Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, October 11, 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 Cookson led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 14 members of the Board of Aldermen present. Her Honor Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and Corporation Counsel James M. McNamee were also in attendance. President McCarthy Does the Mayor wish to address the board? REMARKS BY THE MAYOR Thank you, Mr. President, yes I do. This evening on your desks I put a copy of the front page of this past Thursday’s Union Leader. I did so because I hope, like me, all of you will be concerned about the way that headline portrays our city. I want to make sure that everybody understands, I guess I’ll repeat the headline although I’m loathe to do that. The headline talks about Nashua’s parking garages unsafe and unused. Our parking garages, just so that you are all clear, are very safe. As a matter of fact, I looked into what kind of incidences that we’ve had in there and I have spoken with the Chief of Police about things over the years with the parking garage and as of late, I said to him, now would you call our parking garages safe? And he said I would encourage my daughter to park there. Well, that’s good enough for me. I’d encourage mine to park there as well and other people that use our downtown. In addition, they’re very well used. We have over 90% occupancy rate at Elm Street and over 70% occupancy rate at High Street. As a matter of fact, this past year, our income from those two parking garages was over $200,000. So, I would say that they are pretty well used. As many of you know, back in 2005 a report was done that talked about the parking garages and the money that the city needed to invest in them in order to make them more structurally sound, fix different problems. I took that report to heart and in 2009 we moved the responsibility for the parking garages over to the Transportation Department. I know all of you recall that, many of you were here. Since we’ve done that, they have an assigned person to each garage; those assigned individuals are responsible for the cleanliness, keeping an eye on the safety, all of those sorts of things that we want happening in our parking garage. With regard to the report from 2005, this group bonded money for our city buildings. That included work on our parking garages. We’ve spent over $740,000 on our parking garages, again actually a good investment. The 2005 report anticipated that we’d be spending close to $1.3 million but because of the times we are in we actually got a really great price, and we’ve had some real work done there. It’s making a difference. Those lights are on round the clock, PSNH changed them so all night long the lights are on. They are at full power. I think some of you might remember during some budget talks when we saw a rise in the cost of electricity in the parking garages, it turned out that when the lights were changed and I believe it was 2008, they were working off of a bill to determine what our increase might be and what our wattage might be when they changed them to more efficient lights, and we were surprised to see that price go up, and it went up because prior only 50% of the lights had been on. So, we’ve done some really great things in our parking garages. I have something out right now getting quotes to look at having a system in the garage that will allow for a pay per space so that we can take out the parking meters. Many of you know that first floor is all meters and the three floors above it are all leased spaces. Everything is clearly marked so I’m just a little concerned about what that headline meant, what some of the concerns that have been raised are, and I just wanted to assure you that our garages are safe, well used, and we would encourage people to continue to use them. The next thing I would speak to this evening is my veto message of R-11-111. I went back and forth on that reading the legislation, trying to determine if I should let it go without my signature or if I should veto it. I think my message is pretty clear that really what I’m most concerned about is the impression or the Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 2 perception towards our H.R. Department and the work that they do and their ability to do those background checks. I would also take a moment to remind everybody that if you really think about it, those background checks are already being done by an independent contractor, so to speak, not a contractor but an independent source is a better way to say that. When the criminal background check goes out, H.R. has no influence on that. Neither does this Board or anybody else. The State Police respond to that and they give you the information, it is what it is. It’s the same with any of the other checks that we do; credit checks, school checks, all that stuff is reported on and responded to by somebody independent from this Board, this Mayor, the H.R. Department or anybody else. And it concerns me, as I said, I think the last line in my veto message says it best, “Our community will not be well served by history noting and documenting concerns that cast a shadow on the honorable actions of those elected or hired to serve our city.” I would move next, Mr. President, to discussion about the legislation tonight under new business for Pennichuck relating to Parcel F. Parcel F being the parcel off of Concord Street that while, yes, it has had a significant amount of public attention as of late, many of you know that we have been looking at this and trying to resolve this component for more than a year. None of us were happy finding out that Parcel F had a contract on it for sale. As I remember saying to this group, we had two parcels of land and severance pay that none of us were going to be happy about when we purchased Pennichuck. I am pleased that Pennichuck and the private developer are willing to extend the deadline for their closing. Their contract allows them to close next Friday, October 21st. We have agreed to a date of February 20th, on or before. I am hopeful that we will be able to find a resolution to this, but I do not want to leave anybody with the impression that I can promise that we’ll do that. We could be here in February under the same circumstances. We could be here in December under the same circumstances, but I think it is really our good fortune that we have four months to explore some potential solutions to this that might be different than what we’ve seen to date, and I would thank them for that. You’re going to be asked tonight to take action on that tonight so that we can make sure that that is in place before their closing. Now, I’d like to go to two happy notes. Well, I guess the Pennichuck Parcel F was rather a happy note too. Tonight, behind City Hall I asked our folks from Freightliner and AVSG to bring our new CNG packer for all of you to take a look at. They were out on the streets today; four of them out on the streets today, the fifth one should be delivered later this week. They were fueled up at our CNG station. We have one of the pumps working, the rest will be in before the ribbon cutting next week, and I think the trucks, not only are they cost effective, but they’re a little bit of a different style than we’ve had before. There is a new color and there is also a new logo on the side that says “The Works”, which I think is really a nice way to brand and take notice of those employees out there doing the work of the city on infrastructure and some of those items that are closest to the people that we serve here in this Chamber. So, I hope you all had a chance to take a look at it, and I look forward to that ribbon cutting at the gas station next Thursday, October 20th at 3:00 o’clock. The last good news that I would call to your attention that I don’t think has been out in the press yet and hopefully I’m not jumping the gun on the Silver Knights, I don’t think so, but they were happy to report that they have gotten some good news from the Future’s Collegiate Baseball League. They were named, our Silver Knights, were named “The Organization of the Year” by the League. Based on that, they are also awarded the “Inaugural All Star Games” for next season. They’ve also moved up to six teams now in their league and they have two more potentials for this season. That’s a really big deal to us. That will also move them from twenty-two games to twenty-seven games so I’m sure we’ll be talking about that again. But what a great baseball season we had and what wonderful results we’re having in that league to see the achievements we’ve had here. For all of you who have supported that I think we did good this time. As always, Mr. President, I thank the Board for your kind attention this evening. Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 3 RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR Alderman Deane Mayor any baseball news is good baseball news as long as it doesn’t include the Red Sox. The article on the parking garages, the title of the article says Nashua Parking Garages Called Ugly and Unused. They do have some issues, but you stated the $200,000 in revenue, now out of that revenue let’s look at what the expenses are to operate between the manpower, vehicles, plowing, fuel, the electricity and all of that, has to be worked out somewhere. I am still of the belief that back a number of years ago when we had a firm in there, Kinney Corporation, that ran those parking garages, I think our revenue stream was increased because they were over-selling the reserve spots because they knew the habits of those who reserved the spots, and they were able to do that. There was always somebody there on site. I just think that whole process worked somewhat better. I remember their budgets coming in with little or no increases, and it did employ people locally. It would be interesting to take another look at that compared to the City operating them out of the transportation department. Thank you. Alderman Pressly Thank you Mr. President. Mayor Lozeau you should know better than anybody in this room the power of the press and how you never have any idea when you speak to somebody what they intend to do with it. It is interesting for me that the reporter was just as surprised as I was that this was the lead story in the Union Leader, but it is, and that is their right to report whatever they see. I thought it may have been a slow news day, but I see that was the day that Steve Jobs died so there was much more important news than this. I have heard for years the problems. I was surprised, when this story came out, the number of phone calls I got. I don’t get that many. I had a phone call from someone that had had his car destroyed a few years ago and nothing was ever done about it. Some of the leading people in the State have called me and said that they agree with me that this should be done. We’ve talked about this for the two years I’ve been here and even before that we needed to get a better system in the garage. We’ve talked about it at committee levels, we’ve talked about getting reports, and I think the reports that I’ve heard from many people they are unused. I think women in particular don’t feel safe parking alone in the garage. I think we should avoid a sense pf paranoia because a reporter reports something that could be interpreted as a critique of the City. I think the garages can certainly be improved upon and I would hope we will try to do that. They could be creatively attractive so that we make it a destination. In the parking plan that came forth from the Services Advisory Committee this year they spoke quite a bit about the importance of getting cars into the parking garage, and that was the whole goal. The more cars you get in the parking garage the less traffic there will be on the Main Street in particular. By sponsoring something to try to improve one of our resources…the other thought I have had is if you look at all of the projects; we had a wonderful program the other night about all of the exciting things they are looking at to do on Main Street, making big big changes, well the parking garages are not going to change. We’re not going to move them, we’re not going to add extra floors to them, so they are one thing that we can work on now and do some exciting work on and improve them, make them the best spot in town so that people want to, before the Broad Street Parkway goes in, they are familiar with our garages, they are comfortable, they go there first time to park. I apologize if the Mayor has been offended by this. As you know I’m not the one who makes this decision, and I do support the freedom of the press. Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 4 RECOGNITION PERIOD – None READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 13, SEPTEMBER 21, AND SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE, AND THE READINGS SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN VITALE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Veto of Resolution 11-111 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF TWO COMMUNICATIONS DELIVERED WITH THE PACKETS BUT NOT INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA MOTION CARRIED From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Millyard Chimney – Status Update MOTION BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly I would just like to say that I think many of you realize how important so many of us have felt that the millyard chimney is to the whole Broad Street Parkway, and I appreciate the Mayor’s information and I hope that she will stay the course to find some way to save what we have, and if it cannot be saved to get some sort of a reproduction. We’ve talked about this extensively. It has been an item I think brought up every time we’ve had the Broad Street Parkway. I think it is understood to be the most visible symbol of our millyard and the thing you can see from a distance. I hope, and I’m sure the Mayor intends to go to great lengths to see that it is saved. Thank you. President McCarthy Is there any further discussion of the motion? MOTION CARRIED From: James McNamee, Corporation Counsel Re: Removal of Debris from Pennichuck Property MOTION BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 5 PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Robert Sullivan, 12 Stonybrook Road I would like to speak to two resolutions, one being R-11-111 and one being the Pennichuck. Pertaining to R-11-111, I happen to be in this business; I’m a consultant to companies pertaining to talent acquisition management and screening. What is important in this business are two things; 1) what screening checks are you performing against the particular job function and 2) what is the vetting or the adjudication associated with the result of a talent acquisition management and screening. I did read Mayor Lozeau’s letter, and it appears that there are state and federal criminal checks being performed, there is an education verification being performed, there is an employment verification being performed, and there is a credit report being performed. I would recommend some other checks, particularly for these positions; one is a sex offender registry check for obvious reasons, the next one is a national criminal database check, which tends to take a look at all crime related within the United States. When you do a state or county criminal check on a particular individual those criminal checks are usually put against an address history. Since Mr. Cookson is the person that is the one who put this together, I’m going to use him as an example. Let’s assume that Mr. Cookson resides in New England all of his life and they do a criminal background check and he has resided in the State of New Hampshire, they will do a state criminal check there, and he has also resided in Connecticut, they would do some county criminal checks there. What if Mr. Cookson went to Florida and committed a felony; that would not show up on the criminal check so national criminal database check is very important for this type of position. The other one is a drug test. You should do a 9 panel drug test, preferably a hair test that will go back believe it or not 5 weeks for drug usage. I think those are the two important things. There is nothing wrong with the Human Resource Department in performing these checks, but what is important is those concerned that understand the vetting or the adjudication process. What do I mean by that? And this may be in place, but you need to put it in place for these particular positions. What happens if a person has a misdemeanor? Do you hire that person? Should be automatic. What if a person lied on their employment history? Do you want to hire someone that lies? That should be a pass/fail on that. I will give you one more; education, an individual says oh I received a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering and you find out it is only a Bachelors Degree, do you want to hire that individual? Let’s say someone said hey I graduated from Nashua High and then you look into it and there is no graduation, do you want to hire that person? The vetting is what is important here. I think that sometimes you read these things and they can be amusing. I don’t know what President said this. I think it was either President Clinton or President Reagan, trust but verify. I think it is very important and if that there is nothing wrong with anyone questioning the talent acquisition management and screening policies of this City, and that at least the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee, I think that is the name of the committee, should involve themselves in ensuring that these things are done. Now I would like to talk about R-11-162, which is authorizing the Mayor to give prior written consent as required by the Pennichuck Merger Agreement to allow Pennichuck Corporation and the Southwood Corporation to extend the closing date of the Parcel F Agreement. Hey anything to prevent Parcel F from being built on is a good thing. I want to talk to the people watching this program tonight. Let’s not lose sight of what is happening here. Citizen involvement highlighted this issue and put pressure on city government to take a look at Parcel F. I’ve seen a lot of e-mails going through that are a public record where many people weren’t aware of the Parcel F. So Mayor you say you may have been working on it for about a year, but I don’t really think in the detail that that has been required to prevent the Parcel F buffer from being developed on. I just don’t buy it. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 6 We had city legal try to put pressure against the Conservation Commission not to send a letter to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; you are playing with dynamite. Let’s be frank about this, Mr. Geoff Daly spearheaded a group of citizens, I being one, to really raise this issue so that there would be no development on Parcel F, in spite of Mr. Daly being censored. That just increased our resolve. The Conservation Commission stayed firm in their stance on this. I would like to know what is Mr. Patenaude’s opinion on all of this. Where has he been? Regarding the article in the Telegraph about we need to keep these meetings secret, I don’t think so. This is a situation that is very important to not only the citizens of Nashua but to the future ratepayers and consumers of the water system. They not only reside in Nashua, they reside in Merrimack and other communities. There should be no more secrecy. There have been a lot of secret meetings that go on here. Let’s take one for example; how about three years ago when the Right-to-Know Law was violated and the then sitting Board of Aldermen, many of which are here today, held a secret meeting with the school system and the union and passed a contract that was unaffordable to the city. Non-meetings and secret meetings in certain situations are unacceptable. And this situation has come to the forefront of the citizens of Nashua that at least needs to be documented, minutes in detail. I just don’t buy we need more secret meetings. Now look, you have downtown committees made up of residents of this city. They sat here and worked with the Board of Aldermen to get some concessions and some resolutions through. Why is it that Mr. Geoff Daly is not part of the negotiations or this committee, whatever you folks do, to overview the negotiations that are going on? Why is it that you don’t have a couple of citizens for this? Isn’t this more important than the downtown situation? I certainly think it is. Who is part of these negotiations? Are any of you folks part of it? Why aren’t you? What are you doing? This is too important. We can’t continue this way regardless of censorship attempts. So we need some citizen representatives on this committee on the go forward position of this Pennichuck situation, and we’re just not going to take no for an answer. Thank you very much. Jay E. Simkin, 20 Cabot Drive Good evening Mr. President, members of the Board. I apologize for informal dress. I was asked to come on very very short notice and more or less left and came here so I beg your forgiveness. A quick history lesson; about 1995 if memory serves, there was a proposal made before this board to set up a watershed protection district. If my memory serves, and again I didn’t have a chance to get into my files, the purpose of that was to protect the supply ponds. At that time, Southwood Corporation was in the process of selling raw land near the ponds for development. I opposed the proposal not because I don’t like pure drinking water, I’ve actually been in about 50 countries wherein the water has things in it that the almighty knows little about, and I probably have some of those things still floating around. I oppose the proposal because it represented a transfer under color of law from the residents, homeowners, in the watershed protection district to the shareholders of Pennichuck. I’m an economist by trade and a couple of other things, and therefore following the money is something that I tend to do. The purpose of the protection district essentially was that the homeowners on the far side of Henri Burque from the supply ponds would have controls put upon the kinds of things that they might do on their property. If I recall correctly, even putting up a storage shed would require the filing of an environmental impact statement. Those are typically not cheap. My point to the board then was, and it would be now, that the next ice age will set in before the litigation ends. What Pennichuck proposes to do now apparently is sell off more raw land near the supply ponds endangering a water supply for the protection of which a watershed protection district was established. This does not make sense as a matter of logic although I’m certain it makes perfect financial sense to Pennichuck. It is simply a continuation now of something that they have been doing for decades. I would suggest that this board look very very closely at this. Water is a scarce resource globally. It is not, thank Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 7 heavens, literally here in New Hampshire, but we do need to protect those supply ponds, and putting especially intensive developments, apartments and such like parking lots near those ponds is a bad concept. I use the term bad concept to convey there is no point discussing the technical details of a bad concept. If the concept is bad the technical details are not likely, for the most part, to be good. In short, I would, with greatest respect and again apologies for informal dress, urge the board to look very very carefully at any developments of raw land near those supply ponds. If we could, it would be a wonderful idea to buy the homes of those persons living near the supply ponds and let the land revert to the raw state. We probably can’t afford to do that. We certainly should not encourage further development there. Thank you and I will take any questions you might have. Seeing none thank you very much. Geoff Daly, 48 Walden Pond Drive Good evening. Mayor I congratulate you on this piece of legislation, better late than never. But I will also like to point out this city has known since August the 30th what has been going on on this piece of land. Communications have been had and I’ve met with you Mayor and with Mr. Steve Bennett. You referred me to Mr. Patenaude and Mr. McNamee both of whom refused to date to meet with me. In fact Mr. McNamee had the audacity to write me a letter, can’t be bothered to reply to an e-mail, it is above him. What you are proposing Mayor is a good idea. I encourage, as I stated several Aldermanic meetings ago, there be a land swap. We’re going to own Pennichuck and all of its entities, namely Southwood. Southwood has a piece of land called Parcel N. It is not a secret. We have an e-mail and you’ve got a copy of the e-mail and so do you Mr. McNamee, from Mr. Roland Olivier stating Parcel N is owned by Southwood. Now funny enough we also have received a map from Mr. Don Ware and there is a piece of property on the other side of Concord Street that is unmarked, not even recognized. Who owns it? Is that developable? Is that 35 acres? Parcel N makes common sense. Now I have reached out to the people of Merrimack. They have had no communications from anybody. They say it is a good consideration. And I would like to hear from this Chamber why no one in this city has reached out to the Town of Merrimack because as Mr. Sullivan said, something is wrong, and as I stated the other day something smells, and it does. There needs to be openness, there needs to be transparency. I would like to raise one aspect about the due diligence that has not been forthcoming and was not even considered or even part of the Rizzo report. There is a PUC order, DF83-105 order #16,733 dated April 29, 1983 that states that all of the buffer lands have to be adhered to. Right now we’ve got numerous parcels that do not even meet current NH DES buffer requirement of 300’. We’ve got parcels that have been developed off Tinker Road that are well within that buffer. Did anybody, in their due diligence, check this? Where is this GeoInsight report that we all know about and have been told by a Pennichuck official that has been done and was actually asked to be done by Mr. McNamee and Mr. Patenaude, and I believe President McCarthy you may have been involved in one of the due diligence walk throughs of the Pennichuck property… President McCarthy No I was not. Geoff Daly …and this is the piece of…okay…this is the piece of land called Old Nashua Road where there is a huge dump of granulated activated carbon and filter sand. It happens to be on Parcel N so that is how I got to find out this is Southwood property. We have to start asking questions and very hard questions because if I hadn’t gone onto the property with a bunch of other people, you would be buying a whole load of trouble down the road because we found asbestos, we found contaminated barrels of water both in Merrimack and in Nashua property side. And we have done due diligence? Even the people at GeoInsight, and I know one particular person who has left the company and works now for another engineering company, said we Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 8 were restricted on what we could do. Why? Did somebody want to hide something? Was this Southwood and Pennichuck trying to disguise what was really on their property? I would love permission to walk over every single 1,992 acres of land and dig up and find out what is really there, photograph it. We’ve got the BlueMoon report, we’ve got the Ann Poole report, and we’ve done nothing. And we’ve got a PUC order here dated 1983. Rizzo report never ever mentioned this order. So we’re even in our own violation, in our own city ordinances where we state quite categorically all the ponds, all the land, and all of the wetlands are within 75’. The Hayden Green thing passes at 40’. And if you go back to the PUC it should be 500’. If it is 500’ half of the Hayden Green property goes; can never be touched, never be developed. Mayor I encourage you contact Merrimack, talk with the Town Administrator, and talk about a straight exchange for Parcel N because if the City does that you get a tax credit of nearly $2.2 million through the IRS because the Pennichuck that we will have is a for-profit company and the IRS will allow you the tax write-off under the code. I’m sure if you sit down and negotiate with Merrimack we can all come to a happy ending. And, I hate to say this, Mr. McNamee should never have put out those memos because all that did was insight Mr. Westgate, and yeah he is there to guard his client, threatening lawsuits. It should never ever have reached that point. None of this happened until we went in front of the Conservation Commission on September the 6th and the City has known since August the 30th. Lastly, I hope Mr. McNamee you have removed that voicemail from your phone that you ran to me the other night. Have you sir? If you haven’t, I ask this Chamber to request that Mr. McNamee remove that voicemail from his phone. Thank you. PETITIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN COX TO WITHDRAW FROM COMMITTEE THE PETITIONS FOR STREET ACCEPTANCE FOR ANTHONY CIRCLE, COLONIAL AVENUE, EVELYN CIRCLE, LOJKO DRIVE, AND WANDA LANE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Cookson Could the Chairman speak to the motion please? Alderman Cox The Infrastructure meeting that was held on 8-10-11 held a Public Hearing on these street acceptances. We conducted the hearing; nobody showed up for or against. Engineer Dookran was at the meeting to speak to the streets and the status. He also spoke to the fact that our July meeting, which the public hearing was originally scheduled for was cancelled due to the passing of our colleague, Alderman Flynn, and re-scheduled. Everyone on