A meeting of the Bedford Town Council was held on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 at the Bedford Meeting Room, 10 Meetinghouse Road.  Present were Councilors David Danielson, Andrew Egan, Kevin Keyes, Michael Scanlon, Bruce Searing  (arrived at 5:40 PM) and William Van Anglen.  Also present was Keith Hickey, Town Manager.  Mr. Danielson opened the meeting at 5:30 PM.  Councilor William Greiner is out of town on business/vacation.

Airport Access Road work session with DOT Commissioner Carol Murray

Ms. Murray said she understands the Council has some questions and some things they want to talk about.   She gave a brief update indicating they have their permits and hope to break ground in 2005.

Mr. Keyes said he was at a meeting 3 or 4  months ago of commercial realtors, and Bob Barry presented the plan and made the point that there was not going to be the off ramp with direct access to Route 3.   Mr. Keyes was surprised to hear that.  He mentioned it to other people, and they were all surprised to hear that.   Virtually no one was aware of that, and they all thought that was going to be included.     Mr. Keyes said out of all the directions where the traffic is moving, the northbound off the Everett Turnpike down onto Route 3 is the single most important to Bedford.  That is where the traffic is going to be coming that we are going to be looking to attract to our commercial base in town.     The growth and vibrance of that commercial base was the primary reason for being supportive of this.   We look at this as a win win for all the communities, Manchester, Londonderry, Bedford, that everyone was getting something out of it.  He believes we are getting shortchanged if that traffic movement is not included.  

Ms. Murray said when it comes to a project of this size, it takes so long to get to any point.   The discussion about the ramp is in the Commissioner’s Report which was signed in April 2000 .   She said Mr. Barry remembered it was addressed in there.   The report is 18 pages long, and if anyone who read these 18 pages can still remember all of the points in it, she would be surprised.  The ramp issue was point 28.   So, it is not new that the ramp is not going to be built.  Provisions are made to allow it to be included in the future.  Part of the issues surrounded the radio station and their tower, and the impact the ramp would have on it.   In addition, the traffic volumes and the modeling work they did showed a low demand for that movement.

Bob Barry said based on the traffic analysis, the volume of traffic seeking access to Route 3 is very small in the relationship of utilization and recognizing that there is a similar exit at Bedford Road, 2 miles south of there.  The Department looked at it from the perspective that to complete that 4^th leg, the northbound off to Route 3 and to prevent toll aversion, they would need to toll that facility.  The cost of installing toll facilities is expensive.  The toll facilities at the Bedford Road plaza presently don’t pay for themselves, that’s why they are unmanned overnight.   To double that functional utilization within a 2-mile perspective, and recognizing the overall cost of the project, they felt it was prudent to provide for the movement, recognizing that in the future the traffic demand may warrant it.  In the future perhaps the tolls disappear from the FE Everett, and then that movement could be created without suffering the additional expense of the toll facility construction.   On that basis they moved ahead with the project, designing for it, but initial construction not to be included. 

Ms. Murray said one additional point is that traffic modeling is only valid as long as the Kilton Road reconstructed interchange operates.   Once that reaches capacity, the picture changes with the traffic modeling.   Ms. Murray said she is willing to re-examine the issue including the traffic modeling, but she thinks they will get the same answer, but she is willing to do that.

Councilor Bruce Searing arrived at this point in the meeting (5:40 PM).

Mr. Egan asked when the traffic analysis was done that he was referring to.  Mr. Barry said the traffic model was developed through the course of the project. The actual turning movements were predicated on traffic data that was 1995 vintage, and then expanded to the 2015 projected volumes.    The turning movement is predicated on the 2015 projected volumes, not on the 1995 traffic.  Certainly the volumes have changed in that time frame, and they would expect that re-analysis might show different. 

Mr. Scanlon said you have a signalized intersection on the other side of the bridge.    It seems if people can be expected to drive 2 miles up Route 3, why are you going to the expense of the Brown Avenue exit?  Mr. Barry said they have a functional responsibility to provide connectivity to the major arterials on each side of the Merrimack River.   NH Route 3A, which is Harvey Road, runs continuous all the way to Litchfield, and is a major feeder that averages about 15,000 vehicles a day.   It requires connectivity to that.    The original layout showed an at-grade intersection with 3A.  Manchester and Litchfield, at the public hearing,  requested they consider making that an overpass with connectivity down because of their concern for moving life safety vehicles through that intersection where you have potential for 30,000 vehicles coming across the river, and another 15,000 vehicles using 3A.

Mr. Scanlon said he is not very satisfied that we are going to lose our 3A.   He said we planned on that; we were told we were going to have that; it is important to our commercial development down there.  He thinks we should stand up and request that access.

Mr. Danielson sees 2 issues.  One is what Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Keyes referred to which is the viability of that interchange for us long term.  We depended  on the full accessibility for our whole plan.    We supported the plan when a lot of other people didn’t support it because of what it meant to our town.   The other issue is the process.  Something happened in the process.  There was a real breakdown in the process.   He has never seen the process break down between the State and the Regional Planning Commission.  Ms. Murray agrees with that to a large degree that it doesn’t break down.    She said that the Regional Planning Agency had the Commissioner’s report, and they had the plans.  Where the breakdown may have occurred, is by not going through the specifics in the Commissioner’s Report.   That may be the appropriate thing to do with the regional planning agencies once the Commissioner’s Report is signed, so each and every point gets highlighted.    The hearing was held in 1998, the Commissioner’s Report was not signed for 2 years, so after 2 years the appropriate thing, and she will discuss this with the regional planning agencies, may be that you go back with the Commissioner’s Report and go through those points. 

Mr. Danielson said another question that was asked by Moni Sharma (Southern NH Planning Commission) at the meeting at the Town Offices was,  to Mr. Sharma’s recollection, in  30 years never had we gone through a design with a “to be built.”  Is that true?  Is this the first time we have gotten to this kind of a situation?   Ms. Murray said we have done that.   Mr. Barry said at the Route 114/101 intersection, there is a 300-foot right-of-way laid out with the intent to eventually build 4 lanes, with only 2 lanes being built in the initial construction, with the determination that if the additional 2 lanes could be built when the traffic warranted. 

Tom Riley said from what he can recall, it was built in 1966 as an alternative route to circumvent around Manchester.  When they built it, they took the larger right-of-way so that in the future they could continue it over the Piscatquog and tie back into 93.  That was a long term plan.

Ms. Murray said the Keene by-pass is another one.  They do reserve what they feel is the best guess for the future, and purchase the right-of-way now to allow for that future expansion.    As far as this “to be built” ramp, she thinks what has created this discussion is that breakdown.   She is not sure why the regional planning agency was not aware of that because Mr. Barry has had that discussion in several settings.

Mr. Danielson said he testified at the Armory that night, and we never had not thought that we weren’t going to get that.   Mr. Danielson said he doesn’t remember any discussion of the radio tower.  They have been defunct for a long time.   He asked if they have a timeframe in which we could come to closure as to whether we are going to go ahead with this.

