is created are captured by the city in their entirety and will be used to finance debt service, obligations that the district will incur, annual operating costs, and repayment of the economic development reserve fund.  He stated that in the long term, once those obligations are satisfied, all tax revenues that are in this district that happened after the district was created will flow to the city’s general fund, the Merrimack County School District, the county and the state.  Mr. Walsh noted that staff is anticipating that the TIF district will expire sometime around the year 2038 and are estimating that the annual cost of the district for operating will be approximately $10,000 a year which is largely focused upon snow removal activities and maintenance of the new streetscape improvements that are going to be built.  He added that upon the adoption of the tax increment financing district, the City Manager is obligated to appoint an advisory board which will need to be confirmed by the Council of five individuals that live or work in the Penacook Village TIF District or near it.  He outlined the schedule for moving forward: the city has already bid the water and sewer improvements and if the resolution is approved this evening, the city can move forward with construction by the end of this month; because of a statutory requirement, Council cannot vote on the creation of the TIF district or the $475,224 resolution this evening and have to wait at least fifteen days in which case Council will have to wait until their June meeting.  He noted that should these be approved in June, he is hoping construction of the off-site improvements around Labor Day.  In summary he went over the benefits of the project: by creating the TIF district the general fund’s contribution, the taxpayers contribution, to redeveloping the tannery site will be minimized which in this case would be zero, there would be no general obligation bond issued that’s supported by the taxpayers; in the long term, this TIF district and the improvements associated therewith will help further the city’s investment in the Penacook Village.

Councilor Coen inquired as to how successful the other TIF districts have been.  Mr. Walsh responded that the city currently has two other TIF districts that are active, the NorthEnd Opportunity Corridor TIF District which covers the area surrounding the Grappone Conference Center this district is approximately 45 acres and had an assessed value of over $3 million when the district was formed and today this district is worth just under $50 million.  He pointed out that this district has been so successful that Council over the years has been able to take half of the incremental value that’s been developed in this district and returned it early to the city’s general fund, the school district, county and state.  The second one is the Capital Commons TIF District and is successful and the TIF itself is supported solely by the incremental value of the office building, generates surplus revenues every year and is anticipated to generate approximately $57,000 in surplus revenue for FY11.  He added that the improvements that it helped finance have led to the Steve Duprey Sanel Block project. 

The Mayor opened the public hearing.

Public Testimony

Alan Herschlag, resident, noted that he is concerned that the Tannery TIF project will not have the beneficial effects that city administration claims and the promises of tax base expansion, job creation, preservation of open space, the revitalization of the Penacook downtown and the empty upper floors, all sounds wonderful but the question is does creating a TIF district advance these objectives.  He noted his that his concern is not with the stated goals of the TIF, but with the city’s reliance on and the manner in which we have implemented these districts. He indicated that impact fees are paid to mitigate the costs associated with upgrades to city services, street and sidewalk improvements, additional costs to our schools, expansions of recreational areas, water and sewer extensions and upgrades and similar expenses and the reason impact fees are allowed is to lessen the financial impact new or redevelopment may impose on a community.

He added that TIF districts are encouraged in areas of blight where it is hoped that special financing will help to spur redevelopment and clearly the tannery site is blighted and clearly without some intervention from city government the prospects for redeveloping that property are dim at best. He noted that a new modern clinic will serve the community well and it may even spur additional development on the adjacent tannery lot. Mr. Herschlag added that the question he is asking is just how much assistance is needed to spur this redevelopment and believes the offer by the city to offset the cost of the lot based on the developers additional construction costs because of an unstable area caused by tannery wastes is reasonable. He noted that by providing relief to the developer for these unusual circumstances, it places the developer on a level playing field and allows the city to redevelop parcels that normally would either be too risky or expensive because of the difficulties they pose and offering incentives beyond those that would level the playing field is not fair to the community or other developers. He remarked that the two tannery sites encompass less then 6 acres, yet are TIFing 47 acres.  He noted that it is usual and customary to assess impact fees related to upgrading city services to meet the needs of a project, yet once again impact fees are being waived in a TIF district.  His suggestions include: the boundaries of the district need only encompass the Tannery lots; sidewalk, road work and other infrastructure improvements that can be assessed as impact fees to the developer be done so in a proportional manner as is usual and customary with other development projects; rather then ask the TIF district to repay all the monies that were expended to prepare the site for redevelopment it should be assessed fees similar to other projects and the city should rely on the multiplier effect they expect will occur due to the redevelopment of the tannery site to replenish these funds; the city should not put all its eggs in one basket at the expense of city, school and county and should ensure that 50% of all taxes in the district are returned to the city, school district and county from day one. He closed by noting that the city has the ability to provide the necessary incentives to move forward with this project and at the same time provide an immediate return for the residents of our city in the form of tax rate stabilization and urged Council to reexamine this proposal and enter into an agreement that offers equity for both parties, the developer and our community. (Full public testimony on file in the City Clerk’s Office)