every street was notified twice. They were notified properly for the first hearing and notified for the re-schedule and the next hearing. We then conducted a three hour meeting of which there was an oversight and we never took from the table the street acceptances and voted on them. That is why we are doing this now. President McCarthy Is there further discussion? MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN COX TO APPROVE THE PETITIONS FOR STREET ACCEPTANCE FOR ANTHONY CIRCLE, COLONIAL AVENUE, EVELYN CIRCLE, LOJKO DRIVE, AND WANDA LANE Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 9 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly Thank you Mr. President. As a member of this committee I’m a little bit confused. Of course I remember all of that. It was just a logistical error that it didn’t get voted on that night? Alderman Cox Correct. Alderman Pressly I know you just cancelled a meeting for lack of business. So you would rather do it this way than to go through the regular channels? Alderman Cox We held the public hearing in the regular channels Alderman Pressly and… Alderman Pressly Right. Alderman Cox …we had no against discussion. Alderman Pressly But we didn’t vote. Alderman Cox That is correct, but you will be now. Alderman Pressly Okay. President McCarthy Is there further discussion? MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared the petitions for street acceptance approved. NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS - None REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Budget Review Committee ................................................................. 09/26/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the September 26, 2011 Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 10 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Human Affairs Committee ................................................................. 09/26/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the September 26, 2011 Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Planning & Economic Development Committee ................................. 10/04/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the October 4, 2011 Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS - None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS – None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-11-150 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE NASHUA SCHOOL CUSTODIAN UNION, LOCAL 365/COUNCIL 93, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2013 Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN COX FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-150 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-150 declared duly adopted. R-11-151 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons AMENDING THE USE OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (“CDBG”) FUNDING BY POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-151 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-151 declared duly adopted. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 11 R-11-152 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 Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $68,976 FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTO SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT #331-6270 “2011 JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL)” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-152 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-152 declared duly adopted. R-11-153 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS APPROPRIATION TO THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BASED ON CHANGES TO HEALTHCARE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY SCHOOL DEPARTMENT NON-UNION EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2011 Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-153 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse I have some questions. I think I have to ask the Mayor on this, if it is alright with you. Mayor Lozeau was this ever brought up to the negotiating team of the union? Mayor Lozeau Which part? Alderman Chasse The part about they would receive some money if they accepted the healthcare benefits. Was that ever leaked out to their negotiating team? Mayor Lozeau The information about funds being returned to various departments or divisions has been very public and has been discussed. That money is not being returned to the bargaining unit. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 12 Alderman Chasse Can I ask what this money is earmarked for? Mayor Lozeau I believe the school was specific about what they would use it for. I’m not sure that I have it with me tonight, but they have a plan for all of the funds that were coming back. Some will be to replace positions, some will be for equipment. There are different things depending on the funds available. Alderman Chasse Is every department that is in the City of Nashua receiving a portion of this what is it $1.67 million? Mayor Lozeau $1.6 million depending on if their contract is negotiated before the end of this year. Alderman Chasse Then that brings me back to the contracts that have already been negotiated prior to this, they will not receive anything? Mayor Lozeau No, all of them have. Not the bargaining unit but the divisions and the respective departments have received funds. The teachers, the merit employees…we’ve passed this in here as part of their contracts right from the start. Alderman Chasse I will defer, I have to do some more thinking. Alderman Deane Thank you. It goes back to R-11-115 where I had requested a breakdown of how that $1.6 million was figured into all of these, which I was told I got an explanation, but I still didn’t get the spreadsheets and what I was looking for. We were told the night of the Budget Committee meeting if I remember correctly, and maybe my colleagues can help me on this, that I think Mr. Conrad said they were going to purchase a new sidewalk snowplow tractor with the money, with the $70,000. I believe that is what he has it earmarked for. He also told us that these dollars in all of these contracts will be added to their…well in their budget anyway will be added to their bottom line for next year. All of these dollars that are being transferred over like this $70,000 will be added to their bottom line for next year. The transfer of the funds into these departments’ operating budgets makes R-11-115 a moot point. You don’t need it because it has been put in here. As we did with the prior piece of legislation, when we approved that, we also approved the transfer. I hope that helped. I want to amend this. I want to amend it in the title and body and change the date from 1 October 2011 to 1 July 2011, and I would like to speak to that. MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO AMEND R-11-153 IN THE TITLE AND BODY BY CHANGING THE DATE OF OCTOBER 1, 2011 TO JULY 1, 2011 Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 13 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane Thank you. I guess a lot of this is a tough pill for people to swallow. We just approved a custodians’ contract that gave them a $225 raise and sent that retro back to July 1 along with their increase in contributions to the health plan. That is not happening here; these are the folks that make pretty decent salaries and this is a .65% increase. Our merit employees I believe, and you can correct me if I’m wrong Mayor, I think theirs was ½ a percent. Everybody started off, except these folks, and Mr. Conrad’s reasoning was well they didn’t get a raise last year. I guess how I’m looking at it is everybody is feeling the pain. I think if the custodian and other maintenance staff that work for the school district that were involved in that prior collective bargaining agreement are swallowing some pain I think that the balance of the employees that are involved in this unaffiliated should also swallow a little pain and go back and pay their rightful share of what is owed. If that does pass, that may in turn change that budget adjustment number by increasing it, would it not Mayor? If the Mayor could answer that, through you Mr. President? Mayor Lozeau Actually if we followed the system that we’ve told people that we would do yes it would increase it, but just because you change the date does not mean that they have to retroactively pay that money back, so they would in fact be gaining while everybody else would be losing. That would be my concern. Alderman Deane But would their net gain in that .65% equate to their net contribution retroactively back, would they be one in the same? If you look at the increase in the custodians’ contract their checks are going to be less. Their take home pay will be less because their contribution has increased. Mayor Lozeau By virtue of you changing this legislation Alderman Deane you cannot force the school to make these employees retroactively pay back to July so I’m not certain what you are trying to gain by giving them money that equates to when their date is of that settlement. The amount of money returned to different divisions and departments is based on when the contract is negotiated or the terms are agreed to and for those that go retroactive back to July, more money will come to that division. Just by virtue of changing this, that doesn’t change the dollar amount and it doesn’t force them to make that change. Alderman Deane So we can’t legislate change? Is that what you are saying? Mayor Lozeau I don’t believe that you can legislate a change to the school merit employees. I don’t think that is the authority of this board. Alderman Deane That is a very good point. I withdraw my motion, and there is no way, no how I would support this. It is a travesty to the rest of everyone else that has to pay an increase in contributions in the school district refuses, as I understood it from Mr. Conrad that they are afraid they are going to