Ms. Murray said they are in the middle of transition from where Mr. Barry gets to hand the project to a new project manager.    Mr. Barry said certainly they are in a position to take some time.  He said give him 3 months.   It really has no impact on the status of the design because the design is going to carry through with that, through at least the slope and drain until they get to be sure they take care of any drainage patterns, drainage structures and bridge structures that need to be accommodated for with that future construction.    They have adequate time to go back and look at the traffic model issues and to look at the issues in general.    He feels within 3 months they can come up with a response back. 

Mr. Keyes said in his discussion with people, part of his concern is not only can he not find anyone who knew this was being taken out, he can’t even find anyone who heard it was even being considered being taken out.   If it is buried on page 12 of an 18-page document, he does not feel it is realistic to think somebody at the local level would have picked it up.    He believes the impacts on the businesses and industrial base down there was our main reason for supporting this.  He thinks it is being significantly degraded.   If we felt the Bedford Road intersection in Merrimack was adequate for servicing those, obviously we wouldn’t be here.    He thinks that has been proven because it doesn’t pay for itself now because people don’t want to get off there.    The types of industry and business that we are talking to who are thinking of relocating to Bedford, he doesn’t think would be thrilled to have their access point off the highway 2 miles south. 

Mr. Van Anglen agrees with Mr. Danielson and Mr. Scanlon.  There were public meetings on this. Was the representation consistently made about  that road would exist.   Mr. Danielson said there was always an understanding that there would be a full intersection.    Mr. Van Anglen asked if there were minutes.  Mr. Danielson said yes.   He said there were 2 regional meetings held.     Ms. Murray said there were several informal meetings as well.  The problem with minutes is they are so broad in scope that they may not have the detail.  Mr. Van Anglen said he has a concern because we planned everything around that area with this in mind.    The process broke down in that we, as well as the public,   weren’t aware that this wasn’t going to happen.  That’s not the appropriate way to follow

the process.  The whole process is to have public input and discussion.    If we weren’t aware of this, and haven’t been able to find anyone who can remember the discussion, obviously this is coming out of the blue to us and the public.   He wonders if there is supposed to be more public meetings about this being removed.    He doesn’t know who’s call that is. 

Ms. Murray said the discussions this focused on, was it at grade or was it an interchange.    She did not remember the focus ever being the necessity of that ramp specifically for the town’s future development plans.   She said the only fair way to approach this is to relook at the whole issue.  It is so difficult with these big projects to go back and try to reconstruct history is probably not productive.  The most productive thing is to revisit the issue now with today’s sentiments from the Council, what planning has occurred in the town, what the traffic numbers are now, and do the projections out 20 years from now to be sure we are making the right decision.  Ms. Murray said they will follow up with a letter saying they are going to re-examine it and give a time schedule and a date they will be back to you with the information that the update shows. 

Mr. Keyes asked what that process will involve.  Will there be a public hearing on it?  If you look at the traffic there now, it probably doesn’t justify this, but if you look at what will probably develop there should that off ramp come into play,  that’s why we were supportive of it because we wanted that type of development down there.   He wants to know what kind of input the Council will have, if any, to the process.  Mr. Barry said they will go back to their model and will also go back to Southern NH Planning Commission and get their most current traffic model and look at what their 20-year buildout is.  They have a model that utilizes all potential growth and will have a 20-year buildout of this project as well as all of the other infrastructure projects that are currently under construction and/or contemplated to be completed within that 20-year time frame.  So the Kilton Road project will have been built and hopefully that traffic movement change of pattern up there will be recognized in their model figures as well as issues of the 293 construction that is presently in place, the I-93 construction, and other such factors.  Ms. Murray said they can come back with the traffic numbers as soon as they have them. 

Mr. Keyes asked if that is going to be the main criteria for making a decision.  Ms. Murray said it will be an important factor.   The other one is going to be the toll facility.  There are probably other factors that led them down this path.

Mr. Danielson said Mr. Barry mentioned Kilton Road and it’s impact.   Mr. Danielson said Kilton Road was never even in the scheme when we first started talking about this.  That is essentially designed to get traffic off of the holding pattern down on Route 3.  He does not understand how that will impact the northbound traffic flow.  Mr. Barry said his point was to use that as an example of the type of infrastructure improvement that is occurring within this localized region that will have some impact on the traffic movements of drivers.

Mr. Egan agrees with Commissioner Murray that reconstructing history is often difficult and often ends up as a different version than it was in the first place.  Mr. Egan said he is the newest Councilor.  As a new Councilor he comes from a different  base and a different demographic than any number of them.    The reason he thinks history serves a good purpose without detailed reconstruction in this instance is that somebody’s ultimately going to have to make the decision.  He said we are unified in our approach to this subject.  He has heard the people simply did not know this was happening.   He said at whatever point you can afford us a relook and consideration on the impact this will have on the community, it would be greatly appreciated.

Ms. Murray said when she says she doesn’t want to go back and reconstruct history, there is a part of that history that she does want to reconstruct, and that is how do we not repeat this sort of breakdown.  Let’s look at what we have today.  It is clear that the Council is unified and fully in support of that ramp.   She thinks it is appropriate to revisit the entire issue.

Mr. Searing said what we don’t have tonight is the business owners present who may have made recent investment decisions based on the expectation of this.  Ms. Murray said the fact that the Council has expressed a unified concern about the elimination of that ramp, you are representing the business owners, you are representing what you were elected to do.   

Mr. Van Anglen asked if this is a money issue on the cost of the ramp?  Ms. Murray said no.  This is the project with the $8 million bird.  (the eagle).  Mr. Van Anglen said so why wouldn’t you do it?  Ms. Murray said they have to be sure that the toll facility will function, that there is enough traffic demand there so that the ramp functions and actually services enough traffic.  They have to be sure that toll diversion is dealt with.   They also made a commitment to a property owner, (Merrimack radio station) and they have to see where they  are now, and if the reversal is not going to bring an inverse condemnation lawsuit down.  Mr. Searing asked if that commitment was any different than to our business owners when this was discussed?  Ms. Murray does not remember that there was ever a specific request from any business owner in Bedford or the Town Council focused on that ramp. 

Mr. Riley said in the report, # 28 says that “consideration at this time” that the exit ramp would not be built.  It didn’t say you were absolutely not going to build it.  So you are here reconsidering it.   As a business owner who owns substantial land in that area, he did not know.    At the time he was on the Council, they thought it was going to be a full,  unrestricted access.  Many people invested heavily in that area.  The traffic report is important, but the modeling is not going to show the potential how it would change with the ramp and how it would change without the ramp.    The fiscal impact is substantially different if that isn’t there.

Richard Stonner, South Hills Drive, addressed some of the history.    At a meeting 3 to 4 years ago, the thrust of the meeting was how the state worked with the town.  Five or six years ago when that first design came in, that was an at grade full interchange.    The discussion was the necessity of that being a full interchange because the Route 3 corridor from Manchester to Merrimack is the future economic base and tax base of the Town of Bedford for the next 20 to 30 years.    It was very specific in the need for that to be a full interchange.   We went out on a limb.  A lot of Bedford taxable property is being sacrificed for the taking of that road.    A lot of people have come in and making major investments in retail and hotels, and part of the factor was the access northbound traffic.  That was always a major factor of it. 