Councilor Shurtleff asked if it was being suggested to reduce the size of the TIF to just include the tannery.  Mr. Herschlag responded yes, the two tannery lots.  Councilor Shurtleff referenced the hanging map and pointed out that the biggest parcel on there is the Rivco property which is in the middle of a residential neighborhood and which has been vacant for two year now.  He noted that if this begins to deteriorate because it hasn’t been developed, it’s going to impact the whole neighborhood and blight that area of Penacook.  Councilor Shurtleff asked wouldn’t it be better for the city to invest money to get a developer to come in and take care of that property, get it back on the tax rolls and enhance that neighborhood.  Mr. Herschlag questioned where the funding from this district is going to help to achieve the stated goals.  Councilor Shurtleff responded that by the upgrade in the structure of this neighborhood, the infrastructure, roadways, sewer lines, it could come into the TIF district which would be an encouragement for a developer to come in and do something with that piece of property.  Mr. Herschlag noted his agreement adding that he suggested that not all the return should be burdened on this district and shouldn’t be taking such a large parcel out of downtown Penacook and relying on future taxes to pay off a bond while not providing tax rate stabilization.  He remarked that what is being done is taking all those future funds for supposed or hope for a new development and putting it towards the district for a period of almost 30 years and doesn’t understand how this benefits the community because no new taxes are coming into the community.  His suggestion is that there is a sharing of those funds and those funds go to improve the district and some of those funds come back to the community for tax rate stabilization.  Councilor Shurtleff explained that it is realized that the new taxes will not come into the district or into the village but they will go to pay off the bonds that will be used to enhance that property and make it more appealing for businesses to develop that property and get it back into viable use.  Mr. Herschlag indicated that he is not going to disagree with Councilor Shurtleff statements but is going to disagree with the method of how that should occur noting that he does not feel that it is necessary to give away all those taxes for that to occur.

There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.

J.       Resolution appropriating the sum of $408,816, including the authorization for the issuance of water fund supported bonds and notes to the amount of $250,000 and closing out capital projects in the amount of $92,816 and reserve and capital transfers of $66,000 for water main replacement in East, Crescent, and Walnut Streets. (4-21)

Action:  Public hearing for this item taken with item I.

K.    Resolution appropriating the sum of $475,224, including the authorization for the issuance of bonds and notes in the amount of $285,000 and closing out capital projects of $57,324 and reserve and impact fee transfers of $132,900 to support implementation of the Penacook Village Tax Increment Finance District Development Program and Finance Plan.  (For public hearing in May and final vote in June).  (4-22)

Action:  Public hearing for this item taken with item I.

L.      Resolution accepting and appropriating the sum of $15,900 from the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation for management and maintenance of municipal property; together with a report from the Assistant for Special Projects. (4-23)

Action:  City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that last year during budget it was learned just prior that Groundworks Concord was going out of business and the question came up from the Council as to how they can keep the adopt-a-spot program going.  He indicated that the recommendation here is that the city receive money on an annual basis from the NH Charitable Foundation and that $15,900 be set aside for this purpose this year and will look at it on an annual basis.

Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing.  There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.

M.   Resolution appropriating the sum of $175,000 from the Self Insurance Reserve Fund and the Recreational Impact Fee Fund to settle a lawsuit against the city and acquire two parcels of land - Map 72/A, Block 3, Lot 20, known as 472 North State Street; and Map 72/A, Block 3, Lot 8, known as Clarke Street; containing a total of 9.17 acres, for the purposes of recreational use; and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase and sale agreement to purchase said parcels on behalf of and for the benefit of the City;  together with a report from the Deputy City Solicitor. (4-24)

Action:  City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview. 

Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing. 

Roy Schweiker, Concord resident, indicated that during the budget last year the city eliminated lower paid employees and added a higher paid attorney who would negotiate land deals for the city and according to the Concord Monitor, both a private attorney and the city attorney were negotiating for this piece of property asking why it took two attorney to negotiate for this property.  He noted another concern in regards to the city purchasing property at relatively high prices.

Mayor Bouley clarified that each of the major departments within the city gave up a top level person within their departments and Council effected what they thought was right from the top to the bottom of any organization.  He further clarified that the Deputy City Solicitor position has not only paid for itself already but the city is saving money by not contracting out in legal services.

            There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.

N.    Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 34 Personnel Rules and Regulations, Article 34-11, Civil Leave; together with report from the Deputy City Solicitor.  (4-25)

Action:  City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this ordinance revision requires that city employees be served with a subpoena before a testimony is given on behalf of the city. 

Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing.  There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.        

O.    Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 34 Personnel Rules and Regulations, Article 34-11-1, Annual Leave; together with report from the Deputy City Solicitor.  (4-26)

Action:  City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that this ordinance provides the City Manager with the authority to modify annual accrual rate for any city employees subject to approval by City Council. 

Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing. 

Public Testimony

Roy Schweiker, resident, noted that this is an item that he doesn’t fully understand but he is thinking that clearly there may be a need in some cases to give people unusual amounts of annual leave but is afraid the city is trying to make it too easy.  He indicated that he would like to treat city employees equally and that at times it may be necessary to do this but should not be voted on as a city policy this evening, instead, if someone needs additional annual leave it should come forth as a special item so that it is a special item and not something that happens all the time.  Mr. Schweiker noted that he is afraid that this is being used to make special deals on new hires and would explicitly like the city to avoid making special deals on annual for new hires.

There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.

P.      Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 14, Morals and Conduct; Article 14-2, Miscellaneous Police Regulations; together with report from the City Solicitor.  (4-27)  

            Action:  City Manager Tom Aspell indicated that this is a housekeeping item 

Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing.  There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.

Q.    Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code; Chapter 30 Boards and Commissions, Transportation Policy Advisory Committee; together with report from the City Clerks Office.  (4-Sus1)  (Revised ordinance and report from the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee submitted)

Action:  City Manager Tom Aspell indicated provided a brief overview.

Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing.  There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.

R.     Resolution amending the Energy and Environment Advisory Committee; together with report from Councilor Werner.  (4-Sus2)

Action:  City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.

Mayor Bouley opened the public hearing.  There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.

May 10, 2010 Public Hearing Action

48.  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; parking on the southern end of Storrs Street; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Development.  (4-12)

Action:  Councilor Nyhan moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

49.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-3, Parking Meters; Section 18-3-10, Exceptions, Holiday Parking. (4-13)

Action:  Councilor Nyhan moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

50.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 19, Penalties; Article 19-1, Penalties, Procedure for Paying Penalties.  (4-14)

Action:  Councilor Nyhan moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes

51.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-3, Parking Meters. (4-15)

Action:  Councilor Nyhan moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded.

