Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, March 25, 2014, at 7:36 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President David W. Deane presided; City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron recorded. Prayer was offered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron; Alderman David Schoneman led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 13 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman Dowd and Alderman Moriarty were recorded absent. Her Honor Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and Corporation Counsel Stephen M. Bennett were also in attendance. REMARKS BY THE MAYOR – None RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR – None RECOGNITION PERIOD R-14-012 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Board of Aldermen EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GRADUATES OF THE FIRST NASHUA YOUTH AMBASSADOR PROGRAM Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-14-012 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-012 given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-012 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-012 declared duly adopted. READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF MARCH 11, 2014, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE AND THE READING SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: David W. Deane, President of the Board of Aldermen Re: Joint Special School Building Committee Assignments, O-14-007 MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND CONCUR WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF ALDERMAN DOWD, ALDERMAN MCCARTHY, ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI- GOLJA, ALDERMAN SOUCY AND ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO THE JOINT SPECIAL SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 2 From: David W. Deane, President of the Board of Aldermen Re: Boys & Girls Club Request MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW THE INDIVIDUALS FROM THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB TO SPEAK DURING THE FIRST PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT THIS EVENING MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Amber Rak, 47 Grand Avenue Good evening Mayor and Aldermen, my name is Amber Rak and this is Hector Collazo and we are from the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Nashua. We are also youth of the year finalists. We are here tonight to remind you that on April 10th at 5:30pm, we are going to be having a special discover hour that we planned just for you. We will have club members and staff there to talk to you about the exciting programs we have to offer and give you a personal tour. Hector Collazo, 47 Grand Avenue Did you know that each weekday at the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Nashua serve over 400 area youth between the ages of 5 to 18? From character development programs to homework helping, healthy lifestyle habits to college prep. The programs impact all of the kids and our community every day and we can’t wait to see you there and we thank you for your time. Janet Orozco, 9 Forest Drive I would like to extend our appreciation and thank you for having the Youth Ambassador Program through the Ethic Awareness Committee. We also wanted to mention a recognition of leadership from Juan Baez to his family and we would like for the Aldermen to accept the Ethnic Awareness Committee – on behalf of the Ethnic Awareness Committee, the Youth’s Ambassador’s Program would like to extend the gratitude and appreciation for your efforts as a recognized leader in the greater Nashua community. As most of you might know, Juan Baez passed away but his family will carry his legacy and so will the community. I would like to have his wife Mrs. Baez receive this. Mrs. Baez Thank you. Neal Barrett, 6-18 Strawberry Bank Road I am a city resident, tax payer, and by profession, a commercial real estate broker for Collier’s International. I am commenting regarding the process that I followed from the outside regarding the proposed used of the remnant parcel at 44 Broad Street for the relocation of the skate park. I live in Ward 8 at Exit 1. I am not an abutter I am speaking as a concerned citizen and tax payer as well as with my knowledge as a commercial real estate broker. I have summarized my comments in the handout that was passed out. I don’t know that this process has been fully open to the public or public hearings. I believe there was a similar resolution introduced last year and it was tabled and as part of that tabling process, there was a call for a public informational meeting. To the best of my knowledge, no meeting has been held. R-14-018 relative to the skate park at 44 Broad Street is a simple legislation in that resolution; it talks about 44 Broad Street being chosen as the parcel. I reviewed the minutes of the two hearings and there were only two hearings by the Broad Street Skate Park Relocation Board and there was any reference in either set minutes to a vote or a recommendation as 44 Broad Street as the parcel for the relocation. I looked on the website and similarly, I have read the minutes of both of those meetings. They reviewed maybe a half of dozen sites, maybe ten sites at most. It was a very informal Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 3 process. There were no stringent site search criteria and I’m very familiar with the site search criteria given my profession as a commercial real estate broker. A lot of things were missing as part of that process, not only as part of the process as a board as site selection, but the lack of public input. A couple of questions I have are why is 44 Broad Street the preferred site? How did this occur and when did this vote occur? Secondly, if it’s not the preferred site and it’s still an open question, why is site design being done? I don’t know whether that’s being paid out of city funds, other funds, or gratis but why is the site being designed if 44 Broad Street is not a (inaudible.) What is the projected cost of building the new skate park or the relocated skate park? What are the annual maintenance expenses? What is the size of the remainder parcel at 44 Broad Street? Has this parcel been appraised? That is a very valuable piece of land from a commercial real estate re-development point of view. You are sitting on a very valuable piece of land and as much as the city went through with the CVS parcel across the street and other parcels that the city has owned, just to simply turn it into a skate board park without evaluating its potential re-development site as sale proceeds to the city as well as the future property taxes on the land itself as well as a new building on the site. Has any other use of the remainder parcel been considered other than the skate park? I don’t know. There haven’t been any hearings. I haven’t seen it in the minutes. Once again, the fiscal analysis of the skate park versus another use for the site. Can the skate park be sold generating the funds to find a parcel, build a new skate park in a revenue neutral way, additionally in a revenue neutral way? The annual tax revenues from that newly commercial re-development may pay for maintenance of the new skate parks. The last thing, and this is an aesthetic question, but as a commercial real estate