Mr. Stonner said WFEA is an AM radio facility.  Today, in the radio market, AM facilities are non salable.  They put on automatic programming and just run the tape.  The value of that property is not the license to broadcast.   The value of that property is the location.    It is the location to this intersection. 

Mr. Danielson asked about the Hardy Road/Jenkins Road light that has been removed.  Why did that get taken out of the 10-year plan?  Jeff Brillhart, Director of Project Development, said it is in the wish list for future consideration.   It appears it was a project that was suggested by Southern NH Planning Commission.  They put all the suggestions they received into the wish list.   With the exception of 1 or 2 bridges, no new recommended projects made it into this draft version of the 10-year plan.  That is financial constraint.   They are trying to keep the projects that were in the last 10-year plan going in the new version of the 10-year plan.  In this case, over half a billion dollars did not make it from the last 10-year plan into the new 10-year plan.     Mr. Danielson said the Commission only submitted 2 plans, one was in Hooksett and the other was the Hardy/Jenkins.  Hardy/Jenkins is critical to us for safety.  It was recognized by the State a while ago that it was a safety issue.     Mr. Danielson asked the State to reconsider that in the light of safety.  Mr. Brillhart said they will have a series of

GACIT (Governor’s Advisory Committee for Intermodel Transit) meetings in Sept./Oct..   It is difficult to put new ones in when the ones that were in there previously aren’t in there now.  It is very difficult to sort out hundreds of projects.  They are looking at other ways to fund projects that would free up some money so they could build some of the smaller projects sooner. 

            Mr. Danielson made a motion to go into Executive Session

            at 6:25 PM under RSA 91:A-3-II-a and 91:A-3-II-b; motion

            seconded by Mr. Keyes; roll call vote found Councilors

            Danielson yes, Egan yes, Keyes yes, Scanlon yes,

            Searing yes and Van Anglen yes.

Mr. Searing reopened the meeting at 7:10 PM.    The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Scanlon.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

7/16/03 – Public Session Minutes – Mr. Danielson made a

motion to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2003  Public

Session; motion seconded by Mr. Van Anglen;

Mr. Keyes said on page 7, he questioned the  “Public Hearing to discuss the adoption of the removal of the Bedford Road Construction Standards from the Town Council Enforcement Ordinances.”  He asked if we just discussed the removal.  Mr. Danielson said it was a motion to remove.   The secretary will check how it was posted.  On page 15, second paragraph, change “ff” to “if”.  On page 16, last paragraph, change “designated” to “designating.”   On page 27, first paragraph, 3^rd line from bottom, change “creation” to “recreation.”  Mr. Van Anglen asked if the minutes state that Mr. Greiner recused himself.  Mr. Scanlon said yes and so did Mr. Egan.

            Vote on motion passed  6-0.

7/16/03 – Non Public Session Minutes – Mr. Scanlon

made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2003

Non Public Session; motion seconded by Mr. Egan; vote

on motion passed 6-0.

Mr. Scanlon made a motion to seal the non public session minutes of

tonight until  after the land negotiations are completed; motion seconded

by Mr. Van Anglen; vote on motion passed 6-0.

PUBLIC COMMENTS -  None

Introduction of new firefighters – John Snow and Eric Thomas

Mr. Hickey said with these hirings, we are now fully staffed at the Fire Department.  Captain Mark Klose, on behalf of Chief Wiggin, who is out of town attending the National Fire Academy, presented the 2 new Fire Fighter-Paramedics.  They have been through their 2-week orientation and are now scheduled to go on shift to give the 4-man coverage 24/7.

Presentation of Eagle Scout Proclamation to Aaron Biedrzycki

Mr. Searing read the proclamation and presented it to Aaron Biedrzycki.

WHEREAS,              Aaron Biedrzycki has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout;  and

WHEREAS,              Aaron began scouting in September of 1991 as a member of Bedford Cub Scout Pack 681;  he earned his Bobcat award in October 1992;  he became a Wolf Cub in May 1993; a Bear Cub in June 1994; and a Webelo in February 1995; In November 1995 he earned the Arrow of Light Award, the highest Cub Scout honor; and bridged into Boy Scout Troop 414; and

WHEREAS,         Aaron became a Tenderfoot Scout in June 1996; Second Class in May 1997; and First Class in September 1997; and

WHEREAS,         His first merit badge was Swimming, one of 12 merit badges required for Eagle;  earned his first summer  at Camp Wah-Tut-Ca in Northwood; attended “Eagle Week” in 1998, earning 5 merit badges in one week;  between 1998 and 2003 he earned elective badges in Rowing, Basketry, Wilderness Survival, Cooking and Pioneering, Backpacking, Geology, Space Exploration, Soil and Water Conservation and Wood Carving; and

WHEREAS, In addition, Aaron earned the rest of the 12 merit badges required to attain the rank of Eagle Scout:  Camping, Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation, Citizenship in the World, Communications, Environmental Science, Family Life, First Aid, Lifesaving, Personal Fitness,      and Personal Management; and

WHEREAS, Aaron was elected by members of his troop to the Order of the Arrow, a national brotherhood of honor campers, and became an Ordeal member in 1999.  He served in leadership positions within Troop 414 including Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader, Troop Guide, and most recently Junior Assistant Scoutmaster;

THEREFORE  Be it resolved that we, the Bedford Town Council,  congratulates Aaron on his scouting accomplishments, and wishes him best of luck as he enters the School of Engineering at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

PROCLAIMED BY THE Bedford, NH Town Council

THIS 30th DAY OF JULY 2003

For his Eagle Scout project he built 3 kiosks in Manchester and renovated three.

Public Hearing to relinquish rights to a portion of Station Rd. on Lot 23-3

            Mr. Danielson made a motion to open the public hearing to relinquish

            rights to a portion of Station Road on Lot 23-3; motion seconded by

            Mr. Keyes; vote on motion passed 6-0.

Mr. Hickey said the existing lot on Station Road is being subdivided into 2 lots, and Station Road will be relocated to Hawthorne Drive  North to allow the subdivision for Faith Christian Church, which is being relocated for the Airport Access Road.    A portion of the land will be donated to the Town which holds the Walker Monument.  The land is wet and marshy so playing fields will not work down there.    More land will be given to the Town to expand the lot that currently houses the sewer pump station.  This road will give a more safe access to the canoe launch on the land we were given a 99-year lease from the State. 

Mr. Danielson asked what happens to the Rheault property which is serviced by Station Road?  Mr. Hickey said they will still have access to Route 3.  This will not have any effect on the Rheault’s ability to access their property.   Mr. Searing asked if there will be a barrier.   Jeff Kevan from TFMorran said yes.  They may use it as an emergency access.   Mr. Scanlon said at the end of Station Road  will  there be a square end or a cul-de-sac for people to turn around.  Mr. Kevan said it will be left as a single driveway.   Mr. Scanlon said in the beginning people will still head down there.   Mr. Hickey said the Planning Board has the ability to make some recommendations on what they would like to see the end of the road look like.

Mr. Scanlon asked if we are still going to plow it?   Mr. Hickey said if the Planning Board feels all or a portion of Station Road would be used for a secondary access for the church,  then the church would be responsible for maintaining and   plowing it from their property line into their site.   Mr. Danielson suggested they might want to consider a sign for people who have been using that road as an entry way to go down to the canoe launch, maybe temporary for 6 months.