Councilor Blanchard indicated that there seems to have been a lot of discussion about the garage and unintended consequences and remembers some discussion because she didn’t like the idea of having to decide, when arriving, how long one is going to be there.  She questioned whether there has been any discussion or consideration for parking attendants and finally making the garage user friendly.  She noted that she doesn’t feel that the proposal is making it user friendly or improving anything.

Mayor Bouley pointed out that this item keeps the rate at fifty cents in the parking garages and that he feels that it is a good idea to keep it a lower amount in the garages so that there is an incentive to want to park there.

Carlos Baia, Deputy City Manager-Development, clarified that item 51 is the rate that goes to $1.00 on-street and 50 cents in the parking garages; includes the minimum $1.00 credit card charge; and parking in any municipal garage.  City Manager Tom Aspell added that to accomplish what Councilor Blanchard is trying to do, to leave the existing system in place that is in the Capital Commons, would be to change this ordinance.  Mr. Baia explained that he anticipates that there will be some changes this evening and has given the Solicitor’s Office general concept of what some of these may be and they have indicated changes can be made after the fact and if the Solicitor’s Office feels that something is being made out of school, they will let staff know.

Councilor Blanchard stated that she does not want kiosks in the garage and doesn’t necessarily want the $1.00 an hour rate either.

Councilor St. Hilaire moved an amendment to reduce the proposed $1.00 to 75 cents for an hour for on-street parking and leave the parking garages the way they are.  The motion was duly seconded. 

Councilor Coen asked if dropping the rate from $1.00 to 75 cents would put the city into a negative cash flow and cost.  He indicated that the whole idea and the recommendations from the ad-hoc committee is that they came up with $1.00 so that it would balance it out and by bringing it down to 75 cents he hasn’t heard how they are going to make up the difference indicating that is why he would vote no on the amendment.

Councilor Keach noted that he will be voting in favor of the amendment.  He added that to Councilor Coen’s point, he feels that the pro forma that has been produced by city staff has been extremely conservative, as it should be, and that it would be prudent to take this year by year to see where it is at.

Councilor Nyhan thanked Councilor Coen for stating what he had stated previously is the pro forma discussions that were had have been that the 75 cents per hour does not work for the long term of the parking funding.  He added that it is his belief based upon discussions they have had and looking at the pro forma with staff is that to go to 75 cents an hour Council will be revisiting this issue and will not solve the city’s financial problem.

Councilor Werner noted that he intends to vote against the amendment indicating that the point that was made in terms of the economic incentive, on-street parking versus garage parking, needs to be very strong.  He noted that he supports the $1.00 because it meets those conditions in terms of a differential.

Councilor McClure noted that she will be voting in favor of the amendment and to support what Councilor Keach stated earlier.  She stated that she shares some of the concerns that were expressed by those who testified and that indeed the city may need $1.00 eventually but feels that 75 cents is a softer entrance into a new parking fee increase by only going up 25 cents more right now and revisiting this in a year or two to see how the city is doing financially.

Councilor Blanchard asked whether the negative bottom line for the pro forma for 75 cents is because the city would be purchasing kiosks and if the city doesn’t purchase the kiosks what would this do.  Mr. Baia responded that although not explicit in the pro forma here, the assumption was based on past pro formas that the committee reviewed that it would continue to be negative.  He added that the kiosks allow for a 25 percent boost in revenue primarily because of the credit card feature and there wouldn’t be overlapping of times on the same space.  He noted that these recommendations came packaged to a certain degree and when they were packaged, that’s where the set of numbers came from this evening.

Councilor McClure added that it was indicated that there was only a six percent difference in the discount between the 75 cents and the $1.00.  She noted that she expressed that she felt like there should be a larger decrease in usage with $1.00 than just six percent more than the 75 cents.  Mr. Baia responded that it was seven percent.  Councilor McClure stated that she feels that the city is going to lose a lot more than just seven percent with the $1.00 than they will with the 75 cents.

Councilor Shurtleff noted his support of the motion and that he has tremendous respect for the work that Councilor Nyhan and the committee did on this.  He indicated that he supports the amendment because it would lessen the burden and impact on people in times of a tough economy.

Councilor St. Hilaire noted that he respects what the committee did but because the economy is such a bad position right now, he is concerned with the downtown businesses and feels that the incremental approach is better and more appropriate at this time.

Referencing the amendment to 75 cents, Councilor Bouchard indicated that the city is looking at a $30,000 deficit in FY12 and $113,000 in FY13.  Mr. Baia responded that it is projected that FY12 would be in the red $31,000 and FY13 would be in the red $113,000.  Councilor Bouchard inquired as to how this would be made up.  City Manager Tom Aspell responded that Council would do what they have done in the past which is to defer maintenance.

Referencing the pro forma, Councilor Nyhan inquired to, at 75 cents per transaction for a credit card which is a minimum of one hour, what is the cost margin on this and is this something that was brought into the equation.  Mr. Baia responded that they are in the process of interviewing credit card processing firms right now so staff does not have a definitive across the board transaction costs.  He noted that staff has had numbers that project the transaction costs that can be anywhere from 11 cents per transaction to 25 cents per transaction so if the question is can the 75 cents cover the transaction cost, it should cover it.  Mr. Aspell added that the issue is that the margin on that 75 cents, losing 14, 20, 25 cents, the amount that would then go into the parking fund is reduced dramatically.  Councilor Nyhan indicated that the one thing that they did hear consistently this evening is that the kiosk system is something that consumers wanted.

