Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President Brian S. McCarthy presided; Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch recorded. Prayer was offered by Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch; Alderman Tabacsko led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 12 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Aldermen Vitale and Sheehan arrived after the roll was taken. President McCarthy Alderman Sheehan is I believe up at the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Her Honor Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and Deputy Corporation Counsel Stephen M. Bennett were also in attendance. President McCarthy Does the Mayor wish to address the board? REMARKS BY THE MAYOR Thank you, Mr. President. I would just take a moment tonight to again thank all of our many city volunteers, some of whom are on the agenda this evening, and many of whom are here tonight for different purposes, for their time commitment and dedication to helping us keep Nashua great. I think in some instances, one of which you will hear about tonight, are players, so to speak on the Silver Knights, could be considered volunteers as well, and going the extra mile tonight, which I am looking forward to sharing with you tonight their happy news. Thank you for your kind attention tonight. RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR - None RECOGNITION PERIOD MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE FIRST READING OF A RESOLUTION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PREPARED MOTION CARRIED R-11-144 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Board of Aldermen EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NASHUA SILVER KNIGHTS BASEBALL TEAM Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-11-144 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-144 given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-144 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-144 declared duly adopted. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 2 READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETINGS OF JULY 12, 2011, AND JULY 21, 2011, AND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN ON JULY 21, 2011 AND THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON AUGUST 3, 2011, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE, AND THE READINGS SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Re: Application Form MOTION BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND REFER TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED From: Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Re: Corporation Counsel’s Ruling was Erroneous and Inappropriate re: R-11-137 MOTION BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND REFER TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED From: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk Re: Requesting that the Board of Aldermen Direct the Ward Selectmen to Post Their Warrants for the Municipal General Election and Municipal Special Election To be Held on Tuesday, November 8, 2011 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND DIRECT THE WARD SELECTMEN TO POST THEIR WARRANTS FOR THE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION AND MUNICIPAL SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011 MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Tim Nickerson, 1 Clocktower Place Thank you. I am also the Chair of the Nashua International Design Competition Jury. I come before you tonight to urge you to vote in favor of R-11-138, the funding for the design competition. First of all thank you to the Mayor for sponsoring the resolution. For the past 5 months or so the design competition jury has been meeting quite regularly. At times we have been meeting weekly to prepare for this competition. In all probably about 400 hours of time have been spent preparing for this effort. In coordination with the Mayor and city staff, the jury has really defined a pretty thorough scope of work for the competition and drafted a pretty tight call for entries. We are pretty close to releasing that to the public. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 3 The final piece in the puzzle is the issue of funding. The jury has discussed this sometimes rather intensely as to whether money was needed to attract professional architects, landscape architects, planners, and other design professionals to submit entries for this competition. We actually came to the conclusion that this was an absolute necessity. Competitions such as Boston’s Rose Kennedy Greenway over the central artery project, the St. Louis Arch, and even Central Park probably the most famous design competition all had prize money attached to them. I’m not suggesting that Nashua’s Broad Street Parkway is anything of that scale, but certainly we pretty much feel that if prize money weren’t offered as part of those competitions that they really wouldn’t get the innovative designs that are really as quite as impressive as they are. We here in Nashua really need that carrot to draw that interest to the Nashua International Design Competition. This resolution really provides that carrot. The jury that is comprised of design professionals, local stakeholders, and other professionals are really confident the submissions we anticipate to receive by the close of the competition will really create some pretty exciting energy for the Broad Street Parkway. In addition, there are bound to be some unique solutions for the way the public spaces really interact with those private spaces and the private property. I actually wouldn’t even be surprised if some of the design solutions that are submitted as part of this competition are actually implemented by some of the private property owners. That is really one of the benefits of a successful design competition that there is that renewed interested, that rejuvenated passion, and even a fresh commitment to redevelopment by all parties public and private. I feel pretty comfortable in speaking for all members of the jury in such that we believe that this funding is absolutely necessary for this project to succeed. I urge you to vote in favor of R-11-138. Thank you. Mike Dube, 6 Majestic Avenue I’m urging everyone to vote in favor of O-10-44, Amending the Land Use Code by Prohibiting the Placement of Telecommunications Towers in Zoning Districts R-40, R-30, R-18, and R-9. This is something we have been dealing with for several years now up in Ward 1 and Majestic Heights and Parish Hill. It would be nice to have some piece of mind rather than have them shoehorn this in our front and back yards. That is all I have to say. Thank you. Alderman Tabacsko Thank you. I would ask you and my colleagues to consider a motion to allow two additional speakers that wish to speak on O-11-76. They are members of the Services Advisory Committee, and didn’t get the sign up sheet in time. MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MOTION CARRIED Mary Lou Blaisdell I am here to speak on O-11-76. I first would like to thank all of the board who have been actively involved with our committee and who have supported the work that we have done and who are supporting this amendment and the prior amendments that have come up. Your support and your work with us is certainly appreciated downtown. I would just like to urge the board tonight to support this legislation. I think the committee came up with a great plan on how to fund downtown improvements, and without taking money away from the general fund, from parking that is already part of that budget process. Again I would like to thank you and I would like to urge you to support this amendment this evening. Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 4 Richard Lannan Good evening. I am also on the Services Advisory Committee and a property owner of several properties within the proposed district. I just want to reiterate what Mary Lou said; we would like to thank you. There are a lot of Aldermen as well as the Mayor that have been involved in a lot of meetings especially Aldermen Tabacsko, Cox, and McCarthy have been to several meetings. It has been a long road. It has been a year and a half. We probably still have a lot of work ahead of us over the years, but we would like to urge you to support this and move forward for the betterment of downtown. Thank you. PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS Appointments by the Mayor The following appointments by the mayor were read into the record: Business & Industrial Development Authority Bradley T. Vear (Reappointment) Term to Expire: September 13, 2014 547 Amherst Street Nashua, NH 03063 Jack Tulley (Reappointment) Term to Expire: September 13, 2014 110 Middle Dunstable Road Nashua, NH 03062 Don Zizzi (Reappointment) Term to Expire: September 13, 2014 24 Deerhaven Drive Nashua, NH 03064 Ethnic Awareness Committee Rhonda Karlsberg (New Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2014 25 Hampton Drive Nashua, NH 03063 Planning Board Daniel R. Kelly (Moving from Alternate to Full Member) Term to Expire: March 31, 2014 9 Lilac Court Nashua, NH 03062 Adam C. Varley, Alternate (New Appointment) Term to Expire: March 31, 2014 3 Scotia Way Nashua, NH 03062 Zoning Board of Adjustment Robert Carlson, Alternate (Reappointment) Term to Expire: September 11, 2014 17 Cabot Drive Nashua, NH 03064 Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 5 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 ................................................................. 07/21/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the July 21, 2011 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee ............................................................................ 07/20/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the July 20, 2011 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee ............................................................................ 08/03/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the August 3, 2011 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Human Affairs Committee .................................................................. 07/18/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the July 18, 2011 Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Pennichuck Water Special Committee................................................ 07/11/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the July 11, 2011 Pennichuck Water Special Committee accepted and placed on file. Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee....................................... 07/14/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the July 14, 2011 Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Special Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee .......................... 08/03/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the August 3, 2011 Special Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Planning & Economic Development Committee ................................. 07/19/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the July 19, 2011 Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS Airport Authority MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE REAPPOINTMENT OF DENNIS STEPHENS, 9 BYRON DRIVE, NASHUA, FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE AUGUST 31, 2016 Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 6 MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Dennis Stephens duly reappointed to the Airport Authority for a term to expire August 31, 2016. Hunt Building Board of Trustees MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF TAMMY L. CRISP, 7 BARTLETT AVENUE, NASHUA, FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2015 MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Tammy L. Crisp duly appointed to the Hunt Building Board of Trustees for a term to expire December 31, 2015. Oath of Office administered by Deputy Corporation Counsel. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-11-127 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Richard LaRose Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,175 OBTAINED FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE INTO SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT 331-6279 “NH DRUG TASK FORCE 2012” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-127 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-127 declared duly adopted. Alderman Deane Thank you. I have a series of motions to make, and for those of you who read the minutes of the last Budget Review Committee, we have an NRO in place §5:130 H that states that “when proposed legislation to transfer or re-appropriate a particular appropriation or portion thereof has had its first reading, such funds shall not be expended or transferred while the legislation is pending.” which means if Alderman Wilshire files a piece of legislation to use money from account X, account X can’t be drained to leave less than that total sum in there. That money can’t be touched until that legislation has been disposed of. If you look at your agenda at R-11-129, that $136,000 is associated with an increased cost pertaining to Pennichuck rate increases that we have to absorb. We had two pieces of legislation; R-10-66, which was, I wish Alderman Sheehan was here, but she was at the Budget meeting. It was relative to the transfer of $92,000 from account 591-86005 FY2011 General Contingency into account 577-11 Code Enforcement Payroll Full Time, and my colleague Alderman Pressly also had an ordinance in place; O-10-23, Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 7 Establishing an Ombudsman for the City of Nashua and Authorizing the Transfer of $60,000 from 591- 86005 2011 General Contingency into account 501-53, Mayor’s Office Professional Services. What we have here is the $136,000 is being called for under 591-86005, but the account does not contained enough for the balance because these two pieces of legislation, by ordinance, tie up those dollars until these pieces are disposed of in whatever manner the board decides to work with. What we were going to do in order to satisfy my colleagues that had sponsored these legislations is we are going to change the fiscal year from FY11 to FY12 out of the same account so that the legislation will be funded, will have those funding sources available to them until such time as we disposed of them, and then we can take action on R-11-129 to pay the increase in cost to the Pennichuck Water Company. MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO WITHDRAW FROM COMMITTEE R-10-66, RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $92,000 FROM ACCOUNT 591-86005 “FY2011 GENERAL CONTINGENCY” INTO ACCOUNT 577-11 “CODE ENFORCEMENT, PAYROLL – FULL TIME” AND O-10-23, ESTABLISHING AN OMBUDSMAN FOR THE CITY OF NASHUA AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $60,000 FROM ACCOUNT 591-86005 “FY2011 GENERAL CONTINGENCY” INTO ACCOUNT 501-53 “MAYOR’S OFFICE – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES” MOTION CARRIED R-10-66 Endorser: Alderman Diane Sheehan RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $92,000 FROM ACCOUNT 591-86005 “FY2011 GENERAL CONTINGENCY” INTO ACCOUNT 577-11 “CODE ENFORCEMENT, PAYROLL – FULL TIME” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO AMEND R-10-66 BY REPLACING FISCAL YEAR 2011 WITH FISCAL YEAR 2012 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO RE-REFER R-10-66, AS AMENDED, TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED O-10-23 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly ESTABLISHING AN OMBUDSMAN FOR THE CITY OF NASHUA AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $60,000 FROM ACCOUNT 591-86005 “FY2011 GENERAL CONTINGENCY” INTO ACCOUNT 501-53 “MAYOR’S OFFICE – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO AMEND O-10-23 BY REPLACING FISCAL YEAR 2011 WITH FISCAL YEAR 2012 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO RE-REFER O-10-23, AS AMENDED, TO THE PERSONNEL/ ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED R-11-129 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $136,000 FROM ACCOUNT #591-86005 “CONTINGENCY- GENERAL” INTO ACCOUNT #533-33010 “WATER SUPPLY- HYDRANTS, FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES” Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 8 Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-129 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I just wanted to state that §5:130 H did exactly what it was supposed to do. It gave this board control of those dollars as they saw fit with the legislation it filed. I wouldn’t consider this an unintended consequence it is exactly what that amendment to that NRO was set out to do. Thank you. Alderman Clemons I would concur. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-129 declared duly adopted. R-11-130 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. REFUNDING THE YMCA’S PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE TAX YEAR STARTING APRIL 1, 2011 Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-130 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Cookson Thank you Mr. President. At this time I recuse myself from voting on this particular resolution. I do sit on the YMCA’s Board of Directors and while I don’t have any particular pecuniary interest, I don’t want there to appear to be any perception that I am voting for this because I am on the board. I will recuse myself from this vote. President McCarthy Attorney Bennett do you believe that there is any conflict? Stephen Bennett, Esq. Without having any financial interest in it I don’t believe there is necessarily a conflict, but the final decision for recusal is of course always up to the member. President McCarthy It is not because we have an ordinance that compels members to vote on every piece of legislation that comes before us unless they have a declared conflict. I believe Alderman Cookson you are in the position of being required to vote by that ordinance. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 9 Alderman Cookson I would request an opinion from Legal further clarifying that because I do not want the perception of any conflict of interest; fiscal or not. At this point, I am ready to stand by my request to recuse myself. President McCarthy It is an issue of the rules, and my ruling is that you are required to vote. I would be more than happy to entertain an appeal of that to the board if you so desire. Alderman Cookson Make it so. President McCarthy The ruling of the Chair has been appealed. A yes vote is in favor of sustaining the Chair’s ruling and requiring Alderman Cookson to vote and a no vote would overrule the ruling of the Chair and allow the ordinance to be essentially overridden. MOTION CARRIED Alderman Cookson Thank you. President McCarthy The issue before us then is the vote for final passage of R-11-130. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-130 declared duly adopted. R-11-135 Endorsers: Alderman Richard LaRose Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly CREATING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR THE HUNT BUILDING Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-135 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-135 declared duly adopted. R-11-136 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons RELATIVE TO THE RE-APPROPRIATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2012 ESCROWS Given its second reading; Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 10 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-136 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-136 declared duly adopted. R-11-138 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $5,000 FROM ACCOUNT #591-86005 “CONTINGENCY- GENERAL” INTO ACCOUNT #753-3740 “NASHUA MILLYARD DESIGN COMPETITION – BROAD STREET PARKWAY” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-138 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I will not be supporting the dangling of a $5,000 carrot of taxpayers’ money in front of anyone. Alderman Cookson Thank you. I won’t be supporting this particular resolution either. A couple of concerns; I believe that when this jury first came before the Mayor and proposed the idea there was absolutely going to be no need or requirement of any funds whatsoever to entice anybody to come and join and be part of this design competition. We were told that there was going to be no money. Several months later after several meetings, now they need $5,000, but $5,000 isn’t going to be the prize because within that particular resolution it also says that there are other costs they are going to need to use part of that money for whether it be printing or whatever. The prize is going to be something less than $5,000. We don’t know what that is going to be, we don’t know how much money it is going to cost to print. I am absolutely opposed to this until we get a better understanding of how they are going to use the money, the taxpayer money that they are requesting. Alderman Tabacsko Thank you. I take quite the opposite view of the two previous speakers. I think this is a good piece of legislation that provides for spending I think in a rather prudent manner. This is a pretty major design event and I think we are getting away cheap for $5,000. Thank you. President McCarthy Is there further discussion? Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 11 A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Vitale, Alderman Craffey, Alderman Pressly, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Tabacsko, Alderman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Cox, Alderman Sheehan, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman McCarthy 11 Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Chasse, Alderman Cookson 3 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-138 declared duly adopted. R-11-139 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER RELATIVE TO FILLING VACANCIES IN THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS, AND BOARD OF EDUCATION Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS THAT R-11-139 BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT AT THE NEXT REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND THAT COPIES OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND A SUMMARY THEREOF BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT LEAST TWO WEEK’S PRIOR TO THE ELECTION ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I just wanted to let Alderman Vitale know, through you, that I did contact the City Clerk. He did render an opinion and I did respond back to him and tell him that I was planning on sharing that with my colleagues. You got that e-mail correct? Alderman Vitale I did not see the e-mail, but that is probably why I didn’t pass it on. I will have to go back and look, but I didn’t see it. I was just mentioning that to Alderman Clemons. Alderman Deane He typed favorably on the question. City Clerk Bergeron is in support of this change. Alderman Pressly Thank you. Could you elaborate a bit more? Some of us were concerned that it would remove the choice from the voters. Could you assure us having spoken with City Clerk that is not the case? Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 12 Alderman Deane It is not removing the choice of anyone. When the ballot is set it is set. President McCarthy Is there further discussion? MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-10-44 Endorsers: Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY PROHIBITING THE PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS IN ZONING DISTRICTS R-40, R-30, R-18 AND R-9 Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN VITALE TO AMEND O-10-44 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION President McCarthy Alderman Vitale did you want to… Alderman Vitale I am going to defer to you to answer Alderman Chasse’s question. President McCarthy With the board’s indulgence, I will answer that from here. The amendment changes the ordinance to require a 400’ setback in the zones in question for communications towers. Looking at the sites that have been in question and the sites where we already have towers in residential zones, this amendment would solve the problem for the sites that have been questions but not create any non-conforming uses in the existing towers. Alderman Chasse The new tower that went up at the Camp Doucette off of Ridge Road, is that 400’? President McCarthy That would comply yes. Alderman Chasse Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 13 President McCarthy The motion is to amend. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN VITALE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-10-44 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane So basically when I look at B under standards: “No special exception application shall be approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment unless the communications tower complies with the criteria established in Subsections C through L of this section. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may waive the requirements of Subsections C (location) and E (height) to the extent necessary to resolve any gap in service where required by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Administrative Officer shall provide notification as required by RSA 12-K:7(I).” What does that mean? Does that mean they can’t accept an application? Are we dictating the terms to what they can and can’t apply an application for? Is that what this states? President McCarthy Actually we are and were allowed to because it is a special exception. We’re allowed to put criteria on the acceptance of special exceptions. The Zoning Board of Adjustment would always have the opportunity to override that if a variance request came in anyway, but for special exceptions we have a number of cases where we say you can do this is the Zoning Board of Adjustments approves it, but it must meet this set of criteria. Alderman Deane This change doesn’t actually take away the ability for these towers to continue to go up. President McCarthy No. Alderman Deane It makes it a little more difficult. President McCarthy It requires that they meet a set of criteria to locate them in those zones. Alderman Deane And under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 what is that? President McCarthy The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the Federal act that enabled the providing of wireless services such as PCS telephone services. One of the sections of the Telecommunications Act, I believe it is Section 704, created a Federal prohibition on local zoning ordinances that preclude the positioning of towers. We’re essentially allowed to put reasonable criteria on where they may be located, but we can’t simply ban them. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 14 Alderman Deane So this falls under the parameters of reasonable criteria? President McCarthy I believe so. Alderman Deane Legal signed off on it right? President McCarthy Yes. Alderman Deane So in their opinion it falls under? President McCarthy That was the opinion of Attorney Clarke yes. Alderman Deane Thank you. President McCarthy The motion is for final passage of O-10-44 as amended. Is there any further discussion? MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-10-44 declared duly adopted as amended. O-11-76 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan ESTABLISHING A COMMITTEE AND FUNDING PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO AMEND O-11-76 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Clemons I would be happy to answer Alderman Chasse’s anticipated question. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 15 Alderman Chasse Thank you. President McCarthy We are going to do this jeopardy style this evening. Alderman Clemons The change comes in the first paragraph. It starts with the sentence: “Beginning in 2013, if at the end of the year the parking revenue shall fall below $1,128,000 or exceed $1,378,000, the board of aldermen shall review the amount of $728,000 above, but not decrease it, and adjust that amount as necessary.” That was the sentence that was added and essentially what that does is it puts in a review mechanism for the Board of Aldermen to review this should the funding either fall below our expectations or way above them. In addition to that it says that we should not decrease the $728,000 amount as well. Those are the amendments. President McCarthy Is there any further discussion of the motion to samend? MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-11-76 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly Thank you Mr. President. I have struggled with this concept for a long time. As you know this started out two years ago, the idea was there would be a special tax placed on the people who own the buildings downtown and somewhere along the line it has been really altered or the only piece of it that is really before us now has to do with the consumer. The full burden of raising the money or adjusting to the change rests with the people who use the Main Street. This troubles me a lot. The idea was that there would be other people participating in contributing to this fund. There is some talk well maybe that will come later, but as of right now it is not part of the funding. It is a very very complicated plan. At this time we don’t know what sort of revenue it is going to bring in, the police department is struggling to try to figure out how to implement it, there is already an amendment to the plan that is going to committee now. The original plan itself has not even been finalized. I am concerned that it also appears as though we do have a committee downtown, the Great American Downtown that does a lot of this. It is unclear what is going to happen with them. Do we need two or do we not? I would support tabling this and waiting to see what the amendments to the whole plan come in at. Without having that figured out first I cannot support this at this time. I would like to commend the people who have worked hard on this. They have put in many hours. I know they mean well, but the full burden as of this point rests with the consumer trying to figure out this whole new complicated parking plan. I also at the same time totally support fixing the downtown. The sidewalks, we need a lot of work down there. I have also been lead to believe that this is not an enforceable plan, any future board can undo this very quickly. I cannot support this at this time. If someone would table it I would support that and hold it back until we see what is going to happen with the main project, the whole parking plan that is already looking to be changed. Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 16 Alderman Tabacsko Thank you Mr. President. I’m not even sure where to begin. I don’t think this is complicated at all. I also don’t think that the concept of a BID District was the original thing that came from Great American Downtown I would point out and then a committee was formed, and it was soon very clear that a BID District by itself was going to be untenable in that the amount of money that would need to be raised through that tax on that amount of property would be something that wasn’t practical. There is still, in the final recommendations and they are final recommendations from the Services Advisory Committee that has been presented to this board and accepted by this board, their recommendation is to create a BID District that raises a relatively small amount of money. I think it is somewhere on the order of about $50,000 would be raised through that BID tax. That simply needs legislation to be enacted. The people who are stakeholders and property owners who would be paying that tax have expressed their willingness to accept that as part of the program, at least some of them. I certainly don’t mean to say that is for everyone, but I know for the downtown property owners that are on the Services Advisory Committee that was the case. Again, I’m baffled constantly by the characterization that this is complicated. We created three tiers of parking zones. The premium spaces are the most expensive, the next zone is about the same as we are now, and the further out zone is less expensive. It is quite simple. It will be signed, it will be color-coded, and it will actually be a great improvement over what it is now. It is also going to expand the hours of enforcement, but that has nothing to do with this piece of legislation in front of us tonight, that is a separate piece of legislation and that amendment, there was some cleanup that needed to be done and that is what is coming back through. The original ordinance has been passed. This simply creates the mechanism by which there will be some amount of money from the increased parking revenues that will be dedicated to downtown improvements so that the people who are parking downtown and paying this cost will directly benefit from it, and this is the way to demonstrate to those stakeholders that they are getting something back for their money. I think it is quite simple. I hope that we are not going to stick our head in the sand and say oh it is too complicated, I can’t understand it, so let’s just send it back to committee and not do anything. Do nothing costs us money every day. We need to get this piece passed, the amended ordinance that is coming behind it on the parking piece. We need this in place so that we can start generating some revenue so that we have some money to spend downtown. The longer we drag this on the longer things are going to deteriorate and the longer it is going to be before we get a plan together to get anything done. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this tonight. Thank you. Alderman Cookson Thank you. I’m not sure where to begin either. I will try to start with your last statement, the previous speaker’s last statement, which is we need to start now because if we don’t start now we are going to lose money. According to this particular ordinance, O-11-76, it starts with the FY2013 budget… Alderman Clemons That is incorrect. Alderman Cookson Anybody is more than welcome to speak after I have given up the floor. But at this point, as I am reading this paragraph “starting with the FY2013 budget an amount equivalent to the sum of any parking revenue received over and above the $728,000 shall be appropriated annually.” Fiscal year 2013, and it actually starts, it uses the calendar year January 1st through December 31st so it is the FY2013 budget, and that is when it starts. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 17 Now, the other part about O-11-71 being simple and O-11-71 was the parking district ordinance, it is supposed to simplify things. Unfortunately or fortunately I guess I should say Alderman Wilshire and I were invited to speak with Deputy Chief Howe as well as several parking enforcement officers this morning. I think we sat there for close to an hour and a half and we really looked at O-11-71. O-11-71 never should have been brought out of committee, it never should have been passed by this Board of Aldermen until the police department, the people that we are asking to enforce it had an opportunity to review it and respond to it. That request was made by me at the last Infrastructure Committee meeting and the Chairman of that committee chose to take it out of committee at the next Board of Aldermen meeting so on a Wednesday evening we tabled the legislation, the following Tuesday night, and in fact even before that, that Friday we received a memo in our packets saying there was the intention to pull it out of committee. It was pulled out the following Tuesday evening and as has been stated there are corrections that need to be made to that particular ordinance. After the conversation that Alderman Wilshire and I had with the parking enforcement officers today and their supervisors, there are going to be several more corrections that need to be made to that particular ordinance. I don’t want to go through the laundry list of what we had, but whether it be parking garages having two hour time limits, the library actually has two zones within the library lot; a ten hour zone and a two hour zone, but this particular ordinance would limit it to a single two hour zone. It is also broken out into east and west lot in the library. There is no east and west lot, it is north and south, but again there are things that should have been discussed and deliberated in committee that were not. Several of these streets appear in all three zones. Factory Street has all three zones so within a couple hundred feet the price changes from zone 1 to zone 2 to zone 3. Main Street has two zones, Spring Street has two zones, Temple Street has two zones, West Pearl Street has two zones, Spring Street has two zones. It is not easy. In fact, it is very complicated. And the people that we are asking to enforce this actually have to walk around with the piece of legislation because it is unintelligible. When you get to this particular point on this particular street it changes zones. There are actually parking meters that are going up in front of apartments and homes. You actually have to pay to park at your own residence. If we had had this conversation with the police department in committee, if we had even had the common decency to extend an invitation to the police department and given them the resolution prior to and have them react to it, all of this could have been resolved in a very timely and conscientious manner. We did not do our due-diligence. We are asking our law enforcement officers to enforce something that is not enforceable. We should have done more work. ERP is not the savior. It is not the Panacea. In fact, the hand held devices that the parking enforcement officers use don’t talk with ERP. In that system it is already pre-programmed your ticket is going to cost this much. It is a $10 fine for your ticket and they print it out. There is no way for that enforcement officer to go back and find out if this car has received 1 ticket, 2 tickets, 3 tickets, 4 tickets. I’m not even going to get into after hours. Certainly they could call somebody, but now as we are extending our hours beyond 5:00 p.m., nobody in City Hall is going to pick up a phone and say this person this is their third ticket, and even if they did the parking enforcement officers couldn’t give a ticket that corresponded with the appropriate rate because their software is programmed in a certain way. Four tickets in a year was suggested be a small number. Some people get four tickets in a week. What if you contest a ticket? You can contest a ticket. Does that count towards your four tickets and your 5th ticket you get towed or your 4th ticket you get towed? What if you pay all of your fines do you still get towed on the 4th or 5th ticket? These are conversations that we had this morning with the parking enforcement officers. They raised the points, they raised the concerns, they said that there is a smarter way to do it. Alderman Wilshire and I are going to make sure that their voice is heard and that we propose those amendments that are going to make this a better piece of legislation that make it enforceable and clear not just to the parking enforcement officers but the consumers that you are asking to bear the cost. It needs to be clear to the consumer. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 18 One other thing, as we are updating and modifying the heads of the meters to correspond with O-11-71, apparently we have been proactive and we have actually flipped over the hours of operation and the time that you need to feed the meter so the globe on top of the meter, you can see in and it says you need to pay Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., that has been flipped over so the consumer right now, today, has no idea when the meters are in operation, but fortunately for us it is generating more revenue because they don’t know any better. They are feeding the meter on weekends now. They are feeding the meters in the evenings because it does not communicate clearly to them the hours of operation. Alderman Pressly brought up this point several weeks ago about in front of Main Street some businesses you can’t do business within 90 minutes. Alderman Tabacsko Mr. President Point of Order please; this is about O-11-71. This has got nothing to do with O-11-76. Alderman Cookson It has everything to do with O-11-76. Alderman Pressly I agree. Alderman Cookson Everything. O-11-76… President McCarthy I will allow you to continue, but I’m not sure I understand how. The entirety of the discussion has been about the mechanics of the meters not about this ordinance, which presupposes to set up how we are going to expend the revenue. Alderman Cookson We don’t even know how O-11-71 is going to work. President McCarthy It is irrelevant to the way the revenue the distributed. Continue please, but… Alderman Cookson I absolutely agree with Alderman Pressly; O-11-71 if we could reconsider it this evening I think we should and I think Alderman Wilshire is in support of that. It is not able to be reconsidered so we are going to make the motions and the amendments to make it a better piece of legislation. We did it wrong and we need to fix it. O-11-76 relies on O-11-71 for the revenue that is generated, and I don’t think we should take action on that either until we straighten our house and make sure that we’ve got it correct. Alderman Wilshire Thank you. I was in support of the parking plan when it came forward. Unfortunately I wasn’t at every meeting and didn’t participate as well as I probably should have. I was very disappointed to find out that the police department and the enforcement people were never invited to the table. I was kind of surprised by Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 19 that because they are the ones out there every day doing the job. Everything Alderman Cookson mentioned are subjects that we did discus today. I think we will be bringing in some amendments to that. President McCarthy Alderman Cox would you relate the conversations you had with the police department regarding the… Alderman Cox First just a point of clarification, they were invited. The department did have the proposed ordinance and parking enforcement did attend one of our