Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

COMMUNICATIONS

VIEWS: 28 PAGES: 24

									                             COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE

                                        NOVEMBER 28, 2007

A meeting of the Committee on Infrastructure was held Wednesday, November 28, 2007, at 7:03 p.m. in
the Aldermanic Chamber.

Chair Robert A. Dion presided.

Members of the Committee present:    Alderman Marc W. Plamondon, Vice Chair
                                     Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane
                                     Alderman Mark S. Cookson
                                     Alderman Brian S. McCarthy

Members not in Attendance:

Also in Attendance:                  Alderman-at-Large Fred S. Teeboom
                                     Alderman Daniel L. Richardson
                                     Jean Marie Kennamer, City Traffic Engineer
                                     David Fredette, Tax Collector/Treasurer
                                     Ruth Raswyck, Deputy Treasurer/Deputy Tax Collector




INVOICES

From: Public Service of New Hampshire
Re:   Replace Defective Streetlight Heads ($416.66)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE, AND APPROVE THE
PAYMENT OF $416.66

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Deane

They are for replacement of defective 250-watt halogen street lamps (Pole #s P1200-3-5-1/P39-
99-1).
MOTION CARRIED

COMMUNICATIONS

From: Jean Marie Kennamer, City Traffic Engineer
Re: Ordinance O-07-147

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE
MOTION CARRIED
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                       Page 2

From: David G. Fredette, Treasurer/Tax Collector
Re:   Delinquent Tax Properties

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE
MOTION CARRIED

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Broad Street Parkway

Alderman Teeboom

There was $30,000 approved by the Budget Committee or the Board of Aldermen to proceed with that
reduction study. That was supposed to go to Finance. Now we have only two more meetings left.

Chairman Dion

There is a Finance Committee meeting I believe next Monday.

Alderman Teeboom

Are we going to see a contract?

Alderman McCarthy

I don’t know. I will check with Mr. Dookran and Mr. Williams tomorrow.

Alderman Teeboom

The Board approved it, but Finance Committee has to make final approval of the contract. If the term
expires at the end of December, and the Finance Committee has not acted on that contract, what
happens to the $30,000? Does it carry to the next term or does it dissipate into the air?

Alderman McCarthy

It carries to the next term like any other obligation.

Chairman Dion

It carries on to the next term.

Alderman Teeboom

It does?
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                         Page 3

Alderman McCarthy

It is like any other appropriation.

Alderman Teeboom

Was it appropriated by the Board of Aldermen?

Alderman McCarthy

That is how it gets spent.

Chairman Dion

Anything else Alderman McCarthy on the Broad Street Parkway?

Alderman McCarthy

No.

Ordinances

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE O-07-141
MOTION CARRIED

O-07-141
    Endorser: Alderman Mark S. Cookson
    CREATING A FOUR-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF COBURN AVENUE,
    PINE HILL ROAD AND INDIAN ROCK ROAD

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DION TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE

ON THE QUESTION

Chairman Dion

Alderman Cookson I would like you to explain your case, and I will ask the people in the audience to
speak afterwards.

Alderman Cookson

We introduced O-07-141 attempting to make an intersection in the ward more safe. It is currently a
three way stop, and it was suggested that a four way stop would be a safer intersection for all
approaching. When it came before the full Board at the last full Board meeting, there were some
issues that were raised, which caused it to be referred back to committee. At this point I would
welcome the Andruskevich’s either or both to join us, with your permission, to provide the issues that
they have concerns with.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                             Page 4


Pam Andruskevich, 3 Caraway Lane

Thank you for taking the time to reconsider this ordinance. I think everyone here received a copy of the
communication that was sent to the full board last month outlining some concerns about putting a stop
sign at this intersection. I would just like tonight to emphasize some of those points as well as provide
some additional information for your consideration.

One of the problems that we had with the original discussion was the accident report cited during the
original discussion was for a period of time from February 17, 2003 to September 8, 2003 with a total
number of 4 accidents being reported during this time. However, in 2004 the intersection was
completely redesigned, engineered, and constructed as a condition of approval of the Orchid Estates
sub-division on Pine Hill Road. The road alignment as well as the signaling at that intersection was
completely reconfigured. I attempted to obtain a traffic accident report from the police department to
determine if there had been any accidents reported subsequent to this re-design, but I wasn’t able to
get that information. Personally, and other people I have spoken with, I have not witnessed nor am I
aware of any accidents since that new intersection was built.

If there have been any it would also be pertinent to know the nature of the incident; whether it was
weather related, was it someone running an existing stop sign, were they speeding – those are all
issues that would need to be considered.

Some important information about this intersection, again the intersection was completely re-designed
in 2004, and I am not aware of any incidents since that re-design. The intersection has limited
pedestrian use. Children in this neighborhood are bused to school. Pedestrian traffic is primarily
during the evening and weekends and for leisure purposes. There are currently well-marked
crosswalks with good signage. The traffic analysis indicated nearly 3,000 cars passed through the
intersection in a 4-hour period.

I am not sure whether that represented a continuous four-hour period. If you assume that this traffic is
spread evenly over that four hour period, which it probably is not, it is more likely that it is concentrated
during a two-hour commuter time, but if you look at it conservatively and you assume that the 3,000
cars based over 4 hours – that is 750 cars passing through that intersection in an hour. That is 12.5
hours per minute all stopping at that one intersection. At 5:30 in the evening, the traffic will be backed
up to Perimeter Road. Turning onto Pine Hill from University Drive or Perimeter Road or Dublin Ave.
will be virtually impossible.