Councilor St. Hilaire clarified that his amendment did not mention the fact that they would be eliminating the $1.00 minimum on using a debit card.  He indicated that if someone chooses to use a debit card, he understands the financial impact of having the surcharge is on that so that would stand. However, if somebody wanted to park and use their debit card for two hours, it’s only going to cost them $1.50 rather then $2.00 and they are still charging that minimum of $1.00 on their debit cards.

Mr. Baia explained that the kiosks themselves won’t have a financial minimum they are going to have a time minimum.  He noted that if the amendment were to pass for 75 cents per hour on the street and that there is a $1.00 minimum for a debit card; they would have to translate the dollar into a time minimum which will be awkward but not impossible. 

Councilor St. Hilaire asked that if Manchester does it with a dollar minimum instead of a time minimum, why can’t the city do it the same way if using the same machines.  Mr. Baia responded that in Manchester’s ordinance they still have a dollar but on their machines today, they have taken the coins and the credit card and made them the same minimum.  Councilor St. Hilaire clarified that they are still using a dollar amount as a minimum and not a time period.  He added that people understand that when using credit cards that there are usually minimum transaction fees.  Mr. Baia noted that based upon the best information they have to date; they understand that, if you charge a differential financial amount to the credit card companies, it is not in accordance with credit card compliance.  In Portsmouth, for example, their credit card processor told them not to charge a different financial amount, charge a time period instead because, allegedly, this is compliant.  In Manchester because they charge the same for both, they don’t have any issue.

Councilor Keach pointed out that the experience in other communities has been that approximately 50 percent of the transactions are debit or credit cards.  He asked whether this was correct.  Dave Florence, Parking Manager, responded that in the first year in Manchester they were about 28 percent and has creeped up to 40 percent.  Mr. Florence indicated that the vendor that they have has meters in Portland and Chicago and they are seeing rates of 50 to 60 percent.  Councilor Keach asked whether it was consistent to suggest that there is going to be a natural tendency on the consumer to place more time on that kiosk meter than they actually use.  Mr. Baia responded yes explaining that this is one of the reasons that the kiosk generates more revenue.

Councilor Blanchard noted that she understands the proposal in the garage, keeping it at 50 cents per hour but make it a minimum charge of $1.00 for credit cards asking if they would receive two hours and whether this was contrary to what was being said.  Mr. Baia responded that it wouldn’t be an issue in the garages it’s going to be the on-street in which it will become an hour plus a fraction of the second hour.

Councilor St. Hilaire’s motion to reduce the proposed $1.00 an hour on-street parking to 75 cents per hour leaving the garages as they are passed 9 to 6 with a show of hands vote.

Councilor St. Hilaire moved to change the minimum charge period to 80 minutes if using a credit/debit card.  The motion was duly seconded.

Mr. Baia explained that with the machines themselves they are going to have an issue logistically to do that.  He noted that they can do as a proposal an hour minimum on-street and if wanted to they can have a two hour minimum in the garage.  Mr. Florence indicated that the easiest way possible would be to say a minimum credit card purchase on-street is one hour and minimum credit card purchase in the garage is two hours.

Councilor St. Hilaire withdrew his motion to change the minimum charge period.  The second to the motion was also withdrawn.

Councilor Keach stated that he would be interested in getting a legal opinion whether there is legally any difference between setting a minimum time and setting a minimum dollar amount.

Councilor DelloIacono noted that there is usually a minimum charge of $5.00 at a convenience store to use a charge card and not a minimum of two or three purchases.  He indicated that he does not see why there would be restrictions on a time period versus a dollar amount.

Mr. Florence explained that according to what they have gone through with VISA and their rules is that you cannot set a minimum or a maximum on a credit card purchase in a dollar amount.  He indicated that a convenience store that sets a rate and one complains to VISA they will shut that business off from using a credit card.

Councilor DelloIacono questioned whether this was a VISA policy.  Mr. Florence indicated that this is a VISA or MasterCard policy.

Councilor Bennett pointed out that there is also an RSA that does not allow merchants to set a minimum on credit card purchases.

Councilor Shurtleff moved to maintain the current system in the Capital Commons parking garage. The motion was duly seconded.

Councilor Coen noted that he strongly feels that there should be an additional pay station kiosk on the first floor.

Councilor DelloIacono noted his agreement with Councilor Coen’s remarks however adding the ability to accept credit cards to the existing kiosk system.

Referencing the motion on the floor, Councilor Stetson asked whether this means that there will not be kiosks in the Fire House or the Durgin Block garages.  Mayor Bouley clarified that it is for just the Capital Commons garage.

Councilor Blanchard indicated that at some point she would like to send the whole issue of the Capital Commons parking garage back to the Parking Committee because she feels that there are other solutions to that garage to make it more user friendly.

Councilor Keach moved that an additional station be placed on the first floor and the other two existing stations be retro-fitted to accept credit and debit cards.  The motion was duly seconded.

Mr. Baia clarified whether Council was talking about an additional pay station similar to the ones that are currently there.  He explained that this is a different cost structure not close to the price of the kiosks being talked about this evening.  He noted that he just wants to make sure it is understood that if Council is telling staff to do this, it’s probably going to throw all the numbers completely off.

Mayor Bouley noted that at this time, he hopes that Council wouldn’t vote for this this evening.  He indicated that he has consistently supported putting a pay station downstairs but feels that Council should really know the numbers of what the costs are before doing so.

Councilor Keach added that there is going to be the additional savings of those new kiosks not being installed there so there is a certain cost savings there but noted that he feels that the numbers are important to get before moving forward. 

Councilor Keach withdrew his motion to place an additional station on the first floor and to retro-fit the existing stations to accept credit and debit cards.  The second to the motion was also withdrawn.