broker who is concerned as a citizen in Nashua, is this skate park the best use image of that property that would be the entrance to a new $65 million Broad Street Parkway? Overall, I believe that the introduction of this resolution is premature and postponing it will not have any adverse effect. I believe that any decision that will potentially have $1 million impact +/- given all the factors that I talked about now and into the future, city tax payers should require more public input and not solely on the input of the board that has had two meetings and did not conduct a comprehensive site selection process. In one of my earlier bullets, I said there were six to twelve members according to the minutes. I don’t think this has been thoroughly vetted. I think that, once again, I don’t attend all of your aldermanic meetings, but the Telegraph does a pretty good job of reporting in my opinion and one of the comments that I constantly get in the Telegraph articles is you feel that budgetary items and projects have to be scrutinized and reviewed in a very thorough manger. I don’t think this has been done yet if the goal is to choose 44 Broad Street. Those are my comments and I welcome questions but I don’t know how this works. President Deane Mr. Barrett, you are here to give public comment but if you want to stay until the bitter end of the meeting, I’ll answer most, if not all of your questions. Kelly Maribito, 2 Sullivan Street I am here to speak to R-14-018 which is about the Broad Street Parkway and the skate park. First of all, I want to second that I am very disappointed with the short notice of this meeting and the way that the aldermen of Nashua have handled this topic. Only a handful of children in the surrounding neighborhoods – I just don’t see why this is a good location for the skate park. It’s a high traffic and accident area and that is not going to be alleviated by the Broad Street Parkway. Kids could get hit there; we see it all the time where there are accidents right outside of Dairy Queen. It will be an eye sore at the end of the new parkway. If you take a look at the one that’s in Nashua already, there’s graffiti all over it, and it’s not something that I want to look at when I am going to go shopping in downtown Nashua. It won’t welcome new businesses to the Mill area. I thought that the entire idea of the parkway was to kind of revitalize that area. I wouldn’t want to spend the money to put my business down at the end of that when the first thing my customers would see is a graffiti full skate park. I foresee it potentially decreasing my property value but I don’t have any facts behind that. I also don’t want to be policing this and I don’t want any more problems than we already have in that area. I don’t think it’s a good location and I don’t think enough has been done to let the neighborhood talk on this topic. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 4 President Deane You are absolutely correct. Nothing has been done. Bill Gurney, 83 Broad Street My wife Charlotte is with me and we own Gurney’s Automotive Repair at 83 Broad Street. We would like to speak about the resolution on the skate park location. We have a vested interest in that location. We have worked hard and have invested a lot of monetary value in maintaining our property there and I think everyone knows the property. We try to do a really outstanding job to try to represent our character but also the character of the city. We believe that our property is a compliment to the city and with the Broad Street Parkway going in and it being deemed a Gateway to the City; we believe that we are a strategic partner in that our place will add value to the entrance to the parkway. We have concerns about the location of 44 Broad Street for the skate park. Is it the highest and best use for this property as we go forward? Is 44 Broad Street the finalized location for the skate park? The resolution states that 44 Broad Street in the caption which indicates to me or infers to me that it has been chosen as the location. What I would ask the Board to consider before going to committee, if it is going to committee, that we would amend that resolution so that the location would be to be determined. If it hasn’t been designated as the site, it’s very misleading to the public and very misleading to us and actually puts my feathers in a ruffle when I find out that it’s (or it appears to be) the final destination. I would recommend that we amended to take the address out and go forward with the location to be determined because we don’t know the location. I think this would suggest to the public that the public meetings that are going to follow would be much more meaningful and not just a formality because if the address is already chosen and we are having public meetings, as a layman, I’m thinking that the decision has been made and the public meeting is just so that we can say we had them and I don’t think that’s prudent for any of us. Is by accepting the funds for the Broad Street Parkway, does it marry or obligate the city to moving the skate park there? One of my concerns is if all the traffic studies have been done since the parkway has been designed to consider the impact that the increased foot traffic will have. You are going to have to have a signalized crosswalk at that intersection now. Those traffic studies were done based on a certain traffic pattern and a certain amount of foot traffic. If you put the skate park there and there’s a lot more foot traffic coming across from Sullivan Street or people coming from Charlotte Avenue, you are going to disrupt the signals differently from what was designed. Have the traffic studies been re-done and considered as to what the impact will be? It will become one of the busiest intersections in the north end. You are going to put a crosswalk with all the kids going across, I’m not sure whether that makes good sense or not. One of the reasons we were told that 44 Broad Street is a desirable location for the skate park is that it’s in a much more open space than where it is now. With there being a much more open space, it’s much more visible to the police and to the people going by so maybe there would be less trouble. Also, in the present skate park, there are trees and woods behind it which allows people to congregate and where things of undesirable nature may be taken place and it’s very hard for the police to see that because of where it is located. Those are the reasons that we have talked about with some people from city. To go back to 2000, when we bought the property at 79 – 83 Broad Street, there were two houses on that piece of property. One house on the corner of Short Avenue was empty and was a crack house. If I had more notice of the meeting, I could have brought pictures of the inside of the house. So, to speak to that of it being a more visible area, the same area, the same amount of traffic, the same police presence, there was a crack house on the corner. I am sure I could get the neighbors to substantiate that so I don’t know that that holds water for me that just because it’s more visible, there will be less trouble. The woods scenario troubles me a great deal. There is not woods and that’s great. They will go behind the car wash, behind the chiropractor’s office. I spoke to Mr. Lanzara and he couldn’t be here because he didn’t