unionize or something Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 14 else. What I am going to find interesting down the road is when we bring in these other larger unions like police and fire are they going to be retroactive back to July 1 with their contributions? Mayor Lozeau My request is that they are all retroactive to July 1st. Alderman Deane Good luck. Mayor Lozeau That’s… Alderman Deane Thank you Mr. President. I withdraw my motion, and I would ask for a roll call on this as well. MOTION WITHDRAWN President McCarthy The motion before us is for final passage of R-11-153. Is there any further discussion? A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Vitale, Alderman Pressly, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Tabacsko, Alderman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Cox, Alderman Sheehan, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman McCarthy 10 Nay: Alderman Craffey, Alderman Deane, Alderman Chasse, Alderman Cookson 4 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-153 declared duly adopted. MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO RECONSIDER R-11-111 MOTION CARRIED Division Taken R-11-111 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR DIRECTORS AND INTERIM OFFICERS SELECTED TO MANAGE PENNICHUCK CORPORATION Given its third reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO OF R-11-111 Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 15 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Cookson Thank you. As we received the memo in our packet this past week, the Mayor has exercised her right on October 4, 2011 to veto this particular resolution 11-111, requiring a background check of the interim officers and board of directors of Pennichuck Corporation. Since the Mayor was elected into office, this is her first veto. I have to ask why. Alderman Clemons No it is not. Alderman Cookson May I continue? President McCarthy You may continue. Alderman Cookson Thank you. Within her memo she states that she actually has no objection and is actually in favor of a background check, a credit check for the directors and the officers of Pennichuck Corporation before they take office. What she actually objects to are the checks are being done by an independent contractor, stating that it implies an issue with the Human Resources Department and their ability and integrity to conduct background checks, and it actually calls into question the background checks performed on city employees. There are no implications. I have never and do not question our Human Resource Department’s ability or their integrity, and I certainly do not question their ability to conduct background checks performed on city employees. However, these aren’t city employees. What this legislation is proposing is not checks for city employees that it is customary for H.R. to perform, these checks are for an interim CEO and at least 7-13 persons slated to be the new company’s first board of directors. If the City is successful in its attempt to purchase the outstanding shares of a publicly traded Pennichuck Corporation then this interim CEO will be leading a multi-million dollar company with this new board of directors. I believe the background checks should be done by a provider independent of the walls of City Hall. Everything that we have done to this date with respect to Pennichuck is to keep politics out of it. We’ve done that when we authored the Bylaws and the Articles of Incorporation, we did it specifically in mind of keeping politics separate; no elected officials, with the exception of the Mayor for a finite period of time. In keeping with this standard, we should maintain the same separation with this background investigation process. We should not allow any opportunity for the citizens to question or doubt the hard work which has been done. This is a historic effort and in turn this Board of Aldermen should do everything that we can do to ensure our constituents are positively served by our actions. Thank you. Alderman Clemons Thank you. I originally supported this resolution, and I read the Mayor’s veto and have come to a different conclusion. I agree with what was stated in the veto memorandum, and therefore will be voting to sustain the veto. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 16 Alderman Wilshire I agree with the previous speaker. Our H.R. Department is doing criminal background checks. It is not like they are being done here in City Hall, they go out. It is not like someone here is conducting the check. I will also sustain the Mayor’s veto on this. I agree that background checks should be done there is no question about it. I think that the way things are being handled here in City Hall are pretty on the up and up. President McCarthy The motion is to override the veto. I would point out, just as a procedural note, that taking a vote to override the veto is one of several actions we can take, and if any member of the board wanted to entertain for example Mr. Sullivan’s comments regarding the breadth of the investigations, it is also possible to further act on this legislation or re-refer it to committee to take up those points as well. Alderman Craffey Thank you Mr. President. I just wanted to say that I do agree with Alderman Cookson with a background check outside given the magnitude of what we are trying to do by purchasing a publicly owned company is necessary and I will be supporting to override the veto. Thank you. Alderman Vitale I was interested to hear what Mr. Sullivan did bring up as part of his comments, and I would motion to re- refer to committee to discuss the breadth of our background checks. If I understood the Mayor correctly, I believe the City currently does have outside people do our background checks, it is just the scope of our background checks and what they are going to entail that maybe we would want to discuss that further. I do think that is important to make sure that we are doing a very thorough background check. I would motion to re-refer to committee to discuss those issues. MOTION BY ALDERMAN VITALE TO RE-REFER R-11-111 TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I’m going to support that motion. The main reason why I’m going to support it, and I think it is a very good motion, is I don’t think there is anybody sitting around this horseshoe that knows the entire process that goes on. Mr. Sullivan did raise some interesting points. I think it is very worthy of some additional conversation and some debate amongst all of us. Although we understand, through the veto message, the Mayor did point her position, but I really think we should know absolutely what is going to take place, and that can happen in committee. We can craft some language in there that sets that up. Whether it is done inside or outside, I know there were concerns raised about that, but I always look at the brighter side of life when you always hope that the right thing is being done and when they go through this process I am pretty much assured that the right thing will be done. But I think we should all better understand the entire process. I will be supporting Alderman Vitale’s motion. Alderman Cookson Thank you. Thank you for the suggestion. Question through you to Corporation Counsel? President McCarthy Certainly. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 17 Alderman Cookson If the legislation at the committee level, if it is re-referred to the committee level, has substantial changes, modifications to it, there still is the opportunity for the Mayor to veto the new legislation, the updated legislation that may come out of committee? President McCarthy I can answer that. Yes. If it is amended and passed again it is treated as a separate passage subject to the same negative from the Mayor. Alderman Cookson Thank you. So through you to the Mayor? President McCarthy Certainly. Alderman Cookson Thank you. If it were to go back to committee and there were new language that was added maybe similar to what Mr. Sullivan suggested this evening, would you consider that or would your opinion still be the same and would it be met with a veto? Mayor Lozeau Thank you Mr. President. I would consider anything that the committee passed and asked me to consider. Whether it is subject to veto depends on what the information is that the committee sends out. Alderman Cookson You may have an idea this evening of what is being considered; additions to the language. But your position right now is that you would consider it? Mayor Lozeau I would be interested in what the committee’s discussion was and what the final product was, and then I would make a decision based on the merits of that. Alderman Cookson Great. Thank you. Finally, I would like to ask the Mayor to be part of those conversations if it gets back before committee. I would love the Mayor to be part of those conversations so that we understand what is being requested by our H.R. Department or what our H,R, Department is requesting of these checks. That may help us better understand the process as well as come up with some language that we feel would be advantageous to the process. Thank you. President McCarthy The motion is to refer to the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee. Is there any further discussion? Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 18 A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Vitale, Alderman Craffey, Alderman Deane, Alderman Pressly, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Tabacsko, Alderman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Sheehan, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Cookson, Alderman McCarthy 11 Nay: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Cox, Alderman Chasse 3 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-111 declared referred to the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES - None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-11-159 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 17 JACKSON STREET, TAX MAP 39, LOT 27, FOR A PURCHASE PRICE NOT TO EXCEED $300,000 Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE and the NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD by President McCarthy R-11-160 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox ESTABLISHING AN EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENOVATIONS, REPAIRS, AND MAINTENANCE FOR VARIOUS CITY BUILDINGS Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-11-161 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Richard LaRose Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $51,806 INTO SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT #341-6489 “CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING AND HEALTHY HOMES ACTIVITIES GRANT” FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President McCarthy Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 19 R-11-162 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO GIVE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT, AS REQUIRED BY THE PENNICHUCK MERGER AGREEMENT, TO ALLOW PENNICHUCK CORPORATION AND THE SOUTHWOOD CORPORATION TO EXTEND THE CLOSING DATE OF THE PARCEL F SALE AGREEMENT Given its first reading; Alderman Deane I have a question on this legislation. I’m not a real estate person, but when you look under the fourth paragraph: “…Merger Agreement provides that the City must give written approval for Pennichuck Corporation to sell real estate for a price greater than $50,000 prior to the closing of the stock purchase or termination of the Merger Agreement, and …” the next paragraph: “…On March 22, 2007 Pennichuck Corporation, The Southwood Corporation and North Concord Street Properties, LLC, entered into a purchase & sale agreement to purchase property located on Concord Street in Nashua commonly known as “Parcel F”…” now obviously the Merger Agreement was approved after the Purchase & Sale was tendered? Is that what I’m understanding? President McCarthy I will defer that to Corporation Counsel. James M. McNamee, Esq. Yes that is correct. That is what happened. Alderman Deane So it doesn’t fall under the merger agreement then? James M. McNamee, Esq. The original purchase & sale does not, but the amendment does. Alderman Deane Okay. That is what I thought, but thank you very much for clarifying that. Thank you Mr. President. President McCarthy Is the original closing date prior to our next meeting? Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 20 Mayor Lozeau October 21st. James M. McNamee, Esq. Actually the 20th. President McCarthy So it would make sense for us to take final action on this piece of legislation this evening so that Pennichuck can enter into that and the closing doesn’t take place. It would make sense to have a motion for suspension for second reading. MOTION BY ALDERMAN TABACSKO THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-11-162 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-162 given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-162 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly Thank you. I have a question about the letter relative to Pennichuck. Would this be the appropriate time to ask the question? President McCarthy Sure. Alderman Pressly It is the letter that we all received in our packet from Corporation Counsel. We had asked, and it was something I had requested in committee, that we ask Pennichuck to not remove any of the items that the citizens group had identified and brought forth without having someone from the City present. In the response from Attorney McNamee what is of interest to me is in the first paragraph he references that there was an environmental audit, this GeoInsight that performed the City’s environmental audit, and I don’t recall ever seeing that. I guess my question is is that available and is that a public record today. James M. McNamee, Esq. It is not a public record right now because it contains material confidential information regarding Pennichuck, but it is available to the members of the Board of Aldermen who have agreed to the confidentiality agreement that still surrounds the merger negotiations. It was made available at the time that the merger agreement was presented. I think Alderman Cookson even reviewed it. Alderman Sheehan It was in our packets. We have it. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 21 James M. McNamee, Esq. Not the whole report, no. Alderman Pressly Not the whole thing. James M. McNamee, Esq. It is three volumes. Alderman Deane Which packet? Alderman Pressly My question is then in this letter you do reference that they have in fact removed a lot of the items that the citizens group brought forth, so my question is this; since you have seen and studied the whole environmental audit, were those things that the citizens group has brought forth, were those identified in the environmental audit? James M. McNamee, Esq. I can’t tell you if they were in there or not actually. But you are welcome to take a look at it. Alderman Pressly So we have no way of knowing if these things that have been identified and removed, we have no way of knowing if our environmental audit identified them also or not, we have no way of knowing… James M. McNamee, Esq. I just don’t recall categorically what was in the audit. I didn’t review it that closely and I certainly don’t recall what was in it. Alderman Pressly Well I certainly support out taking action tonight, but I would like to have access to that audit and I would like some questions answered. Thank you. President McCarthy The motion is for final passage of R-11-162. Is there any further discussion? MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-162 declared duly adopted. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 22 NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-11-87 Endorser: Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. ESTABLISHING A HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF 15 PROGRESS AVENUE ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE STREET Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President McCarthy Alderman Chasse Seeing that we have new boundaries, is this in my ward or is this in your ward? It is in your ward? Alderman Cox It is in mine, but I would like to have you as a co-sponsor though. It is right across the street from you. Alderman Chasse Put me down as a co-sponsor. PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT James Cutter, 86 Palm Street Open letter to Alderman-at-Large Brian McCarthy: Dear Alderman McCarthy; over the years I have found out that if you work long enough on a problem you will solve it. Something Mayor Lozeau and Attorney McNamee, who are not upholding the Constitution, should realize that the City does not have to admit their mistakes. They can uphold the Constitution by telling the Gilbertson’s the City has been informed the 3’ wide strip of our driveway and clothesline area known as curtilage is protected by the Constitution and must be returned to the Cutter family. Now with this thought in mind all of us are winners and the Legal Department can write their letter to the Gilbertson’s. Sincerely. Robert Sullivan, 12 Stonybrook Road Thank you. I wasn’t too sure I was going to speak. Pertaining to background screening checks I just want to repeat one more time, give you my advice; what is important in all of this is how it is determined that someone passes and fails a talent acquisition and management screening check. I would be more than happy to send I think Mr. Cookson or whoever what I would recommend pertaining to these positions. I just did a proposal to a very large company and this is not uncommon for directors or CEOs to be vetted, and it takes extensive screening. For instance, if one of the individuals happened to work overseas, you should do international criminal checks and other background screening checks that are unique to that particular country because you never know what you are going to find and of these positions. I will end it at that on that particular note. I want to make it pretty clear that when I come up and speak it is not personal. I’m an issues oriented individual. I’m not a Republican, I’m not a Democrat, I’m not a Tea Partier, I’m an Independent, and I address the issues. Nothing is personal when I speak. But I want to let you know that I’m very disappointed in the way this Parcel F situation has been handled, and I must impress upon you the importance of inviting Mr. Geoff Daly to be a participant in this. I know he can sometimes talk a lot, but you know something he’s usually right. Again, I want to just reiterate that the Mayor has put together a downtown committee. I thought it was very important. I thought the end result was pretty good. Now we Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 23 need a committee made up of citizens that care and that are concerned about what has been going on. Thank you. Geoff Daly, 48 Walden Pond Drive Coming back on the GeoInsight shall we say survey/inquiry that we’ve now been told is confidential, may I just point out to this Chamber that under federal law, any officer, any person involved in a corporation, anybody who has a fiduciary responsibility is duty bound under federal law to report it immediately, not sit on it, immediately. Mr. McNamee amd Mr. Patenaude were made aware of what was on Old Nashua Road. This, under the EPA rule, is a biohazard. Mr. McNamee as you know, DES have been onsite. They have asked and requested another survey and an analytical sample taken of that whole mess of granulated activated carbon filter sand that has been dumped there. Admittedly Pennichuck has changed their ways and the Calgon Company and another company are now removing that material as and when required by law. You sir I believe need to step up announce to the DES your findings because otherwise the DES will come down on you and the City because you have exposed the City to a problem, which is effecting