Councilor Nyhan indicated that the cost of a kiosk in the Capital Commons garage was $63,000 two years ago and to retro-fit those for credit cards can only be speculated at this time and believes that the reason they didn’t do that in prior years is because it was cost prohibitive.  

Councilor Bennett pointed out that when Council first discussed placing another pay station in the Capital Commons parking garage it was $68,000 and it was for a time certain and would probably cost somewhere around $75,000 today.  He further pointed out that the city will have to maintain an additional $19,000 for the maintenance contract.

Councilor St. Hilaire stated that his thought with seconded the amendment was to keep the garage the way it is for the time being but the appropriation for the kiosk is going to remain the same because that has not been altered in the amendment which means that those five kiosks are still being purchased that would have gone into the garage that now aren’t and will presumably be placed on the streets somewhere to add more parking capacity and place them somewhere you wouldn’t so that there will be more revenue.  He noted that at some time it makes sense to put those in the garage they can be taken back from those locations and place them into the garage.

Mr. Florence stated that if they had the additional five kiosks that was slated for the Capital Commons garage in the current proposal, staff would use those where there are existing meters currently.

Councilor Nyhan reminded Council that as part of the ad-hoc committee’s recommendation, they did not recommend putting the kiosk into the Capital Commons garage as part of phase one and was something that this Council voted to do at the March meeting.  He asked why the city would purchase the additional five kiosks and place them on the street unless the city is receiving a break point charge on the purchase of them.

The motion to maintain the current system in the Capital Commons parking garage passed on a voice vote.

The ordinance, as amended, passed on a voice vote.

52.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Schedule II, Fines and Penalties appended to Chapter 1, Government Organization; Article 1-5, Fees, Fines and Penalties; Section 1-5-2, Fines and Penalties.   (4-16)

Action:  Councilor Nyhan moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

53.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 18, Parking; Article 18-3-13, Restrictions on Use of Parking Lots and Parking Garages.  (4-17)

Action:  Councilor Nyhan moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded.

Councilor Nyhan moved to strike any reference of the Capital Commons garage.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

Councilor McClure indicated that a suggestion was made this evening that at some point in the future the city may want to convert the Durgin Block and Fire House garages to the same system as the Capital Commons garage.  She asked how purchasing these kiosk machines will dictate what the city will do in the future if they want to try and convert the other garages to the same system.  Mr. Baia responded that Council would be having a very similar discussion and in essence, would have made an investment in equipment that would probably not be compatible with which they are envisioning to do in the future.  He explained that the machines here are not really made to be coordinated with a date system so Council maybe looking at removing those machines and going with some other alternate system similar to Capital Commons or an attendant.

Referencing section two, Councilor Stetson stated that he doesn’t feel that they can eliminate or delete subsection (g), lost ticket fee since this does deal exclusively with Capital Commons.  He explained that if they eliminate this fee and there is a lost ticket, there will be no revenue.

Councilor Nyhan noted that he believes that Councilor Stetson is correct.

Mr. Baia indicated that, if Council will oblige, staff will make the changes to this particular ordinance again to reflect what needs to be done. He noted that staff is cognizant and it is on the record that Capital Commons will stay the same.  Mr. Baia indicated that staff can make the changes to ordinance, the City Solicitor will get their input and draft it correctly.

Mayor Bouley noted that he would like the mistake corrected this evening.

Councilor Stetson moved to remove the part referring to the deletion of lost ticket fee under subsection (g).  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

Councilor Blanchard inquired whether this meant that kiosks will be placed in the other two garages.  Council agreed that was correct.

Mr. Florence explained that section (f) as it reads currently, even with Capital Commons, goes on to list kiosk machines or parking meter.  He indicated that the kiosk machine would be the same as the pay on foot station and doesn’t feel that any changes need to be made to (f) noting that he feels that this will cover all garages whether it’s a pay on foot station, a kiosk or a single space parking meter.  He indicated that he feels that all they need to do is remove (g) as Councilor Stetson had suggested.

Mayor Bouley noted that he feels that this is correct but points out something that has been bothering him for some time, when Council is given these ordinances staff only gives the amended changes and do not put it in the context of the full ordinance so it is very hard when trying to look at changing something and only looking at the one paragraph so you don’t get to see how it relates to the other portions of the section.

Councilor Shurtleff moved to place the Capital Commons parking garage back into item (f).  The motion was duly seconded.

Following additional Council discussion, Mayor Bouley clarified that the Capital Commons parking garage does not need to be taken out because it applies to the existing machines.

Councilor Shurtleff moved to place the Capital Commons parking garage back in item (f).  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

The ordinance, as amended, passed on a voice vote.

54.  Resolution appropriating the sum of $665,000 including the authorization for the issuance of parking fund supported bonds and notes in the amount of $665,000 for installation of parking kiosks. (4-18)

Action:  Councilor Nyhan moved approval of the resolution with an amendment to reduce the appropriation by the appropriate dollar value of the kiosks that were going to be put in Capital Commons.  The motion was duly seconded. 

Councilor Keach asked about the elimination of parking on Storrs Street asking if they will become permanent no parking spots, or metered spots.  Dave Florence indicated that they will become no parking spots for about 18 months while construction takes place in that are after which time the Parking Committee would revisit the best use for those spots.  

Councilor Blanchard asked for clarification as to whether or not the tickets produced by the kiosks would be easily seen by parking personnel as well as whether or not the placement of the kiosks would make it difficult for those parking downtown.   Dave Florence explained that those parking downtown would just place the tickets on their dashboard where parking personnel could easily see the ticket.  He further indicated that installation of the proposed kiosks would make it so those parking and using them would have to walk approximately five car lengths, in either direction, to pay for their parking.   

Referencing reducing the five kiosks, Councilor Coen asked that if the city did still purchase these would it generate a surplus.  Mr. Baia responded that the same formula applied to the kiosks everywhere else in terms of the advantages they would have in terms of revenue generation should theoretically apply if they are moved somewhere else.