If the volume of traffic were evenly distributed from each street entering into this intersection a four way
stop would benefit the traffic flow. Unfortunately that is not the case here. The majority of the traffic
during the time of heaviest travel is heading west. A stop sign for westbound traffic would significantly
interrupt the flow of traffic and cause major backups to the east.

As noted in our earlier correspondence, the grade at Pine Hill Road makes it quite difficult in the winter
during snowstorms. Cars required to stop on this hill under winter conditions will have a very difficult
time going forward and also to keep from sliding into the cars that are behind them.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                            Page 5

I looked up some information on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and found some
interesting facts that I am sure most of you know of; stop signs should not be used for speed control,
stop signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the number of vehicles having to stop, stop
signs should be installed on the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic, and multi-way stop control
is used where the volume of traffic on intersecting streets is approximately equal. The existing signage
and traffic control as it currently stands meets all of those above conditions.

Let’s look at issues that do exist with this intersection and determine if an added stop sign will correct
them. We have been told that cars are speeding through the intersection. The speed limit on Pine Hill
Road is 30 mph. The speed limit on Coburn Ave. is 25 mph. It is a very rare occasion to see anyone
driving 25 mph on Coburn Ave. Statistics have shown that stop signs in these situations will cause
drivers to accelerate even faster to make up for the time they have been stopped, and there will still be
speeding on Coburn Road. We have been told that cars are cutting the turn onto Coburn Ave. This
condition exists with nearly every wide left turn and every double left turn unless there is striping to
guide drivers through the travel lane, and there are many instances I have noticed throughout the city
where striping has been done in these same situations. I believe that increased striping would improve
this intersection as well.

Another problem at this intersection is sight distance from Indian Rock Road. It is quite difficult. It was
improved somewhat with the 2004 road design, but it could be better. Trimming or removing some of
the conifer trees on the corner of Pine Hill and Indian Rock Road would greatly improve the site
distance. There are several large pine trees with branches extending into the road right of way.

I do agree that improvements could be made for safety purposes, but I do not believe that adding a
fourth stop sign would improve any of these situations, and I feel that it would likely create additional
problems as noted previously. Thank you.

Alderman Cookson

I would like to thank Ms. Andruskevich. I appreciate you coming to the committee this evening and
sharing your concerns both in previous e-mails and expressing them this evening. I think they are valid
concerns, and I think that we should look at this intersection and reassess it to identify whether a fourth
stop is the appropriate course of action. My opinion is that the three way stop that is currently there
could be safer. I believe there are issues and concerns at that intersection. I thought that a four way
stop might make it safer than a three way stop, but there is nothing that says that a two way stop –
having a stop on Coburn and having a stop on Indian Rock might be equally suitable solution.

I am happy to continue this conversation and put the best possible solution at that intersection. Thank
you again.

Alderman Richardson

I just wanted to note that listening tonight, having someone come forward and speak, I have never
heard such a well prepared set of information that was absolutely pertinent to the subject matter citing
the correct sources. It is amazing to me. I think you did a wonderful job tonight presenting your case.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                            Page 6

Pam Andruskevich

Thank you.

Alderman Richardson

Thank you.

Chairman Dion

Jean Marie when you sent your recommendation originally what was that?

Jean Marie Kennamer

We supported the four way stop.

Chairman Dion

Did you give any consideration to the pine trees and trying to get a little better view coming into that
intersection?

Jean Marie Kennamer

Yes. We currently have a work order in to clear back some of the trees and limbs with the street
department. If we want to do larger removing trees we need to do that through a contract with the
parks department.

Chairman Dion

Mrs. Andruskevich mentioned something about a hill there. Did you notice that when you made your
study?

Jean Marie Kennamer

Yeah, the grade is …..

Chairman Dion

Do you agree that could cause a problem in the wintertime for cars skidding through there and probably
getting rear ended to boot?

Jean Marie Kennamer

It could possibly, but we still support the four way stop. In analyzing this four way stop we take into
account many factors other than just potential traffic backing up or accidents. We looked at volume,
safety concerns, basic geometry of the intersection. We agree that the way the intersection is
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                            Page 7

designed, and yes it was revamped and there was some reconstruction to it, but it is not the best laid
out intersection. We would never design something like that.

Chairman Dion

As far as the accident reports are concerned, Mrs. Andruskevich mentioned something about the
accident reports showed 3-4 accidents in 2003. Did we get any reports of accidents from 2003 to
present?

Jean Marie Kennamer

Yes. Well the accident reports that I have in my office, in these large volumes of books, range from the
year 2003 to October 2004. That is what we had currently.

Chairman Dion

Does that mean there were no accidents in 2005, 2006, and 2007?

Jean Marie Kennamer

No. If you let me continue – what I did was I did contact the police department, but starting in 2005
they have a different reporting system for accidents, and the accident reports and the descriptions that
we get are not as descriptive. There are still accidents occurring, and the police department gave me
that information, but it is not the same type of reporting system, and so it is not as detailed. There are
still accidents on Pine Hill Road, but it is not as detailed.

Chairman Dion

It doesn’t tell you what caused the accident?