Mr. Danielson asked if the dotted line still gives us access under the bridge.  Mr. Kevan said the Town will own that parcel.   Mr. Scanlon asked about the road under the bridge.  Mr. Kevan said it will be maintained.  They didn’t say they would upgrade that. 

Mr. Van Anglen said at the Conservation Commission meeting there was discussion about the wetlands.  Mr. Kevan said they created an easement adjacent to the brook.  

            Mr. Danielson made a motion to close the public hearing to

            relinquish rights to a portion of Station Road on Lot 23-3;

            motion seconded by Mr. Scanlon; vote on motion passed  6-0.

            Mr. Danielson made a motion to relinquish rights to a portion of

            Station Road on Lot 23-3 based on the recommendation of the

            Town Manager in his memo dated July 24, 2003 and the attached

            map from TFMoran for Faith Christian Center, dated July 8, 2002,

            REV 4; motion seconded by Mr. Van Anglen;

Mr. Scanlon asked if we have to be specific that we are relinquishing but getting new rights?  Mr. Hickey said we have to see if the Planning Board will approve this, and then they will come back and accept the road.

            Vote on motion passed  6-0.

AGENDA ITEMS

1.      Meeting with State Legislators

Mr. Scanlon, who is also a State Representative,  left the table and joined the legislators.  Present were State Senator Sheila Roberge, and State Representatives John Graham, Ken Hawkins, and Michael Scanlon.

Mr. Danielson said the biggest thing we run into is not knowing when the lead time is for any kind of ideas in order for you to put it into the legislature.  He asked how can we best learn about impending legislation?   Mr. Graham said the house rules had them putting in bills for the first session in November and December last year.  For next year the rules require they submit any bills last April.  In order to put anything else in for next year 2004, they would have to go to the Rules Committee and get special dispensation.  So, essentially the House has closed out its filing of bills for this session.  He assumes the rules will be similar for the next legislature which will start in 2005.   For the amount of money we pay to NHMA, that is a good way to get the ideas.   Senator Roberge said they can still be introduced through the Senate, and she would be happy to introduce anything the Council has.   Mr. Danielson asked if the Senate is open all the time, or do they have a deadline.   Senator Roberge said they can’t really start until September or October.

Mr. Keyes gave a summary of the Council’s meeting with Commissioner Murray.  He said the Council was surprised that the northbound off ramp from the Everett Turnpike is not going to give people access to Route 3 in Bedford.   He said no one was aware that had been taken out.    We have asked them to reconsider which they have agreed to do.    Mr. Graham said he talked to Commissioner Murray, and they will be meeting with her on several other bills (Mr. Graham sits on the Public Works & Highway Committee), so he will keep her feet to the fire. 

Mr. Egan said the one thing that really struck him was the fact that she said this is not a dollar issue.   If that’s the case, and they look at an updated traffic analysis that starts in 2005 rather than 1995, which is the one they are utilizing,  as well as development plans in the PZ Zone, he feels this is a no brainer.    Senator Roberge asked if it isn’t a money issue, what is it?  Mr. Keyes said they have to justify that there is a need based on traffic.   Mr. Danielson said it really becomes a money issue when they look at the toll booth.  They do not know if traffic counts justify the toll booth.   Mr. Hawkins asked if it would help with the Merrimack delegation because a lot of those roads are in Merrimack.    If they do that ramp without a toll booth, it is Merrimack roads that are being destroyed.   Mr. Danielson said they will do it with a toll booth.

Mr. Van Anglen said he does not know if there is somewhere else to trade off in that project or what it would take compared to the need for Bedford and the impact it is going to have on the commercial district.   Mr. Graham doesn’t think it will be a stopper if there is a need for it. 

Mr. Danielson said  the place we should have thanked the State and didn’t (he asked the State Delegation to thank them) was the help we got from them at Donald Street/Route 114. 

Mr. Danielson said the other place we could use the legislators’ help is when the GACIT discussions come up, we are going to be looking for help reinstating the light at Hardy/Jenkins.   He said it was taken out.   He said there were only 2 items recommended by Southern NH Planning Commission because of budget concerns, and both have been taken out.   Mr. Graham asked if it was taken out or moved to the out years?   Mr. Danielson said it was originally suggested by the Town;   the Commission recommended it in it’s 10-year plan on the first draft.  It came out as part of the plan.   When the plan was redone, those 2 items have moved to the wish list category.  

Mr. Danielson asked if we  can help the legislators at all.  Mr. Graham said if there is a bill that the Town really wants, the Chairman or someone should testify in favor of it.  That makes a big difference and shows the Town really wants it.  Senator Roberge said the more people  who speak the better.

Mr. Hawkins said for the people watching at home, if someone has an issue they should call or e-mail the legislators.

Mr. Hawkins said one thing you could do with the Municipal Association on the 401, if you are chatting with other Town Councils, we have had a problem in Town that we have been trying to get resolved where all the town employees went from the self insured Municipal Association to the State Retirement, and they can’t use their money  from the Municipal Association to buy into the Retirement System because it was a 401, and the State doesn’t recognize 401’s.  They have been trying to get it through the legislature to recognize 401’s so they can use that money to buy retirement credits.     Mr. Van Anglen asked if you can take the 401 and put it into a conduit IRA and then move it into the State?  Mr. Hawkins said no.  The only way is they have to cash out, pay the taxes, and use that money to buy.

Mr. Danielson asked the legislators what committees they are on.  Senator Roberge chairs Public Affairs, is on Judiciary, Capital Budget, and Transportation.    Mr. Graham is on Public Works &  Highways, and Capital Budget.  Mr. Hawkins is on State & Federal Relations  and Veteran’s Affairs.  Mr. Scanlon is on Transportation. 

Mr. Graham said the Governor signed a bill yesterday relative to the adoption eligibility of property tax exemptions and credits.

Mr. Scanlon rejoined the Council at this time.

2.      Acceptance of Fire Department grant

Mr. Hickey said the Fire Chief applied for and was approved for a 50/50 matching grant from the State. The reason for the grant was for extrication equipment to help stabilize vehicles and/or equipment at the scene to help stabilize trucks, etc.  The total amount is $562.50.   We would have to match that for the purchase of that equipment. 

            Mr. Keyes made a motion to accept the State matching grant

            in the amount of  $562.50 for equipment to be used to stabilize

            vehicles and/or equipment at the scene the Fire Department

responds to;  motion seconded by Mr. Scanlon; motion passed 6-0.

3.      Appointment of David Danielson to Southern NH Planning

Commission for 4- year term

Mr.  Hickey said this was something the Town Council approved with their board and commission appointments.  Southern NH Planning Commission is asking for confirmation for a 4-year term.

            Mr. Van Anglen made a motion to appoint David Danielson to a

            4-year term on Southern NH Planning Commission; motion seconded

            by Mr. Keyes;

Mr. Scanlon said according to Moni Sharma’s letter, it had to be a recommendation from the Planning Board.   Mr. Hickey said the Planning Board voted on it at their last meeting.   Mr. Searing asked if Mr. Danielson is interested in this.  Mr. Danielson said yes.  He has served since 1988, and is also Chairman of the NH Association of Regional Planning Commissions.

