City of Berlin, NH - BIDPA Minutes 04/24/2007

BIDPA MEMBERS	STAFF
Richard Huot, Chair	Pamela Laflamme, City Planner
Paul Lozier	Patrick MacQueen, City Manager
Mike Caron	Norm Charest, Economic Development Director
Terry Block
Don Huot Liz Ward, by phone	City Councilor, Diana Nelson

In Mr. Dumoulin's absence, Chair Huot went over the financial report for March. Ms. Laflamme let the board know that VeryFine requested their deposit be returned to them. The board discussed the amount of detail provided by the Comptroller and expressed their appreciation for the information.

Mr. Charest shared with the board that there have been a few trade publications that have been contacting him to discuss advertising for BIDPA. Mr. Charest discussed the new structure for economic development for the valley as he understands it. Mr. Charest suggested that we should be inviting Jim Wagner to the meetings as we figure out the roles and responsibilities for each entity as the new economic development efforts unfold.

Mr. Charest suggested that Mr. Wagner's budget is possibly the appropriate budget for marketing purposes to include BIDPA. Chair Huot indicated he did not think that this was exactly the intent of the marketing budget that has been set up for Mr. Wagner's position. Chair Huot indicated that he thought it would be more about collaborating and leveraging efforts of individual organizations, including BIDPA.

There was a bit more discussion about this and following the discussion, Mr. Charest recommended that BIDPA skip advertising with the trade publications that approached him for now until we understand better the marketing strategy for the valley. Councilor Nelson mentioned that the DRED website has outdated information and that staff should look into updating it. Mr. Block also mentioned that staff should be updating the www.nheconomy.com website that is also affiliated with DRED, which has not been updated in quite some time.

Leases for Guitabec and Moonlight Machining: Mr. Charest requested clarification on the terms the board was seeking for the lease. This was quickly clarified and the board moved on.

Update on intent to purchase Lot 9: Chair Huot indicated that Sabbow wanted to change the language in the purchase and sales agreement for Section 5.03 – regarding BIDPA's right to repurchase from two years to three. The board rejected this idea saying that two years was plenty of time to see development on the property.

· Hill Street Construction Work – The contract has been signed and the work has been completed. The Assistant Fire Chief will be reviewing the work shortly. Chair Huot brought up an issue Mr. Langlois shared with him about the locks for the door that had been installed. The problem has been resolved.

· Lot 7 – There was discussion about the purchase and sales agreement for Lot #7. The board rejected the language as proposed by Mr. McLain. The board wanted to see that there was substantial development on at least one of his contiguous properties. Mr. MacQueen shared his suggested language which follows:

Buyer has not actively developed this land or is not using this land in integral conjunction with active business development on the adjoining piece Buyer already owns by the two year anniversary of the date of the Closing and the recordation of the deed from the Seller. For the purposes of this section, storage of construction or other materials on the premises or the adjoining parcel already owned by the Buyer, without significant building development does not meet the requirement of "actively developed" or "active business development."

The board agreed with the proposed language. Chair Huot and Mr. Block then discussed that they would like to see BIDPA have a first right of refusal for the property. Mr. Lozier inquired about the other interests in the property and whether it would be able to be sold to other parties. Mr. Charest indicated that he thought there would be interest.

Mr. Block indicated that he would like Mr. MacQueen discuss these issues with Mr. McLain. If Mr. McLain does not agree with the right of first refusal clause, then the board would like to have him at the next meeting to discuss this further.

· Signage at Maynesboro Industrial Park – Ms. Laflamme shared the three designs that were received for the sign with the Board. They were from Littleton Sign Company, StudioWorks, and Jackson Signsmith. The board reviewed all three designs and discussed the pros and cons of each sign, the need for lighting, price, and other variables.

The board requested more information from Jackson Signsmith, wanting to see different materials such as HDU, options for lighting, and a colored design for the next meeting. They will vote on the preferred sign at the next meeting.

Route 110 update: Ms. Laflamme shared the inspection report for the house on the Route 110 property, indicating that the housing and building inspector had found several code violations for the house that would amount nearly $30,000 to $40,000 worth of work. This justified the board's reasoning last month to take the house out of the appraisal price for the Isaacson's purchase of the property. Ms. Laflamme will contact Mr. Hanson of Charles Isaacson to discuss the purchase of the 12 acres and the price.

The board discussed the pros and cons of selling the remainder of the property or holding on to the property. The board decided not to make any decisions on the property at this meeting. Mr. Charest indicated he would contact the last interested party he had spoken to about the property to see if there is continued interest.

· Review of Submissions for Architectural Services: Chair Huot shared with the board the process that the committee had gone through in selecting the architect for the portfolio project. Three firms were interviewed by the committee and Warrenstreet Architects stood out as the top firm for selection. The committee recommended hiring Warrenstreet to be the architect of record for the portfolio project. Staff will contact them to discuss the preliminary scope of services. The board asked to have Warrenstreet at the next meeting to discuss the project with the board and refine the scope of services based on the discussion with the board.

Motion: Mr. Lozier made a motion that we hire Warrenstreet Architects to do the work for the portfolio project, Mr. Caron seconded the motion. The board voted in favor of the motion.

Mr. MacQueen gave an update about the Georgia Pacific property. The City has sent GP a letter asking for a donation of the property and is now waiting to hear from Georgia Pacific.