Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, April 9, 2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President Brian S. McCarthy presided; City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron recorded. Prayer was offered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron; Alderman Caron led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 14 members of the Board of Aldermen present, Alderman Melizzi-Golja was not in attendance. Her Honor Mayor Donnalee Lozeau was also in attendance. REMARKS BY THE MAYOR Thank you, Mr. President, I do. I would begin this evening, as always when we have volunteers on our list to confirm, to thank them for their willingness to serve the city. We are indeed blessed, as I think we all know, to have volunteers willing to serve our city. Also, I wanted to share some good news. Today, the city bond sales that we were expecting to have resulted in a 2.43% rate on the bonds, the lowest that we’ve ever had. That’s the second time I’ve been able to say that since I’ve been in this position and looking at items such as this. So, the last time the lowest we had was 2.67%, so 2.43% is really quite remarkable. I wanted to take a moment to talk about sidewalks. As many of you know, I sent out just a quick courtesy heads up this weekend to let you know that work was going to begin on the west side of block 2 this week and that has been taking place. The trees have been cut, the stumps will be removed this week and of course going in are replacement trees and additional green space, planters as well as flush areas of green space. It is my hope that by the end of the week, the city website will have information available for everybody that will be able to be updated and maintained with regard to maps and schedules and things that we can expect. I visited pretty much all of the businesses in the past week or so to talk to them and make sure that they understood what was to come. Sunday night, the 15 th, we expect old curbs to be taken out and Monday, new curbs to be put in place and then let’s be hopeful that we don’t find anything unexpected under the sidewalks. Next, I would call your attention to on your desks this evening, I’ve put a letter and a summary chart so to speak to give you an easy reference on the collective bargaining agreement that we’ve done so far and my concerns with the collective bargaining agreements for the four police unions, four of the five that have come in and hopefully you will take that into consideration as you being your deliberations on those cost items. And, lastly, I would end on a bit of a somber note and talk about on Sunday we closed Post 483 of the VFW. I know that Alderman Pressly was also present and it was a bit of a bitter sweet day. I think it felt good to the VFW to know that they were going to continue to do good work in the city by having the Soup Kitchen take over their, as I told them, their house but not their home because Nashua is their home. And I told them that I was confident that we would find a new location for them that would be appropriate for them to continue what they’ve always done and they wanted to make sure people understood that their Post was not closing, just the building was closing. It was a very nice event. I was presented with the last flag that flew over it. That was presented to me on behalf of the city and I will find a place in City Hall for that so that all of us can take a look. I did tell them that, although I was taking that flag and I was honored to do so, that when they opened their new location, I’d be handing them their first flag to hang over their new location. I’m sure many of you have been talking to our Veterans that have been part of that Post for 92 years, so I just wanted to share that with you. As always, thank you for your very kind attention this evening. RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR – None RECOGNITION PERIOD - None Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 2 READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF MARCH 26, 2013, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE, AND THE READING SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PREPARED MOTION CARRIED From: Esther Ross, Child Advocate Re: Commendation re: Aldermen MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED FROM JIM CUTTER AND MAYOR LOZEAU MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive, Nashua I want to talk about O-13-034. I think the body of the legislation does not reflect the title of the legislation here. It says prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles for sale, lease or rent on public streets or in city owned public parking garages. But when you read the body of it, it says it shall be unlawful for any vehicles for sale, lease or rental businesses to cause or permit a vehicle to be parked on public street or in the city owned parking garage while such vehicles are in the custody, control, possession of a business. I think the heading is misleading. I think this has to be put in the heading of the body of this legislation because otherwise you’re saying to me, as a public citizen, that I can’t put a vehicle on the road if I have a for sale sign so you don’t have business in the heading of the language where you have it in the amended version here. So I think you really need to add that because otherwise people might get tickets and they really shouldn’t have. They’re not a business. If I have a for sale sign on my car and I put it on the street, this really pertains to a business and not a taxpaying citizen of the city. Thank you. PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS Appointments by the Mayor The following Appointments by the Mayor were read into the record: Ethnic Awareness Committee Bernadette Melton-Plante (New Appointment) Term to Expire: April 30, 2016 41 Parrish Hill Drive Nashua, NH 03063 Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 3 Planning Board Thomas C. Ireland (Moving from Full to Alternate Member) Term to Expire: March 31, 2016 8 Deacon Drive Nashua, NH 03063 Scott E. Leclair (Moving from Alternate to Full Member) Term to Expire: March 31, 2016 10 Daylily Drive Nashua, NH 03062 Dave Robbins (Moving from Alternate to Full Member) Term to Expire: March 31, 2016 102 Cherrywood Drive Nashua, NH 03062 Edward Weber (Moving from Alternate to Full Member) Term to Expire: March 31, 2015 4 Cabernet Court Nashua, NH 03062 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR AS READ AND REFER THEM TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse My intentions are for the four individuals for the planning board is not to bring them in front of the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee seeing they are already on the planning board and all they are doing is just moving from either a full member to an alternate or vice versa. Alderman Deane I could be wrong, but I thought ordinance required the land use boards to appear, the appointments to appear before the Personnel Committee. President McCarthy There is an ordinance to that affect but I believe if corporation counsel were here, he would remind us that that is a rule that we can waive by agreement with the intent of the chair. Alderman Deane So a motion would have to be made then, correct to vote on? President McCarthy It might be proper to make a motion. I think the standard of rules is if we all understand that we’re waiving them and we waive them, they’re waived. Alderman Deane There’s five alternates going to full members. Whose term has expired and who hasn’t been reappointed? Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 4 Mayor Lozeau For the planning board, we had three alternates that came in. I think it was just over a month ago. Mr. Ireland was not able to be seated for a new term, but was willing to take an alternate position. Mr. Yursvacich was not able to serve a new term, both of whom‘s terms expired. There is no one that was up that was not reappointed for the planning board. What are the other names, Alderman Deane? Are they all planning board? Alderman Chasse Yes. Alderman Pressly Leclair, Robbins, Weber. Mayor Lozeau Those are the three alternates that went into full positions. Then we had an open seat as well. The mayor’s representative seat is still open on the planning board since we lost Mr. LaRose. I have not yet been able to find somebody for that spot. But this will allow us to have a full seated planning board and at least one alternate, maybe two members if I remember correctly. This evening’s member, I believe Mr. Zedeck is an alternate to the planning board. Alderman Pressly I had planned to come to the committee meeting to speak to this since it maybe not going to your committee, I will speak to it tonight. As many of you know, I have complained frequently about the failure to have gender balance on this board, and it’s also been suggested that we do not have geographic balance. I took the time to point out that of these four, and I do agree, it’s just a shuffling, they are already on there in some capacity, they are just moving to an alternate or becoming an alternate. We have Ward 1, two from Ward 9 and one from Ward 5. I think it’s fair to say that the three of those wards are what I would call newer construction. They all have the regular standards with the streets. I would say that they are fairly uniform in their style and ambience. What we do not have, and Alderman Sheehan has brought this up in the past, we do not have, that I’m aware of, representation from people that live in areas that have very narrow streets, the homes that were built when we were on the horse and buggy. The difference is quite significant. I do believe that that is important to have a balance also. I don’t see this happening so I intend to add a geographic balance to my concern that these boards need to truly represent the full. I’m an at-large. They need to represent the city at large as far as the makeup of the people and the different varieties of opinions that they bring. I know it’s been mentioned many times that these people are all volunteers, and many of them are. They have to agree to this. But also, many of these jobs are recruited and solicited. I know of many mayors in the past, and I assume in the present, they recruit people that they do know. I have to feel those of you who know people that you think would be interested, convey these names to the mayor. Make sure that we start to get a general balance of the population of the city to make sure that the planning board does represent the full community at large. Thank you. Alderman Donchess I don’t mean to create unnecessary work for the Personnel Committee nor do I have any particular questions for these reappointments, but before I was on the Board in the last term, I remember reading that there was a very long kind of discussion about whether appointed people should have to come back to the Personnel Committee before a reappointment. Some members of the board said everybody should. Some members of the board said they shouldn’t. The compromise that was reached was, as I Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 5 recall reading about it, that for the land use boards because they are significant boards, that the people would be asked to come back to the committee. It doesn’t seem to me that if we’re going to have a rule we should just waive it. I mean why have the rule at all then? To me, even though again I don’t want to create extra work nor do I have particular questions, but it seems to me that the rule that we have should be followed. Alderman Chasse I’ll make this pretty easy then. I just didn’t want these people to come back to us because they were here maybe a month, two months ago. We’ve already interviewed them and they are just moving from positions. It’s not like they are going to a new appointment. So with that, I will rescind my motion. If we lose the good people because they have to come back to our board, so be it. President McCarthy Do you want to change your motion to just refer them to Personnel Committee. Alderman Chasse I will do that. MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS AND REFER THEM TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess Maybe I spoke too hastily because I thought these people were coming back after a long period of service, not after a month or two. If that is the case then I can see the point why someone who came here two months ago shouldn’t come back again. I had thought that some of these people had been serving for quite some time since they were here last time. Alderman Vitale I think what Alderman Chasse was trying to say is now is the time to speak. He wasn’t planning to bring these people back before us. If somebody wants to interview the, by all means say it now. That’s why we’re saying there’s no intention to bring these individuals back since they were just interviewed. If anybody wants to have something, we can waive it right now but if you would like to re-interview them, all you have to do is say, I’d like to make a motion to please bring these people back for a re- interviewing and that’s it. That could be done on anybody. If I remember correctly, on the discussion, if somebody that’s being reappointed, we wouldn’t bring them back unless somebody here said, no. I would like to re-interview these people and bring them back. Otherwise, we would at this point vote that they wouldn’t have to come back in. Alderman Chasse, the way I understand it, is just saying I’m letting everybody know I’m not intending to bring them back in unless I hear from you right now, today, that yes, we would like to have them in. Alderman Moriarty I was going to say I was at that meeting where they were in. Can you remind me, I thought there were just three of the planning board members that were there a month ago. Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 6 Mayor Lozeau The appointment date for Mr. Robbins, Mr. Weber, Mr. Leclair is February 21. Those are three that were interviewed and were seated as alternates. I said at that time that sometimes I bring them in as alternates. We see how it goes. They see how it goes. I was not certain at that time that Mr. Ireland and Mr. Yurevacheck would not be able to be reappointed. They were both great members. I would have loved to have reappointed them, but time was something that they couldn’t give us. The only one that had served for a time now is Mr. Ireland, who is going from a full time position to an alternate position. Otherwise, the three are the ones as mentioned. Alderman Sheehan I would like to ask that we waive the interview for Mr. Leclair, Mr. Robbins, and Mr. Weber. As a member of the committee, I can’t think of anything that I would like to ask them two months later that I didn’t ask them two months ago. So I would ask that those three be waived for a re-interview. Alderman Pressly I was just going to comment I believe that those three new alternates probably have attended two meetings. I don’t know if they would have some reaction that they would like to share, but certainly Mr. Ireland has served long enough, I would think, to have some insights into the service on this board and have some, as the many questions are asked, what has been their reaction to service, what would be their suggestions. I don’t have any strong feelings about the three, but I do think Mr. Ireland has been there. I don’t know how many years. How many years has Mr. Ireland served? Mayor Lozeau He’s only served one term. One term is three years. Alderman Pressly He’s been to three year service on the board. Mayor Lozeau Yes. Alderman Pressly But the motion is for the three. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO WAIVE THE INTERVIEW FOR MR. LECLAIR, MR. ROBBINS AND MR. WEBER MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR AS READ AND REFER THEM TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED Alderman Pressly Just for clarification, does that mean Mr. Ireland will be coming in for an interview? Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 7 President McCarthy That’s how I understand it. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Finance Committee............................................................................. 04/01/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 1, 2013 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure .............................................................. 03/27/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 27, 2013 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee ...................................... 04/01/13 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 1, 2013 Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS Cable Television Advisory Board MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF BRIAN GERAGHTY, 19 CHAPEL HILL DRIVE, NASHUA, TO THE CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2016 MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Brian Geraghty duly appointed to the Cable Television Advisory Board for a term to expire April 1, 2016. Conservation Commission MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION FOR TERMS TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2015: ALTERNATE SHERRY DUTZY, 18 SWART TERRACE, NASHUA, RICHARD GILLESPIE, 15 SPENCER DRIVE, NASHUA, AND PEGGY TRIVILINO, 14 PROFILE CIRCLE, NASHUA MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Sherry Dutzy, Richard Gillespie and Peggy Trivilino duly appointed to the Conservation Commission for terms to expire December 31, 2015. Ethnic Awareness Committee MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF TOM LOPEZ, 68 EAST PEARL STREET, NASHUA, TO THE ETHNIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2016 MOTION CARRIED Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 8 President McCarthy declared Tom Lopez duly appointed to the Ethnic Awareness Committee for a term to expire April 1, 2016. Oath of Office administered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron Historic District Commission MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF NORMAN G. PARE, JR., 13 ROSS STREET, NASHUA, TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE JANUARY 31, 2016 MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Norman G. Pare, Jr. duly appointed to the Historic District Commission for a term to expire January 31, 2016. Oath of Office administered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron. Hunt Building Board of Trustees MOTION BY ALDERMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF JENNIFER HINDERER, TWO COURT STREET, NASHUA, TO THE HUNT BUILDING BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2017 MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Jennifer Hinderer duly appointed to the Hunt Building Board of Trustees for a term to expire December 31, 2017 Oath of Office administered by Deputy Corporation Counsel. Planning Board MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE STEVEN A. ZEDECK, 25 CATHEDRAL CIRCLE, NASHUA, TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 31, 2016 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly Just to announce that I will be voting against this person. I have told him that directly and why. I’d like to also point out that this person also lives in Ward 1. So once again we have the same geographic makeup that we’ve had. I plan to vote against everyone until we start to show some balance, geographic and gender-wise. I think it’s critical that we have balance on these boards to represent our community as a whole. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED President McCarthy declared Steven A. Zedeck duly appointed to the Planning Board for a term to expire March 31, 2016. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS – None Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 9 UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-13-34 Endorser: Alderman Diane Sheehan PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR SALE, LEASE OR RENT ON PUBLIC STREETS OR IN CITY-OWNED PUBLIC PARKING LOTS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO AMEND O-13-34 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Sheehan I would just like to point out for Alderman Chasse and anybody following along at home that the amendment includes a provision for a violation fine which initially it did not. In committee a violation was added for $125 and to double after a seven-day delay in payment. Alderman Pressly I do support this, and I’m wondering if you’ve given any thought to the suggestion made by a former alderman, Paula Johnson, to add the word “business” in the heading. I thought that was a good point worth considering. I would like to further amend the amendment to include the word “business” motor business vehicles. President McCarthy I think it would be easier to deal with the amendment to the golden rod copy first. If you want to make a subsequent motion to amend the title, do that. Alderman Pressly That’s fine. MOTION CARRIED Alderman Pressly With the sponsor’s permission, I would add the word “a business motor vehicles for sale” and welcome suggestions or reactions to those that worked much longer than I on this. Maybe commercial? MOTION BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY TO FURTHER AMEND O-13-34 BY ADDING THE WORD “BUSINESS” BEFORE THE WORDS “MOTOR VEHICLES” IN THE TEXT ON THE QUESTION President McCarthy I would simply point out that the title is not a binding piece of the legislation and will not, in fact, survive after its passage. The legislation changes the Nashua Revised Ordinances only including the text that’s in the body of the ordinance. While I understand that the title might be confusing, it’s not going to result in anyone getting a ticket that wouldn’t otherwise have gotten one because changes to it will not make any change to the ordinances. I think the title is a little more complex than just adding business vehicles Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 10 to it. I would ask Alderman Sheehan if she has a suggestion for a change to the title, if you don’t mind, Alderman Pressly. Alderman Sheehan I would agree with what the President just indicated because I think where it would make sense to add it would be after “or rent by a business” but it doesn’t really fit the definition. The body clearly defines it, and I think many of our titles on things aren’t fully reflective of what’s in the text. I think this is just an example of that. I think the people writing the tickets are very well versed in what qualifies for it. Alderman Craffey I would wonder if the maker of the ordinance would say after the ordinance, itself, 320-77-1, at the beginning there say “for businesses parking of motor vehicles for sale.” If you would take that as a suggestion of the amendment. It would make it much clearer for those looking up the ordinance, itself. That would my suggestion. Thank you. Alderman Sheehan I don’t want to say that say the owner of Riverwalk Café can’t put a for sale sign on his, just for example, BMW or VW or whatever. I think that’s what that language would do. What we want to do is limit businesses and the business of having tagged cars as inventory; that they need to warehouse their inventory. I think that’s the finite difference. I want to be clear that it’s inventory that we have an issue with and being properly stored. Alderman Pressly In giving it a little bit more thought since it has just come up tonight maybe the word “corporation” would be a better word. One of the issues is that these vehicles have all sort of printing advertising on the side of their vehicles. That’s also offensive. What if in the body: “or permit a corporate vehicle to be parked on a public street” to indicate in the body of it to not use the word business but corporate? President McCarthy I would point out that corporation is a very carefully defined term which may well not apply to a large number of businesses that are partnerships or other forms that are currently violating what would be this ordinance. Alderman Donchess Just looking at the language here, if you wanted to accomplish this, if you track the language in the body “any vehicle sales, lease or rental business” and you said at the end of the title of the ordinance or the underlined titled within the ordinance, if you added at the end “by any vehicle sales, lease or rental business” I think that would make the point without creating the issues that you have validly raised, Mr. President. President McCarthy As I understand it, your proposal would be to add “by any sale, lease or rental business” at the end of the title? Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 11 Alderman Donchess I’m not really proposing, and I’m just saying if someone wanted to propose that, I think that would accomplish the propose that is being sought without creating the problems that you have raised, Mr. President. Alderman Deane I will make that motion. President McCarthy The motion would be to add the words “by any rental, sales or lease business” at the end of the title. Alderman Deane I would add it not to the title, but to the body under the 320-77.1. President McCarthy From my reading of the body, the body correctly said that. The question is that the title doesn’t necessarily reflect exactly what the body does. Alderman Deane But I think we’ve just had the hootenanny about that it. It doesn’t matter because when you go through and the codification is done in the ordinances, the body remains and the title goes away. The title could say anything. It doesn’t matter at that point. It’s the content of the body. Period. President McCarthy Do you still want to make a motion to amend something? Alderman Deane I don’t see a problem with adding the word “by” President McCarthy I don’t have the wording in front of me, can you just Alderman Deane It shall be unlawful by. Remove the word “for” and replace it with “by.” It shall be unlawful by. I’m sorry. It shall be unlawful for any vehicle. Alderman Donchess Maybe I will make the motion. Alderman Deane There you do. Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 12 Alderman Pressly I will withdraw mine. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY ALDERMAN PRESSLY MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO FURTHER AMEND BY ADDING “BY ANY VEHICLE SALES, LEASE OR RENTAL BUSINESS” AT THE END OF THE TITLE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess So it reads: “Prohibiting the Parking of Motor Vehicles for Sale, Lease or Rent on Public Streets or in City-Owned Public Parking Lots by any Vehicle Sales, Lease or Rental Business” Alderman Deane The title is going to go away. The body survives and the title dies so amending the title, I guess we could do that. It’s just going to fall off the face of the earth when this is added to the big book. I guess if somebody wanted to go back and review it; I don’t see any purpose of amending the title. The body is where people is going to be enforcing, not the title Alderman Donchess Well I get that. I’m just trying to shorten the discussion, come up with language that means what someone is trying to do so we can get a vote on it and not wrangle over what word should be used. Alderman Craffey I agree with Alderman Donchess about the wording. I think the placement should be in the title of the ordinance starting on the bottom of 320-77. It should go at the end of that sentence. What the alderman said: “by any vehicle sales, lease or rental business.” I think that’s where it should be, not up in the title of the radiance but down in that section there so when you’re going through the ordinance you can actually find it right after. That’s where I think it should be, and I think that’s what the motion should be, and I’ll make that motion. Alderman Sheehan I’m not sure everybody has heard that once we pass this tonight, if we pass this, the title doesn’t exist anymore. I’m not sure people are understanding it once it’s put into the book. President McCarthy Alderman Craffey is suggesting changing the name of the section where this appears which does appear in the book. Alderman Sheehan That’s great. Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 13 President McCarthy That would be lasting. I would ask Alderman Donchess if he would like to change his motion to amend both the title and the body as just described. Alderman Donchess I will yield to Alderman Craffey’s suggestion, yes. Alderman Deane Alderman Donchess has convinced me to vote. AMENDED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO FURTHER AMEND AT THE END OF THE TITLE AND AT THE END OF THE TITLE OF THE SECTION THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE: “BY ANY VEHICLE SALES, LEASE OR RENTAL BUSINESS” MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-34 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Moriarty I’m on the Infrastructure Committee and I was there when we discussed this and added the vote. I spent a lot of time in that meeting reading through the various parking fines and fees. I’d like to go back to what I originally. I’m at the mind that $125 is cruel and unusual. So I think it should be $50 which is more in line with the typical fine. One hundred twenty-five and the $250 for a seven-day delay, that’s like parking in a handicapped zone or in front of a fire hydrant. It’s not that egregious. So I move that we amend this ordinance and replace the fine of $125 with that of $50 and replace the $250 with $75. MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO REPLACE $125 WITH $50 AND $250 WITH $75 IN THE PROVISION FOR PENALTIES Division Taken MOTION CARRIED Alderman Cookson I won’t be supporting this legislation this evening. I’m happy that it was amended. I’m happy that you got your fines figured out. We have very limited conversation about it in Infrastructure with all due respect to the members of the committee. In fact, there were several wonderful points that were brought up about ordinances that are already in place that aren’t being enforced. Now we’re putting another ordinance in place to address a problem or a concern outside of an alderman’s window. All the back and forth this evening should have been done in committee. It should never have come out of committee when it did. We should have addressed it then. We should have done the work in the committee. It wasn’t done. I was outvoted three to one that evening. If I recall correctly it was so it could get to the full Board so the full Board can make a decision on it. We just didn’t do the work in committee, and I apologize for that. I won’t support this this evening. Alderman Dowd We asked for some input as well. We were going to table it, but the table didn’t pass. There are other ordinances in place that these vehicles that are of particular are already violating, and there’s no enforcement. My concern was if we pass this ordinance what makes us think that this will be enforced. Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 14 The other thing that concerns me is on rented cars, if I’m a police officer driving by in the street, how am I going to recognize that it’s a rental car versus another car. It’s not like they have big signs on the side “rental cars.” Trucks, maybe. We heard the trucks park on the sidewalks. There’s already an ordinance against parking on the sidewalks, but they’re not being enforced. I understand fully the implications of how this impacts the neighborhood but I’m not sure that this is the solution because I, for the life of me, can’t see how this is going to be anymore enforced than the parking ordinances we already have. If there’s a way to enforce this ordinance then why aren’t we enforcing the ordinances we already have? That’s my dilemma so at the moment, I won’t’ be supporting it. Alderman Sheehan This was initially brought in after trying to send code by a few times and hearing back eventually from Director Hersh that they aren’t breaking any laws and going to counsel, Stephen Bennett, who crafted this because there is no ordinance that they are breaking. That was the reason why this was done. If there is an ordinance that they are breaking other than occasionally they are on