Jean Marie Kennamer

No it doesn’t. It just tells you that there are accidents on Pine Hill Road. They break it down by month,
but they don’t…

Chairman Dion

And the location?

Jean Marie Kennamer

Yes. Well not the specific location, but they tell you along the street that there are accidents.

Pam Andruskevich

There are a lot of accidents at the Charron Road/Pine Hill Road intersection. Seriously I am not aware
of any accidents at the intersection we are discussing tonight. If there were any severe accidents we
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                         Page 8

would all be aware of them, and if they were minor accidents they could be caused by any number of
reasons. As I mentioned, I tried to get the police report and was unsuccessful in doing that. I would be
interested in knowing the dates and the accidents that were reported for that intersection. I guess if
what you are saying is they are not specific enough to define what intersection, Pine Hill Road is a long
street with some really bad corners. If you were to compare the Charron Avenue section, the Dublin
Road intersection, you would find there are definitely a lot more accidents at those two intersections
than there are at the one we are discussing tonight.

Jean Marie Kennamer

I would agree, but again I can only base my analysis on the accident reports and information I am given
from the police department, and again their accident reporting system and the way resources and the
way it has been collected and shown since – it changed in 2005 so it is not as descriptive as it was
previous to that time.

Chairman Dion

So what do you plan on doing now Jean as far as that intersection is concerned?

Jean Marie Kennamer

We have a work order in to cut back some branches, but ….

Chairman Dion

Anything else?

Jean Marie Kennamer

We’re waiting to see…

Chairman Dion

Traffic counting measures or …

Jean Marie Kennamer

We could certainly look at some other measures, but I am going to wait to see what the committee
decides.

Alderman McCarthy

I assume that the westbound traffic is the heaviest at p.m. peek?

Jean Marie Kennamer

Absolutely.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                             Page 9


Alderman McCarthy

Do we know what the numbers are for that leg of that intersection?

Jean Marie Kennamer

We were out there on Thursday, September 27th, and Friday September 28th. We were out there in the
a.m. time from 7:00 – 9:00 and in the afternoon we were there from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. We had in the
morning on Pine Hill Road going east you had 576 vehicles and then in the p.m. you had 1,069
vehicles.

Alderman McCarthy

And that was going west?

Jean Marie Kennamer

Yes.

Alderman McCarthy

Pam Andruskevich makes a very good point about traffic during the peek time. I would like to call the
committee’s attention to what I think may have been a mistake we made elsewhere in the name of
fixing traffic, which is the corner of East Dunstable and Lamb Road where we had a problem with one
leg of that that is not as highly traveled – people having difficulty making a left turn. Well we put up the
three way stop sign and people coming south on East Dunstable Road or up Lamb Road at p.m. peek
can now get through that intersection in no time at all. The westbound traffic on Spit Brook Road that
goes up onto East Dunstable Road however is held up for 3-5 minutes per car waiting to get through
that stop sign, and almost every car comes up, stops, and goes because there is no traffic on the side
legs. We have basically taken the major leg of that intersection, which performed at an A level of
service, and made it an F in order to improve the level of service on the two lightly used legs, and I
would hate to see us do the same thing anywhere else.

I think that council is sound, but we ought to look carefully at what happens with the p.m. peek traffic
before we do this.

Pam Andruskevich

A thousand plus cars in a two-hour time period is even more dramatic than what I originally discussed.
That is a lot of cars going through that intersection in one direction. You are stopping – that is a lot of
cars. I can just see that would create a real traffic backup. Currently I guess I would really like to know
what originated the idea of a four way stop initially. I hear that it is traffic safety and wanting to improve
the safety of the intersection, but was it someone who lives in the neighborhood that said they were
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                           Page 10

having difficulty in the intersection? We don’t have any reports of traffic accidents so it is not that we
are trying to curb traffic accidents.

How did it originally come up?

Alderman Cookson

That is exactly what happened – even though there may not be traffic accidents to indicate an issue
there, what I did receive were many concerns from constituents off of Indian Rock trying to get onto or
across Pine Hill to get onto Coburn, and then I also heard from constituents that were on the Coburn
Ave. side of the road that were concerned about people cutting the corners and almost getting hit as
they traveled I think it is northbound on Coburn Ave.

That was the crux. It was a safety issue and a safety concern that was raised to me.

Pam Andruskevich

I definitely can understand the Indian Rock people because I have pulled out of that intersection as
well, and they do have to really stick your nose out to see what is coming, and I think that would be
improved if we could do as Jean Marie was mentioning and cut back some of the trees there. It is
always going to be a problem just because of the slope of the hill there. The sight distance is not good.
As I said when they changed the intersection in 2004 they lowered it a little bit. I think they lowered it
about a foot, but it is still not the best, but it never will be.

The left turn onto Coburn, striping would help that. I think any time, and I have seen this happen with
people pulling into any double left turn if there are no cars sitting there the path of least resistance.

Alderman Cookson

When you speak of the striping are you talking about actual dashed striping to mark the curve?

Pam Andruskevich

Yes.

Alderman Cookson

So going from Pine Hill westbound onto Coburn South you wanted to see a dashed line that would
indicate the curve of that…

Pam Andruskevich

I am saying if it is a problem, which I haven’t seen the problem, but that is a solution.

Alderman Cookson

I just wanted to make sure I understood completely what you meant as far as striping.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                          Page 11


Pam Andruskevich

Defining the lane line. The information that I looked up indicated that it could be put in the center or on
the edge.