         Mr. Van Anglen amended the motion to have the term expire

         on May 31, 2007;  Mr. Keyes accepted the amendment; vote

         on motion passed 6-0.

4.      Sale of Town Property

Mr. Hickey said we have the opportunity to sell 3 lots on Appleleaf Drive.  We have been marketing these for a month.  We have a couple of opportunities to sell these properties, and he would like the ability to finalize negotiations with the best possible bidder and sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

            Mr. Egan made a motion that we allow the Town Manager the

            leeway to proceed with the selling of the properties as discussed

            earlier this evening, and in accordance with the guidance we

            gave him at that time; motion seconded by Mr. Van Anglen;

            vote on motion passed  6-0.

5.      Update on road program – Jim Stanford

Jim Stanford, Director of Public Works, was present.  Mr. Hickey said in the Council packet was a spread sheet that identifies the roads that the Council approved  as part of the 2003 road program.   There have been some changes which are noted at the bottom.  We have done 70 roads with crack sealing.   We are continuing to do some drainage maintenance which includes repair and cleaning of structures and swales.     At the last meeting we discussed some culvert work at the intersection of North Amherst and Wallace Road, the Riddle Brook culvert, which we will be doing next construction season.   We will also be doing the Campbell Road culvert replacement in 2004.    We also have Council approval to start the construction on North Amherst Road from Campbell Road to just west of Wallace Road.  That will be beginning next week.  The Rundlett Hill Road project which the Council gave contingent approval on will be starting next week.    They did speak to the 3 landowners on Rundlett Hill Road, and they have signed off on a written document releasing us from our agreement from last year.   Our attorney is in the process of drafting up a formal release which will be recorded in the Registry of Deeds. 

Mr. Hickey said there are a couple of projects on hold -  Hawthorne Drive, which was just the wearing course.   We have notified the developer of that road that there are some deficiencies in that roadway that he is going to be addressing this year and getting those corrected.  We are also trying to finalize some recommendations on the portion of Wallace Road that was reconstructed last

year which is north of New Boston Road.  They have met with the engineers as well as the contractor and the company who provided the asphalt.  We have identified some deficiencies in those areas and are trying to work out some type of an equitable arrangement with all parties involved to try and make the corrections and improvements to that road.  They do expect to do something with that road this construction season. 

Mr. Scanlon asked what has actually happened up there.  Mr. Hickey said we had the road engineered and designed to remove ledge and replace bad fill with good in certain sections of the project, leaving other sections of the road undisturbed, other than reclaiming the asphalt that was there.  What that did was cause the earth to expand and contract with frost heaves at different levels because we had good material in one spot and bad material in others.    Mr. Stanford has also found out that the initial design was rejected on a cost prohibitive basis, and the engineering firm was requested to reduce drainage on the project that they initially indicated was needed there, which in hindsite should have been done.

Mr. Scanlon asked who is going to be responsible.  Mr. Hickey said ultimately you are going to get some responsibility from everybody including the town.   They have spoken to the engineering firm.  Although they were given specific direction by the Town on design, they have stated they would be willing to provide all inspection services for any work done on that road free of charge.  They have spoken to the asphalt provider and the contractor to determine what the failures were. They are in the process of determining in their mind what they feel they are responsible for and what they are going to do to participate, if anything.   Based on those decisions and recommendations, Mr. Stanford is going to have to come up with a plan of attack.  One option may be overlaying rather than digging up portions of that road.  Mr. Keyes asked the timing.  Mr. Hickey said probably by the August 20 Council meeting, he will have a much better idea of how it is going to be resolved. 

Mr. Danielson asked if we should have a non-public session to discuss this?  He said it seems there were decisions made that had long term implications on that road.  He asked if Mr. Hickey was aware of some of the decisions that were made.   Mr. Hickey said these decisions were made at least 2 years ago.

Mr. Danielson said we approved extra money for construction of that road.  We went to $2 million during that particular construction time.   Mr. Searing said that wasn’t extra money.    Mr. Danielson said there was more money than had been in the prior year, and that was monies because we expected to do better quality construction than what we did before.    If that wasn’t done, and it wasn’t done in 2 places,  because we also had issues on Campbell Road.   There was another issue on Wallace Road which was the moving of the post,  which was included back then.    He is getting concerned if there is an exposure to the town, we should  know why and where.  If we are paying for something twice because someone made a decision that we weren’t aware of.    Mr. Danielson asked if we should go to executive session to talk about it.   Mr. Hickey is not sure we need to do that.  He is not sure the Council ever really got involved in the design or engineering of the roads.  The decisions that were made to make changes to the initial plan was done through the Dept. of Public Works and Public Works Director.  He typically makes those recommendations and gives guidance to the engineering firms for his expectation for what he wants to see for a result.  Mr. Searing said what is important for everybody is that these issues were created,  not under the watch of the current Public Works Director.   These are problems he inherited from previous decisions.  

Mr. Danielson said we have an interest in was the money spent right. If it was spent wrong, the Council wants to know why.    Mr. Hickey said because of the cutback in the design for the drainage, that affected the quality of the roadway.  The reason the design was cut back was because the Public Works Director at that time felt he could not afford to reconstruct the road at the level that the original design was put together.  Mr. Danielson said the issue would be that was the year we increased the budget in anticipation that we were going to get better quality construction, and get more done than we had before.  We had 2 specific projects we were going to work on – Campbell Road and Wallace Road, both of which we have to do over.

Mr. Searing said no.  Campbell Road has a couple of issues on it, but to make the statement that we have to do Campbell Road over is not a good road to go down.  Mr. Danielson said we had to incur additional costs in Campbell Road because of some engineering issues.  Mr. Hickey said decisions were made to engineer a road a certain way.   There were some changes in the way the drainage was supposed to be handled on  Campbell Road.  The road was designed initially to have drainage being taken care of in a specific way.  As the project started to evolve, the landowner we were working with to try to get that drainage resolved decided they did not want to have drainage enter their property, so a change in design was needed.  The drainage was handled in a

different way.  The drainage was designed so when we reconstructed North Amherst Road that drainage could be incorporated into the construction of North Amherst Road, and while we did incur more money  in 2002 to do that, that money was then saved in 2003.  That money was going to need to be spent at some point, so that money was not wasted. 

Mr. Egan said his concern would be in light of the previous expectation that we had for the work that was to be performed, is the re-authorization of doing that same work going to reflect accurately why are we having to redo this section of road on Wallace Road so we learn from our own mistakes, so there is a historical record that says we expended within a 5-year period an above average number of dollars on this section of road because of mistakes that were  made.  Mr. Hickey said yes,  we are learning from the mistakes we made with Wallace Road. 

Mr. Van Anglen suggested we make this an agenda item for another meeting.  Mr. Searing feels we need to wait until they come back with specific remedies.