Councilor St. Hilaire questioned whether staff had a figure for the dollar amount that Councilor Nyhan suggested in the amendment.  Mr. Baia responded that the amount is $7,550 per machine, $37,750.  He explained that what he is not sure of is whether there are any ancillary costs associated with those machines in terms of installation.

Councilor Stetson stated that he would like to know the dollar figure before voting on this item.

Councilor Nyhan amended his motion to reduce the $665,000 appropriation to $630,000.  He noted that this would leave a little extra to adjust for any sort of construction and implementation costs.  The motion was duly seconded.

Councilor DelloIacono asked whether it is anticipated that the city can make up the $35,000 if the five additional kiosks are purchased.  Mr. Baia responded that it would be difficult to say because it depends upon where they are placed and turnover.

Councilor Nyhan stated that one of his primary concerns with moving these five machines on-street is that he doesn’t feel that they are going to generate the $20,000 in additional revenue to cover the maintenance costs in the garage for the existing system.  He indicated that if Council is going to postpone this decision until later when they have to raise it to $1.00, they can revisit this at that point in time.

The resolution, as amended, passed 12 to 3 on a roll call vote with Councilors Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors DelloIacono, Grady, Keach, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff and Werner voting yes.  Councilors Bennett, Coen and Stetson voted no.

55.  Resolution appropriating the sum of  $155,790 in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) competitive energy efficiency Community Development Block Grant (EEGB) Funds for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy Improvements to various city buildings, facilities and vehicles (CIP #325) and authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a contract for this purpose; together with report from the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (4-19)

Action:  Councilor Bouchard moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting vote

56.  Resolution adopting the Penacook Village Tax Increment Finance Development Program and Financing Plan and Establishing the Penacook Village Tax Increment Finance District; together with a report from the Assistant for Special Projects.  (For public hearing in May and final vote in June).  (4-20)

Action:  Action on this item to be taken at the June Council meeting.

57.  Resolution appropriating the sum of $408,816, including the authorization for the issuance of water fund supported bonds and notes to the amount of $250,000 and closing out capital projects in the amount of $92,816 and reserve and capital transfers of $66,000 for water main replacement in East, Crescent, and Walnut Streets. (4-21)

Action:  Councilor Shurtleff moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed 14 to 0 on a roll call vote with Councilors Bennett, Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors Coen, DelloIacono, Keach, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson and Werner voting yes.  Councilor Grady was absent for the vote.

58.  Resolution appropriating the sum of $475,224, including the authorization for the issuance of bonds and notes in the amount of $285,000 and closing out capital projects of $57,324 and reserve and impact fee transfers of $132,900 to support implementation of the Penacook Village Tax Increment Finance District Development Program and Finance Plan.  (For public hearing in May and final vote in June).  (4-22)

Action:  Action on this item to be taken at the June Council meeting.

In regards to item 54, City Manager Aspell inquired whether the roll call was on the bond vote or the motion to change the $665,000 to $630,000.  City Clerk Janice Bonenfant responded that the roll call vote was on the resolution, as amended to $630,000.   Mr. Aspell questioned whether there was an earlier motion to change it from $665,000 to $630,000 that passed.  There was confusion as to whether this vote had been taken.

Councilor Nyhan moved to reconsider item 54.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

Councilor Nyhan’s motion to reduce the $665,000 appropriation to $630,000 passed on a voice vote.

Item 54, as amended, passed 12 to 3 on a roll call vote with Councilors Blanchard, Bouchard, Mayor Bouley, Councilors DelloIacono, Grady, Keach, McClure, Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff and Werner voting yes.  Councilors Bennett, Coen and Stetson voted no.

59.  Resolution accepting and appropriating the sum of $15,900 from the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation for management and maintenance of municipal property; together with a report from the Assistant for Special Projects. (4-23)

Action:  Councilor McClure moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

60.  Resolution appropriating the sum of $175,000 from the Self Insurance Reserve Fund and the Recreational Impact Fee Fund to settle a lawsuit against the city and acquire two parcels of land - Map 72/A, Block 3, Lot 20, known as 472 North State Street; and Map 72/A, Block 3, Lot 8, known as Clarke Street; containing a total of 9.17 acres, for the purposes of recreational use; and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase and sale agreement to purchase said parcels on behalf of and for the benefit of the City;  together with a report from the Deputy City Solicitor. (4-24)

Action:  Councilor Bouchard moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.

Councilor St. Hilaire asked if the motion was to accept the report and the resolution.  Mayor Bouley indicated that to be correct.

Councilor St. Hilaire moved to amend the resolution to appropriate the sum of $185,000 and take $75,000 out of the insurance trust fund.  He indicated that the reason he is making this amendment because it was contemplated that there is a possibility that the Conservation Commission could donate $10,000 and is making this amendment to have the city just buy out the property and not involve the Conservation Commission at this time in case the city makes the improvements and they want to look at the totality of the property or in case the city wants to make the improvements itself and open it up as a park for the public.  The motion was duly seconded.

Councilor McClure explained that the Conservation Commission has voted to acquire the back parcel and to develop this into a park to connect it to Morono Park. 

 Councilor St. Hilaire noted that the Conservation Commission just wants the smaller parcel but there is also the front parcel that the city will have, if approved, that connects to North State Street and he sees a possibility where having an entry way off of North State Street with maybe a parking lot and use this to access the river.  He stated that he does not know if the Conservation Commission would be involved making paved parking lots for access but thought the city could keep its options open from the city’s perspective.

Councilor Coen noted that as he understands the motion, they would be reducing the options for that parcel instead of just saying the city is going to acquire it for any use.