Alderman Cookson

I know there have been suggestions from Pine Hill westbound to emphasize that lane and on Coburn
going north. I wanted to make sure you were talking about the actual arch or the curve on that.

Pam Andruskevich

That is what I was talking about because currently the striping stops at the stop bars, and so there is a
fairly wide section where there is no striping at all. As I said before I can see where people, if there is
not a car sitting there at the stop sign, they are going to cut the corner.

Alderman Cookson

Thank you.

Alderman Teeboom

You said the police reports are not very clear now. You have Pine Hill Road, which is a very long
street, there is an accident and the accident report does not tell you there was an accident at the
intersection of let’s say Pine Hill and Coburn?

Jean Marie Kennamer

Correct. It doesn’t say exactly where.

Alderman Teeboom

When the police write up a report – if we are talking about reportable accidents – don’t the police write
up a report and file that report with the police department so couldn’t you look at the records in the
police department or in the court if there is a court filing – to give you detailed information about the
accident?

Jean Marie Kennamer

I am sure you could. I am just saying the information that I was given from the police department…

Alderman Teeboom

Okay, but you could go out to the police department and get that information yourself. Rather than use
the records they gave you you can go down to the police department and look this up yourself.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                          Page 12

Alderman Cookson

As could the ward Alderman.

Jean Marie Kennamer

I would again ask the police department to at least look into it more further. I am just simply telling you
and the committee what I was given by the police department.

Alderman Teeboom

So there are detailed reports available?

Jean Marie Kennamer

I would assume yes, but I am just saying what I was given from the police department.

Pam Andruskevich

There have been multiple accidents on Pine Hill Road, and they have been at the intersection of
Charron Ave. and Dublin Ave., and also the sharp corner as it goes on to Blue Hill Ave. If those are the
accidents that are being counted for this particular report putting a stop sign on Pine Hill Road is not
going to solve that problem at all.

Chairman Dion

Usually every accident report that I have seen tells you exactly where the accident occurred. In fact, I
was involved in an accident about 6 months ago and I asked specifically for the insurance company to
give me the report of the accident because this was a hit and run, and the police report showed exactly
where that accident occurred. I can’t understand how they are saying if Pine Hill Road let’s say is 1.5-2
miles long, how they can say there was an accident on Pine Hill Road and don’t designate where the
accident occurred – it doesn’t make sense to me.

Alderman Cookson

I am sure the information exists. I just believe that the information that the police department provided
City Traffic Engineer Kennamer didn’t contain that information. What she received was a compilation
or a summary of the accidents that happened on that road so that she could provide the information
that we requested. Unfortunately it wasn’t the detailed information that we would like to have had, but
this is what she received so I think what it might entail is just going back and asking the police for a
detailed report.

Alderman Plamondon

Just to go along the lines with our Traffic Engineer Jean Marie Kennamer, the police department did
institute new software. It is a new compilation of data so the way that the data is presented in a
summation format is very different and doesn’t give as much information. For example I might point to
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                          Page 13

the crime watch reports that I get every month – it gives me more as far as the case number, but for
example I look at here is an accident, I believe the reference number also references the badge of the
police officer, it says accident Kentucky Fried Chicken, 300 Main Street. Now it could be there in the
plaza, on Main Street, etc. It is the summation data.

Before the new software was instituted, the summation data was presented in a different format. The
information is there, but more research needs to be done – more manpower. When we bought this
software – I have been waiting for a couple of years now to get a change in the summation of data.
That would be my understanding of it, and again I can base it on the reports I get from the police
department. I am assuming it is the same.

Chairman Dion

Insurance companies always ask for a report from the police department. I think they have to pay a
fee, but they do get a detailed account of where the accident occurred and how it happened and what
the officer’s summation is as far as who is responsible.

Alderman Cookson

What it sounds like is that we just need to get a little more information.
MOTION WITHDRAWN

MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO HOLD IN COMMITTEE
MOTION CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS

R-07-284
            Alderman Daniel Richardson
    Endorser:
            Alderman Richard P. Flynn
            Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane
   SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS AT REFERENDUM A QUESTION ON THE
   MAXIMUM EXPECTED MUNICIPAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE BROAD
STREET PARKWAY PROJECT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman McCarthy

I am not going to support that. I actually am not interested in whether the public thinks we should
spend $100 million on this roadway or not. I do not, and I can’t be persuaded I suspect to believe that
we should. If we put it on the ballot I don’t know what the outcome is going to be. Corporation Counsel
has told us that it is non-binding. We will have spent the taxpayers’ money to get information that in all
likelihood isn’t going to influence the decision I make on it. I would rather see the end of the study first
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                         Page 14

and understand whether there is a reasonable cost alternative, and then we will either move forward or
put it to bed.

Perhaps at that point when we have gotten closer is a good time to talk about whether we want to put
the formal price to the public, but frankly I don’t think we know enough to ask an intelligent question at
this point so I won’t support spending the money for a referendum that in my mind isn’t going to change
anything.

Alderman Plamondon

I am not going to support it either. Again, we already have an opinion from counsel that it is non-
binding. This has already gone to the voters of the city, and the voters voted for the project for an
additional river crossing. The pathway, the project is the same it is just narrowed in scope. It follows
the same pathway. From the onset of the project, items were identified such as the terminus study
needed further review as well as the Broad Street connection. That hasn’t changed other than from
then to now we have finally looked at that and are continuing to look at it, but the overall scheme,
scope, pathway of the project is the same. Nothing has changed.