a sidewalk, name it, because there isn’t one. Whether or not I can see it, is irrelevant. I see a lot from where I sit because my home is in a very congested area. I see a lot of things, but what made me move on this was the amount of attention. And you did get copies of communication from various people including a commissioner of the Department of Public Works who indicated what an impact this has. Additionally, personally if there’s a rental car in a street once in awhile, who cares? If it’s an ongoing problem and people want to call it in, what the police or the parking enforcement people do first is they run a plate. If it belongs to the rental business 100 feet away, they are pretty much going to guess that that’s not being rented by somebody else right now. That is something that was considered. This is a gap in where the laws are and this is why this was written. There isn’t any other ordinance, and I would challenge the Alderman of Ward 2 to cite one because there isn’t. That’s why Attorney Bennett did this. If there was an existing ordinance, they push back and ask you to go after that and ask you to have the police enforce that one. This has a big impact on the neighborhood. The leasing of inventory on the streets just isn’t the way a business should be run because you have repair business, you’re automatically entitled to have a rental business. This business has expanded its lot now. It’s creating an issue, and he needs to just find a place where he can store his inventory that isn’t in the city streets. I would ask for your support for voting for this final passage. Thank you. Alderman Cookson I would add two things to the conversation this evening. One is that the Commissioner from Public Works mentioned that the issue that she was having was that they were parking on the sidewalk and they had to go out into the street to walk around the vehicle which caused an issue. That is addressed by an ordinance that says no parking on sidewalks. So there’s your ordinance and there’s how that is addressed. That is not being enforced obviously in this area. I’ll just leave it at that. Alderman Sheehan I can go and pull it up, but that is one line of an e-mail that is rather lengthy and it is not the only concern. I’d just like to say that that’s out of context. If people want, I can pull it up and read the whole e-mail, but the e-mail was, I think, three paragraphs long. I’d like to just vote on this already. Alderman Deane Pull it up. I want to hear it. If you don’t mind, Mr. President. The offer was made. President McCarthy It’s up to Alderman Sheehan if she wants to read it or not. Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 15 Alderman Deane She’s working on it. She’s pretty capable with a computer, I think. Alderman Pressly While we’re waiting, I’d like to welcome back an alderman who’s been absent for a long time. Nice to see you back. She still has crutches and she’s still limping along but she’s back. This is Alderman Vitale from Ward 1. Nice to see you back in the Chamber. Alderman Vitale Thank you. Alderman Chasse There’s only one problem, she’s sitting on the wrong side. You belong on this side. This is the hospital ward. Alderman Vitale All I can is, take it from me. Don’t break anything. It’s not worth it. Alderman Sheehan It says, and it is dated March 9, and this is one of the few that was sent in. It says from Tracy Pappas: I often walk through French Hill. When I heard the legislation regarding u hauls, I knew what business abused parking. The u hauls force walkers to walk out into the narrow street. In the winter, the sidewalk is covered with snow. In other seasons, pedestrians are forced into the street because the sidewalks are covered with vines which resemble poison ivy. If cars are parked on the street, folks aren’t forced to walk in the middle of the street because cars aren’t large. U hauls are large vehicles. When the large vehicles are parked on the street, walkers are forced to walk in the middle of the road close to a busy intersection. Under the best of circumstances, visibility is very limited at this intersection. The u hauls parked where they are parked make it impossible for drivers to see pedestrians who are forced out in the street by the large u hauls. I wanted to share my thoughts. I wanted to give you some feedback and perhaps you could have one of the neighborhood residents bring up this point. I walk in this area for recreation and exercise. Some folks in this area have no transportation and walk the neighborhood because they have no car. In addition, neighbors who do own cars are forced out of spaces in front of their residences. I’m sure it makes it difficult for residents who are forced to haul groceries several blocks. This business is clearly monopolizing the spaces in front of these residences. I hope this input is helpful. Thanks! Tracy Pappas President McCarthy I don’t think I heard in there that they were parked on the sidewalk. I heard the sidewalks were not accessible due to vines and snow and that people had to walk around the vehicles. Is that correct? Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 16 Alderman Sheehan That is correct, and that is the e-mail that was in the packets that went to the Infrastructure Committee as well. Alderman Chasse This brings up some questions. If they are parking on the streets, are there meters there? Alderman Sheehan No. Alderman Chasse No meters. So they are legally parked. Who’s to say they’re not moving. I understand where you are coming from. They are a business. Does this happen to be the business on the corner on Canal and Orange? Is that the particular one? Alderman Sheehan That’s where they are parked, but it’s on the corner of Canal and Orange. It’s Rod’s Automotive, and he has a u haul rental. On Canal Street where he is, has meters. SO instead he gets there at 7 in the morning and puts his rental stock which he keeps in his garage space and parked in front of his garage doors when he is closed. He gets there, moves them out into the residential neighborhoods or in front of other businesses that do not have meters and then collects them at the end of the day. Alderman Chasse Have you gone to talk to Rod at all? A little sugar? Alderman Sheehan Yes. Alderman Chasse I’m asking. You talked to Rod and you didn’t get anywhere? Alderman Sheehan No. This has started a year ago. We had to have the police to remove them from another businesses parking lot because he said that it wasn’t that business’ land, and it was the business next door that was in bankruptcy that had abandoned their business and had to have the police remove it. So, yes. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-34 declared duly adopted as amended. Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 17 O-13-36 Endorser: Alderman Diane Sheehan AUTHORIZING A STOP SIGN ON DOW STREET AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH LOCK STREET Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-13-36 MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-13-36 declared duly adopted. NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-13-101 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA POLICE COMMISSION AND THE NASHUA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF $26,602 FROM DEPARTMENT 194, CONTINGENCY, ACCOUNT #70150 “CONTINGENCY FOR NEGOTIATIONS” INTO DEPARTMENT 150, POLICE, ACCOUNT #51900 “PAYROLL ADJUSTMENTS” Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-13-102 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND NASHUA POLICE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES N.E.P.B.A. LOCAL 125, I.U.P.A., AFL-CIO FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-13-103 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE NASHUA POLICE DEPARTMENT, LOCAL #2232, FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-13-104 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 633 FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $10,652 FROM DEPARTMENT 194, CONTINGENCY, ACCOUNT #70150 “CONTINGENCY FOR NEGOTIATIONS” INTO