Councilor St. Hilaire clarified that his motion contemplates anything and when he referenced a park he was just explaining his rationale for it.  He indicated that his motion would open it up to any possibilities.

Councilor McClure asked how the request would be received when the Conservation Commission comes to Council next month to acquire the parcel behind for $10,000. 

Councilor Stetson noted that he doesn’t believe that Council needs to change the appropriation amount indicating that in the briefing that they had this amount and the insurance money is enough to cover the settlement and purchase the property.  He explained that it doesn’t need to be raised by $10,000 because the money from the Conservation Commission is not included within this at all.

Council discussion occurred in regards to the report and Mayor Bouley noted that he believes that Council only has to deal with the actual resolution and in the proposed resolution, to accomplish what Councilor St. Hilaire wishes there is no need to change the amount.

Councilor St. Hilaire withdrew his amendment to the motion.  The second was also withdrawn.

Councilor Keach inquired whether there was any legal attachment, easement or anything that the Conservation Commission will have with that back parcel.

Referring to the consent agenda, Mayor Bouley pointed out that item 10 was tabled for a June 14^th public hearing and that is the Conservation Commission’s proposal to purchase that back portion.  He explained that by taking action on this item, #60, this evening it has nothing to do with the Conservation Commission.

Councilor Bouchard’s motion to approve the resolution passed with no dissenting votes.

61.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 34 Personnel Rules and Regulations, Article 34-11, Civil Leave; together with report from the Deputy City Solicitor.  (4-25)

Action:  Councilor Shurtleff moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded.

Councilor Stetson questioned how this would affect employees that work for the city that go across the street to the state to testify.  City Manager Tom Aspell responded that the way that currently works is that they come to him for his approval and if they have the City Manager’s approval, they can go across the street and testify if they are on city time.  Councilor Stetson inquired how an employee of the city on official duty would or on city time, be allowed to go testify before the legislature under this rule.  Deputy City Solicitor Jim Kennedy responded that the phrase “unless otherwise established by rule” would refer to a policy of the city so unless established by a policy of the city one would need a subpoena to appear before any public body or court or anything when acting in your capacity as a public employee for the city.  He added that the city could have a citywide policy and what that provides is that there could be a policy that allows, under the City Manager’s direction, to speak before a public body such as the state legislature without the issuance of a subpoena.  Councilor Stetson inquired whether such a policy currently exists.  Mr. Aspell responded that there is not a written policy but there is a policy in place.  Councilor Stetson asked who authorizes the City Manager to testify.  Mr. Aspell responded that the way it has been set up in the past is if there is timeliness involved, he would come to City Council and let them know of the position of the city and whether they agree or disagree and is what he authorizes the city’s representatives to provide testimony on.  He explained that if there isn’t, the City Council has given himself and past City Manager the authority to make that decision on the fly.  Mr. Aspell indicated that the reason that this came up is because several years ago there would be various city departments testifying in opposition to each other in terms of what the interest was and it got to the point in which the city said from now on, before anybody goes to testify, they would need to get the City Manager’s opinion or authorization.  He added that if he feels that it is controversial, he will contact City Council to let them know.

Mr. Kennedy added that something else that this does is the issue with respect of being paid while on civil leave requires either that one is on jury duty or subpoenaed to appear before the court, public body or commission and so pursuant to the current statute unless you have a subpoena you won’t be paid to testify in one of the public bodies.

The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.

62.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 34 Personnel Rules and Regulations, Article 34-11-1, Annual Leave; together with report from the Deputy City Solicitor.  (4-26)

Action:  Councilor Nyhan moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

63.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 14, Morals and Conduct; Article 14-2, Miscellaneous Police Regulations; together with report from the City Solicitor.  (4-27)   (Staff request to table action until June))

Action:  Councilor McClure moved to table action on this item until the June Council meeting.   The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

64.  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code; Chapter 30 Boards and Commissions; together with report from the City Clerks Office.  (4-Sus1) (Revised ordinance and report from the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee submitted)

Action:  Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval to substitute the revised ordinance with the one previously submitted.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

Councilor St. Hilaire moved approval of the revised ordinance.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

65.  Resolution amending the Energy and Environment Advisory Committee; together with report from Councilor Werner.  (4-Sus2)

Action:  Councilor Bouchard moved approval.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

Reports 

66.  Concord Area Transit (CAT) Transit Service Plan. (4-60) (For presentation in May) (Transportation Policy Advisory Committee report submitted)

Action:  Councilor Shurtleff moved to suspend the rules to allow the meeting to continue past 11:00 p.m.  The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.

Jennifer Kretovic, Public Transit Committee chair, noted that she hoped that Council takes away five important aspects of the study; 1) using the industry standard level of performance indicators in comparing CAT to its peers across NH and VT, CAT is currently the second best public transit operating system; 2) with regards to the routes, the Industrial Park Drive route performed poorly during the study however there are very important community connections along this route but the performance indicators show the entire route and system suffers for it; 3) there are 27 recommendations to improve the routes in the CAT system and every one is contingent upon what happens with the trolleys; 4) CAT has focused on maximizing the level of service on the road; 5) this study has provided for a clear, common direction from both CAT and for the Public Transit Committee.  Ms. Kretovic explained that they know what needs to be done, they’ve used the study to develop program goals to accomplish over the next three years, they have the means of measuring performance which can translate to increased ridership and accountability on behalf of the taxpayers and an opportunity to position CAT to capture all the potential federal funds that are available to them.  She indicated that to accomplish these tasks, they need the City Council to support their recommendations which is to fund the 20 percent federal match so that CAT can hire a mobility manager in FY11, to require CAT to provide City Council a service indicator report each quarter, and require CAT to provide City Council an updated status report of the program goals.