Infrastructure meetings. The conversation with the Chief was we have to wait and see what product you give us; once you approve an ordinance we will enforce it, and he assured me that we will do whatever it takes. He said to me I understand the parameters; moving to 8:00 p.m., going Saturday so he had the proposed ordinance and said that we will do whatever it takes to make it happen. But just to clarify once again we did have somebody here from the police department as I extended to the committee that we had yet to have done that and I extended an invitation to the department and somebody was here. Thank you. Alderman Cookson Thank you. I was at that committee meeting. We had a second shift supervisor that joined us that night who had not received a copy of the resolution in question, had never seen it, didn’t have a chance to react to it, and what was my motion that evening, to table the resolution so that we could go back and have the police go back, review the resolution and see if there were any pitfalls that we should take into account. I’ve got four pages of pitfalls that were delivered to us this morning. You invited a second shift supervisor to a meeting on the very last night, and he had an hour at most to have a conversation with us with no idea what the resolution stated at all. You didn’t talk… Alderman Cox Mr. President… Alderman Cookson …people were not… Alderman Cox …just a point of clarification… Alderman Cookson …parking enforcement officers… Alderman Cox …I invited someone from parking enforcement… Alderman Cookson …the parking enforcement officers… Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 20 President McCarthy Let Alderman Cookson finish please. Alderman Cox Well he just… Alderman Cookson …the parking enforcement officers… Alderman Cox …it is just… Alderman Cookson …the ones who actually work the street… Alderman Cox It would be nice if he would be accurate Mr. President. Alderman Cookson It would be nice if you would honor the rules of the Chamber and allow me to speak while I’ve got the floor as well. While I’ve got the floor I will continue to say the parking enforcement officers, the ones that go out there every single day between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., the ones that we see every single day doing their job, chalking tires, giving out tickets, they were not extended the invitation, the people that actually do the job. That is what we needed to hear and that is what we hear this morning. I am very glad that Alderman Wilshire and I were invited to join in that conversation because it was very enlightening. Thank you. Alderman Cox Just once again Mr. President I would just like to clarify that I extended to the police department to have representation here from parking enforcement. That is who was sent. I didn’t invite that person particularly. As well I would just like to inquire to how an invitation was made to Alderman Cookson and Alderman Wilshire to go to this meeting regarding this ordinance. President McCarthy Alderman Cookson? Alderman Cookson Thank you. I would be happy to respond to that. After my radio show on Thursday afternoon, which the parking enforcement officers listen to and we were talking about this particular ordinance 11-71, they approached me as I was leaving the studio and for the next two hours I walked around with them between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. I walked around with them and they said look at this, look at what your ordinance does, this is unenforceable. Did you know that our parking garages and every surface lot in the City has a sign that says you can only park in there between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.? Every garage and every surface lot in the City has a sign that people can only park in there from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Not during Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 21 the day. So while we are trying to get people off of Main Street and while we are trying to get people to use the parking garages we have signs that tell them park on the street. That is how I was invited to today’s meeting because the parking enforcement officers saw me on the street, they had a two hour conversation with me while I walked around with them all the way to the library lot, down Temple, down Spring Street, and they showed me where people park with handicap stickers all day long. This is how I was invited. They went to their superiors, they told them they had the conversation with me, and Deputy Chief Howe invited me into the conversation this morning. That is how I was invited because they reached out to me. Alderman Wilshire I was invited, I assume, because I am the Liaison from the board to the police department. I got an e-mail saying that they were having a meeting regarding this ordinance with Alderman Cookson, would I like to attend. Alderman Pressly Thank you. This was a two year effort, a two year study effort. Some of us were able to go. I know we asked Aldermen Cox and Tabacsko to update us occasionally what was going on. The police were not invited during those two years. Correct me if I’m wrong Alderman Cox, I was at that meeting and that was the first time that the police had been invited in any way to be part of this two year study. I don’t think the downtown merchants that worked on this even thought to talk to them at all. Although you did invite them it was the last day of the last vote of a two year study. I think it is a little bit misleading to give the impression that they were involved in this. They were asked to comment on a finished product that they had had no opportunity to look at or have input with for a long time, and then you decided just to not talk to them at all and go on and push it through. I think you need to clarify that for two years they were not part of the study and you presented them with a final product and said what do you think the last day before the vote. I think that needs to be clarified. Alderman Clemons Getting back to O-11-76… Alderman Tabacsko Thank you. Alderman Clemons …this is in regards to how the extra revenue is going to be put into place. Really the discussion about how that extra revenue is going to be generated is sort of, while this, it sort of, and I don’t want to say it is unrelated, but these are certainly two separate pieces of legislation, and since it sounds like it is going to be a lively discussion tomorrow, I will only say for the record that I had wanted this to be passed first anyway because I think it is important that we make a commitment to whatever we do downtown to make sure that any extra revenue that is generated go to the downtown. If we pass this first and then there are several amendments or whatever that are made to the original ordinance tomorrow night, that is fine by me because at least we will have the mechanism to get whatever funds those are dedicated to where they are supposed to be and we will have a plan in place to do that. That is what this does. I think it is important that we get this passed this evening regardless of what happens with the other piece of legislation. We have to have in place something that deals with what we are going to do with that money, and people want to see that we are going to dedicate it to downtown. This Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 22 is very important that we get this passed. For me, I think that this is better that we are passing it before we have a finalized product because it is showing our commitment first, and I think that is important. Alderman Wilshire Thank you. I’m going to support this amended version of 11-76. I thought it was a good idea early on and I still think it is a good idea. I think 11-71 was a good idea I just think it needs a little bit of tweaking. I’m going to support this, but I also intend to work with Alderman Cookson on some amendments to the prior ordinance. Thank you. Alderman Sheehan Thank you. I’m also going to support it. Something I got brought into over the last week was an ongoing discussion where a lot of people in the downtown area had questions as to why we would start changing the parking rates before we had something set up and agreed that we would be using that money for the downtown, which is what they wanted to see. I explained the State law process and why that couldn’t be done, why this was set up with this piece of legislation, and that there were built in triggers to have it be looked at on a regular basis if something happened