DEPARTMENT 150, POLICE, ACCOUNT #51900 “PAYROLL ADJUSTMENTS” Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 18 R-13-105 Endorsers: Alderman Daniel T. Moriarty Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess ESTABLISHING A COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY AD-HOC COMMITTEE Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President McCarthy R-13-106 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Kathy Vitale Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) INTO VARIOUS OPERATING BUDGETS, THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND AND THE SNOW REMOVAL EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President McCarthy NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-13-38 Endorser: Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. ESTABLISHING A THIRTY-MINUTE PARKING TIME LIMIT ON A PORTION THE WEST SIDE OF LIBERTY STREET Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President McCarthy PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Cutter, 86 Palm Street, Nashua. Dear Alderman McCarthy, The book, Why Smart People Do Dumb Things, explains why the Legal Dept. is dumb to try to blame our neighbors for the City errors as I explained with RSA 626:3, Effect of Ignorance or Mistake and it was dumb of Attorney Bennett to say Alderman Wilshire would not create a conflict of interest by sponsoring a certain bill. The above deed and 1950/1971 building permits should both have the 51 foot frontage on Palm Street as required by law per RSA 641:3, Unsworn Falsification that states under (d) submits…any…boundary mark…which he or she knows to be false. Thus, building permits are supposed to agree with the deed. It is dumb if they do not. Sincerely, Jim. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive, Nashua. I’m glad I could help you with that ordinance this evening. I think it came out pretty good as long as the body and the title where it is going to be in the book agrees. This way Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 19 there’s no questions asked. I guess I haven’t lost my touch from when I was an alderman. I’m curious to find out on R-13-106, why we’re getting FEMA money. I’m kind of curious what disaster we had in this city. Maybe we’re planning one. My topic tonight was going to be conflict of interest. What constitutes a conflict of interest, but I think I’m going to waive that tonight because I want to say thank you to Alderman Wilshire for coming up to me tonight and asking me if she offended me. She apologized and we’re friends, and we move on with this. And I thank her for that. I think a couple of other people on this board should take a lesson from her. She’s honorable, came up and was talking to me and I appreciated that. I guess it comes to down to why don’t people apologize for their actions? I’m still waiting for the apology since September. I’m hoping maybe one day I’ll get that apology for rudeness. I’m hoping I’ll get the apology from the President who wrote that nasty little letter to me which was all personal attacks. But you can’t do that when you’re elected because it can come back to haunt you eventually. So the code of conduct, when I was here two weeks ago, many people called me up and said they loved it when I kept saying, well you should just plaster this to the wall. And maybe we should put this up on the wall, the Code of Conduct for here in the Chambers. Especially H. Members of the public attending or participating at meetings and hearings shall be treated with respect and courtesy in accordance with this section. That means all eyes should be focused here on the speaker, whoever is at this microphone. Like Judge Judy says, this is my pen. Your eyes are at me. That’s where it should be because that shows respect to the constituent that’s standing here who’s a taxpayer who’s talking. Whether you like what we say or not, too bad. You all work for us. You get paid with a stipend that comes from the tax dollars and respect has to be the number one thing in this Chamber. Too bad. But again, I want to thank Alderman Wilshire for talking to me this evening. Maybe some of your personality and your respect will rub off on some other people here. Thank you. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman Cookson I had a call earlier today and it was with regard to the sidewalks. We know that there’s work being done. It’s on the west side as the Mayor stated in her opening comments. I just wanted to express what I had heard in the phone call and that was that there was concern about the sidewalks. Is it appropriate to ask the Mayor a question? I’ll phrase it and you can respond if you’d like. It was about the sidewalks being ADA compliant or people with low vision and there potentially being obstacles in the new sidewalks with the low planters and things like that. I didn’t know if we had any ADA requirements that we had. Do we have to fulfill ADA requirements with the sidewalks that are being put in? Mayor Lozeau Our sidewalks that are being put in do meet ADA standards. Alderman Cookson So all the design process and everything, the Board of Public Works went through and all the departments and the engineering, they reviewed the ADA and signed off on the fact that they are ADA compliant. Mayor Lozeau Yes, they do. Our current sidewalks, however, are not. Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 20 Alderman Cookson Thank you. Alderman Deane I’d like to send my condolences out to the family and many friends of Jack Dwyer who passed away yesterday. Jack did a lot of things for the children in the community. He was a very giving individual and he will be missed. Thank you. Alderman Sheehan On April 11, which is Thursday, there is an art show at Nashua Community College at 11:30 a.m. that is put on by the different types of artists that are at Nashua Community College and hosted by the Motivation Club. Anybody from the public is encouraged to attend. On April 12th, which is Friday, we have Fancy Friday which will benefit Gate City Community Gardens. That begins at 6:00 p.m. Beginning at Timber Grill, you can get a bracelet that will give you a discount to many places downtown. On Saturday, Habitat for Humanity is opening a ReHome Store on Amherst Street that is a place to purchase reusable items that are great if you have an older home and you want to be able to find say an unusual door or doorknob. Anything that can be salvaged from a home, and they’ve been very popular in other parts of the country, will be available there. There’s some really neat architectural features. Their ribbon cutting is at ten o’clock on Saturday. As the owner of an older home, I’m excited to see what they have because I have some work going on in the house. I encourage everybody to check it out because that does support the Habitat for Humanity cause in Nashua. Thank you. Alderman Donchess I wanted to remark on a couple of sad events both involving the passing of significant people in our community and particularly in my neighborhood. The first I was going to mention is Dr. Emory Kaplan who died a week ago today. The wake was Friday, and the funeral was Saturday. He was a pediatrician who cared for many families and many children in Nashua over a period of decades. He was known to be a very caring, very intelligent, very capable physician. My daughter who was a patient of his particularly benefitted in a fairly serious situation by his advice. He’s survived by his wife, Sue McNamee, who’s a practicing nurse practitioner, who also is a very capable clinician and caring person. I give the best to Sue and the family who survives Emory. The other is the death of Jack Dwyer as Alderman Deane already mentioned. He was a very good guy who spent a long time in the legal community and did a lot for Nashua. He is survived by his wife, Maureen. I haven’t seen the announcement as to what the wake and funeral arrangements will be, but he, as well as Emory, will certainly be missed. Alderman Moriarty Brian, Diane. Please just apologize. Enough. I’m begging you. And