To go to referendum would be really a waste of money. I think we just need to continue to look at the
project, look at how we can cut the costs, do it in phases, whatever is necessary to get an additional
crossing. I am not going to support a motion to go to referendum. Thank you.

Alderman Richardson

I would like to give a little background on this. Back in 2002 there was a resolution for referendum
created by I believe it was Alderman Paula Johnson who was intent on making use of a provision in the
Charter to have questions put before the voters, Charter Section 102. The question, at that time, was
be it resolved by the people of the City of Nashua upon referendum of the Board of Aldermen thereof,
provided the city shall use all available means to terminate the Broad Street Parkway project. That was
the proposal at that time. That particular resolution died in committee at the end of the term when no
action was taken on it. The date on it was June 2002 when it went through the legal department so
perhaps up to 6 months spent floundering and didn’t go anywhere.

That again was to terminate the Broad Street Parkway. This question, is about the maximum expected
municipal cost associated with the Broad Street Parkway project, and the question that is on the
resolution is shall the City of Nashua expend up to the sum of not more than $100 million for the
purpose of designing, planning, construction, monetary expenditures for the Broad Street Parkway
project with said sum to be in addition to any federal, state, or private funds made available thereof.
That is the intent of this.

Now this was constructed and put together, and it actually took months for it to get through Legal and
have Legal write a memo about it, and finally it came to us and is now presented before us. During that
timeframe pacing that was this report from NRPC and the contractor VHB, who were contracted to
provide us with cost information that we could then put onto this resolution as a final number. The $100
million was a boggie at that time, and it was intended that number be corrected to the maximum
expected cost that would be provided in this report. However, the last time this committee met we had
– it took four hours to go through this report. We actually didn’t even finish all of the questions. We
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                          Page 15

found a number of things that were wrong with the report and also found the contractor did not do what
we asked him to do, which is provide the margin of error. That was completely ignored. Said he
couldn’t do it. That was the key to doing this. We needed to have that margin of error. We needed to
know how much money would be the maximum error so that we could put that into this resolution and
ensure that we had it covered, and it be presented to the voters, and the voters would say then that it
shall or shall not spend the money – that that is the maximum expected amount.

When we took a look at this report, the report after going through it with a lot of details, we found that
what they provided to us was an average estimate. It had nothing to do with worst-case numbers or
minimum or maximum numbers. It was an average. As a matter of fact stated right in the document
they used average numbers. It is part of the assumptions just before the detailed cost estimate sheets.
It is page 1 of the Appendixes, item 1 – prices used for the roadway cost estimate are from NH DOT
average weighed unit prices, etc….. down further it also states again “Prices used for the estimate are
from the NH DOT average unit prices.” So the numbers that we got were average. What it also has in
here are two separate numbers for projected escalation – the 3% and the 7% over that period of time.
What they are using that for is escalation of that number from 2007 dollars to 2011 dollars. There are a
lot of questions about that given that the numbers that we have actually seen were more on the order of
13%. They back that data by saying well that is what NH DOT is saying.

Again, if you look at where those numbers come from they look like a moving average so they are
questionable. I am very unhappy with this report. I don’t believe it is a true reflection of what the costs
are involved with the Broad Street Parkway even as they designate it as the 2007 design.

As we know, when it comes to government projects, they never come in at an average. They always
overrun. I think we have experience with big digs and other types of projects as testament to that.

Alderman McCarthy

We have no such experience here. Every project that we..

Alderman Richardson

Governmental experience Mr. McCarthy.

Alderman McCarthy

Every project that I am aware of that the City of Nashua has undertaken in the last 5-10 years has
come in at or under budget.

Alderman Richardson

That is wonderful; however, take a look at the big dig.

Alderman Teeboom

Point of Order – that is not quite true. The CSO went from an estimate of $40 million to $68 million.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                         Page 16

Chairman Dion

That is a true statement.

Alderman McCarthy

Well I didn’t manage that one. I am sorry.

Alderman Richardson

When we went through this document from the NRPC and VHB we found that what they did is they put
in a contingency of 10%. That is what they did. They did not study that and come up with a study of
what the error is going to be they came up and hung a 10% out there and said trust us this is – we are
experts, this is our estimate at, and it should come in underneath this. There is nothing to back that up
just the trust me we are experts. It is very unsatisfactory.

The numbers that we actually got from them were $78 million and $91 million. The way you get those
two numbers is you start with the same base and then you use the two different inflations numbers,
either the 3% or the 7% that they prescribed. Those numbers do not account for the $14.7 million that
the city has already spent acquiring property and right of way for the 2001 design some of which is not
needed any longer and would never be used for the 2003 or the 2007 design.

We have excess property that we could in fact use to sell and liquidate and get some cash out of. That
is one of the recommendations that they had, which is an appropriate recommendation, but we would
do that anyhow. That has no bearing on actually the cost of this project.

What it boils down to is the clause that we have in our Charter to do this job – Chapter 102. Alderman
Teeboom has made a study of this regarding the savings clause and a prior decision that was made
regarding other chapters in the Charter. The other chapter I guess it was the McGrath vs. Streeter
contest, which happened at the beginning of 2006. The court found that certain sections within the
Charter were invalidated by a law, which was passed subsequent to those Charter sections being in
place. However, it was decided that decision was only on those particular charter sections.