Councilor Bouchard thanked the committee for all the time they put into the study.

Ralph Littlefield, Belknap-Merrimack County Community Action Program Executive Director, noted that he has been involved with CAT since it was first established and this is the most thorough review that they have gone through since that time.  He indicated that the committee has worked diligently to come up with a set of recommendations that the agency concurs with.

Mayor Bouley recognized everyone involved in the process noting that this was very well done and thorough.

Councilor Stetson moved to accept the report.  The motion was duly seconded.

Mayor Bouley pointed out that the report contains three recommendations and item one includes funding the federal match.  He asked that Council consider referring item one to the Finance Committee so that it can be talked about within the budget process.

Councilor Stetson revised his motion to accept the report and refer recommendation item one to the Finance Committee.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

New Business

Unfinished Business

67.  Report from the Recreation Department regarding fundraising for July 4^th festivities.  (4-45) (Action on this report tabled at the April 12, 2010 Council meeting)

Action:  Councilor Keach moved to remove this item from the table.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

Mayor Bouley provided an oral report explaining that this item was tabled to see if the city can raise the money necessary and noted that he was pleased to announce that the city has received the money necessary to hold the fireworks this summer. 

Councilor Stetson moved the oral report.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

68.  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) (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.

Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors

Councilor Patten presented City Manager Tom Aspell with the 2010 public servant award from the Pineconia Grange.

Councilor Coen inquired as to when Council will be meeting next.  Mayor Bouley indicated that Council will be receiving their budgets this Friday and are scheduled to meet the following Tuesday, May 18^th at 6:30 p.m.

Referencing the budget before the House, Councilor Bouchard inquired whether there was anything that concerns the city.  Mr. Aspell responded that the rooms and meals tax noting that he believes that will have the reduction to the funding to the city just based on last year’s dollars, $195,000 and the additional cost for retirement will be approximately $126,000.  He explained that, right now, those are the two main ones at approximately $320,000 and to keep in mind that $305,000 is roughly one percent of the tax rate.  He noted that they need to add to this the second year of lack of funding, revenue sharing, which is about $1.2 million and a reduction from last year, totaling close to $2 million additional cost for the city this year compared to two years ago.  He added that there is two ways to make up for this: raise taxes or to cut services noting that they anticipated the $320,000 and considered this into the budget.

Mayor Bouley reminded resident dog owners of the city to license their dogs if they have not done so by the end of May to avoid any fines.  He noted that out of 5,200 only 2,000 dog licenses have been renewed.

Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion

Items 11, 25 and 26 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda. 

11.  Positive Citizen Comments. (Pulled from the consent agenda by Councilor Blanchard)

Action:  Councilor Blanchard reiterated accolades given to some of the police officers and firemen.

Councilor Blanchard moved to accept the positive citizen comments.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

25.  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) (Pulled from the consent agenda by Councilor Shurtleff and Mayor Bouley)

Action:  Councilor Shurtleff moved to table this item.  He noted his appreciation of the Heritage Commission’s unanimous vote in support of his recommendation but understands that it needs to be reviewed by Community Development. 

Mayor Bouley indicated that this report is of the action of the Heritage Commission recommending the name change but gave Council no direction.  He noted that he was going to ask that Council refer this back to Administration and Community Development for the purposes of preparing all the necessary documents to move forward with this name change.

Councilor Shurtleff moved to refer this report to Administration and Community Development for the purposes of preparing all the necessary documents to move forward with this name change.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

26.  Report from the City Engineer recommending acceptance of the New Hampshire Hero's Recreational Crossing, a bridge structure located within Lehtinen Park off of Horse Hill Road. (Pulled from the consent agenda by Councilor Blanchard)

Action:  Councilor Blanchard commended David Murray and his snowmobile club for all the work they had to do to get the Engineering Department to approve the bridge.

Councilor Blanchard moved to accept the report.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

Councilor St. Hilaire moved to reconsider item 10 within the consent agenda.  He explained that there is no need to have a hearing based upon Council’s previous conversation.  The motion was duly seconded.

Councilor McClure stated that if there is no hearing on this item then they are not able to acquire the back land.  She requested that Council hold this public hearing allowing the Conservation Commission to acquire the back land but not preclude discussions about the property on North State Street in the future.

Councilor St. Hilaire explained that his intention was, if brought back off consent, to table this item so that Council could schedule a hearing in the future if they wanted to.

Councilor St. Hilaire’s motion to consider item 10 passed with no dissenting votes.

Councilor St. Hilaire moved to table item 10.  The motion was duly seconded.

City Manager Aspell explained that what Councilor St. Hilaire is suggesting is that the $200,000 is appropriated under the resolution that was voted on so the front and the back property are bought.  He indicated that what the Conservation Commission’s recommendation is that they would then reimburse the city up to $11,000 to buy the back piece from the city and what motion does is say that at this point in time, there wouldn’t be a hearing to appropriate those dollars because right now the city is going to control both pieces of property into the future and may decide at a future date to sell the piece or both or not.

The motion to table item 10 passed with one dissenting vote.

Adjournment

The time being 11:19 p.m., Councilor Nyhan moved to enter into a non public meeting to discuss collective bargaining in accordance with RSA 91: A: 2, I (a) & (b).  The motion was duly seconded and passed 13 to 1 on a roll call vote with Councilors Nyhan, Patten, St. Hilaire, Shurtleff, Stetson, Werner, Bennett, Blanchard, Bouchard, Coen, DelloIacono, Grady, Keach voting yes.  Mayor Bouley voted no.  Councilor McClure was absent from the vote.

Councilor Stetson moved to come out of non-public session and adjourn the meeting at 11:42 p.m.  The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.

A true copy; I attest:

Michelle Tiffany                                                                                                                                               
Deputy City Clerk