know about the meeting. I don’t know what his opinions are either way, but he did say it was okay to use his name and that he definitely does not know all of the facts yet. Not only that but when they cross back over Broad Street, you have the railroad tracks. I will tell you and it’s common sense that if things like that are going to happen, the railroad tracks will be the place they go – secluded, it’s behind our building, and it’s against the houses on the back side of that neighborhood. We all know what’s going to happen. The kids at the skate park are not the problem; it’s not that issue, it’s the other things that go along with it. As far as being open and transparent, I would like to say that it would be helpful to the residents and the Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 5 abutters to have a better communication system to know about meetings, like tonight’s. I heard about it by a customer and through an e-mail. I’m a little disappointed in the fact that I didn’t know this was going to on. To recap, I would like to have you consider the fact that the location is on this resolution. Should we amend the resolution to read as the location to be determined because I know that it would make me feel better, and I believe the residents would feel better as well. At least we would have opportunity at public meetings to be heard with sincerity. Thank you for your time. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive I wasn’t going to comment on R-14-018 but I guess this almost sounds like another Greeley Park. The residents don’t know what’s going on in their own neighborhood. Just shove it in there. I think that’s what’s going on in this city right now which is just do what we want to do and forget about everybody else. It would be nice, businesses and residents on Broad Street in any neighborhood, give them a heads up about what you want to do. I thought there was asbestos out in that area or along the river bank. I wouldn’t want to put a skate board park out by asbestos with kids. We don’t need them to get black lung disease. I’m sure there are other places in the city. They can put it on the side of Greeley Park maybe where the Mayor wants to put the Legacy Park and combine everyone together. I’m here to talk about R-14-015, approving a $100,000 to Cotton Mills Square, LLC for work on the right abutment of Jackson Mills’s dam. This to me in corporate welfare, this man got enough from us to build Jackson Mills, I mean enough is enough. If he can’t eat $100,000 which is going to help him anyway, enough is enough. I’m tired of this corporate welfare. These are our hard earned tax dollars that we keep giving to Mr. Stabile. Last year I talked about that, I didn’t feel we should have given him a penny and a tax break. No one gives me a tax break, no one gives our senior citizens tax breaks but we give Mr. Stabile a tax break. I’m not happy about that. Let him eat the $100,000, we could do something else with $100,000. Maybe use it to pave the roads in the city. How many linear miles could we use with $100,000 rather than giving it to Mr. Stabile. Also, I ‘m a little bit concerned with R-14-016 and R-14-017 about Pennichuck. We are going to have a $10 million revolving line of credit and then we are going to enter a long-term loan for the state drinking water revolving loan fund. I think, we the people, need to know, once we enter into all of these loans, how much are our rates going to go up. Our rates were never supposed to go up when we bought Pennichuk. That was a lie to us. Our rates are going up. I don’t care if .39 cents, it went up. It’s still .39 cents a year more that I have to pay more on this. Once this gets approved, we need to know how much our rates are going to go on the loan. Somebody’s got to pay back the loan and it’s going to be the rate payers. PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS The following Appointment by the President of the Board of Aldermen was read into the record: Board of Health Charles T. Cappetta, M.D. Term to Expire: December 31, 2015 2300 Southwood Drive Nashua, NH 03063 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT FO DR. CHARLES T. CAPPETTA, 2300 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE, NASHUA, TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2015 MOTION CARRIED President Deane declared Dr. Charles T. Cappetta duly elected to the Board of Health for a term to expire December 31, 2015. Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 6 REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Finance Committee ............................................................................ 03/05/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the March 5, 2014 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure ............................................................. 03/12/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the March 12, 2014 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Human Affairs Committee Site Visits ................................................. 03/14/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the March 14, 2014 Human Affairs Committee Site Visits accepted and placed on file. Planning & Economic Development Committee ................................. 03/04/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the March 4, 2014 Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file. Planning & Economic Development Committee ................................. 03/18/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the March 18, 2014 Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS – None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-14-012 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman Ken Siegel ALLOWING RESIDENTS OF MULBERRY STREET TO PURCHASE OVERNIGHT ON-STREET PARKING PERMITS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO AMEND O-14-012 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess Before Alderman Chasse asks, let me explain the amendment. As originally proposed, the O-14-012 said residents of, and it added Mulberry Street, are also allowed to purchase permits. The reason for that proposal is that Mulberry Street, like Buck Street, is a very narrow street and so there’s no parking allowed on it. The way the ordinance was originally drafted, only residents of the streets which were Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 7 designated as accommodating on-street parking were allowed to participate. Alderwoman Brown and I were contacted by residents of Mulberry Street who wanted to participate in the program so we sponsored the resolution to enable them to participate, of course, Mulberry Street being in the neighborhood where the on-street parking is allowed. Then, while that was pending, a resident of 136 Pearl Street which is at the corner of Walnut and Pearl Streets whose door is actually on Walnut Street but who’s official address is 136 West Pearl Street, contacted Patty Rogers about the possibility of participating and trying to get permits. The City Clerk, based upon the language of the ordinance, had said that because their official address is 136 Pearl Street, they did not fit within the details of the ordinance. Based upon that input, we recommended that the ordinance be amended in committee to include residents of 136 West Pearl Street whose side door or the side of their building is on Walnut Street so that they can get overnight parking permits. I think that explains both the original and the amendment. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-012 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse There’s no way that you can put cars on those streets, Buck Street or Mulberry Street, at night and have a fire truck get down those streets. It will be impossible. I drove Buck Street many a time just to make sure and with the snow banks out there that we just got rid of, or they are melting away, it’s tough for me to make it just with my car down Buck Street. I think we are creating a big hazard here and if you look at some of the streets like Palm Street at night, I have purposefully have gone down Palm Street at night and my car fits so there’s no way we can get an emergency vehicle, it doesn’t have to be a fire truck, it could be just a good size ambulance or an EMT truck. I think we are creating a big hazard and I will not be supporting this because I did say if you are going to do it, you should do it for the whole city, everybody should be treated the same. It’s just a hazard, someone is going to get hurt or a house is going to get burned down because the fire department will not be able to get to it. That’s my stand on it. Alderman Donchess Let me clarify what we are doing here. This does not say that you can park overnight on Buck or Mulberry Streets, in fact, you cannot. What this says is that if you live on Buck Street or if you live on Mulberry Street, you can get a permit to park on the streets where overnight parking is allowed. We have already done that for Buck Street and I think we have gotten some people on Buck Street who park on Walnut or wherever else in the neighborhood that parking is allowed. This does not allow parking on Buck or Mulberry overnight. As far as Palm Street, maybe that should be corrected. Maybe you are right there but this doesn’t address that either way and as far as extended it to other neighborhoods, I think once we get through this pilot, that’s probably a good idea. Alderman Chasse Well, I guess I’m kind of concerned then because if you can’t park on Buck Street, they are parking there after midnight, I can tell you that right now. They park on Mulberry Street also. If you are just opening it up to a guy on Pearl Street, why aren’t you opening it up to the whole neighborhood because there may be some other small streets that may want to park on Palm Street. Like I said, I am against it because it’s a hazard. I see what you are saying, if they live there, they can park on the other streets. So now, you are going to get all of the people on Mulberry Street going over to park on another one and then you are going to have those people that live on that street not have a place to park. Was that ever taken into consideration? You only have so many parking spots. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 8 Alderman Donchess The City Clerk can maybe give you the exact number but we are not overwhelmed with permit applications at this point. We have 600 spaces designated and we allow for 400 permits if 400 people apply but to date, I’d say it’s a little less than 100 that have applied. I understand Alderman Chasse’s thinking on some it regarding extending this to other locations but I think this only enables people who are in the neighborhood to park where it’s allowed and where other people are already parked. Alderman Sheehan I was going to offer the numbers that Alderman Donchess just offered so he answered it. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-14-012 declared duly adopted as amended. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO WITHDRAW FROM COMMITTEE ORDINANCE O-14-014, REGARDING REAPPOINTMENT PROCEDURES ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel I know you are all probably wondering what’s going on. There was a small change made in committee to that ordinance and that same ordinance had appeared before the Planning Board and it had gotten a recommendation. The problem is because the rules according to corporate counsel, I believe we have to go through a series of three motions here to reset the clock on this. It’s because of the way the rules for reappointments are written. I believe this is a state issue. I have to make these motions to pull it out so that we can then agree to amend it and stick it back and then put it back before the Planning Board and reschedule a meeting. There will be a series of motions all to change probably seven words in this ordinance to make it more airtight shall we say. I apologize to Alderman Chasse in advance for pulling his ordinance out just for this. MOTION CARRIED O-14-014 Endorser: Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. REGARDING REAPPOINTMENT PROCEDURES Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO AMEND O-14-014 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE BLUE COPY PLACED ON OUR DESKS THIS EVENING ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel There are just some words added. After all initial appointments in Part I, Section B, the wording “or appointments from alternate to regular membership” should be added. Basically, the issue was that if you were brand new to an appointment or you were a full member of a board, then the ordinance was clear but what wasn’t clear was what would happen if you were an alternate. The wording was changed to encompass alternates also. There’s that change in language there and also in Section E 2 where the change was made from any Mayoral appointment to add the language “or appointment from alternate to regular membership.” It was fairly straight forward but it was made to encompass all of the cases that were required. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 9 Alderman Sheehan Is changing the language what the state is requiring through Attorney Bennett? Alderman Siegel No, the state has no requirements on this. I made the change to account for that edge condition where you have somebody who is an alternate on a committee and that was accepted by the committee. The legal requirements I believe are for notification. These sets of motions that I am making really are a consequence of having changed something that has already been accepted by the Planning Board and which a public meeting has been scheduled for. You have to take it back, give it to them so they can reschedule their meeting and then rehear it. Alderman Sheehan Did the Planning Board approve or…. President Deane They have rendered a recommendation on the original because they met a week or so ago. Alderman Sheehan Was that a favorable recommendation? President Deane Yes, it was. Alderman Sheehan Do we have the ability now to have anybody at our request come in? My understanding is as an alternate on a land/use board you are given the packet and most of the alternates go to all of the meetings and end up becoming a full member because they are participating more than a full member is able to anymore or somebody has fallen off. Haven served on Personnel the last term, I’m not sure – I thought what we were trying to do is decrease some of the load because most of the appointments are land/use boards and it seems like last term we did a lot of redundant work that tied up a lot of volunteers and a lot time. Alderman Chasse I totally agree with you. My intentions were not to have the alternates that are going to become full- fledged members coming in front of my committee because theoretically, we don’t what they ask them. We know what kind of job they are doing up there, even the Conservation Commission people that come in front of us. That was my intent, to stop this because they are volunteers, they are not getting any stipend whatsoever, and it’s another night that they have to come down in front of us and we just sit there and say “oh, you are doing a fine job, thank you very much for coming.” When it came to the alternates, I said okay, I became a team player; I just said that’s fine. I can always look at it later on and if it doesn’t come through and the alternates are coming here and it’s more or less like just showing up and we are not asking them any questions then I’ll change the ordinance next time around. This is just a happy medium. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 10 Alderman McCarthy I just wanted to point out by way of background that the reason that we are required to have a hearing is because it’s an amendment to what constitutes the zoning and planning code and that’s why the state law requires that we have a hearing and refer it to the Planning Board. Alderman Siegel This whole issue of whether it was an inconvenience or not was discussed in committee and I think it’s fair to say that there are certainly a class of members of committee’s that do show up as alternates and one would treat them one way but that’s not always the case. This allows us the ability for those that aren’t always showing up because the regular members do show up all of the time to address that. Also, let’s keep in mind that these appointments in general are two to three years at a minimum and so I don’t expect that it is that much of an inconvenience for an alternate to show up for an interview if they wish to be reappointed. I just think it makes everything a lot cleaner. It’s not time urgent that this gets done by April 1st in any way shape or form as far as I see. I don’t see that it’s a really big issue. Alderman Chasse Alderman Siegel, you are aware that alternates do come in front of us and we do speak with them and before they even become an alternate so they do show up in front of us. We have had situations in the past where an alternate has come in front of us and within a month, they become a full-fledged member and they have to come back. You saw it the other night and this is what I am trying to avoid. I can play ball either way. I’m not going to lose my hair over it. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja Just in listening to Alderman Chasse and trying to see if we can reach a medium here, looking at E, could we, and I’m asking Alderman Siegel this, could we maybe amend this to where it would just say “reappointments or appointment from alternate to regular membership shall be interviewed in public by the appropriate committee at the request of any member of the Board of Alderman.” Alderman Siegel I believe that there would be no reason to change that language because that’s already encompassed in the ordinance as proposed. I suppose one gets into a situation where do you want to be the alderman that calls somebody out for example? I suppose it’s possible if you have decided that somebody hasn’t shown up and they probably deserve a second look. I look at these ordinances and I ask is they are complete do they cover the cases that we want to have them cover? The way it was worded, it did not cover that to me. That’s why I proposed the change. It was accepted in committee. We have fifteen people here and they can vote whatever way they feel, if you don’t like it, fine, vote against it. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I was just offering a modification of the language that is already there. Alderman Sheehan Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja triggered two thoughts. One is “reappointments shall only be interviewed in public by the appropriate Aldermanic Committee” – does that mean that the Mayor cannot interview them because I don’t think that’s the intent? It does say “may only be interviewed by the Aldermanic Committee.” To me, that would say that any Mayor is precluded from interviewing them first because it says “only.” I just think there needs to be some punctuation there so that that’s clear. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 11 Alderman McCarthy They are not appointments at the time that the Mayor interviews them. They are appointments when they are submitted to the Board of Alderman so I don’t think there is anything inconsistent with that. Alderman Sheehan Okay, just where it says “shall only be interviewed in public by” – I just thought some punctuation could help but okay. The other thing is in response to what Alderman Chasse said; when we are re- interviewing people immediately if we could say if they haven’t been interviewed within the last year might be…I remember people having to come in who had just been there after we passed at the last session. I’m just trying to avoid that. Alderman Chasse I’m not trying to make this a difficult thing but it’s turning into a difficult thing. It’s very simple. Here’s the blue copy, if we pass it, we keep on going, if we don’t pass it, we go back to what the original was where the reappointments don’t come down in front of me or the alternates don’t come down in front of me because we have already interviewed them. A “no” vote on this means we go back to what was before the amendment in the committee. Alderman Soucy Thank you, I wasn’t clear on that. I guess I was in the minority yesterday and agreed with Alderman Chasse on if we brought them in as an alternate, I don’t really think there is going to be much of a change if we are going to bring them in as a full member of the board. Having served on commissions and as a liaison on commissions, I do see that the alternates are quite often there so I am not going to be supporting this change and would like to see it go back. Alderman Siegel Just a housekeeping note, at this point the motion on the table is not to vote whether we accept this or not. I think it’s just to accept the blue copy which we will then vote on I think as the final motion. Is that correct? President Deane That’s correct but if the amendment isn’t supported through the vote with the motion that is on the floor, the ordinance stays in committee as it is. Alderman Wilshire I was at the Personnel and Administrative Affairs Committee meeting and like Alderman Chasse said, it seemed like an okay middle ground and if you have someone that’s appointed for two or three years as an alternate and they don’t show up for two years, that’s a long time period to not have seen somebody or had them in so I supported the amendment that he made. Alderman Caron I was at the Personnel and Administrative Affairs Committee meeting as well and I agreed with Alderman Chasse when he first brought in the ordinance but I can understand Alderman Siegel’s position. I don’t see a problem with it. As Alderman Chasse said, if it doesn’t work or we are getting crowded with it, we can always change it; it’s not set in stone. These things change and evolve so I’ll support it at this point in time and see where we go with it. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 12 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RE-REFER O-14-014, AS AMENDED, TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, THE PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND THE NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED BEFORE THE PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2014, AT 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER ON THE QUESTION Does a copy of that go to the Zoning Board so they are aware that something is going on? President Deane I guess we could send the Zoning Board a copy if you like. Sure. The Planning Board will get their notification obviously and I’ll ask Sue to give them a copy of this as amended if it passes. MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-013 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown DECLARING MAY SCULPTURES MONTH Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-014 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF EIGHT MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($8,790,250) FOR BROAD STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HVAC IMPROVEMENTS AND BUILDING RENOVATIONS Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO ACCEPT THE FIRST READING OF R-14-014 BY ROLL CALL, ASSIGN IT TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014, AT 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Ald. McCarthy, Ald. Schoneman, Ald. Chasse Ald. Caron, Ald. McGuinness, Ald. Sheehan Ald. Soucy, Ald. Donchess, Ald. Siegel Ald. Melizzi-Golja, Ald. Brown, Ald. Wilshire Ald. Deane 13 Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 13 R-14-015 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy APPROVING A $100,000 PAYMENT TO COTTON MILL SQUARE, LLC FOR WORK ON THE RIGHT ABUTMENT OF THE JACKSON MILLS DAM Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-016 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau APPROVING THE PROPOSAL OF PENNICHUCK CORPORATION TO BORROW UP TO TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000) UNDER A REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT WITH TD BANK, N.A. Given its first reading; assigned to the PENNICHUCK WATER SPECIAL COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-017 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau APPROVING THE PROPOSAL OF PENNICHUCK CORPORATION TO GIVE PENNICHUCK WATER WORKS, INC. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A LONG TERM LOAN FROM THE STATE DRINKING WATER REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM Given its first reading; assigned to the PENNICHUCK WATER SPECIAL COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-018 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane APPROVING 44 BROAD STREET AS THE REPLACEMENT SITE FOR THE DAVID W. DEANE SKATEBOARD PARK CURRENTLY LOCATED ON BRIDGE STREET AND CHANGING THE AGENT TO EXPEND FOR THE DAVID W. DEANE SKATEBOARD PARK EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-14-016 Endorsers: Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan PROHIBITING PARKING ON NASHUA SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY EXCEPT AS PERMITTED Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane O-14-017 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MERIT EMPLOYEE RULES AND REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014 Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Cutter, 86 Palm Street An open letter to Alderman Deane Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 14 To start with, we wish to thank Alderman Donchess for suggesting we do a land swap to solve our problem. I’m sorry to say that it cannot be done because there is no land to swap with and an abandoned house is at the property line. The current law dictionary’s have curtilage included in the Fourth Amendment. I’ve made a copy of what I’ve found in the dictionary. No doubt, the city is depriving us of a constitutional right. We would like Mayor Lozeau to obey federal, state, and city charter laws and ordinances. The Gilbertson’s need to know the city building inspectors did not make sure the actual dimension of 51 feet was on the permit plan. The extra land they took must be returned to the Cutter’s. I cannot think of anything less expensive than a $3.75 certified mail letter to the Gilbertson’s to solve our problem. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive I was in the paper on Saturday. A lot of people I’ve known have stopped me and said great picture. It had to do with the right-to-know law. I went to a class up in Manchester and Attorney Gregory Sullivan with the Telegraph was there. I just want to let everybody know that one of the things that emphasized was that any money that is being spent that is public money, we have the right to know how it is being spent. That’s under the right-to-know law and it’s simple and easy. If anyone makes requests, you have five days to answer, to let us know what we are going to be getting and then it has to be within a reasonable amount of time. What is reasonable? Probably a month is not reasonable. Secondly, I’d like to say thank you to the Mayor for the thank you note that you wrote me regarding my tax bills. I guess I was right but thank you, I thought that was very nice of you to write me a letter. I don’t think I’ll be at the Board of Public Works meeting on Thursday as my husband has to go in for surgery but that night at the meeting I asked about the stone house. Why would there be public employees at the stone house? You said to me “read the e-mail that had to be talking about the safer routes walking to school in that area.” I read the e-mail aloud and then I asked why would these people be at the stone house and you said “maybe they are using the bathroom.” Well, I thought to myself, this is winter, who would keep the water running at the stone house in the winter, the pipes would freeze and then we would have more problems. I walked up to the stone house through the snow, took a picture that said Keep Out, and then I walked across the street to Parks & Recs. I asked if the water was running at the facility at the stone house and I was told it was shut off in the winter and so is the bathroom on this side. I am wondering why I was told people at the stone house may be using the bathroom. That’s doesn’t ride with me. Maybe they were doing the safer walk to school and maybe they were also checking out the bathroom so in case the Legacy Park went there because if we have to have work done there, it would probably go underneath the radar of $10,000, probably $9,999.99 worth of work so we wouldn’t have to approve a contract. That’s what I was really concerned about. Then when I was at the Infrastructure Committee meeting last week, and I was really taken aback by Mr. Lannon talking about if in fact the city, $728,000, this was approved starting in 2013, that the Downtown Improvement Committee, which are not even elected officials, can make a decision on money that the city is going to give and what they are going to do with it. Mr. Lannon talked about a $105,000 because I guess anything over $1 million and then it’s calculated by $728,000, I’m all confused with this ordinance. The bottom line is that this is another thing of corporate welfare for downtown. If the Downtown Improvement Committee gets about $100,000, here we go with this $100,000 