The Board of Aldermen did not challenge that, which many people have suggested was a major
mistake at that time.

We had a memo from legal counsel that said these chapters in the Charter are similar and could be
challenged on the same basis by the court. However, they have not been. To this day they are still in
effect. They have not been overturned. With regard to that I think I would like to turn it over to
Alderman Teeboom if you would like to make a more clear discussion of that particular aspect of this.

Alderman Teeboom

I am not here to re-visit the report at this point. We have spent many hours on it. Alderman
Richardson and I don’t completely agree on the margin of error. That is not why I am here. I am quite
familiar however with citizen petitions versus aldermanic petitions. The 2002 petition that didn’t make it
out of these chambers – lingered around for a year and a half – that is the Aldermen sending a petition
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                         Page 17

to the citizens. There was an earlier petition on the Broad Street Parkway back in 1997 or thereabouts
– that was a citizen petition, and that failed, but at that time the question before the voters was pretty
much do you want it or not with the understanding that the taxpayers wouldn’t pay any money.

We now face a different situation. First of all the current estimate is about $60 million. We will have
another study done to try to narrow that down. I suspect we would narrow that down by maybe $10-20
million, but you are still stuck with the same route, practically the same everything except you can cut
out a bicycle lane, etc.

The question is should this go before the citizens. Well the court dealt with the narrow question of the
recall, which is in our Charter, and the Judge said I can only deal with the narrow subject before me,
and that is the provision of the recall. As you know that Judge said it was an invalid provision, and that
Judge is now on the Supreme Court. Now the city attorney wrote an excellent paper, and he stated
that he believed that any other test similar to the recall test would also fail. However, there was an
argument made from the city at the time that was very valid, and that was that the Charter in Nashua
was created by the Legislature not under RSA 49C and therein lays the point it has to be litigated. Is
the Charter of Nashua outside RSA 49C? Then that has to be litigated. It should be litigated because
there are many items in our Charter that are under 49C and are not saved. In 49C it says unless
specifically saved, it is gone. Things that are saved are budgetary things, administrative things, etc.
There is nothing in 49C that talks about or is saved about Board of Public Works. Is that now invalid?
Nothing about the Finance Committee having the authority to make an audit independent of the Board
of Aldermen.

Are all of these thing invalid? The answer is it has not be litigated. We can’t just have a committee of
the Mayor appoint and say these things are valid and invalid because there will be argument. First of
all I think it is a good thing to put before the voters because if someone in the legal office objects and
the Board takes a vote we can take that to the Supreme Court and ask for a hearing from the Supreme
Court and say even though we did not appeal the question of McGrath vs. Streeter, we would like a
ruling on the rest of the Charter.

That is a very important point. I think it should have been litigated in 2005. I was not on the Board. I
would have made an impassioned plea to take it to court. It didn’t happen. We came in in 2006, and it
never came before the Board at that time. We have plenty of opportunity to appeal it, and here is an
opportunity.

Now on the merit of doing this, I don’t agree with the wording on the bottom. The wording almost
guarantees that the people will not accept it because it is not totally true. No one talks about spending
$100 million on the parkway from the taxpayers’ money. At this time we are talking $60 million and it
could be less. We shouldn’t ask the question of citizens saying do you want to spend up to $100
million. The answer is always going to be no. It is not a fair question.

We can wait until the $30,000 study is done. I don’t have a problem with that either, but the question
should be given the study, given the fact that we want to proceed do you concur that we should
proceed and spend taxpayers’ money. That should be a legitimate argument for the citizens. If you
ask the citizens to spend $40 million and we have to bond $4 million a year or $60 million and $6 million
a year we are going to ask them to spend $2.50 for a property owner for the next twenty years. That is
a lot of money.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                            Page 18


Chairman Dion

But the problem with this Alderman Teeboom is that if we follow your line of reasoning and we hold this
until the study is done then this resolution R-07-284, will die.

Alderman Teeboom

I am aware of that. I am aware that we will bring it back. I am still here. Maybe Alderman Richardson
won’t be here, but I am still Alderman-at-Large and still represent Alderman Richardson. I would be
glad to bring it forward. The point is that the citizens ought to have a voice in how much money is
spent and by the way it should be binding. I don’t see anything saying it is binding or non-binding. In
the Charter it doesn’t address non-binding. The Charter talks about a binding resolution. The binding
provisions in the Charter came out of corruption back in the 1900s. That is how all of this stuff wound
up in our Charter about aldermanic and citizen petitions. Citizen petitions are maintained in state law,
but aldermanic petitions are not in state law for general purpose. It is for things like Pennichuck and
special legislation, but not for general questions.

These are important points. I think it should go before the voters, and it ought to be binding. If it is
non-binding it ought to say in the text. I would recommend we hold this, let it die, and pick it up next
year.

Chairman Dion

One thing Alderman Teeboom you want to remember is that when this Broad Street Parkway was
brought to a referendum years ago there was no cost to the city. Now we are talking $60 million.

Alderman Richardson

The 1997 question is given in one of the whereas clauses here, and it says “shall the City of Nashua
continue work, planning, construction, and monetary expenditures for the Broad Street Parkway
project. That was the question at the time. There is no dollar figure associated with it at all. It is like
sure go ahead. That was the general consensus at the time. As a matter of fact the vote was not a
clear yes or no it was a very close vote. It was 6,000 something to 5,000 something.