smile. Alderman Wilshire I’d just like to thank the hundreds of people that came out on Sunday to the Nashua Soup Kitchen Road Race and Walk for Hunger. It was a great turnout, a great day, and I hope a very successful event. Thank you. Bd. of Aldermen – 04/09/13 Page 21 President McCarthy There are no birthdays this month. I’d just like to say that Jurassic Park in IMAX 3D is awesome if you haven’t seen it. I was actually amazed at how many people seemed to have never seen the movie before at all. Alderman Deane I’m one of them. Committee announcements: Alderman Deane On the 11th of April, which is this Thursday, we’re having our first Skateboard Park Relocation Board meeting at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall, Room 208. The mayor will be attending to give some opening remarks to those that have the willingness to serve and to help out with everything. Thank you. Alderman Wilshire The Human Affairs Committee will meet on Thursday, the 11th at 7:00 p.m. On the agenda is the Community Development Block Grant public hearing that will be chaired by Alderman Sheehan. Alderman Tabacsko We’ve got the Downtown Committee this Friday, April 12, 7:30 a.m., in Room 208. Next Tuesday is the rescheduled PEDC which would have normally been on the first Tuesday. We pushed it out to next Tuesday the 16th. That’s next Tuesday, PEDC. Thank you. President McCarthy The Budget Committee will meet next Monday. The agenda will be limited to the four collective bargaining agreements. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE THAT THE APRIL 9, 2013 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk From: Esther Ross [erossea@gmail.coml Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:25 PM To: Lovering, Susan Subject: COMMENDATION RE: ALDERMEN I have resided in Nashua since 1986 and have been known to be a professional advocate working with schools, city officials and agencies to represent children with handicapping conditions (to obtain services for them under the law). 1 have watched our growing population, our expansion, development of many places. This year, Aldermen Jim Donchess & Mary Ann Melizzi-Golia have sent me much correspondence and issues before you for which I am truly grateful. Moreover, they have taken their precious time even in evenings to respond to any questions I may have. This is an excellent model for us all and while they are humble and consider this "doing the job," I see it as being truly "invested" in the citizen welfare. At times, others have not always responded or shared information but this certainly makes me proud of their work and caring. Please, in my behalf, let all the powers that be know that I am grateful to them and thank them sincerely. Thank you for a job well done Aldermen. Sincere good wishes to all, Mrs. Esther Ross, Advocate 8 Strawberry Bank Road, #20 Nashua, NH 03062 l  James B. and Mary E. Cutter 86 Palm St., P.O. Box 69 Nashua, NH 03061 Phone 889-4246 April 9, 2013 Brian S. McCarthy, President OPEN LETTER. Board of Aldermen Nashua, NH Dear Alderman McCarthy, I. MlL\ UTTUM n i l l M l I M J, C*r*a. *t " """II»«*-«», «tat* «f Hm lU^iU/t WHY BUILDING PERMIT - g f »T 15 If?* it ff rAltt. S l K l f £ •iCMtt 1* Math«, C.«tr «I IlllUtZ C- Säiaoitr >*«*«»« •** ' H i r t e l «• nui«<) l i ( l i i l i | *L ta< *«rtba»«t i t n t r »f i^l SMART PEOPLE • 14a tf hla ItrMtl UlM< rw*U| Ii) Iftikwtr Uct llr«it| U«iia t»u h l « im*« I • I laalfrlr ' r "14 t w l l l f n t »WHit 1 Uakii ta ___,, mf J.UH«I *r ,fbj « I I t«M n i ar 4iaa-C«MPM«<i*C U»* • • C 9 DO DUMB 111 »M-ibcrir »r i i ;«1U"> ta*« («l»tj»ti»«f U)) r<it| tkiHi . i i (U u . i ^ i r %r » u j>ui»> » I i " »»< *»• u u f in» «r » U JtllUn: tl>K4> HaMh>rlT .aldJ.ltl*** L*Mt -»•>»• I t f l f**t ltM f****rJ j *t JtHtt 4bau.a li> W.«l*ri rfcyaal« Um ItM ••<'•éIt (fOI h i t , • •!•» W I i m , «4 h U llfMt 4t U" »U« *Î k4|>Ul<«' THINGS f 1 " t*r U l l i r«f*r*%*« «•» <itl efaeIrtÎJriè ' ' ^ î * 4 fm*m* U IM . K l U t r»t*r. „ » i u u i « f " i k c. u tf a.|l»trr »f Ci'm. STATT O f W W «r a«««»»»Ta a. t»«« 1» * * " ** 1 I W «4 « l . r t . i la h l - , l l ) t h | ! JJÎ-4 Im A\ rr -"*" T h e G r e a t e s t Business Blunders— H o w They Happened, and H o w T h e / C o u l d Have B e e n P r e v e n t e d I L-^zJ^, i 'fr •ffV r* j • MORTIMER FEINBERG. PH.D. AND JOHN TARRANT The book, Why Smart People Do Dumb Things, explains why the Legal Dept. is DUMB to try to blame our neighbors for the City errors as I explained with RSA 626*3, Effect of Ignorance or Mistake and it was DUMB of Attorney Bennett to say Alderman Wilshire would not create a conflict of interest by sponsoring a certain bill« The above Deed and 1950/1971 Building Permits should BOTH have the 51' frontage on Palm St, AS REQUIRED BY LAW per RSA 641:3, Unsworn Falsification that states under (d) S u b m i t s a n y b o u n d a r y mark ,*-which he or she knows to be false. Thusf BUILDING PERMITS are supposed to agree with the DEED. It is DUMB if they do not. Sincerely, \ , pc. Donnalee Lozeau, Mayor Stephen M, Bennett, Deputy Corporation Counsel Board of Aldermen  QBonnalee Ifozecut MAYOR April 9, 2013 Alderman Brian McCarthy Board of Aldermen Nashua, NH 03060 Dear Alderman McCarthy: Resolutions R-13-101, R-13-102, R-13-103 and R-13-104 are being introduced tonight for your approval of the cost items contained in the proposed collective bargaining agreements for Nashua Police Department Supervisors, UAW, Communications, and Teamsters. In order to be fair and consistent in regard to employee wage increases and benefits and in light of the cost impact of these proposed contracts on the city's current and future budgets, I request that you not approve the cost items contained in these contracts. While I appreciate that the commission and the police unions have moved forward in the negotiation process, I am concerned with the cost. The proposed collective bargaining agreements contain wage increases and health care benefits that exceed those provided to over 90% of our other city employees. Over the last several years, this board has approved collective bargaining agreements for other city unions that contained significant concessions by the covered employees, based on the financial needs of the city. Those concessions included increased health care contributions and smaller pay checks for many of those employees. The great majority of city employees received wage increases for FY 12 and FY 13 of approximately .5% per year while doubling their health care insurance premiums. The largest increase to wages approved by this board to date totals 3.6% for three years ending in FY 14. I have asked this board in the past to treat city employees consistently and fairly when considering and approving cost items related to wages and benefits. You have applied this principle of consistency and fairness when you approved moving the date of the health care insurance premium increase to October 1,2011 and reimbursed those employees who had begun paying the increased contribution prior to that date. It was the right thing to do. The collective bargaining agreement cost items that you are being asked to approve in these police collective bargaining agreements exceed, by a considerable amount, those cost items previously approved by this board. City employees are entitled to expect the city will treat them consistently and fairly in regard to wage increases and health care insurance premium payments. Under these proposed contracts, police 229 Main Strcel • PO Box 2019 • Nashua, NH 03061-2019 603.589.3260 • fax 603.594.3450 • NashuaMayoiCflJNasbuaNII.gov employees would receive preferential treatment in regard to their wages and benefits at a higher cost to the city. Only one proposed contract, the Supervisors' Union, includes a health insurance article that increases premium contributions as of October 1,2011. But, because it is not possible to retroactively recapture copayments and deductibles, those employees are not required to increase co-pays or deductibles until July 1, 2013. In addition, under this collective bargaining