Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President Brian S. McCarthy presided; City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron recorded. Prayer was offered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron; Alderman Cox led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 11 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Aldermen Vitale and Flynn were not in attendance. Alderman Clemons and Cox arrived after the roll was taken. President McCarthy Alderman Vitale is unable to attend and Alderman Flynn is ill. Her Honor Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and Deputy Corporation Counsel Stephen M. Bennett were also in attendance. REMARKS BY THE MAYOR No thank you, not this evening Mr. President. RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR - None RECOGNITION PERIOD R-11-116 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Board of Aldermen EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NASHUA HIGH SCHOOLS’ DECA TEAMS Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-11-116 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-116 given its second reading. MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-116 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-116 declared duly adopted. READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MAY 10, 2011, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE, AND THE READING SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Contract Award for FY11 Street Paving Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 2 MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND APPROVE THE CONTRACT AWARD TO BROX INDUSTRIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,205,354 AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF NRO 5-90(F) REGARDING THE RECONSIDERATION PERIOD BE WAIVED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane Thank you. Although I made the motion, I won’t be supporting it due to the fact there is contingency in there that should be possibly brought back as a change order down the road to be approved by the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee decided to forego that and I don’t agree with that. I don’t have an interest in giving up my vote as a member of the committee. I think change orders should be brought back to the committee for approval and contingency shouldn’t be carried. I won’t be supporting this. Thank you. President McCarthy Is there any further discussion? MOTION CARRIED From: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk Re: Board of Education Vacancy MOTION BY ALDERMAN COX TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED From: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk Re: Requirements for Redistricting Process under the City Charter MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF TWO COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PREPARED MOTION CARRIED From: Mark A. Sousa – Transit Director Re: R-11-105 ($200,000 JARC Grant) MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED From: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Re: R-11-102: Authorizing the City Of Nashua to Enter into Two Lease Agreements with the Nashua Dog Owners Group for Dog Parks at Artillery Lane and Yudicky Farm MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Cookson Thank you Mr. President. Late last week I received a phone call from a constituent and I wanted to make sure that their concerns about the dog park were expressly made at this meeting. Also because this is the Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 3 last opportunity for us to reconsider this particular resolution, I wanted to make sure that we in fact as a Board of Aldermen understood what we had agreed to by adopting it at our last full board. The questions that were raised by the constituent were; is the group able to charge for a service that they are providing in a public park? I made reference to an ordinance, which Attorney McNamee indicated their activity, the commercial activity was not regulated by this particular ordinance. Again, that is stated within the communication you just received, in the first and second paragraph. Secondly, and I think one of the things, and I think I am okay in saying that several member of the Board of Aldermen that I have had communications with over the last several days may have misunderstood or heard something at the Infrastructure Committee meeting of April 27th. While I didn’t see it in the written minutes and I didn’t have the opportunity to listen to the audio minutes, one of the things that many of us thought we heard was that there would be an administrative fee, but that administrative fee might be nominal and potentially as little as $5. I’m not sure how many of you heard that from Attorney Leonard that evening. I had a conversation with Mr. Bill Soubosky of the Nashua DOG Group this afternoon and he indicated to me that annual administrative fee might be in fact closer to $50. They don’t have a key card system yet. I believe that they are still in the works of identifying a vendor that will provide that service. I don’t believe that they can actually say what that cost will be, but it is going to be more than the $5, and that annual fee is going to be less than what they currently charge for their dog park over at Bellavance Properties. Finally the last point that the constituent raised was that unless you are a paying member of the Nashua DOG Owners Group, someone from the public will not have access to a public park, Anniversary Park behind Holman Stadium, or an area within a public park, which would be at Yudicky Farm. Again, you can read the dialogue that took place between Attorney McNamee and myself, it is included in the memo. The opinion was that there are several properties that actually close off or restrict access including Holman Stadium, Stellos’ Stadium and the such. However, I think many of you will agree with me that there are many recreational fields; softball fields, soccer fields, rectangular fields, that when they aren’t being used by a particular group, the public does have access to them. I will make reference to the softball fields at Greeley Park, the softball fields at Labine and so forth. I wanted to just make sure that once we approve this and we adopt this, which we already have, but if any of you have a concern about restricting an area to a public park or making it a members only area, this is our last opportunity to raise that concern and make sure that we truly understand what we are doing with regard to the park. I support the park, I just wanted to make sure that everything was on the table and that every member of this Board of Aldermen knew what they were agreeing to. Thank you. Alderman Cox I didn’t hear it in the acceptance, but do we have the communication from the constituent? Alderman Cookson The communication from the constituent was a phone call. I relayed the questions from the constituent to our Corporation Counsel. That is accurately captured in the memorandum that you have received this evening on your desk. President McCarthy The motion is to accept and place on file. Is there any further discussion? Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 4 Alderman Deane Thank you. Although this is somewhat different from what normally goes on in our public facilities, I for one can attest to the fact that the Anniversary Park that is located behind Holman Stadium, which is part of the CSO project, if you all remember that correctly we paved paths and planted trees and all of the other stuff with our sewer user fee money. We put up a bridge and bought picnic tables. I spend a lot of time down in that area involved with children’s baseball programs as well as attending events at the stadium, and I can tell you firsthand that I am of the opinion that doing something to maintain some sanity in the back of Holman Stadium by regulating it to the use of a group I think is a good thing. That place the picnic tables are broken up, there is graffiti sprayed all over everything, there is all sorts of trash and bottles and things like that thrown into the two detention ponds that we have for drainage, there are issues with the ecosystem of those two facilities that we have been assured they will be looked at prior to this group taking a look at it. I think this is a good use of this facility. I can’t see this group really precluding anyone, but having somebody actually step forward and be willing to clean and maintain that facility I think is a great thing for the city. I think it is a good thing for the people that want to participate in this passive recreational facility, I think it is good that they have a piece of ground that they can function on, and I think it is good for the city as a whole that they will be