Alderman Teeboom

Point of Information – the vote was not close. The vote was I would say 20% margin in favor of
proceeding at no cost.

Alderman Richardson

I disagree.

Alderman Teeboom

We can look it up.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                         Page 19


Alderman Richardson

I have already done that, but go ahead. The point is it was brought up tonight that we are going to be
spending taxpayers’ money on doing this referendum. If you turn from the front page to the second
page on the back, it shows that the cost estimated to print the ballots in house is $13,900 and then
there is an additional $7,000 for computer scanned ballots with multiple candidates and/or questions if
that is the way we wanted to go. We are talking about less than $20,000 to decide $100 million
question. I think that is well-invested money to tell you the truth. I have no hesitation about going to
the voters and asking what the voters want. That is the last thing I would hesitate to do. I would never
say well I am going to make the decision for the voters regardless. I always defer to the voters, and we
did. As a matter of fact in this last election that is exactly what happened. The voters made up their
minds, and they are right. Voters are always right.

Tonight I guess what I would see us doing is modifying the dollar amount to what the committee feels
would be the appropriate number to put in there, and hopefully just passing that on to the full Board for
a vote.

Alderman McCarthy

I want to first correct something. The previous speaker said we found that with regard to the report –
we didn’t find that. Certain members of the Board may have felt that was the case. That certainly was
never voted upon by the Board to reach any conclusions on the report. I want to go back to the margin
of error issue because this has been a sticky point since we started doing this. What we were told last
time was there was no such concept with regard to construction estimation.

Chairman Dion

I believe Alderman Teeboom agreed with that too.

Alderman McCarthy

And there is not. Margin of error is a statistics term and statistics is applied to a case where you have a
large set of data that involves and independent variable and a dependent variable where you don’t quite
know what the causality is, but you know there is one, and you analyze previous data and determine
what the probability is that you can predict future data. There is no common causality when you get to
construction projects. One of them is over budget because steel goes up, one is over budget because
there is a labor strike, one of them is over budget because inflation was higher that year than it has
been in years. They are not the same so what you got out of them was an estimate that is done the
way they always do it, which is here is our best guess at essentially the upper limit price, and we can
manage the project in lower than that by the way we bid it out. That is what common practice is in the
construction industry; it is what I have seen on every project we have done, the estimates that we get
have been sound on every project that I have seen us do. I don’t want to go into the CSOs. There are
different explanations for that. That was not a firm construction estimate that we are talking about.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                            Page 20

When we get construction estimates they are usually reasonably accurate and they include a
contingency that does the right thing. That is no reason to say well we want to go out to the public.
You get a number from them, and I reject out of hand the fact that we don’t make decisions for the
voters. Every year we make a decision to spend $250 million of the voters’ money without putting that
before them on a referendum. This is peanuts next to the decisions we make on a daily basis. What
you have to look at is what do we want to do and what do we need to know. I don’t need to know how
the voters feel about spending $144 million on this project, which is what is anticipated in the resolution
that is before us. I don’t need to no that because I am going to vote no. That is more money than we
spent on the two high schools put together to build a 1.5 mile stretch of road, and there is no way you
can convince me that is a win for us.

Is there a smaller number where it may be yeah there probably is. I don’t know what it is yet. We have
to see where they are. I tend to agree with Alderman Teeboom that we are not likely to get down into a
realm where that project is going to be attractive, but we need to find that out, and when we are done
with that we can debate whether the price is one we can afford, we can’t afford, or one that we actually
ought to go out and ask the citizens if they think it is worth it. I don’t have any intention of supporting it
until we are done with that study and we know what that number is, and we know whether it is one we
can easily afford or can’t afford at all.

Alderman Richardson

The way that we came to terms with the margin of error was during the Budget Committee meeting we
were talking about R-06-06, which proposed agreeing to an unknown municipal agreement with the
state and approving financing the project with $6.2 million of the city’s money. I am very glad we didn’t
go with that. That was re-written to actually cite the number of outstanding items that needed to be
studied, which were probably embodied in this particular report from the NRPC. During that process, it
was very much a pointed effort to determine what kind of tolerance there would be on this particular
number, the estimate we would get. The number we were tossing around, the question we were
tossing around was whether you call it a tolerance, excess money, whatever, but Director Hersh was
present and it was made known of her mathematical process, and she happened to mention that we
should call it a margin of error. Everybody on the committee at that time said okay that is what we will
do, and we put that as an item in that particular resolution.

That, when it was approved, was carried forward in the contract to NRPC. NRPC most certainly
reviewed the agreement they had with the city, and in particular they had to have because we
mentioned it several times. It was a subject of a lot of e-mail communications with Director Williams. I
am certain that they were well aware of it before they signed up to that particular item as well as all of
the other items in the agreement. Subsequently, when they sub-let a contract to VHB it was requested
very vocally that be in that particular contract also. Both NRPC and VHB were well aware of what was
being asked of them, and there was delivery of nothing with regard to that subject. Thank you.