the viability of this city because the City is going to have to fight because someone failed to follow the federal law. And it is very very well documented, and I have spoken further with Washington and with Concord about this. They are going to let it lay at this moment, but they are hoping someone steps up and announces yes we have known since 2010 when we did our due diligence. Take your lumps and admit it. Be transparent. Parcel F, the same thing; there is the possibility we have found 1 or 2 bits of debris, maybe inconsequential, but not what was found elsewhere. And as far as what is being removed from the site, we have photographic evidence that is in the hands of the DES right now. No permits have been issued by City of Nashua or Merrimack. That again shows a flagrant disregard to the federal and state laws under the EPA rules of disposal of hazardous waste. And one of them happens to be asbestos. The other one happens to be liquids that have, and Pennichuck stated quite in front of the two DES inspectors, George Carrigan and Rick Skarinka, yes we have already detected VOCs and PAHs. We subsequently found out that has been removed by ENPRO and another company. Town of Merrimack never issued any permits. So they took it upon themselves to do it. And as Alderman Pressly asked, why can’t we have someone present? We’re going to be taking over this property. We’re not having proper oversight. That is a disgrace because if none of us had gone onto that property and found out what we had done and Parcel F had been fully developed, a few years down the road if an accident takes place and we get the bog contaminated and the water runs off into the Pennichuck swales and then over into the wetlands, who pays for it, the ratepayer. I think it is about time we all stepped up, stopped hiding behind confidentiality. We’re going to own it. It’s not going to affect the share price in any way, shape, or form, and there is a lot of un-redacted material that is available to the public. I’m sorry, this Chamber has got to ask themselves are we going to let this go forward. If you do, sorry you are all responsible for the actions of one or two people who are supposed to be looking after the City’s best interest in the negotiations. Lastly, the other thing on the background checks, I agree with Mr. Sullivan, it needs to be independent and you need to add in the extras. There is another aspect, and I believe Mr. Simkin may address it if he is on the list, and I think you definitely want to put that as one of the added things. With that, thank you. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman Cookson Thank you. I just wanted to thank the members of the public who participated during this evening’s meeting and especially thank you to citizen Sullivan who is in the business of talent management acquisition for providing at least some recommendations for us to consider about vetting and adjudication processes. I look forward to those additional recommendations so we may take it to the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee. Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 24 Also, I wanted to let the board know as well as the citizens that there is a group in Nashua called the Greater Nashua Arts Initiative. It came out of Leadership Greater Nashua sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, and this group took it upon themselves to work with the Keefe Auditorium Commission and the groups that used the Keefe Auditorium. They are having a fundraiser on the evening of October 22nd. It is a Saturday evening. It is two Saturdays from now. At 8:00 p.m. they are bringing the Indigo Girls into Nashua for a concert. Starting at 8:00 p.m. Between 1,000 and 1,200 tickets. Very intimate setting. If you are interested in seeing a headlining group like the Indigo Girls come to Nashua, they will be here on the 22nd. I would like to thank the Greater Nashua Arts Initiative for making that happen for the City. Alderman Wilshire Thank you. I would just like to send my condolences today to the family of Pam Drouin. Pam was a really good family friend and died yesterday from Leukemia at the age of 41. Alderman Deane Thank you. I would just like to go back. Last week we indefinitely postponed the provisions for the President of the Board of Aldermen to assume a committee chair and it was stated at the meeting that the President was Chairman and ex officio of all standing committees outside of Finance and Joint Special School Building Committee. That provision was removed back in 2006 under O-06-65, just for clarification. That sub-section B was stricken. The other thing, in sub-section B back then it stated that the second named to a committee is also the Vice- Chairman. I just thought I would bring that to everyone’s attention. Thank you. Alderman Craffey Thank you. I just want to say that PAL is sponsoring the first annual Ash Street Skate Park Jam on October 29th at Noon. A $5 donation to compete in the skate and best trick competition. There will be prizes, barbecue, raffles, tons of fun. Registration forms are available at the PAL Center at 52 Ash Street and also at Eastern Boarder at 254 Daniel Webster Highway. Any questions please contact 603-888-0722. Thank you. Alderman Tabacsko Thank you. How quickly we forget. Most of us were just there; I would want to thank the downtown business community, particularly Sy Mahfuz and Mary Lou Blaisdell for putting on the candidate forum tonight before the meeting. I just wanted to thank them publicly for organizing that and the people who were able to make it. That was pretty well attended. Thanks everybody. Alderman Deane Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity. I spoke with an individual about this Ash Street event that they are having. What they are trying to do is trying to raise some money to purchase another obstacle to put in there. Could they buy the obstacle and donate it to the City without us going through the expendable trust fund situation where they make a contribution to the expendable trust fund and then the money is… President McCarthy I don’t see why not. I think we… Alderman Deane So if they wanted to buy something and donate it, so we don’t have to go through all of the rigmarole we just have to make sure they go through the proper channels… Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 25 President McCarthy I think we would introduce a resolution to accept the donation. Alderman Deane To accept the obstacle and place it in the park. Okay. Alderman Tabacsko Only if a majority of the board can actually navigate the obstacle. President McCarthy We may want to be careful about how we word that, but… Alderman Deane Alright. I will let the individual know. That is good, take the bureaucracy out of it. Thank you. Alderman Vitale This past weekend was the Applefest at Sullivan Farm. It was very well attended. I would like to thank everybody in the city that participated and helped with it and all of the residents that attended and made it a success. Tomorrow from 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. at Starbucks, I will have a Ward 1 coffee for anyone that would like to stop by. President McCarthy I too had the opportunity to stop by Applefest. It certainly looked like most of the people who were there were having a great time. It is a good event. Good to see that in our city and good to see the last surviving farm in the city with lots of people at it. Committee announcements: Alderman Clemons The Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee will meet this Thursday in these Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Alderman Deane The Budget Review Committee will meet on 10-20-11 at 7:00 p.m. in this Chamber. Alderman Tabacsko The Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting is a week from tonight. Actually if I could maybe ask the Mayor; Mr. Galligani had asked me about a 6:30 p.m. start, and I didn’t get that clarified one way or the other yet. Do you know if 7:00 p.m. is okay with him or 6:30 p.m.? Bd. of Aldermen – 10/11/11 Page 26 Mayor Lozeau I think 6:30 p.m. is easier for the people that want to participate. If it is not a problem for the committee, that would be their preference. Alderman Tabacsko If my colleagues would grant me a little leeway here, I would kind of like a little survey of the PEDC committee if 6:30 p.m. is an acceptable start time. It is a presentation Mr. Galligani has on the Jackson Falls Dam, which sounds very interesting. I just didn’t want to make that call without some input from the committee. Is it okay with you? Alderman Pressly Fine with me. Alderman LaRose Yes. Alderman Craffey Yes. Alderman Cookson Fine. Alderman Tabacsko I will confirm him for 6:30 p.m. and we will get it on the schedule that way. Mayor Lozeau Thank you. President McCarthy Any other committee announcements? ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE THAT THE OCTOBER 11, 2011 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Attest: Patricia Piecuch, Deputy City Clerk  .. . ~:-. ! tf""!'