maintaining it, and hopefully some of the damage that goes on in there will cease and desist because it is unbelievable what has happened in there. Mr. Caggiano could probably attest to the fact. I have seen it. You have after school middle school fist fights go on down there in the back. You have issues when the pool opens of the activities that go on down in there. There has been a child that was molested down there that was seen by a public works employee while they were working. It is an area that is out of sight, out of mind, and I think that this is a really good use. I spent some time with the Mayor as well as Alderman Sheehan meeting with the neighbors about this. None of them really seem to have any heartache about it. The parking has been somewhat renovated down there to hopefully accommodate some of the vehicle use. I think it is a good thing. Now for the Yudicky Farm that is something that is going to have to be developed. I think these folks told us that they were going to make a substantial investment in that facility with their own funds. I don’t think the public is going to be too up set about the requirements on the facility. I think it just maintains a little sanity in the place and it maintains cleanliness and hopefully the damage will end and these people will have some place to go. I understand the concern that were raised by Alderman Cookson and the constituent that had called, but I think in this case making an exception to what normally goes on, I think is a good thing. I’m not going to support reconsidering the contract that we talked about. When Alderman Plamondon was here he spent an inordinate amount of time looking for a place. They found one down off of North 7th Street, which would have impacted that neighborhood. These two areas have ample parking, there is a park there already, the only issues I hear about down there is people not being courteous to those who have driveways that abut Artillery Lane and constantly turn around in their driveways. I have talked to all of the parents in our program that utilize our facilities and asked them to please drive around and don’t pull U-turns in people’s driveways. I think these two dog parks have nice locations and knowing Mr. Soubosky I think it is a quality group of people that are going to produce a good product for everyone. Thank you. Alderman Sheehan Just to speak briefly, I echo what Alderman Deane has said. I would like to also add for the concern, and it was my initial concern as well of not everybody being able to use it, but there is actually a very good reason for having it be restricted access, and if you have watched the news this week you know that there have been three more dog bites in this city on children. One of the parts of being in this dog club is your dog is Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 5 cleared to make sure that it has the medical vaccinations necessary to be with other dogs and that it is socialized and capable of being around other dogs in an off-lease fashion so that everybody is safe. For safety reasons, you go in, you prove that you have your vaccinations that are current, the dog is socialized tested, and then you know that your dog can be with another dog and not have to worry if it is playing, if it is going to get rough. It is a safety precaution. And the Mayor has done work when the first issue came up because people were enjoying picnic tables down there at times, however, she provided picnic tables for our by the pool during lessons, which did alleviate a lot of what that was being used for at the time. I think it is a good thing. I’m a dog owner; I’m looking forward to being able to do that myself. I would not support reconsideration as well. Alderman Cookson Thank you Mr. President. It is my intention to ask for reconsideration this evening. If you, as the Board of Aldermen, are completely satisfied with your understanding and what we have agreed to, I would not vote in favor of that reconsideration. Thank you. Alderman Tabacsko I will just comment briefly that I don’t intend to support that motion. I will try not to repeat the reasons I find myself in full agreement with previous speakers particularly the facility that is contemplated down at Yudicky I think is an improvement and will actually be to the public benefit. I can’t think of a better public benefit than having dogs that are socialized into the environment and are good to be around for everyone. I will, as I said, not be able to support the reconsideration motion. Thank you. President McCarthy Is there any further discussion on the motion to accept and place on file? MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING – None PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS Appointments by the Mayor The following Appointments by the Mayor were read into the record: Nashua Arts Commission Gillian Hinkle (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2013 50 Catalina Lane Nashua, NH 03064 Paul Laflamme (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2014 93 Harris Road Nashua, NH 03062 Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 6 Hunt Building Board of Trustees Tammy L. Crisp (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: December 31, 2015 7 Bartlett Avenue Nashua, NH 03064 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR AS READ AND REFER THEM TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Budget Review Committee ................................................................. 05/09/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the May 9, 2011 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee ............................................................................ 05/10/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the May 10, 2011 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee ............................................................................ 05/18/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the May 18, 2011 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure ............................................................... 05/11/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the May 11, 2011 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee....................................... 05/12/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the May 12, 2011 Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS Mine Falls Park Advisory Committee MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO THE MINE FALLS PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR TERMS TO EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2014: GREG ANDRUSKEVICH, 3 CARAWAY LANE, NASHUA, AND SCOTT ROGERS, 183 CHESTNUT STREET, NASHUA MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Greg Andruskevich and Scott Rogers duly reappointed to the Mine Falls Park Advisory Committee for terms to expire June 30, 2014. Oath of Office administered by Deputy Corporation Counsel. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 7 UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO CONSIDER R-11-96, ACTION ON WHICH HAD BEEN POSTPONED AT THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MAY 10, 2011 MOTION CARRIED R-11-96 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Benjamin M. Clemons Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Richard LaRose AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO APPLY FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS GRANT, FISCAL YEAR 2012 Given its third reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-96 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Wilshire Thank you. I did get an e-mail from the Urban Programs Manager about moving this forward. HUD has not heard from the Office of Management and Budget, but they do want us to submit our application. That is the final word we got and that these are the numbers we should go with. I would ask that the Board please move this forward this evening. Alderman Tabacsko On our desks tonight there was another golden rod copy that says Amended R-11-96. I can’t see any difference, the amounts all seem to be the same. Is that the same as what we had previously tabled? Alderman Wilshire It is yes. Alderman Tabacsko I just wanted to make sure of that. Thank you. President McCarthy The motion is for final passage. Is there any further discussion? Alderman Pressly Thank you Mr. President. I’m assuming the concern is that they will diminish the amount of money that you have distributed. Is that correct? Alderman Wilshire No. To diminish the amount of money that we have distributed, no. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 8 Alderman Pressly No. What will happen if you get the word that they are not giving the amount of money that you have distributed? Do you have a plan in place? Alderman Wilshire I don’t know that that is going to happen. I don’t know that there is any precedent set for that happening. I expect that we will get that money. If that happens, then we will have to come up with a plan, which I think would be to introduce another piece of legislation to deal with it. Alderman Pressly If that does happen. Alderman Wilshire If that does happen. President McCarthy Remember that this piece of legislation only anticipates applying for the grant. If we get the grant in a different amount we would have to take care of that at that time. Alderman Pressly Okay. Thank you. President McCarthy Any further discussion? MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-96 declared duly adopted as amended. R-11-98 Endorser: Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy RELATIVE TO AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE AND TRANSFER OF $352,463 FROM THE STELLOS STADIUM IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND AND $300,000 FROM THE SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND INTO CAPITAL PROJECT ACCOUNT #781-3761 FOR TURF REPLACEMENT AT STELLOS STADIUM Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN COX FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-98 Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 9 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I was wondering if we heard from the National Football League or whether we had heard from Bishop Guertin on their proposed contributions to this project. Is there any update on that? Alderman Cox As of yesterday there is not. Stacy Hynes and Superintendent Conrad are working diligently on it. He held a proposal meeting. They were going to discuss it and get back to him and have another meeting, but there has been no final decision from Bishop Guertin yet. Alderman Deane So for those of you who may not of read the minutes, they are asking Bishop Guertin to make a contribution to the cost of this. Mr. Donovan had also stated, because I had asked about the prioritization of the projects within the school district, and the turf replacement was ahead of replacing heating systems in the elementary schools. I had also asked about what happens if we get a contribution or donation from Bishop Guertin, what happens to that money. He said there are other upgrades they want to do there pertaining to the lighting and things of that nature. It just seems to me that the right thing to do…we don’t have control over the gifts, donations or contributions made to the school district do we? We set up an account a number of years ago when people had an interest in gifting, donating or contributing to the school district we set up an expendable trust fund for them to do that. Would that be where that money would go? Mr. President do you know offhand? President McCarthy I don’t know offhand, but we also set up an expandable trust fund for Stellos’ Stadium, which is where the gifts that were given to us during the construction went so I would expect that would have been the better place to go. I don’t know who we established as the trustees of that account. Alderman Deane Although it is nice to have everything you would like, but we have limitations on the amount of funds we have. If we do happen to get a contribution, it would be nice to see the school capital reserve fund replenished with the dollars that we happen to get in, if any. I guess there are no assurances of whether that is going to happen or not. Mr. Donovan wouldn’t give those obviously because of the problems with the National Football League’s players union and owners as well as the ongoing discussions I guess that Alderman Cox alluded to earlier that they are having with Bishop Guertin. I think we as a board should be kept updated. If you could do that Alderman Cox with you… Alderman Cox Absolutely, and just for the record it wouldn’t be a gift or donation from the NFL, it is a grant that we applied for so I think that is handled differently but I guess it could go into the same account for Stellos. I definitely will. I will send an e-mail to the board updating where we stand on it so everybody will know, and I will update everyone as that money comes forward. Alderman Deane I’m just looking at the long list of capital improvement projects that the school district currently has and the amount of funding they need to take care of some of those things, and I would hope that if any other funding Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 10 is received that the capital reserve fund is replenished so some of those projects can be funded. I guess we don’t have control of that, but that would be my only desire I guess. I understand that the stadium turf is beyond its life expectancy, I just hope nobody goes out into the center of it and decides they are going to paint anything this time. I know the turf has increased in life expectancy considerably from when this was first put in, but if you look at the amount of use that the facility gets, and we as a city can use that facility whether it is raining or not. It has paid dividends between fertilizer and any weed control or aerating or mowing or watering or anything of that nature, we haven’t had to do that. It has paid dividends. I went down and took a look at it and there are some pretty bad spots that are out there. It does need to be done, but my concern is about the funding. That is my major concern. Thank you. President McCarthy Is there any further discussion? If not, the motion is for final passage of R-11-98. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-98 declared duly adopted. R-11-107 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard LaRose Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $2,000 FROM ACCOUNT# 502-51030 “LEGAL, OUTSIDE COUNSEL SERVICES” INTO ACCOUNT# 502-11900 “LEGAL, PAYROLL ADJUSTMENTS” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-107 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-107 declared duly adopted. MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-11-105 MOTION CARRIED R-11-105 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Richard Larose Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF UP TO $200,000 FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTO SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT #378-7225 “JARC – OPERATING FY 2012” AND #378-7226 “JARC – CAPITAL FY 2012” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-105 Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 11 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Wilshire Thank you. As you know we accepted a memorandum earlier this evening from Mark Sousa, the Transit Director. This is a grant that is scheduled to start on July 1st and it has been awarded to the Nashua Transit by the NH DOT. The matching funds come from the New Hampshire Division of Health & Human Services. The Federal Transit Authority and DHHS have already approved the funding and are waiting for Governor and Council and they would hope that this resolution would be before them at their June meeting. That is why I have asked to suspend the rules to have this passed this evening. President McCarthy Is there any further discussion? If not, the motion is for final passage of R-11-105. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-105 declared duly adopted. MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO RECONSIDER R-11-102, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF NASHUA TO ENTER INTO TWO LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH THE NASHUA DOG OWNERS GROUP FOR DOG PARKS AT ARTILLERY LANE AND YUDICKY FARM A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Cookson 2 Nay: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Craffey, Alderman Deane, Alderman Pressly, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Tabacsko, Alderman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Cox, Alderman Sheehan, Alderman Chasse, Alderman McCarthy 11 MOTION FAILED UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-11-51 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane RELATIVE TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE INVITING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS TO MEET QUARTERLY Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF O-11-51 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly Thank you. The sentiment of the Budget Committee was that this was a good thing to do and that they intend to do it. They have had all sorts of indication that it would be welcomed to have the Superintendent come in on a regular basis to talk with the Budget Committee, and that they felt they didn’t need legislation to do that. It is the intention of the Chairman of the Budget Committee to do that. Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 12 Alderman Deane I have made that request and I have received a response. I didn’t send it out to the committee because I didn’t want to start any e-mail chatter about it, but I will inform everyone tomorrow night of the date, time, and location of the Superintendent’s visit. President McCarthy The motion is for indefinite postponement. Is there any further discussion? MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-11-51 declared indefinitely postponed. O-11-69 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large David Deane Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. Alderman Richard P. Flynn Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard LaRose AMENDING THE EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY PERSONS BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED COMBINED NET INCOME FROM $40,000 TO $42,000 Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-11-69 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane Thank you. This piece of legislation was one that I had spent some time a few years ago speaking with Alderman Flynn about. Alderman Flynn had always looked to just not be overly aggressive but be somewhat passive in increasing these exemptions for the elderly. I did speak with him quite a bit about it. When I brought this in he had thanked me for doing it. I was somewhat disappointed that the committee had acted on it. I was ill that evening and unable to attend. There was no sense of urgency because this will not have any affect at all until next April, the filing deadline, contrary to some of the understanding of some of my colleagues. I think this is good. I think when we look at our elderly they have paid into the system for an awful long time, they don’t have as much of a draw on the system as some of the younger folks do. Although this is just a small break, it is going to help a few people immensely. I’m happy that everyone signed on to support this. I think it is a good thing to do. It should be done incrementally not in large lumps. We will find hopefully some folks will be taking advantage of this. Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 13 President McCarthy Is there any further discussion? Alderman Clemons Just briefly I want to apologize to the sponsor, Alderman Deane. He had sent me an e-mail asking the committee to table that. I didn’t receive the e-mail until the next day unfortunately, but I think the committee was under the impression that since 14 Aldermen had co-signed onto this that it was appropriate to move it forward, and again I send my apologies, but I do think that this is something that, as was previously stated, is a good thing for all of the reasons stated, and I will support moving it forward tonight. President McCarthy If there is no further discussion, the motion is for final passage of O-11-69 MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-11-69 declared duly adopted. O-11-70 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau AMENDING SEWER USE FEES RATES AND CHARGES Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-11-70 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Clemons Thank you. When this came up before the committee there was a good presentation that was given to us. It is with a heavy heart that I am going to support these changes. Obviously the fees that are being increased are not minor and it looks as though, in the future, we are going to see a lot more of these as the project continues. But I think it is important to note and to recognize that we asked a question that evening well what happens if we don’t raise these fees, and there are some serious fines that will be levied against the City should we not move forward with these fee increases because we need to be able to fund that project. Not only will there be fines but we are still going to have to do the project. It makes sense for us to move this forward to increase those fees so that we don’t get fined in the future and still end up having to do the work anyway. It is not a situation I like to be in, but given the alternative I will be voting yes. Alderman Wilshire Thank you. I share your concerns Alderman Clemons. I believe I was the one that asked what happens if we don’t raise these fees. I also struggle with this because it is an increase to our citizens. Between this and a property tax increase I think we are going to be hitting people pretty hard. It is not someplace I want to go, but like you said it is not like we are going to have any choice. We have to do the work, if the work doesn’t happen we get fined, and then it costs us more money. I will be supporting it even though I don’t want to, but I will. President McCarthy Is there further discussion? Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 14 Alderman Craffey Thank you. I too share the sentiments of the two previous speakers. I just wanted to say that we did have an excellent presentation by the Mayor’s staff that night. They faced some tough questions from us as did the Mayor. A lot of us went on record saying we really didn’t want to have the increase, but the alternative was the high fines. They have done a great job with all of these projects. They have thought outside the box, they have come around; they have been innovative in the way they have approached these things to try to keep the fees down as best they can, and they should be commended for what they have done. I am, again with a heavy heart, going to support this. I think the Mayor’s staff should be commended for what they have done. Thank you. Alderman Deane I have a question if anybody can answer it. Is every penny of this rate increase and charges going solely for the CSO work? Mayor Lozeau Thank you Mr. President. If you look on the fiscal note on the legislation before you, it tells you that the rates and the charges are intended to bring in annual revenues to a level that will support the ongoing cost of operations and fund future debt payments on the CSO projects, fund non-CSO infrastructure improvements, and provide reserves for capital equipment replacement. Alderman Deane So my colleagues are mistaken. Approving this or not, the Mayor just stated that this is for a multitude of different items within the waste water system; it is not solely for the CSO. It has to do with capital equipment reserve funds, their sewer work, ongoing operations and maintenance. It is not solely for CSO. Quite frankly, I have read through a lot of this and I was, again that was the same evening as O-11-69 had been acted upon. I got a copy of this and I’m still looking at this trying to understand all of it, and I’m in no position to support voting for this tonight. I think there is a lot to look at and I don’t understand it all myself right now. I guess it is my own fault for not doing that, but I’m still looking at it so I’m not going to be supporting this this evening. Thank you. Alderman LaRose Thank you. It seems to me that this is the right approach. If we just go to one thing; we’re going to end up having to increase the rates at some point in time. It is much better to increase now than to hold it back and have in a year or so higher increases than what we will have now. I can remember years ago when the fees had generated a lot of money and there was a lot of money in reserve and the Board of Aldermen said oh we have a lot of money, let’s bring down the charges. What happened is they brought the charges down, expenses went like this, and it took them a while to catch up. I think we have the opportunity to do it the right way; that we look at the whole picture and not just one aspect. Alderman Deane I wanted to comment on that rate reduction that was done. The administration at that time wanted to reduce it even further than what this board supported reducing it. When you looked at the retained earnings what was supposed to happen was that as the project proceeded bond items were supposed to be brought in, bond resolutions were going to be brought in, we were going to start the project with some of that cash in Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 15 retained earnings to get the project going and then we were going to borrow the balance of the money so that the users in the system in the out years would incur some of the cost. Well that didn’t happen. They spent all of the retained earnings and then came in with a bond. That is what happened. What we did as a board we reduced that because the retained earnings at that time, I believe that was in 2002, were around $29 million. When we looked out at what the project cost was going to be and what the bond resolutions were going to be so the users in the out yeas would assume some of that cost because they would be part of the depreciation of the system, they would be paying what we figured was their fair share and that we were going to have retained