agreement, lieutenants would receive a 5.2% wage increase over three years and sergeants, during that period, would receive a wage increase of 4.2%. These officers would also receive a $250 increase to their annual education incentive. The proposed UAW and Communications contracts provide for no wage increase during FY 12 or 13 and a 3.5% wage increase for FY 14. However, those employees would not pay any increased health care insurance premiums, co-pays or deductibles until July 1,2013. In other words, those employees would receive a larger wage increase than most other city employees while not being responsible for any health care insurance premium retro payments. The proposed teamsters' contract provides for wage increases of 5% or more for most of their members as well as a doubling of their longevity payments. Under all of these proposed contracts, police employees would receive increases to their wages and other benefits which exceed those received by other city employees and union members who have previously agreed to increase health care insurance premiums effective October 1,2011 and who have been paying increased co-pays and deductibles since their contracts were approved. The approval of the cost items contained in these agreements will also impact current contract negotiations which affect the great majority of our city employees. Those employees previously came to the bargaining table and reached agreement on their contacts for FY 12 and FY 13 agreeing to wage increases of approximately .5% per year while doubling their health care insurance premium contributions and have been paying increased co-pays and deductibles. These employees will ask the city to put them on an equal footing with police employees by matching the wage increases and making up for the increased health care insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles they have been paying and which police employees have not been required to pay. Attached to this letter is a summary chart that illustrates how the items I have referred to in this letter have been addressed in the other collective bargaining units to date. I hope you will find it helpful when considering the cost items. I wholeheartedly believe that the city needs to be consistent and fair when negotiating its employees' wages and benefits. The city's budget and its taxpayers cannot afford the increased wages and benefits which will result from the approval of these contracts. Sincerely.  Collective Bargaining Contract Status April 2013 Public Employee Unit Number of Current CBA Health Care Status Wage Increases Other Benefits Employer (Union) Employees Increases/Decreases (approx) Police Police Patrolmen 135 expired •Employee pays 10%/20% for HMO/POS Status quo Commission 6/30/2011; •plan changes (deductibles) have not in status quo occurred *no language to add additional plans •still names the two carriers Police Police 32 expired •Effective 10/1/11: City contributes 80% FY2012: Lts: 2% Vacation: Commission Supervisors 6/30/2011; and 70%; Sgts: 1% •25 workdays after 15 years of service in status quo *Co-pay & deductible changes effective FY2013: Lts & Sgts: 1% Educational Benefits: 7/1/13. FY2014: Lts & Sgts: 2.2% •Effective July 1,2011 : Increase educational incentives by $250/year Police Police Civilian 15 expired •Effective July 1,2013, the city shall 7/1/2011-0% Overtime & Flex Time: Commission (UAW) 6/30/2011; contribute 70% of the premium of option 7/1/2012-0% •Exempt employees called in for in status quo "a" and 80% of the premium for option T ; 7/1/2013-3.5% emergency situations during the weekend •Changes in co-pays & deductibles time will receive I Yix their base hourly effective 7/1/2013. rate. •Exempt employees shall be eligible for per-diem. Police Police 22 expired •Effective July 1,2013, the city shall FY2012 - 0 % Commission Communications 6/30/2011; contribute 70% of the premium of option FY2013 - 0% (NEPBA) in status quo "a" and 80% of the premium for option "b". FY2014 - 1.5% added to the •Changes in deductibles and co-pays apply grid; move one step (2%); if on effective 7/1/13 the last step 3.5% increase. Police Police Clerical 31 expired •Effective on approval of this contract FY2012 - $600 increase Loneevitv: Commission (Teamsters) 6/30/2011; •City contributions for healthcare premiums FY2013 - $600 increase •July 1,2012: Longevity payments double. in status quo equal to the that for city plans; employees FY2014 - $925 increase responsible for balance of premiums Police Unaffiliated 31 N/A Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY12- 0.5% COLA Commission 10/1/11 FY13-1.0% COLA Plan changes - 10/1/11  Collective Bargaining Contract Status April 2013 Public Employee Unit Number of Current CBA Health Care Status Wage Increases Other Benefits Employer (Union) Employees Increases/Decreases (approx) Library Library (AFT) 37 ends 6/30/2013 Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY12 -0,5% Trustees 10/1/11 FY13 -0.5% Plan changes - 7/1/12 Fire Fire Fighters 165 ends 6/30/2013 Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY12-0.5% Commission (IAFF) 10/1/11 FY13 -0.5% Plan changes - 7/1/12 Steps at 1% years 1,2, 3,4,10, 15,20 and 25 •Mayor City Clerical/ 86 ends 6/30/2014 Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY12 - 0.5% •Dissolved tuition reimbursement account •Board of Technical 10/1/11 FY13 -1.0% and went to actual mileage instead of Public (UAW) Plan changes - 9/1/12 FY 14: step on grid with positive stipend to provide funds to help with Works evaluation, steps average is 2.1% insurance retro owed •Fire Commission •Mayor City Professional 42 ends 6/30/2014 Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY 12 —0.5% •Dissolved tuition reimbursement account •Board of (UAW) 10/1/11 FY13 -1.0% and went to actual mileage instead of Public Plan changes - 9/1/12 FY14 - Step on grid with stipend to provide funds to help with Works positive evaluation, steps insurance retro owed average is 2.1% Board of Public Works 110 ends 6/30/2014 Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY12 - 0.5% •No tuition reimbursement during CBA Public (AFSCME) 10/1/11 FY13 -1.0% term and gave up 2 personal days in FY 14 Works Plan changes-11/1/12 FY14-2.0% to provide funds ($50,000) to help with insurance retro owed •Have to maintain 110 employees during CBA term Mayor Merit 123 N/A Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY12-0.5% 10/1/11 FY 13 - Remainder of the step; Plan changes - 10/1/11 between 2%-2.5%  Collective Bargaining Contract Status April 2013 Public Employee Unit Number of Current Health Care Status Wage Increases Other Benefits Employer (Union) Employees CBA Increases/Decreases (approx) Nashua School Teachers 1,017 ends Contribution increase to 20%/30% - 9/1/11-$250 Increases were added to salary. School (AFT) 8/31/2013 10/1/11 8/31/12-$375 District Plan changes - 10/1/11 2/1/13-$250 (Cost analysis: FY12 -0.43%; FY 13 -0.87%) No steps (would be employee increases at years 3,4,6,7,8,9,10,13) (Approximate annual total cost of steps is $2 million) Nashua School Food 112 ends Contribution increase to 20%/30% - 9/1/11-0.5% School Service Workers 8/31/2013 10/1/11 9/1/12-0.5% District (AFT) Plan changes - 10/1/11 Plus increases at employee years 5 and 9 Nashua School 83 ends Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY12-0.25% School Secretaries 6/30/2013 10/1/11 FY13 - 0.25% District (AFT) Plan changes - 10/1/11 Plus increases at employee years 6,11,16 Nashua School 396 ends Employer pays 65%/70%/80% of single FY13 - 2% School Paraprofessionals 6/30/2014 coverage or monetary equivalent based FY14-2% District (AFT) on employee 1-4/5-9/10+ years of service Plan changes - 7/1/12 Nashua School 131 ends Contribution increase to 20%/30% - FY12: -0.6% School Custodians 6/30/2013 10/1/11 FY13: -0.6% District (AFSCME) Plan changes-7/1/12 (flat amount added to wage rates, not a percentage) Also: 7/1/11 - $250 lump sum 7/1/12-$250 lump sum Nashua Unaffiliated 142 N/A Contribution increase to 20%/30% - School 10/1/11 District Plan changes - 10/1/11