Mr. Scanlon said you said parts of the road had new fill put in and parts had the old fill.    He spoke to Mr. Stanford, and he was skeptical about that.    Mr. Scanlon asked if he had changed his mind about that.  Mr. Stanford said he didn’t know that he was skeptical.   He said when we look at redoing roads,  they have a whole host of techniques they can use.    They can fill with cold patch, fill potholes,  all the way up to rip out everything that’s there down to 4 to 6 feet and replace it with all good material.   Ultimately what ends up happening, is it is somewhere in between.    He talked about the road program.  The program is the past was just to reclaim an overlay.    Some of the problems we are having are attributed to that.    We also did a little bit of full reconstruction.   We went down and took out ledge.    Ledge is a conduit to water, and that is a problem in failure of these roads. Ultimately his recommendation would be to reconstruct and do a full box on every one of these major collector roads, but there is a cost associated with that.   He is talking $250 a linear foot as opposed to an overlay or reclaim that’s about $50 a foot.  In the future he will looking for direction from the Town Council on which way they want to go.   The best product out there is full box reconstruction.   

Mr. Scanlon said Wallace Road looks like it was our fault why that road did what it did last year.  Mr. Hickey said we have some responsibility because we dictated to the engineering firm certain expectations in design that we would like to see, and that was based on cost.  Mr. Stanford said one of the things we are doing differently is pre-testing of the roads.   Find out if we have silty material.  If the material is good under the road, and all we have is ledge,  taking out the  ledge is an easier step than ripping out the entire road.  We have done some testing and analysis on the  north section of Wallace Road.  There is a lot of silty

material out there.  There isn’t much ledge left over.  He thinks there was some error on the part of the paver.  The analysis shows there were some poor paving practices.  Obviously the paver has a different position.  He speaks to the time of year when he was asked to pave this.   It was paved in 2 sections, and apparently on the second paving day it started to snow shortly after they finished.  He does think the town will have some responsibility in this. 

Mr. Stanford gave an update on the roads program.  He said there is not much change since last time.  He made a correction that Col. Daniels Drive on the overlay maintenance should be 1,500 linear feet instead of 7,000.  That brings the total roadway what they have shimmed and overlaid and overlaid with a wearing course to 10 miles.   There have been some changes.  The overlay maintenance portion is the same.  Some of these wearing courses we have money outside of the roads program given by developers.

Mr. Searing asked if we wait 4 or 5 years to finish a road, do we have a problem?  Mr. Stanford said there are plusses and minuses.   It works great if the houses are going to be built in a year.  It doesn’t work so well if it takes 4 or 5 years to build the houses.    On a couple of these streets, they found some deficiencies, i.e. Spartan Drive.  We are responsible for it now, but we have money from the developer, but there are some drainage problems out there the highway crews are going to be addressing.  He does expect to get the rest of the list done this year.    The paving/overlay portion of the program has gone extremely well.

Mr. Stanford said on Liberty Hill Road he has an idea of where some of the problems are coming from.  In a couple of areas they could add some sub drains and under drains.    He would like to do that before they overlay that. There is nothing major out there, just minor things.  If they have time, they would like to address those this year, but if not, they would have to defer it this year.   They have added onto the program 4 streets this year  –Wentworth, Grafton, Joppa Hill and Cortland.

Mr. Searing said Mr. Stanford is being inconsistent in his terms.   On the sheet you have asphalt leveling, but you are using the word shimming.  Mr. Stanford said you can use either term.  The true term among engineers is a trueing and leveling course.   These 4 roads were scheduled in the past to be overlaid.  He said we need to maintain the roads in good condition.   The roads that are in good condition, we don’t want them to fail.   This year’s program we are spending $13 to $14 per linear foot on overlays as opposed to $250 per linear foot for reconstruction.   As for the life of the road, he doesn’t think we are going to get 20 years, which would be the ideal on any road reconstruction, but with some of the maintenance techniques they use, he thinks we can get considerably more

 life out of the roads, and possibly avoid reconstruction for 5 or 6 or maybe 10 years.   

Mr. Searing said so total reconstruction you are talking 20 years total life.   Mr. Stanford said that would be the ideal.    Mr. Searing asked when you do an overlay, how much life do you expect to get out of that road before we have to do a shim coat or another overlay?  Mr. Stanford said ideally they would like to get 20 years out of those roads, but in order to get the 20 years you do have to do regular maintenance.   Crack sealing keeps the water out of the asphalt, and water is the biggest culprit.   With routine maintenance we should not have to reconstruct those roads.

Mr. Searing asked about the asphalt leveling.  How much time do you expect from them?  Mr. Stanford would like to say 20 years but he doesn’t think we will.  It depends on the type of winters we have.  There are ways we can buy life on these roads.    His goal is to buy as much life as he can.

Mr. Danielson said his concern is you said they (those 4 roads) are going to need a lot of work.  Mr. Stanford said when he spoke before he was basing it on what he was seeing out there, and his opinion was it needed full reconstruction, and we shouldn’t waste any money on that.   After speaking with the Superintendent Paul Belanger, who has been in town for 20 years, he disagreed and did not feel we had  a major base problem.

Mr. Keyes asked if it is fair to say that what you are finding is some of these roads you thought were constructed poorly maybe were constructed properly when they went in, but since that time there has been virtually no maintenance done, and even the best built and designed roads will eventually fall apart if nobody touches it.  Mr. Stanford said that is an accurate statement.  He is finding roads though that weren’t built the way he would have liked it.   It’s not just that they were built correctly, it’s they have the good fortune of being in areas of town that didn’t have silty soil. 

Mr. Searing said on the overlay maintenance,  you are putting on a pretty good thick multiple inch  coat of new asphalt, and you said $13 to $14 per linear foot.  Mr. Stanford said it’s really not that thick.   When we talk about overlay maintenance, it is usually an inch and a half.   In some of these streets when we put the plan together, there was a few feet of snow on the ground, and the road looked fine, and it looked like we would just need an overlay.  Because of the bad frost season some of those roads suffered some cracking.  He consulted with the paving contractor, and they said to crack seal it with fiber reinforced and put a very thin shim coat on it, let it cool and then overlay it.   So, some of those roads they did put a little thicker overlay on. 

Mr. Searing asked what is the per square foot cost for asphalt leveling?  Mr. Stanford said $8 a linear foot.  Mr. Searing is confused about the life expectancy on roads you did this shimming on is also 20 years.  If you are going to get 20 years out of $8 per linear foot, and you are going to get 20 years out of $14 per linear foot, why aren’t we doing it all at $8?  Mr. Stanford said on the overlay maintenance streets they require drainage.   Mr. Searing said in the wearing course, the ones that you haven’t done yet, are they going to be done this year?  Mr. Stanford expects they will. 

Mr. Danielson asked if he is aware of the State’s changes on North Amherst and Campbell Road regarding the funds for that?   Mr. Stanford said he was under the impression that everybody understood that when DOT or any state reimbursements, when they talk about reimbursements they are talking years out.

Mr. Keyes asked if they are still scheduled to start Rundlett Hill Road and North Amherst next week?  Mr. Stanford said Rundlett Hill Road will start next week. 