again. We are giving it to them. What could we do with $100,000? How many streets of linear miles could we pave with $100,000? Like with Mr. Stabile with downtown, I’m tired of giving my money away. Downtown has to learn, the merchants have to learn how to build up downtown. This all had to do with the parking meters. They don’t want to lose $20,000 - $40,000 during Christmas. They don’t want free parking in Zone 1. Maybe Zone 2 and Zone 3 are off of the beaten path because employees might park there during the time there is free parking. I did mention that my employer tells me where to park and my employer tells me what door to go into. If I don’t follow the rules and regulations, my employer will say there’s the door, see you later, end of story. How do you not control your employees? For two weeks in the Christmas season, where will people go? To the malls. Are businesses that unrealistic? Why wouldn’t you want to keep the money in your business for two weeks? The two weeks before Christmas, that’s the mad rush. Last minute shopping. The city is not going to lose much on $30,000 - $40,000, that’s just a drop in the bucket of a $236,000,000 plus budget. Again we are being dictated to by the merchants. The merchants should want to embrace people coming in to shop. Is the economy that much better? All we are doing is building more strip malls but who is coming and what jobs are we creating in the city? Retail jobs and so I keep thinking about this and just disturbs Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 15 me. The final thing that I want to talk about which I read in the paper, this corporate welfare in the city has got to go. You can’t have my tax dollars anymore. The train – I think there are a lot of questions that have to be answered about the rail coming to Nashua. Who’s going to pay for the transit police, who is going to pay for the employees, who is going to pay for the rail to be brought up, who is going to oversee it? Someone made a comment that we are going to bring in 1,000 jobs; it was directed at me – public/private partnership. Are they going to be long lasting jobs or are they going to be just temporary jobs? How do we fund this? It’s going to be about $190 million proposition. Not with our tax dollars in the city because right now, how much are we funding? We are we paying for? We’ve got the Broad Street Parkway that is coming, that’s money. Where are we going to get all this money from? The only thing that’s going to happen is taxes are going to go up. That’s not going to bring people to the city who want to live in this community. They want affordable taxes, and they want services that are reasonable and what is government’s responsibility? Government’s responsibility is not to bring a train here. If a private developer wants to do it, let them to do it but it’s not the government’s responsibility. The government’s responsibility is police, fire, schools to some extent, trash, and clearing the roads in the snow. The government’s responsibility is not to bring a train here. We need to make the city affordable again and we need to bring these taxes down. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman Schoneman It’s hard to believe a quarter has gone by already but I am scheduling my second ward meeting on April 7th at 7:00 p.m. at the Amherst Street School’s Media Room. Alderman Chasse The first one is Lund, Lake Street, and Main Dunstable, is a very hazardous area. I approached Patty Rogers and I inquired about putting a stop sign on Main Dunstable and Wayne Houston went out there and said it was not a good idea because they are worried about the traffic backing up on Kinsley Street or coming over the highway. It makes sense to me. This is the capital improvements and since I’ve been on this Board of Alderman Lund and Main Dunstable road has been there on this project deferrable which means it isn’t moving up the ladder. It hasn’t moved anywhere. Perhaps Mayor, you can get the Traffic Committee together and maybe brain storm and maybe somebody has an idea of something we can do to make that intersection a little safer. I’m getting a lot of phone calls on it and it says right in the book, it’s very hazardous and there have been a lot of accidents. I just want to let my constituents know that I can’t put a stop sign there. The other thing is the David Deane Skate Park, the BB Rubber, is that owned by the city or is that privately owned? President Deane It’s privately owned. Alderman Chasse There’s nothing for the site plan right now? President Deane Yes and I think there are more toxins there than you can shake a stick at. Alderman Chasse A lot of problems? Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 16 President Deane It’s very dirty. Alderman Chasse Well, it was worth a try. President Deane If anyone can find an alternative site, please let me know because we have looked. Alderman Chasse Seeing that they have moved my ward and now I have part of Northeastern Blvd., I did go to a little wine place that’s been there for two years, Napa East. The food was very good, a little pricy but very good. Alderman Soucy I just want to concur about the David Deane Park and the fact that it’s going to go to committee, just like the Greeley Park Legacy Playground, there will be an opportunity to speak about a lot of different locations. I would suggest Cleveland Street, Fairgrounds Middle School if it wasn’t looked at. The tennis court area is in very bad disrepair. Personally, I would have liked to have seen street hockey rinks go in there but a skate park is good too. There are a lot of junior high and elementary school kids in that area. That might be a better location. Alderman Siegel There was an editorial in the Telegraph the other day about our legal department and I personally took issue with that and I think I’d like to state publicly that I believe that we have a variety of opinions around this horseshoe but I believe we would all agree that our legal department did not deserve that. They are people of integrity and that whatever opinions they offer, whether we agree with them or not, I believe they are delivered with integrity and without any particular position in mind. As Counselor Bennett has told me, he serves at both the pleasure and the displeasure of the Mayor. I wanted to publicly state that they have my full support whether I agree with them or not. President Deane I agree with you Alderman Siegel. We can always agree to disagree but I think they put their best foot forward for everyone. I’d like to address Mr. Barrett’s comments and questions. Similar legislation last year R-13-129 was tabled and called for a public informational meeting. No meeting was held. If you go back and look at the minutes in which this was discussed, there was a design that was being worked on. When the design was completed, that’s when we were going to hold the public hearing at the Amherst Street Elementary School. I said that a number of times at a number of different meetings in this chamber, especially at full board meetings because we had to fit the size of the parcel or what was being considered the parcel. Mr. Galligani brought in some mapping and we were looking at different configurations, we were looking at different parking configurations, exit and entry, and additional landscaping. There was no remainder of the parcel on 44 Broad