earnings in there for depreciation and for other items. That is what happened back then. The issue was when the money was supposed to be borrowed that didn’t happen. Alderman Clemons Thank you. I just want to respond to something that was said earlier, and that was that there was some kind of misunderstanding as to what was going on with the rate increase. I didn’t have any misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is we are expanding our system and in order to do that you have to put in provisions to also take care of the system that we are expanding. In addition to that, we have crumbling infrastructure that needs to have the proper funding. The majority of this increase is going to the CSO project and some of this increase is going to maintain the system that we have and the system that in the future we are expanding with this project. I think that again not supporting this, if we were to not support this tonight we are jeopardizing ourselves with the Federal Government and with the agreement that we have with them to do this project because we are not going to have the money to do it. If we stop that project we are going to be levied fines and that is going to cost us twice if not more than that, what we have ahead of us today to pay. Again, I will be fully supporting this with a heavy heart, but with also the understanding that we don’t have much of a choice. Alderman Deane Is the wastewater department and funds in financial dire straights? Do we have no money? Are we in financial dire straights? Mayor Lozeau Are you asking me… Alderman Deane I’m asking anybody that can answer that question. I don’t think that is the case. President McCarthy Mayor Lozeau do you wish to respond? Mayor Lozeau Certainly. The current situation at wastewater is operations are proceeding as they should, but they are predicated on the planning that we have done that requires the funds that we are requesting to maintain the current system, to build the required improvements to the system, and to cover the cost of operations that grows along with the system. Without those funds, we could be in jeopardy. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 16 Alderman Sheehan Thank you. Over the past few weeks I have worked with a few constituents and Lisa Fauteux who has been wonderful addressing some of the infrastructure that has been deferred and deferred and deferred since the early 2000s. This is work that needs to be done. It isn’t just what is new and shiny, it is the 100+ year old pipes that are in French Hill that have sunk as we are doing roadwork with Pennichuck and the heavy pipes on top of very loose roads. We have lost our crest, they are going down, and all of the sewerage is disconnected because that pipe had no bottom. There is other work that needs to be done other than the CSPO, which is very important. And any one of those roads, if that happens, could be an EPA fine on its own. This is what it costs to have pipes with sewerage running through a city and it is unfortunate that the costs have gone up, but they have. Everybody deserves to be able to flush their toilet and have it go out to the pipe and out to the city. There has been a lot of work that over the past maybe has been deferred and that does need to be done and that is going to be reflected. It isn’t just the CSO work, which is also important, but getting fined and having to do the work anyway is just penny wise pound foolish, it is just waiting for someone to get mad enough to call the EPA. Alderman Pressly Possibly the appropriate question would be, given the economic times that we are in, would it be possible to avoid this sort of rate shock and phase the increase in over multiple years so that the shock would not be that great to the homeowner? Alderman Clemons Alderman Pressly unfortunately with the presentation that we received the other evening from Mr. Dookran, this is a phased in price, this increase. We are going to see this increase multiplied over the next coming years. Alderman Pressly Could we be more specific on that, so in other words this rate increase is going to be repeated every year for how many years? Is that what you are saying? I think we need to know that now. President McCarthy I believe that was presented in the information that was given to the committee when this legislation was debated. Alderman Pressly Can we hear it? President McCarthy I don’t know that anybody has the slides with them. Alderman Clemons I don’t have the slides with me, but I do know that it is something that they look at on a yearly basis to determine what the appropriate rate increase is going to be. Rather than project it out over a number of years they project it out year by year and that is the plan moving forward. To say with any certainty what Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 17 the rate increase is going to be from one year to the other you couldn’t do, but on an average I think it was 5%. Mayor Lozeau The increase was 15% in FY10, 0% for FY11, 15% for FY12, and then we don’t know what to anticipate for next year, but we are reviewing it. The 15% sounds like a large number, but the average is about $9 a quarter. That is what it will cost so $36 a year for this. We didn’t want to anticipate what is next until we get into some of the projects that are pending now. Alderman Pressly I think it is important that we recognize the fact that based on the history that it is likely to come in every other year then with an increase. Just so the public and everyone on the board understand this is going to be happening a lot. Alderman Clemons It could. President McCarthy The motion is for final passage of O-11-79. Is there any further discussion? MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-11-70 declared duly adopted. NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-11-117 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Diane Sheehan REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF A “PERIMETER ROAD ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION ZONE” Given its first reading; assigned to the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE by President McCarthy Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 18 R-11-118 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy NAMING THE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY THE CITY AT 11-13 GROTON ROAD AND 35 GROTON ROAD FROM RITA M. TERRELL AND ALBERT W. TERRELL “TERRELL HOMESTEAD CONSERVATION AREA” Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President McCarthy R-11-119 Endorsers: Alderman-At-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman-At-Large Ben Clemons Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE NASHUA PUBLIC LIBRARY EMPLOYEES, AFT, FPE, LOCAL #4831 FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2013 Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-11-120 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO GIVE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT TO PENNICHUCK EAST UTILITY, INC.’S PROPOSAL TO BORROW UP TO $400,000 FROM THE STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND Given it first reading; assigned to PENNICHUCK SPECIAL WATER COMMITTEE by President McCarthy NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-11-73 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons RELATIVE TO THE REVISION OF WARD BOUNDARIES Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO ACCEPT THE FIRST READING OF O-11-73, ASSIGN IT TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011, AT 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT James Cutter, 86 Palm Street Open letter to Alderman McCarthy: Dear Alderman McCarthy, at the last Aldermanic meeting I reminded you of Ordinance 5-35, Aldermanic Investigation, and nothing can limit the powers of the Board of Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 19 Aldermen. Let me add to that, when you became President you asked board members “to remember that they all are doing their best to serve the public” so I have been expecting your help. Sincerely, Jim. Thank you. Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne Drive Good evening. I see a bit of a milder gentler board than the one I remember and I see that Alderman Wilshire and Alderman Chasse are keeping my old seats warm. I kind of keep track of the school budget, try to on the side, and I noticed that all of the departments are asked to take a 3% cut except the school department. Then I read in the paper, and this is Friday May 20th, it says, it is an article entitled More Trims to the School Budget. Now these remarks I will also try to give at the school board. It says quoting and I will quote directly “In looking at potentially going beyond what is set aside to pay the severance packages for teachers retiring this summer, there is $1.4 million available and the district has already hit $1 million.” What this says is that the district has $1.4 million set aside for severance and they may need more. What is severance? Severance is teachers getting paid for not being sick. Is this for the kids? Who is this money for? Teachers get 11 days of sick leave allowance each school year. Since they work about ¾ of a regular work year that is about the equivalent of between 15-16 days of sick leave a year. It is 11 days of real sick leave, and they can accumulate that. Today they can accumulate up to 100 days. Now severance was always in the area of $500,000 so why is it now $1.4 million and maybe needing more? That is also a million dollars more than it used to be. You can hire an awful lot of teachers for a million dollars. That takes me back to the contract that is currently in effect. The worst contract I have ever seen, the one I really really really regret ever having voted to support. A contract I felt that the school superintendent deceived me on personally. Maybe he deceived a lot of other people about the fact that he could manage within his budget. Why and extra million dollars or more for severance? You have to look at the wording in the contract to see how deceptive these things become. Now remember we were all arguing at that time about wage increases, we average 6% a year and some teachers got 20-25% in some of those years. If you look at the contract language, and you are all in this business so you are all supposed to understand the language, it says, I’m just quoting, quoting from this booklet, that is the teachers’ contract currently in effect, it says, and I will just quote a very small portion of the severance part - upon retirement or death of a teacher the board, meaning the school board, shall pay to that teacher one 1/84 of the step 1 salary of the track the teacher was on each day of the teacher’s accumulated sick leave. That used to be the contract, one 1/84 of step 1 of the salary track. That language became, upon retirement or death of the employee in the district the board shall pay to that employee one 1/84 of the step of the column on which the teacher is paid. Now to most anybody that is pretty obscure. Certainly it was obscure to me. What is the difference in that wording? It used to be step 1, it is the lowest step on the salary schedule, they get that for 121 days. That might be something like maybe $100 a day for 121 days. That changed to the current salary on the current column meaning current salary so if you were sick 20 years ago and not sick 20 years ago you took a sick leave day you get paid at the current salary. Now think about that that is what costs this city $1 million maybe more. A whole lot of teachers got hired for that. That is the kind of deceptive language that winds up in these new contracts. I will tell you honestly no one explained this very well to us when I was an Alderman. I missed it. If you read the language clearly the way I read it here, it is kind of difficult to follow me. Believe me read the language in this contract and you will find it is difficult to follow. Certainly the changes are difficult to follow. Now, severance pay is an interesting item beside the fact you can accumulate up to 100 days. I don’t know of any place else, and I have worked in many places, that ever allowed me to accumulate 11 days year after year after year up to 100 days. It just simply isn’t done. If you are not sick you should be working and if you are really sick you should be paid for being sick. Here is a quote from Mark Conrad talking about R-10-27. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 20 It says “we need to expend $300,000 on technology to replace our crumbling infrastructure” meaning computers. But, if he knows a backup plan we could use those $300,000 towards the severance account. What is Mark Conrad saying? Wow I have $300,000 for technology, but if you give me a chance to develop this backup plan I can really spend that $300,000 on severance. Paying teachers sick leave for not being sick at the current pay no matter when they took this leave. That is why the school budget is so expensive. Now I understand that the Mayor has demanded that everybody drop 3% in their budget except the school budget. But the school budget is expensive because a lot of it has nothing to do with our kids. While I’m talking about this particular resolution, R-10-27, where I quoted Mark Conrad, another thing the school district cannot do very well is contract. Now you saw an article in the paper, I think it was Saturday or Sunday, and it was certainly the lead editorial today, about the YMCA. That is a 40,000 sq. ft. facility being built for $10.4 million. That is very impressive. If you go back to R-10-27 you see that the school department is requiring $8.4 million to do some HVAC, heating, ventilation, aid conditioning, renovation in two elementary schools. The school department wants $8.4 million and got it by the way through this resolution, which gave them $5 million or $ 6 million and they took $2.5 million out of capital improvements. Why can private industry build an entirely new facility, 40,000 sq. ft. for $10 million but the school department requires $8.4 million to renovate some HVAC? Now I spent two years fighting this. At one point it was 3 schools $24 million. We got that cut, we got it cut finally and you approved $8.4 million, but guess what, the Mayor actually put us in touch with the Jordan Institute and the Jordan Institute said we can do that job for $1.2 million a school; two schools, $2.4 million, three schools $3.6 million. So why not go with the Jordan Institute, a very reputable outfit? Why spend $8.4 million with a different contractor the school preferred? There is no real answer to that. The Jordan Institute was told to go home or they left, the last I talked to them they said they were just disgusted and they left, they didn’t want to do the job anymore. But the school department doesn’t know how to contract. That is what costs money. Not for the kids. That goes to contractors that fleece the school department and therefore this board, because this board approved the bond, and thereby directly the citizens. That is why the school department always wants more money. They don’t know how to contract, they don’t know how to deal with unions, and they don’t know how to budget. That is the message I wanted to bring. I had expected to see a lot of people here because I got a message from Jim Donchess that he is going to have a lot of school people here arguing about the budget so I was going to make this presentation. I presume he is going to, the school people are going to approach you and going to come cry about they need more money. They never tell you why they need more money, not really. They always say the kids need it. It is not the kids. It is inability to contract properly, it is inability to deal with unions properly, and it is inability to budget properly. Thank you very much. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman Cookson Thank you. I wanted to thank several members of this Board of Aldermen who were able to attend the grand opening of the new Nashua YMCA this past Saturday morning. Absolutely beautiful day and absolutely beautiful facility. As former Alderman Teeboom mentioned, 44,000 sq. ft., $10.4 million, and you’ve got 6 lanes, you’ve got a kiddie area, you’ve got state-of-the-art equipment. It is just an absolutely beautiful facility. If you did not get the opportunity to visit it this past weekend please stop by. I know that they would be very excited to have you come by and walk through the facility and take a look at everything that they offer. It is absolutely wonderful. Again, appreciate those members of the Board of Aldermen that were able to make it out this past weekend as well as the Mayor. Sorry for omitting you on that. Also Mt. Pleasant had a block party this past weekend, also on Saturday. It was a busy Saturday, and Mt. Pleasant Elementary School did a fabulous job with their block party again. This year I did not have the good fortune of sitting in their dunk tank, but maybe I will get called again next year. They put on a really nice party. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 21 If you get the opportunity to go by Mt. Pleasant Street for one of their block parties please do so. The PTO does a great job over there. The last thing I did on Saturday was I attended the Picker building open house. The Picker building in the millyard, it is 4 stories of some of the most fabulous artists in the City of Nashua; anything from graphic artists to visual artists, stained glass. I had the opportunity to sit down with Carolyn Gaudette, Dan Splaine, Bonnie Guercio who is actually on the Arts Commission, Sid Ceaser and several others, and just had a wonderful afternoon speaking with them and viewing their art and listening to what they thought about the City and the artistic community. Again, Picker building is always open to you as well so please go by and visit that at 99 Pine Street Extension. It is right next to the Clocktower. The last thing I wanted to mention was I wanted to thank each and every one of you for your consideration for the motion that I made this evening to reconsider R-11-102. Again, the reason I brought that up was based on the concern of a constituent. I, in fact, informed that person that I would make the motion to reconsider. I hope that the memorandum that you received this evening as well as the explanation that I provided gave you enough detail to make that educated decision this evening. There were only two of us that voted to reconsider it. Again, I think there were a couple of differences that we did not necessarily recognize coming out of the committee prior to our vote, and I hope this evening cleared it up and I hope that we can move forward with that dog park. I know that the constituent that raised the concern in fact is excited about the dog park as am I; I just wanted to make sure that we as a Board of Aldermen recognized what it is that we in fact did. I appreciate your consideration this evening on that motion. Thank you. Alderman Wilshire Thank you. I want to just thank Alderman Cookson. I did get the same phone call from the constituent about the concerns about private groups using public space without everyone having the opportunity to do so. I do support the dog parks and the activities that are going on out there, but I did share some of the concerns about divvying up public space for private use, and that is why I did support the motion for reconsideration. It was in no way to reflect on the good work and the activities that the dog owners are going to do in our parks. I was also able to attend the YMCA grant opening as was the Mayor and the Governor and a few of us. Alderman Pressly was there, and I forget who else, but it was a good turnout… Alderman Sheehan My son. Alderman Wilshire Oh Alderman Sheehan and her kids were there. It was a good turnout, great facility. We are really lucky to have that here in the city. Also today I was happy to attend the Hunt Building renovation kickoff. The Mayor was there and Alderman LaRose. That is a pretty impressive building here in our city, and I am glad to see that some work is getting done, and finally Alderman LaRose will be done with the water remediation over there. Thank you. Alderman Sheehan Thank you. I have a few as well. A reminder that tomorrow night Renaissance Downtown is having their open house from 6:00 – 8:30 p.m. It is the company that is working on the Canal Street revitalization, and they have an open house and are looking for people who are interested in that project. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 22 We have a contest to design a graphic for a family fun day in Nashua, which will be on June 25th, which is a Saturday. If you are so artistically inclined and would like to draw a picture it may be used to commemorate the event. It needs to be two colors and you can e-mail it and contact us at Nashuafamilyfunday.com. The Garden Park up at Greeley Park is open and I just want to commend the Park employees for getting that ready and also blame them for my allergy attack today because I was up there all day. But it looks great and they have really done a good job. Most people have their gardens already up and going. It is really a nice feature of using the park within the park. There are different areas of different parks that are used by different people and that is one example. I enjoy it very much and I know a few other Aldermen here have had one as well. The last thing is Friday evening at 6:00 p.m. at the Boys & Girls Club there is a kick-off for a mural installation for the Youth Prevention Council. If you have questions about it or would like to get involved in it, it is at the Boys & Girls Club and it is between 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Alderman Cox Thank you Mr. President. I also would like to congratulate the Y on their grand opening. It is a beautiful facility. I would like to thank Michael LaChance, President and CEO for taking my daughter and I through a private tour ahead of the opening because we couldn’t make it that weekend, we were away. I hope and pray that we have a plan in place to help that troubled parking lot that is ahead of what is becoming our Nashua sports complex and the wavy and troubled area just to finish off that complex and make it complete. Thank you. Alderman Tabacsko Thank you. Just to piggyback on that, I was there Saturday at the Y opening, and I just would extend my congratulations to their committee. They have done a tremendous job in a short period of time. The Mayor spoke eloquently at the event, and it truly is a community center and a coming together of all facets of the community, and something that I am proud to have been associated with. Since it is still May, I have to have one more chance to thank everyone who has purchased a sponsorship for the PAL golf tournament, all of the golfers that have signed up. We still have opportunities for golfers and T sponsorships. Please see me if you are so inclined and thanks again. Alderman Pressly Thank you. The comments by former Alderman Teeboom have pointed out how many people are still upset about the last school contract when he was serving, how everyone felt there were some hidden issues there that no one picked up on. As we enter the contract period now for so many boards that will be coming in, I think we should consider, and I would like to sort of plant the seed tonight, that we get someone, an independent contract person to take a look at these contracts and just do a final review. I think if anyone has been part of the negotiation they are sort of a player and in some ways they have pride of authorship having contributed to the language of a contract, and I think it would really be wise to get fresh eyes, trained eyes to take a look at it after they have been negotiated just to catch issues like that. We have a lot of talent on this board, maybe there is someone who is a contract specialist and has drafted them. I know some have mentioned that, but I am certainly not. I need to rely on the experts to do this and it appears as though that is what did happen that everyone relied on the experts and something did fall through the cracks. The fact that it is still a hot issue for some people that participated in that I think it is important that we consider that we have a totally independent person, a person that has had nothing to do with the details, the negotiating, doesn’t know the players involved, to take a look at that with the task of trying to catch some small hidden issue like that. I think it is great that former Alderman Teeboom came to speak to that, and I Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 23 think since we are entering that stage of the year that we might heed the issue and try to prevent having anything like that happen again. Thank you. Alderman Deane It is a very interesting idea. I believe 7 people co-sponsored this contract so… Alderman Sheehan Thank you. Alderman Deane Pardon me Alderman Sheehan? Alderman Sheehan I’m sorry I thought you were going to say something else that I’m dying to say, but go ahead. Alderman Deane Okay. This is the library contract. I believe we have 7 people that have co-sponsored it, and I have started reviewing it somewhat. I am still about 1/3 of the way through it. It is an interesting idea. I wasn’t able to attend the Y opening. I had the joy of watching my daughter graduate summa cum laude from Lesley University at the Bank of America Pavilion on Saturday along with 2,263 of her colleagues. Out on the peer the windows blow through that place. It was nice. I am very proud of her. I have also received an inordinate amount of phone calls about the budget process. People are very concerned that we are not going to go back and review what we have looked at say last night was a lot of it, and I believe that issue was brought up and I told Alderman Sheehan that we have ample opportunity to go back and review anything that anyone wants to look at or revisit. For those of you who have contacted me either via e-mail or some of the phone calls I got today, just because we have gone through a portion of the operating budget that was presented to us by the Mayor doesn’t mean we can’t go back as many times as the committee chooses to do so. It is not as though we have gotten to that point and we’ve moved on. I just wanted for people to understand that. Thank you. President McCarthy Alderman Sheehan wants to talk about the redlined contracts. Alderman Sheehan Yes thank you for accommodating me, and I meant to bring it up. It was a big concern. It is a big concern that I ran on that language is put in a contract that has a material cost, which is why I believe it was the first thing I sponsored at the first opportunity to design legislation was that if there is language that changes a cost item that it has to be redlined in the first copy we receive, that any changes that have a material cost change would be outlined so that that cannot happen again because yes I did contracts before so it is a common practice in business and had it been done someone might have said gee I wonder why this is underlined, gee let’s cost that out, which is also included in it now. There was a lot of concern and that is why this board addressed it as one of the first actions of business last year. I will just leave it at that. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/24/11 Page 24 President McCarthy Are there any other comments by members of the board? I was very pleased to attend the Y opening as well. In fact before that project started myself, Alderman Tabacsko, and I believe Alderman Cox had some conversations with Mr. LaChance about the use of that site and what would need to happen. I was very excited to see that they completed it. It is a beautiful facility. I couldn’t get inside of it on Saturday. I hope to see the inside at some point, but it is a spectacular addition to the City. Just standing in front of it where you can see the Y, the Conway Arena, Stellos’ Stadium, and if the leafs are off the trees, the two high schools, it is remarkable some of the work we have done to improve the physical facilities of this community over the last few years. I do share the concerns that were brought up about the contract language, and I do actually believe that the legislation to get us the red lined contracts would have dealt with it. My recollection is that in the summary of the cost item changes that were in that contract, we were shown that the number of accrued sick days went down from 120 to 100, but not that the daily rate that they were paid out at had changed from the first step to the last one, which we certainly would have stopped and evaluated the cost of that had we known that language had changed. I do want to make some comments in response to the things that were said about the HVAC project. The Jordan Institute did a fine job for us. They did not walk off in disgust, they completed what they were asked to do, which was to evaluate energy saving measures in those schools. They were not asked to come forward with a comprehensive project, which is what the committee developed and bid out. What they came forward with were changes to the insulation and things that would save energy. All of those things are in fact incorporated into the project that is there along with renovations to two buildings, one of which has not been touched in essentially 50 years and requires some substantial improvements to make it a modern building. That is where the cost goes. I would also point out that Harvey Construction who is doing the construction on the two middle schools, is exactly the same company who build the YMCA so I hardly think that we are getting bilked by the people who do competitive bidding with the same bidders that are building projects that we think are a great value to our community. Committee announcements: Alderman Deane The Budget group will meet tomorrow here at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE THAT THE MAY 24, 2011 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk  Community Development 589-3095 City of Nashua Planning and Zoning Building 589·3090 589·3080 Code Enforcement 589-3100 Community Development Division Urban Programs 589-3085 Economic Development 589·3070 City Hall, 229 Main Street"PO Box 2019 Conservation Commission 589-3105 Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2019 Transit Department 880-0100 www.gonashua.com TRANSIT MEMORADUM To: Alderman lori Wilshire From: Mark A. Sousa - Transit Director Date: May 19, 2011 Reference: R-11-10S ($200,000 JARC Grant) Nashua Transit submitted a JARC (Job Access Reverse Commute) Grant that is scheduled to start July 1, 2011. The grant has been awarded to Nashua Transit by NHDOT. The matching funds come from NH DHHS (TANF) funding. The City has no funds involved in this grant. In order to secure the matching DHHS (TANF) funds, a signed City of Nashua resolution needs to be forwarded to DHHS along with a Certificate of Vote and several other documents. DHHS will then forward all documents to the NH AG's Office to be presented to the Governor & Council meeting (hopefully in June) if we can meet their deadlines. I am requesting that should the Human Affairs committee vote in favor of the resolution on May 23, 2011, that the resolution go to the full Board of Aldermen on May 24, 2011 for a vote. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.  ·. 'I .'\' ;"'!~ ":.. " p .. ..J,..."J ..,• • • -... ' Board of Aldermen City of Nashua 229 Main Street I POBox 2019 Nashua, NH 03061-2019 (603) 589-3030. FAX: (603) 589-3039 Memorandum TO: Board of Aldermen FROM: Mark S. Cookson, Alderman-at-Large DATE: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 SUBJ: R-11-102: Authorizing the City Of Nashua to Enter into Two Lease Agreements with the Nashua Dog Owners Group for Dog Parks at Artillery Lane and Yudicky Farm Board of Aldermen, . It is my intention to inform my fellow members of the Board of Aldermen of a recent concern raised by a constituent as well as the response provided by Atty McNamee. After we adopted R-11-1 02 at our: last meeting a few of us received a call from a constituent inquiring about 1.) Is a group able to charge for a ~service" they are prOViding in a public park?; and, 2.) That unless you are a paying member of the Nashua Dog Owner's Group someone from the public will not have access to a Public Park or an area within the Public Park. Atty McNamee responded to question 1 with the following: The Nashua DOG group is not selling "goods or merchandise. Their activity is 1I better described as recreational, and does not fall under the limits on commercial activity regUlated by the ordinance (Nashua's Revised Ordinances Chapter 215 Parks and Recreation Areas:: Article 1: Park and Playground Rules - Prohibited Acts), In addition, at the April2ih Infrastructure Committee Meeting when the Resolution was discussed the Nashua Dog Owner's Group's attorney, Thomas J. Leonard, Esq., confirmed membership is required to use either of the two Dog Parks; and, there would be: an "administrative fee." It is a nonprofit that will be operating these things. It is not an effort to make any money at all it is just to cover the expense of really what amounts to organization and policing once we get it built. It is a nominal fee. In speaking with Mr. William "BiII" Soubosky this afternoon he was able to describe the fee structure (suggested $3/wk for a dog or $5/wk up to 3 dogs) currently on the NashuaDOG.org website was only for the weekend play group at the Bellavance Property on Northwest Blvd. The Annual Administrative fee for a Key Card will be less than this but may, in fact, be closer to $50. With regard to the second point Atty McNamee responded: You mentioned in our phone call that the taxpayer is also concerned that the lease to Nashua DOG forecloses the ability of the taxpayer or others to access an area of a pUblic park. That concern'must be based upon the faulty assumption that all public park areas should be open to all members of the public at all times. Clearly they are not. Holman Stadium is not open at all times, and when it is open it is dedicated to the use of specifIC groups, many of whom pay for the privilege of using the park and excluding others from the field when they do so. likewise. our many recreational soccer and softball leagues are allowed the exclusive use of field areas for their games. It would not be reasonable to' assume that a member of the public could simply walk through the middle of a field during one of those games. Recreational soccer or softball fields, in my opinion, are a better counter example to the structure and member only use being proposed by Nashua DOG. Softball fields at Greeley, Labine, and other City parks are able to be utilized by the public at large when not in use by recreational leagues. The fenced in area at a public park, reserved only for members of Nashua DOG, will never be able to be accessed by the public at large until they pay a fee. I want to ensure that the Board of Aldermen is fully aware of what they have adopted in R-11-102: Authorizing the City Of Nashua to Enter into Two Lease Agreements with the Nashua Dog Owners Group for Dog Parks at Artillery Lane and Yudicky Farm. Regards, Mark S. Cookson Alderman-at-Large