Mr. Searing asked if he has some update in terms of how much money we have spent and what you are projecting we will spend this year?  Mr. Stanford said we have spent on overlay, wearing course, shim, drainage, crack seal about $750,000.  That’s 10 miles of roadway, 70 streets of crack seal, 13,000 gallons of crack seal.   As far as the 3 reconstruction/rehabilitation projects – County Road is estimated to be about $806,000 for the roads portion;  North Amherst $300,000, and Rundlett Hill Road $325,000.   So rehabilitation is at about $1.4 million, work already done about $750,000,  remaining work about $318,000 for wearing course.  They still have $180,000 allotted for engineering inspection and survey for next year.  Beals Road culvert $150,000 which will be starting in about 2 weeks.   

Mr. Danielson said that we waited for funding from the state.  He remembers seeing that project come up again and again (Beals  Road).  The prior director kept bringing it forward saying it hadn’t been funded.  Mr. Danielson asked if that means we just got the money?  Mr. Stanford said that’s under bridge aid. It’s a reimbursement.   We front the money and they pay.  Mr. Hickey said we can only be reimbursed for one bridge project a year.  In this particular year we are going to be reimbursed for the Beals road culvert.     We have a couple of culverts on Campbell Road and the Riddle Brook culvert we will be reimbursed in future state budget years.    Because we have some flexibility in our funding, we can go ahead and get these culverts done and be reimbursed 2 or 3 years down the road.  We aren’t held up any more by having to wait for the state to approve and fund culverts on an annual basis.

Mr. Danielson said Beals Road was held up for 3 years.  Mr. Hickey said we didn’t have any flexibility.  The Public Works Director was unwilling to spend and up front that money and carry a 30% cost reimbursement over another budget season because he didn’t have the money to spend.    Mr. Danielson said that’s not what we were told.   We were told that we are waiting for the money from the state, and that’s what we told people.    Mr. Hickey thinks it is the same thing.  If the State had to wait 2 or 3 years to reimburse us because we already had other projects in the queue, the Public Works Dept. was not going to………….Mr. Danielson said he understands reimbursement.   We were told we were not getting the money from the state. The word reimbursement was never used.

Mr. Stanford said he plans on spending $150,000 on the Beals Road culvert, $110,000  for a drainage system inventory, $132,000 for drainage studies in the Pines area and Forest Drive.   That would bring the total just over $3 million on projects for this year.   

Mr. Hickey said this is supposed to be a positive presentation.  What Mr.Stanford has accomplished this construction season compared to what we have done in the past is a positive thing.  What the tone of this agenda item has been has been focused much on the negative aspect.   We told the Council when we first came in with this proposed list that there would be some changes, and there have been.  There are some legitimate reasons why we haven’t done some of things we have done, we have done more in other areas than we expected to do.  Overall when you look at what we’ve spent our $3 million on this year, and there was concern we wouldn’t be able to do that, we have done it and have done it very well.  Mr. Danielson said we are asking questions that it is our responsibility to ask.   We aren’t saying he hasn’t done a good job.

Mr. Keyes said the thing that is stunning to him is that we can overlay and shim and level for $10 to $15 a foot or we can rehabilitate for $250 a foot.  The disparity in that is so broad.  We have to get the word out to people why we are doing it the way we are.  Mr. Hickey said we have been trying to inform the public of what we are doing.   We are trying to be proactive.  There has been some comments about why aren’t we doing some roads in the Pines area.   We have brought forward a drainage study in the Pines because one of the main issues over there is lack of drainage. 

Mr. Searing remembers Mr.Scanlon talking about maintenance.  If we look at the magnitude of the work he is doing, there is a big over emphasis on maintenance work.    He thinks the information we are getting, in order for people out there to be comfortable that we are doing a good job and spending the money efficiently, he thinks the better educated the Council is the better we can talk to the people when we get the questions.  He thinks it is critical asking those type of questions.

He thinks Mr. Stanford is doing a phenomenal job.

Mr. Danielson said he has received calls from people in other areas of town saying what’s going on here? He asked if there is a possibility that we could look at some of these other roads and say maybe we could do the work sooner rather than later.     If Wentworth and Grafton were godsends, maybe there are some in some other areas that might have that same benefit.  Mr. Stanford said he can do that.   In fact, that is something he does daily.    He said part of his job is to stretch those dollars, and if he can he will.

Mr. Egan asked next time to have a spread sheet of money spent.  He feels it is entirely legitimate to raise the question of past practices in terms of the new program.    When we do repair work prematurely, is the fact that we are doing it prematurely noted, and is the reason we are doing it a second time prematurely, is it recorded?   Mr. Hickey said the road management software is updated regularly to reflect any changes good or bad to each and every road in town.  Mr. Egan asked if there is going to be enough specific in that detail in order to continue to justify should a given road fail a third time as to what we are doing.  When we started this year, we were in a state of crisis, and sooner or later the piper needed to be paid.    If we don’t have documentation upon which to look and see why 5  or 10 years from now our roads are still failing prematurely, the piper will never get paid.  Mr. Hickey said that is right.  His comments were made because Mr. Stanford came in tonight to give the Council an update.  Certainly there have been mistakes made in the past.  He thinks Mr. Stanford and the Council have a much better handle on what those are than they have ever had.  We certainly do not want to make the mistakes we have made in the past.

Mr. Scanlon asked if we are still on schedule to get a 2-year plan this fall?  Mr. Hickey said we are finalizing things for 2003 right now and will be working on 2004 and 2005, so we can go out to bid late fall or early winter on some of these projects.   Mr. Scanlon said it seems like the projects we rush to get done as the snow is flying seems to be the ones we have problems with.  He asked if we would be starting earlier next year.    Mr. Stanford said you have to look at the water conditions depending on the amount of drainage work.    We are starting late on some this year.   Rundlett Hill Road was a holdover from last year.   The plan they had was very maintenance intensive this year.  They did not have the preliminary engineering or surveying work on a lot of these roads, so they couldn’t get an early start this year.  Mr. Hickey said Mr. Stanford had to spend an inordinate amount of time on subdivision issues but it is our goal to come back in late fall or early winter to award the contracts for 2004/2005.

Recommended road improvements on Wallace Road

Mr. Stanford said they have done quite a bit of analysis on a lot of roads, particularly Wallace Road from the Merrimack line to Route 101. That section was hard hit this past winter. They spent considerable amount of time patching.  In this instance that end of Wallace Road there is some subdivision work going on.  When we look at getting 20 years out of a road, that is normal traffic.  When you have a large subdivision going on that adds stress onto the pavement.  They have come up with a recommendation that if we do a leveling course along that section along with some other things, i.e. work in the area of Beals Road and some minor drainage work, the consultant feels we could buy 3 to 5 years on that road.  Mr. Stanford recommends $130,000 to do a leveling course. He thinks we will get 3 to 5 years while we wait for the subdivisions to be built.