Chairman Dion

I want to address the margin of error. Someone mentioned it back a month or so ago – you know in my
lifetime I don’t recall ever hearing the term margin of error other than in electoral polls when they have
polls of candidates running like Republican and Democratic parties and they canvass let’s say 100,000
people and then they say margin of error is 3-5%. That is the only time I have ever heard that term
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                              Page 21

used. I think Alderman McCarthy is correct in saying that the cost of material keeps going up – okay
we use an average of 3-7%, but a work stoppage, the price of gasoline going from $1.50 to $3.00 a
gallon – that increases everything. Everything is relative. The margin or error to guess the price of a
project I don’t think anybody can use anything but what the scale is. The scale is 3-7%. I absolutely
agree with that. I can’t see how anyone can sit there and like Alderman McCarthy said the high school
project, we came under budget. Practically ever tying but the CSO because that was mandated by the
state and we had no control over it. I really can’t understand the margin of error trying to equate this in
the Broad Street Parkway.

I also think the price is exorbitant. I don’t think the taxpayers can afford it. I think we all are in
agreement on that.

Alderman Richardson

You are exactly correct it is typically expressed as a percentage of a base value as you were referring
to in polls. I would like to draw your attention to again the report, which is the Appendix page 2, which
has computations and some assumptions in it. Item 10 is contingencies and reads for both the
roadway and bridge cost estimate, a 10% contingency has been added. That is a 10% contingency.
That is to cover that margin of error. They are budgeting 10% to cover errors in their estimate. We
paid them, we asked them to define what the error was, but instead of doing that they said here is a
10% contingency to cover…

Chairman Dion

In case they need it for added expenses like the price of steel going up. We’re not going to start this
project tomorrow if we agree to do it. Who knows in 6 months or a year from now how much steel is
going to go up per pound. We don’t know. That is why they put a contingency in there.

Alderman Richardson

That is exactly right. They are saying that because they were experts and have done these things
before that their estimate is very very accurate and the 10% should cover. They gave in the report I
believe it was one project recently, an undescribed project that came in within 6% of the particular base
estimate. The whole point I am trying to make here is that we asked for a margin of error. They didn’t
give us what we asked for. What they did instead is they gave us a contingency, which is just 10%.

Chairman Dion

It is about the same thing basically….

Alderman Richardson

One was asking them to define what the error was and what they actually gave us was here is a 10%
contingency to cover whatever it might be. That is the difference.
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                         Page 22

Alderman Teeboom

We are getting completely off track on the legislation. This has nothing to do with the legislation. I
recommend you hold it, let it die, and we pick it up next year.
MOTION CARRIED
Division Taken

NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES

O-07-147
    Endorser: Alderman Greg Williams
              Alderman-at-Large James R. Tollner
              Alderman David MacLaughlin
              Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane
    AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF A STOP SIGN ON ABERDEEN LANE AT ITS
    INTERSECTION WITH SEARLES ROAD

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE
MOTION CARRIED

TABLED IN COMMITTEE

Petitions

Petition for Street Acceptance: Federal Hill Road

Petition for Street Acceptance: Emerald Drive

Petition for Street Discontinuance: Evelyn Street

Ordinances

O-06-33
   Endorsers: Alderman Mark S. Cookson
              Alderman-at-Large James R. Tollner
   ESTABLISHING A 25 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON A PORTION OF BROAD STREET

O-07-131
    Endorser: Alderman Greg Williams
              Alderman Mark S. Cookson
    CREATING A FOUR-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF GLEN DRIVE AND
    NOTTINGHAM DRIVE

O-07-142
    Endorser: Alderman David MacLaughlin
    CREATING A FOUR-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF BICENTENNIAL DRIVE,
    LANSING DRIVE AND ROSECLIFF DRIVE
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                       Page 23


GENERAL DISCUSSION

PUBLIC COMMENT

NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE THAT THE COMMITTEE GO INTO NON-PUBLIC SESSION
BY ROLL CALL PURSUANT TO RSA 91-A:3,II(C) TO DISCUSS MATTERS WHICH, IF
DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC, WOULD LIKELY AFFECT ADVERSELY THE REPUTATION OF ANY
PERSON, OTHER THAN A MEMBER OF THE BODY OR AGENCY ITSELF, UNLESS SUCH
PERSON REQUESTS AN OPEN MEETING

SECONDED BY ALDERMAN PLAMONDON

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Teeboom

We didn’t hear a report on tax collection.

Chairman Dion

That is correct. The names are going to be used, and we don’t want to publicize it.

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea:   Alderman Dion, Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Deane,
       Alderman Cookson, Alderman McCarthy                                5

Nay:                                                                      0
MOTION CARRIED

The Committee on Infrastructure went into non-public session at 8:40 p.m.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO COME OUT OF THE NON-PUBLIC SESSION AND
RETURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING
MOTION SECONDED BY ALDERMAN DION

A viva voce roll call vote was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea:   Alderman Dion, Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Deane,
       Alderman Cookson, Alderman McCarthy                                5

Nay:                                                                      0
MOTION CARRIED
Infrastructure – 11/28/07                                                   Page 24

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE THAT THE COMMITTEE SEAL THE MINUTES OF THE NON-
PUBLIC SESSION BY ROLL CALL UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE MAJORITY OF THE
COMMITTEE VOTES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY WOULD NO LONGER
BE SERVED

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea:   Alderman Dion, Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Deane,
       Alderman Cookson, Alderman McCarthy                              5

Nay:                                                                    0
MOTION CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting of the Committee on Infrastructure was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

                                                          Alderman David W. Deane
                                                          Committee Clerk

								
To top