and of course something can always be looked at whenever, but it was a nice failsafe in there that there were triggers either for under-performance or over- performance just like would happen in business. The people were very grateful for some answers. I think there are a lot of people that don’t know all of the minutiae because it is a very long document, but it should be very simple. I am going to support that. As a side note, if we have flipped the tops of the meters I think those need to be flipped right back right away because people not knowing, and if it came to someone’s attention, a meter maid that they were flipped I would have thought that they would have called that in immediately and had that fixed because that isn’t right, and it was probably an accident or whatever. But the long and the short is I think this is the horse that needs to go before the cart and we can make adjustments on the other legislation. I have no problem with fine-tuning it. It is very difficult to do that on a document without a map with dots all over it showing each and every meter. I think it will be clear as each meter is labeled. I think the meter maid will have a very hard time not being able to follow if it is expired or not expired. But regardless, this needs to pass first and I think people will feel a lot better once this is on the books. The rest can be worked out later, but I think this needs to get set up because we need to also start putting together committee members. That is going to take a while as well. Regardless of when the funding starts we need to have the people that this document also brings to the table. I will be supporting this. Alderman Chasse One statement; the cart before the horse. I kind of think that the horse is still back there. This is the cart. This is not the horse. Once you put your meters up and you say this is a $.25 meter and that is a $.50 meter and that is a $1.00 meter and then I kind of say okay maybe it won’t generate the $728,000, maybe after I do all of that math and everything it is only going to generate $500,000. You are picking the number $728,000. This is definitely the cart not the horse. The other one with the metes and the prices and all of that, is the horse. That is the horse that is going to generate these numbers. You arbitrarily picked $728,000 and who knows you may pick up $200 million with the new…you never know what you are going to do. Let’s get the numbers first from the horse. This is definitely the cart. I can’t support it. I would rather see the horse first. Thank you. President McCarthy The motion is for final passage of O-11-76 as amended. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 23 A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Vitale, Alderman Craffey, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Tabacsko, Alderman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Cox, Alderman Sheehan, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman McCarthy 10 Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Pressly, Alderman Chasse, Alderman Cookson 4 MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-11-76 declared duly adopted as amended. NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-11-140 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox AMENDING THE AGENT TO EXPEND ON THE FOUR EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS THAT ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION BY QUADRANT Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE and the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-11-141 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja ESTABLISHING AN EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND TO ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DEVELOPERS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO DANIEL WEBSTER HIGHWAY AND SPIT BROOK ROAD AND TRANSFERRING EXISTING DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS INTO THE EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-11-142 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF A CONFERENCE TABLE PURCHASED IN PART WITH DONATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,500 Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-11-143 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Kathryn D. Vitale Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Richard LaRose Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy NAMING THE LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD AT LYONS PARK “RICHARD P. FLYNN MEMORIAL FIELD” Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 24 Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE and the BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES - None PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Geoff Daly, 48 Walden Pond Drive Good evening. I’m here basically tonight to talk about a debacle that is about to occur with the development of the Pennichuck land that was presented to the ZBA back in 2004. Pennichuck Southwood real estate division as the sale of lot 51-8 for development for housing by Hayden Green for and on behalf of Messrs. Prompt & Slattery. Many errors have occurred since 2004. During a ZBA meeting in 2004 a review was undertaken with certain approvals to build a water tower and some residential development with future if so planned as part of the RSA for the area lot 51-8. Subsequently the ZBA and Conservation Commission were bypassed or had the application tabled or placed for further review. Hayden Green on behalf of North Concord Street Properties LLC applied for in February/March of 2011 for an AoT permit. An AoT permit is an Alteration of Terrain, which goes with an application to build. The attached data was deficient in many topographical and hydrological details as required by permit applicants and required by State and Federal law. Delineation of gulley areas within their plans for development, no hydrological data was included showing any diurnal water flows, streams, pools, ponds, trenches, drainage flows for storm water in the designated planned applicants permit request. Based on the City of Nashua’s own GIS maps and contained within, the consultant report by the Rizzo Company, Figure 4-1 and Pennichuck’s water map defining critical areas with defined buffer lots within the lot F, please note the bog swamp area was never included. Recommended on the report by Rizzo was 300’ and contained in Lot F as defined in the report. This was left out of the AoT permit data. This area of Henri Bourque Highway is defined by the EPA as critical wetlands and is within the defined watershed of the City of Nashua. This is actually shown on the City of Nashua’s own watershed maps, and is defined on the EPA.gov/safewatersmap and drink/contaminants maps 8-10, pages 38, 44 and 45. The area is covered in numerous storm drain culverts and pipes all feeding from Concord Street, Henri Bourque Highway. Pennichuck school property, Manchester Street, and uncontrolled runoff from the Clovelly Apartments all draining directly into a clearly defined and identified on the GIS map as a critical wetlands and natural water springs flowing to the supply pond soon to be under the City of Nashua’s control. The application of 2004 by Pennichuck Southwood Corp. does not contain any dredge, fill, or recontoring of any section of lot 51-8 now or in the future. This was also left off the AoT data. Based on this brief overview, I request the chamber take a question either today or next week for a full DES re-review of the AoT due to the permit data deficiencies and the recent identification of diurnal water which by Federal EPA, State and Federal statutes cannot be covered over or changed. They are part of the watershed aquifer along with other non-covered or built upon surfaces. One last point, we the people of Nashua have to pay for any problems in this area as we will own Pennichuck. It is our future infrastructure at stake along with the water quality we will need to maintain under future EPA mandates. You all have a responsibility to follow all and every regulation in place and available to everyone to review. Extensive yes, but it is part of the Federal, State, and City data. Your hands are not tied. Anything like this can be adjusted, rescinded or cancelled. Please do the right thing now and not leave it to others in the future. Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 25 REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman Cookson Thank you. I just wanted to say the last resolution that we considered this evening under new business, Naming the Little League Field at Lyons Park “Richard P. Flynn Memorial Field”, is probably something that should be done. It should be recognized, the great man that Dick was. I have had several conversations over the past several weeks about Dick. I had one conversation this afternoon and the person relayed to me that Dick was a gentleman and a gentle man, and I think that is just very appropriate for who he is, who he was, who he represented; his constituents, his family. This ballpark is a small token of our appreciation, and I think it is the right thing to do. Thank you. Alderman Pressly Thank you Mr. President. What committee would consider some of the information that was just presented by Mr. Daly? I'm hearing a lot of this from different sources and it might be appropriate for a committee to take a look at that and see if we can't get a request from DES or the Army Corps of Engineers or something to sort of evaluate this. All of those studies are very very old that they are relying on. President McCarthy To the best of my knowledge, none of the things that pertain to the development of that lot, with the exception of our approval of Pennichuck sale, are under the jurisdiction of this board. They are in the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board under the auspices of our planning ordinances. So those are the …Mr. Daly sit down. I'm not ... Geoff Daly Mr. Chairman... President McCarthy ...going to allow you to speak... Geoff Daly ...Mr. Chairman please. President McCarthy ...sit down. You are out of order Mr. Daly. Geoff Daly I'm sorry you are out of order sir because... President McCarthy Please turn the sound off. Geoff Daly ...you have bypassed ... Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 26 Alderman Pressly I was just hoping there would be some arm of the City that could take a look at this and to certainly have a request of DES or the Army Corps of Engineers or whatever. President McCarthy It is an issue for the Community Development Department and the land use boards to take up, and I would encourage them to look at the allegations. We do not get to override land use decisions on the legislative body for reasons that I suspect are very good ones from the State’s perspective. Alderman Pressly Mr. President, may I speak? President McCarthy Sure. Alderman Pressly I fully understand that but sometimes it is nice for a committee of our group to take a look and maybe request. I know we have no power to make changes, but we certainly have the ability to speak and have a voice and request something to be done. And if in fact any of the comments that I have been hearing about that that land has changed tremendously in how it functions and the safety of the water supply since the reports were written. Can we individually make requests or what would you recommend we do? President McCarthy You most certainly can contact Director Hersh and see what the Community Development Division is doing and whether or not the applications that were filed were insufficient. I would encourage doing that. I will ask her to do the same. Alderman Pressly Thank you. Alderman Deane Thank you. There was an editorial in the Telegraph the other day about the success of the baseball team at Holman this year, and the statement that was made in there that the money garnered for rent of the facility would be used to reduce the bond was incorrect, and should stand to be corrected. That money goes into a fund that we established for maintenance, purchase or materials, and whatnot for the operations of the facility. Not a nickel of it will go to the bond payments. The other thing, I spent some time in front of the stadium with the baseball program and I got to meet some of those guys. We have a fellow that volunteers in our program, in fact he has been volunteering for 23 years. His triplet brothers all work for the solid waste department and Mark has maintained our scoreboard at our Cal Ripken field for years, and he has been a season ticket holder to anything and everything in the stadium so when Monday he came over to me and said I’ve got to get my ticket for Thursday’s game I said Mark things are still in the works here; oh no I have to get my ticket, I have to get my ticket. He kept on me and on me so I brought him over to the office and there were a couple of intern guys in there and I said Mark needs his ticket. These guys didn’t know what to do. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 27 They couldn’t figure out the computer program, they couldn’t get the printer to work. The guy spent an hour and after an hour he spit out the ticket. He got the ticket machine to work and he got Mark his ticket. Then he asked Mark for his $6 and Mark said he didn’t have any money on him. So I gave Mark the $6 to buy his ticket. But that was the kind of thing that these guys that are in there now they did. They appreciate Mark because he is there 2 hours before every game. That is the type of service that they provided and to make sure that Mark got his ticket and Mark was happy. It is good the type of baseball that those kids played in there and the interest that the community had. You could see, through my time spent at our baseball field, you could see the increase in the folks. I can always tell when there is a good crowd because when you start getting cars parked down Sargents Avenue you know there is are over 1,000 people in there. I think next year will be even better. I think they will learn from some of their mistakes. I think they will get out of the gate a little bit earlier. The other thing is that stadium had a tremendous amount of use this year, tremendous. There was some of the weather that we had and I think the folks that work in there did a great job maintaining the place. It is pretty beat down right now, but if you look at what went on; we had that State legion tournament there on the three hottest days of the year and their turf grass was just yearning for water and they had game after game after game. They had four games. It was good to see that the facility was used, and I am starting to see a lot of folks back there that pretty much boycotted everything that went on there. They have all come back. It is a good thing. Thank you. Alderman Vitale Tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. at Starbucks I will have a constituent coffee for the residents of Ward 1 for anybody that would like to stop by and have any discussion at all. Thank you. Alderman Clemons Thank you. I too want to congratulate the Silver Knights and the organization. I thought this year was a great season. I went to several games. That is some really good baseball. There is some really good talent. The atmosphere was back to what it was when the Pride was there. There was a lot of excitement. That is what I like. It is kind of sad that it is all over with because it was great to go to those games on an evening and just have fun. I’m looking forward to it already for next year. I just want to say it is a top notch organization and they certainly deserve the win. I’m proud to say that Nashua has baseball again. President McCarthy I was actually very glad to see baseball back at Holman. I didn’t get to go to a lot of games, and it appeared to cause rain every time I tried. I’m hoping that doesn’t continue to next year. I look forward to the next season as well. I would like to wish happy upcoming birthdays to City Clerk Paul Bergeron on August 17th, Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch on August 27th, to Alderman Cookson the following day on August 28th, and to Alderman Melizzi-Golja on September 8th. Committee announcements: Alderman Wilshire The Human Affairs Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, August 15th will be cancelled since there is no new business before us. Alderman Cox The Committee on Infrastructure will meet tomorrow evening at 7:00 p.m. right here in these chambers. Bd. of Aldermen – 08/09/11 Page 28 Alderman Tabacsko The Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting for next Tuesday, after consulting with Alderman LaRose and seeing nothing on the agenda, we are going to cancel that one. Alderman Clemons The Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee meeting is cancelled for Thursday. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE THAT THE AUGUST 9, 2011 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Attest: Patricia Piecuch, Deputy City Clerk