\t ._ • . :~·...HiJ"\1 ac ." !' "('j. To: From: Date: Re: Mil/yard Chimney - Status Update I wanted to provide you with an update on our efforts for the restoration of the Millyard Chimney. Last spring, we contracted with Weidlinger Associates, Inc. (WAI) of Cambridge, MA to perform a structural analysis of the Millyard Chimney and received their report in July, 201 I. The conclusions of the report state that, in their opinion, even with the anticipated restorative work, the chimney will not comply with the seismic or wind requirements of the State of New Hampshire Building Code. They recommended that the height of the chimney be reduced from its original 180 foot height to 100-120 feet. In their report, they also noted that while the lower height would meet the wind requirements, a waiver would still be needed for the seismic load requirements. We have asked, and are awaiting, their opinion of how likely it is that a waiver will be granted. Following receipt of WAifs report, we approached International Chimney Corporation (ICC) of Buffalo, NY. ICC is the contractor that removed the top 15 feet of the chimney last spring. We asked them to have their engineering staff review the report from WAI . and prepare a proposal to conduct their own analysis to provide a second opinion. They contacted us last week to say that they do not recommend a second analysis because two engineers from their staff have reviewed the WAI report and agree with their conclusions. We are currently reviewing our options. We have contacted both WAI and ICC and asked for their input on whether there is any practical way to reinforce the chimney in order to meet the wind load requirements at the original height of 180 feet. We have also asked for budgetary cost estimates for what reducing the height would cost. Finally, we have asked both WAI and ICC if there is a cost effective way to demolish and construct a new chimney to the original height in a way that would comply with wind loads and be eligible for a waiver on the seismic loading. 229 Main Street· PO Box 2019 . Nashua, NH 03061-20 9 603.589.3260 . fax 603.594.3450 . NashuaMa)'or@NashuaNH.gov Restoration of this chimney has been identified as an important aspect of the Parkway project-wide program for mitigation of impacts to historic resources. t along with many people in our community, recognize the chimney as an iconic landmark. representative of the historic millyard area. We will update the New Hampshire Department of Historic Resources on the status of these concerns at their November project coordination meeting with NHDOT. We will also update the Board of Public Works and the Board of Aldermen as we continue to investigate options for addressing these results. Thank you.  OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL CITY OF NASHUA MEMORANDUM TO: Brian McCarthy CC: Mayor Lozeau Board of Aldermen FROM: James McNamee DATE: October 7. 20 II RE: Removal of debris from Pennichuck property At your request, I contacted Pennichuck to inquire about the removal of debris from their site and to ask that a city representative be present when the items were removed from the property. On September 21 51 Pennichuck responded that the city is welcome to observe the removal of the materials, but requested that any observer be a licensed environmental engineer. such as an engineer from Geolnsight that performed the city's environmental audit. I contacted our engineering department and determined that the city does not have a licensed environmental engineer on staff. Pennichuck also provided the attached estimate from Enpro Environmental, which was contracted to remove the various materials except for stumps and slashing. Enpro was to remove the 55-gallon drums found at the site. Evidently the notation on the estimate "Non-RCRA. Non- DOT Regulated Used Oil (assume <2% solids)" indicates that the barrel contents were likely rain water. Enpro was to pump out and then remove the empty drums. Enpro was also to remove a considerable quantity of plastic tube settlers and a small quantity ofNH Regulated Hydrated Lime from the storage site ofT the access road leading from the Nashua plant to Harris Pond. Enpro will also remove and recycle the steel parts photographed on the site. Enpro subcontracted with Accolade Environmental to remove the transite pipes and collars. Pennichuck provided the attached copy of Accolade's current license from the NHDES. lof2 Telephone: C603) 589·32SO· FAX: C603) SB9·32S9 Penniehuck further indicated that Accolade would remove transite pipes and collars from its Pittsfield, NH plant and the Will Street distribution center in Nashua as well as from the site near the treatment plant. A few days later Pennichuck advised that representatives from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) walked the site with the treatment plant manager and a number ofcitizens. Given the clear involvement of DES and the lack of a licensed environmental engineer. either on stafTor on contract, I determined that an additional observer from the city was not necessary. Pennichuck restated its goal to remove and/or recycle any and all materials by Sept. 30th in order to ensure that it was in full compliance with the environmental provisions ofour Agreement and Plan of Merger. I checked back with Pennichuck this week and was told that the task of removing. the transit pipe remained undone because the DES permit to transport the pipe was pending. They anticipated receiving that permit by October 5th • Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding this matter. 20f2 Telephone: (60» S89·J2SO· FAX: 1603) S89·)2S9  Date: September 15,2011 Client Pennlchuck Water Works,tnc. " Water St. PO Box 441 Nashua. NH 03061~ Contact: Christopher Countle Phone: (803) 913-2372 Fax: (603) 913-2379 I ~ ..._:s., • • ., Project Location: Pennlchuck Water Pittsfield & Nashua locations Prepared By: Kevtn Schmit, ENPRO Senile.., Inc. I -1C••Dlna • ro...e .. On Oil' Fnvl,..nmant- ESTIMATED UNIT OF UNIT ESnUATED Item Description QUANTITY MEASURE PRICE TOTAL PRICE SIS Labor & equipment for debris removal & disposal Nashua Plant Foreman 12 10 16 Hour S 65.00 $ 780.00 to S 1,040.00 Technician 12 to 16 Hour S 55.00 S 660.00 to $ 880.00 Equipment Operalor 12 10 16 Hour $ 60.00 $ 720.00 10 $ 960.00 Utility Truck w lransfer pump 1 to 2 Day $ 200.00 S 200.00 10 S 400.00 Backhoe 1 10 2 Day $ 575.00 S 575.00 10 S 1,150.00 Rollorr Truck (Mob & Oemob) of 20 Yd rolloff cans 2 to 2 Each $ 450.00 S 900.00 to S 900.00 New 55 gaDon drumS-Sleel 3 10 4 Each $ 40.00 $ 120.00 to S 160.00 New 55 gallon drums-poly 1 10 1 Each $ 58.00 $ 58.00 to S 58.00 'Transportallon: I Rollof can fuB of plastic debris 2 10 2 load $ 575.00 S 1,150.00 to S 1,150.00 Box Truck & Operator-drums 1 to 1 Slop Fee S 200.00 S 200.00 10 $ 200.00 Dumptruck & Operalor (Sleel Debris disposal) 10 10 10 Hour $ 105.00 $ 1,050.00 to S 1,050.00 Iwaste Disposal Disposal: Non·ReRA, Non-DOT Regulated Used Oil (assume <2·'" solids) I 3 to 3 55 Gallon $ 115.00 S 345.00 to S 345.00 Disposal: NH Regulated hydraled lime (NH02) 1 to 1 55 Gallon S 235.00 S 235.00 10 S 235.00 Disposal: Plaslfc Tube Settle,,? (5 Ion minlload; eslimale two loads) Sleel Oebris-recyding no charge . 10 10 10 10 Ton Load S $ 115.00 S . $ 1,150.00 to . to S S 1,150.00 Empty 55 gaRon drum disposal 3 10 5 55 Gallon S 18.00 $ 54.00 10 $ 90.00 Asbestos Related Debris Dlsposal.Quantily estimated for budgetary purposes. Licensed Asbestos Supervisor & Two Licensed Workers. Utility Truck. Transportalon & disposal by W.... MgL Inc. Turnkey Landfill (included). Pittsfield. NH 1 to 1 Day S 2,750.00 $ 2,750.00 S 2,750.00 3" x l' asbeslos pipe (outside), 4" x1' asbeslos pipe (outside), 20 pieces of assorted size 18"·36'englh asbestos pipe (inside bam) Nashua. NH Plant 1 to 1 Day S 2,750.00 S 2,750.00 $ 2,750.00 One (1) 36" Diameler x 5'Iength asbestos pipe. One (1) 40 x 16· Diameter Asbestos Pipe collars, Two (2) 36" Diameler Asbeslos Pipe Collars. 6 x 20 gaUon drums of asbestos tiles ENPRO Scmc:cs. Inc '-'Ia 1119 A \ _ • "embruL... Nt{ onu ...... t6UlI545-6lJO FAX cOOJHI~IICoI ...... ."  Date: September 15, 2011 Client Pennlchuck Water Works,lnc." Water SL PO Box 448 Nashua, NH 03061-0448 Contact: Christopher Countle Phone: (603) 913·2372 Fax: (6031113-2379 Project Location: Pennlchuck Water Pittsfield & Nashua locations Prepared By: Kevin Schmit, ENPRO Services, Inc. -Il...olno .. Chad< 0" 001. I=.n,,',n,,_'- ESTIMATED UNIT OF UNIT ESTIMATED kem Description QUANTITY MEASURE PRICE TOTAL PRICE $$$ NUhua. NH WIll St 1 to 1 Day $ 2.750.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 2,750.00 Ten (10) 5' L XS°O asbestos pipe, Two (2) S'L)( 18" 0 asbestos pipe. One (1) 8' Lx 12" asbestos pipe Environmental Fuel & Insurance Surcharge @ 9.5% $ 1.562.47 S ~,711.71 Limiting assumptions and conditions: 1 Plicing subject to disposal facility acceptance of waste. Waste assumed to be representative based upon generator's information. 2 Volume. are ••timated and pricing will be c:harged on actual time incurred & material transported. 3 Disposal subject to disposal facility approval. .. Consultant to provide additional waste characterization information in order to profile waste. Chemical analysis and or MSOS of waste is required for profiling, 5 Quoted price includes 10 day notification to NH DES. Paymenl renns: Should it be delennmed by lhe nJC8lV1t1g disposal facility /hat a Walle .am has been received off·spec,fic.tiOn from the infonnalion as profiled by the gene",'or. a $UtdJa~ wiII,be incut78d All payments a", due upon receipt of invoice. An int.,.st chatf1e of 1 5" pe' month (18" Pf" annum) win be chatf1ed and paid tor 011 an outstanding balances that .'" ove,30 days due Should" lie necessaty to employ outside same-s to collect on any amount. il is specifically agreed /hat the client will pay all such costs. including ,.asonlll18 attomey's fees and coul1 costs. Pricing provided ha",,,, is valid for a period ot 30 del'S. Accepted By (Authorized Signature) Title Printed Name Cate ENPRO SCf\liCC5. Inl:. 709 Kcilll A_IIC • Pcmbt"Lc. ~Il U~27~ lOOll S4SoC>lIO FAX (00)) UlIollbl ~_·GfIIN~ ~ ':"" STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ASBESTOS ABATEMENT ENTITY LICENSE This is to certify lhat: Accolade Envir'onolental Contracting Corp.. ~ • ..Y.''''- ~~'" 2 Nasu1 L.. ,le '~~~i.~"'f; , 1,"fY",. ';, ,.' d f.(,.:., "1/.f ' "io"!If"'-' • :.... L&. .~;- , 1:..... ~~):.~~, I Ii Kitlg:: I N 1 03848 Ii . ra i-:., '~r ! is duly licensed under provisions ojRSA 14J-E. \ ~ , 1\" _~ .'., New Hampsh;r~ Revised Statutes Annotated to operate as an asbestos abatement entity. ,\ ·\·~"·;...,1 >~~S~:~i~;r ~v. ,..... "1. LICENSE NUMBER: AC-178 Renewal Effective Date: .,}o - fidatym" (' e!1Q? II ~.~-- Robert R. Scott, Director Expiration Date: 19 - F'c:.bktC"'f OU?{R Air Resources Division " ,.- - lj.. '. ... . ~,. ~ :\:/r \ ~:~ ~~_ . .~" ~;;; ;; ~ .~~. " , , , . .l • • ..~~:(".,. :-,~" ,:.}r .~~.