Mr. Van Anglen asked when you do a leveling course, is it all new tar across the top?  Mr. Stanford said the state has done a leveling course on Route 3.  You have dips in the road, and in some spots it would look like you just laid down a crushed coat of pavement.  Sometimes they just fill in the low spots, raise up the machine, go over to the next spot, drop it down,  and fill in.  Mr. Van Anglen asked how much more would it be just to have a half inch even in the high spots?  Mr. Stanford said it is just tonnage.  Mr. Van Anglen asked if there is any advantage to that?  Mr. Stanford said yes.   The more asphalt we put down, the more life you could expect.    The consultant recommended putting down chip seal, which is stone rolled into emulsion as a wearing course.  Mr. Stanford said he doesn’t want to use that as a test on a major road.  He thinks it has some benefit because it is low cost. He would like to see it used on some of the local roads.   If he doesn’t use the chip seal, he might add a little more asphalt.  Mr. Keyes said Wallace Road is the # 1 complaint he gets, so he is in favor of doing this.   Mr.Searing asked for a range in dollars of what it would cost to do a total rehab of Wallace Road from 101 to the Merrimack town line.  Mr. Stanford said he  has looked at that, and a lot depends on the type of work you do.  On a typical road section, ball park, worst scenario would be $250,000 to $290,000 per linear foot for a total of $4.5 million. 

Mr. Danielson asked if there are any new subdivisions or are most existing?  Mr. Stanford said they are existing.  Mr. Hickey said Greenfield Farms has 55-60  lots  left, and Parker Ridge has some left.   To the best of his knowledge, those are the only 2 subdivisions in that area.  We have money from Parker Ridge and Greenfield Farms.

Mr.Hickey said there are some questions regarding Brick Mill Road and Ledgewood Road.  The  monies received from Parker Ridge were to upgrade those roads.   It would have cost about $228,000 in 2001.  We have about half of what we need to upgrade those roads.    We will be doing that work in the next 5 to 6 years.  Mr. Searing said he cannot imagine that the estimates for the reconstruction of Brick Mill and Ledgewood are going to hold true because those numbers were based on prior estimates that are ending up way low compared to reality.  Mr. Hickey said we did get a detailed estimate of what it will cost to reconstruct those roads.

Mr. Scanlon said down towards Beals Road there are some massive drainage issues.  He asked if they intend to fix those up.  Mr. Stanford feels those are major drainage issues.  They will try to address as many as they can.  This will not be a permanent fix.  If we get a hard frost, this pavement will tend to break up.  Mr. Scanlon asked if Beals Road is high on the list.  Mr. Stanford said Beals and Jenkins. 

Mr. Danielson asked if he has 50 yards that he could lay down in front of the library.  Mr. Stanford said they looked at doing something as part of the North Amherst Road work, but there is a site distance problem there.   If the leveling course goes well on Wallace Road, and people are open to the idea of let’s try this in some areas, then he definitely will do something there.

Don Torbich, Brick Mill Road, said several years ago when Parker Ridge was presented to the Planning Board, several major issues were discussed.   One of them was  at the bottom of Brick Mill there is a steep rise.  They formed a group and got a lawyer, and it was stated by the Planning Board that the developer would smooth out that high spot so it would not be as dangerous as it is now.   Nothing has happened.  He talked to Mr. Stanford.   He said we have to spend that money in 6 years.  The road has deteriorated to a point where it is terrible.  The trucks are speeding by.  That ridge was deemed unsafe, and the Planning Board and developer agreed to take care of the problem and nothing was done.

Mr. Torbich said their group never fought Parker Ridge; it was a water issue.  Now there is not going to be a light at Hardy/Jenkins.  He asked what can the Council do when a development is approved to ensure that the specifications are followed instead of just forgotten.    Mr. Hickey said we have almost $106,000 from Parker Ridge for upgrades to Brick Mill and Ledgewood.  Those will be done, but the receipt of those monies never indicated that work would be done the following year.  We understand we have an obligation to spend the money within 6 years.  We certainly want to spend it as quickly as we can.  If we fix the roads before the subdivision is done it will break down with the heavy trucks.

He will mention the speeding trucks to the Police Chief tomorrow, and you will probably see more of a police presence in that area.  We have not looked at what reconstruction method needs to be done on Brick Mill and Ledgewood.  If there is a danger there we will address it.

Mr. Hickey said re the traffic light at Hardy/Jenkins, the Regional Planning Group studying Rt.101, their number 1 priority and concern was a traffic light at Hardy/Jenkins.  They made that recommendation to Southern NH Planning Commission who concurred with that and recommended that project, along with one in Hooksett,  to the state for their 10-year plan.  We had also asked Senator Smith to put $2 million in a federal bill to construct those traffic lights.  We found out that those monies were not  included in the final bill that was passed, and the State’s10-year plan does not include it.   That is a concern for us, and we addressed it with some of the legislative delegation who will continue to try to find some funding methods to try to get a lighted intersection there. 

Mr. Torbich said it will probably be 2 more years before Parker Ridge is built out.  He is bothered and asked when will that dangerous part of Wallace Road be repaired.  Mr. Hickey said when we can reconstruct Wallace Road we will be looking to do whatever appropriate measures are necessary to alleviate the site distance problem with that hump.  The proposal to overlay Wallace Road does not include reduction or  removal of that hump.

Mr. Torbich asked when you justify a development there are a number of conditions – the hump and the light were part of the equation for the approval of Parker Ridge, and now they seem to be not that important.   Mr. Hickey does not recall the light on Jenkins Road ever being part of the approval.  Mr. Torbich said there were certain assurances given that  it was part of the package.   Mr. Hickey believes there was discussion that there was a lighted intersection proposed for that intersection, and that there were a couple of possibilities for funding of that, but he doesn’t believe there were any stipulations that Parker Ridge would be approved or not be approved based on the light.  As far as the hump goes, he doesn’t think anyone is walking away from the issue that there may be a site distance problem with the hump, it’s just a matter of finding the most appropriate time to resolve that issue.   Mr. Searing suggested Karen White (Town Planner) research the minutes to see if the elimination of that site distance problem was a stipulation on the approval of Parker Ridge because if it was, what are we doing?  If it wasn’t then he needs to know it was discussed but it wasn’t a stipulation that was in writing that we were going to do it.

Mr. Keyes asked if we can get information on what is involved in removing the hump. 

Regarding  the Wallace Road recommendation,Mr. Danielson thinks this is tough putting money down knowing in 5 years we are going to be tearing money up, but something has to be done now.  Mr. Keyes thinks the way you can justify it is it is going to cost $130,000 now just to basically be able to save $4.5 million in 5 years.   Mr. Danielson does not want to give a placebo effect.  We are giving people sugar pills and saying everything is  fine, when in reality we are not really fixing the base issues.  Mr. Scanlon said normally he would not agree to spend $130,000 and then tear it up in the future, but Wallace Road does get a lot of traffic.  Something has to be done.  He does not think we can afford not to fix that road. He is supportive of it.

Mr. Searing said it is not like we will lose the $130,000 because some of the materials can be used at a later date.  Mr. Egan thinks Mr. Stanford’s memo is very succinct and to the point, and in light of the traffic on that road and the drainage, he is not concerned about tearing it up again in 5 years.    He thinks the proper thing is to support Mr. Stanford’s recommendation.

            Mr. Scanlon  made a motion that we allow the Public

            Works Director to do what needs to get done to make

            Wallace Road driveable again; motion seconded by

            Mr. Keyes;

Mr. Danielson suggested  just accepting Mr. Stanford’s memo.  Mr. Scanlon will accept his memo, but he doesn’t know if we want to hold him to the dollar amount because if he comes back with $20,000 more, he doesn’t want him to have to come back.  Mr. Danielson suggested having him come back at the n