Street. Parking and landscaping was going to be incorporated similar to Mr. Gurney. R-14-08 was introduced with similar intent without a public hearing. This is your public hearing. It gets its first reading and then it gets referred to a committee which is what was done. I agree that the article in the paper made it sound like everything that was getting read tonight was getting passed and I’m going to talk to Mr. Hadigan about that. He should understand that we have second readings on certain things and the legislative procedure manual states that the rules drive debate so if you take a motion for final passage, that’s way down on the totem pole compared to all the other motions made to keep the debate alive. The R-14-18 states in the third paragraph “whereas there was a Nashua City Skateboard Park Relocation Board was a board that just Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 17 went around and looked at different sites. They had no authority over anything. We looked at many areas. The Mayor’s office and the Parks and Rec Superintendent spent a lot of time on it. There was never a vote taken and when we were done, it was the only site left that the city actually owned that we could do something with. There wasn’t a necessity of a vote. Many concerned parties heard about the two aforementioned meetings. They were posted on our log as we are required to do. The selection process was very informal. We looked at the design of the facility and many different sites and the site criteria would include but limited to location, site attributes, limitations, and physical analysis of each site. There was only one site we could do anything on because the rest of them had contaniments, drainage issues, or locations that did not make a lot of sense. What is the projected cost to build the skate park? About a half of million. If you know anybody that has any more money, the folks would love to get it. The annual maintenance expense, barring any problems, once the concrete is in its pretty maintenance free. We have done some work on the coupling down there. Has the remainder parcel been appraised? There is no need because it would be used as parking. Has any use of the remainder parcel been considered other than for the skate parks? I think what you are talking about with this remainder parcel is the parcel in its entirety, am I interpreting that correctly? Mr. Barrett Assuming you are going to put a skate park there with associated parking and landscaping, there is a remainder parcel. If you were to take exact measurements of the skate park itself, there is a remainder a parcel. What is the size of that and has it been appraised. I have informally heard that it could be ¾ of an acre. President Deane After the meeting, I’ll get your e-mail address and I’ll get you that information. It does extend but it’s pretty chopped up and there is a serious elevation change in the back that drops down to the river where the riff raff is. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja On March 27th from 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. at Nashua High South there is going to be an opportunity for the citizens of the City of Nashua to participate in a community health assessment to identify areas that they think are areas of importance regarding health issues. There will be a second opportunity on April 16th at North from 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. as well. Committee announcements: Alderman Donchess There is a meeting of the Infrastructure Committee tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chambers. President Deane Budget is meeting on the 3rd of April. Alderman Wilshire The Nashua Police Department on Monday, March 31st, is having an open house/orientation session for the new aldermen and for those who aren’t so new. All are welcome. Thank you. President Deane The Chief has invited everyone. We set it up to bring the new aldermen through to show them the operations, but everyone is invited except Alderman Soucy. He probably still has a key. I’m only kidding, Mike. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/25/14 Page 18 ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE MARCH 25, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk  March 25,2014 Nashua Aldermanic Meeting Public Comment on Items to be acted upon at Meeting Resolution R-14-018 Neal Barrett Nashua Resident & Taxpayer Commercial Real Estate Broker Comments/Questions: • Similar Legislation last year (R-13-129) was tabled and called for a Public Informational Meeting - No meeting was held • R-14-018 was introduced with similar intent without a public meeting • R-14-018 states in the third paragraph the following: "Whereas there was a Nashua Skateboard Park Relocation Board (NSPRB) that reviewed possible locations for a replacement skateboard park and selected 44 Broad Street (Sheet 71, Lot 2) as their choice for the location of the replacement skateboard park". Review of the minutes of the two (2) meetings of NSPRB (April 12,2013 & Jun 16,2013) that were available of the City of Nashua website did not reflect such a vote or recommendation • The NSPRB was comprised of 6-12 individuals held two (2) meetings and did not hold any public hearings to solicit public input. Many concerned parties heard about the two aforementioned meetings after they had been held. • The NSPRB's site selection process was very informal and did not establish objective criteria to evaluate and compare potential sites. Many of the sites were restricted to properties currently owned by the City of Nashua, thus making the site selection limited at best. Site criteria would include, but not limited to, location^site attributes, limitations, a fiscal analysis of each site.... • Why is 44 Broad Street the preferred site? If it is not the preferred site, why has R-14- 018 been introduced in its current format and site design for skate park already begun? • What is the projected cost of building the skate park? Annual maintenance expenses? • What is the size of the remainder parcel of 44 Broad Street? • Has this remainder parcel been appraised? • Has any use for the remainder parcel been considered other than the skate park? (over)  • Has a fiscal analysis been done to compare the commercial use of the site versus the skate park? A commercial use of the site would generate an income to the city via a sale and generate recurring tax revenue of an estimated $20,000+ per year based on the assessment of the parcel with a new building on i t The skate park would have the opposite impact in that it wouldTecognize a sale proceed, not generate any tax revenue and cost the City of Nashua to build and maintain? • Could the sale of the remainder parcel at 44 Broad provide enough funds to relocate the skate park elsewhere and provide annual tax revenues for the ongoing maintenance of a new skate park ^ • Is a skate park the best use of/image for the property that will be at the entrance of the new $65 million Broad Street Parkway? Overall, I believe the introduction of this resolution is premature and postponing it would not have any adverse effect. I believe that any decision that has a potential $1 million impact on city taxpayers should require more public input and not solely rely on the input of a board that had 2 meetings and did not conduct a comprehensive site selection process.