Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, May 27, 2014, at 7:30 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; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 15 members of the Board of Aldermen present. Her Honor Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and Deputy Corporation Counsel Dorothy Clarke were also in attendance. President Deane The Mayor would like to forego her remarks for the current time and go to the Recognition Period. Does anyone have any objections to going out of order? Okay then we’ll go to Recognition Period. Thank you. RECOGNITION PERIOD R-14-035 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Board of Aldermen RECOGNIZING AND CONGRATULATING THE ELM STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL CHEER TEAM FOR THEIR SUCCESSFUL SEASON AND INVITATION TO PERFORM AT HALF- TIME AT THE 2015 NFL PRO BOWL IN HAWAII Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN BROWN THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-14-035 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-035 given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN BROWN TO AMEND R-14-035 BY REPLACING THE LOCATION OF THE 2015 NFL PRO BOWL TO ARIZONA MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN BROWN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-035 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-035 declared duly adopted. REMARKS BY THE MAYOR Thank you, Mr. President. This evening I would speak about just a couple of items on the agenda and one that’s not, well actually, only one items that’s on the agenda but I’m going to begin tonight with talking to you a little bit about the Jackson Falls Dam. I am aware that Alderman Sheehan has provided a memo talking about reconsideration this evening for this project. I was going to ask you tonight to consider moving reconsideration because I think it’s really an important thing to do. I am hopeful some of you have heard from members of the business community as I have about their concerns about how this played out. And by that I mean, there is a length of time that happened between when we found out there was a problem and when we decided that we were going to pitch in to help and when the legislation actually came in to make that happen. On your desks this evening I put two documents. One looks like this and one looks like that and they are together and the reason I did that was because I want to make sure that we’re all working from the same information. So, there’s been a lot of conversation about how many city dollars went into this project and I think it’s important that we all understand the city dollars that have gone into this project. So, you will see in the first category a list of all the federal funds that the city has received that were given to this project, most of them through legislation. You will also notice that all Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 2 of them are loans. All of them. And, all of them require a pay back. The first one is a loan for the biggest amount, its $2.5 million. It’s called Section 108 money. From the time I came into office until the time of this project, that was money that the city was trying really hard to find a business that would be able and in a position to take on those kinds of dollars because they had been provided to the city quite some time ago. Those dollars, as you can see, that $2.5 million, has to be paid back within 36 months or at the 60% occupancy mark, whichever comes first. So, I think that’s important because that’s a big number. When you look at the rest of them, the HOME funds, three of those are loans within the 40 year mark, which really is about HUD HOME funds as some of you are very familiar with, require that you keep an affordability component for a period of time and at some point you have to pay it back and sometimes, depending on if you want to extend how long that affordability is, you might have it a little longer, similar to what Clocktower had when they began. The last three funding sources are Brownfield’s clean up money in the Revolving Loan Fund. And, again, it’s a loan. You can see the terms there, they run in the 20 year mark at interest rates of just under 3%. There’s been a conversation about city dollars being spent in the tax incentive. I just want to take a moment to remind everybody that this is New Hampshire and unlike many states there’s not a lot of business incentives that we can offer to people and when Director Galligani and I meet with businesses we, whether we’re recruiting them or trying to get them to stay or grow here, we don’t have a lot of incentives to offer them. When we look at a state like Massachusetts, they really have a lot of things to put on the table to incentivize people to want to be there. This tax incentive relief is something that the legislature passed in an effort to help communities that might have vacant or blighted properties to provide some incentive to have somebody take those projects on because they are expensive, particularly ones that are historic and as many of you recall that building has been vacant for 6-7 years easily. And, we were collecting taxes every year, just over, almost $52,000 a year in taxes. Now the legislation on the state level allows you to grant that incentive tax relief where they pay the same amount as though it were vacant so they don’t stop paying the taxes, they keep paying them but they have a window of time. It allows up to ten years. The financial model worked at five years so that’s what we were willing to do. And, so it’s true that that tax money that could have been there for that project that we would have received based on the improvements to that project are not coming into the city. That’s about a million dollars over 5 years. That is not bad business for us in the sense of we have a long term vision here. We know where we want to get to. And, so the new assessment on that property, because this developer invested in this project, will now have an $11 million value and it will be paying about $270,000 a year going forward after that five year window. When we look at the Jackson Falls Dam, that’s a dam that was in need of some attention, some of which we were aware of, some of which we were not aware of. The agreement that was reached because of the contract with Nashua Hydro, that contract said Nashua Hydro is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the dam, not responsible for normal wear and tear that may come from operating the dam but they have to keep it in good condition. They were not excited about the crest gate project. They were very concerned how it would affect them and so an agreement was reached whereby the city gave them an opportunity to now be responsible from the time the construction started until the time the construction was complete. In that period of time, the Cotton Mill project took on all of the liability and all of the responsibility. So it is correct that we didn’t have to pay a cent toward any of the work that was found. That’s true. $2.3 million improvement that the city owns free and clear – good deal for us. Part of that $2.3 million is Nashua Hydro being made whole for all their inconveniences and all of the stuff that they couldn’t sell on the market while that project was being undertaken. I came in September to the Budget Committee, September of 2013 during the escrow time and I said we’ve just found out, I mean the timing was perfect, we just found out about this right abutment on the dam. Something that we would not have known had this project not been undertaken and something that could have failed with or without the crest gate. The opportunity to fix it was there. The opportunity for the developer to pay the full cost was there. But it just didn’t strike me as fair. Just because you don’t have to doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have some responsibility. So, what I said to Mr. Stabile at that time was I will come into the Budget Committee, identify funds during our escrow project and ask the Budget Committee to support that. If you look back at the minutes, Alderman Melizzi-Golja read them during the Budget Committee last month or so, when the Budget Committee passed that legislation and I explained what had happened and what our best estimates were at the time for repairing that. It turned out that the cost of repairing it was actually $216,000 and so in good faith working with this business who, if the Budget Committee would have said no, the work still would have been done, that escrow legislation then went to the full Board a week or so later and the full Board passed that legislation. So, now if I’m Mr. Stabile, I think we’re all set. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 3 The Mayor is supporting it, the Aldermen are supporting, we’re moving forward. He paid the bill as he’s cleaning up and doing his year end with the dam, provided the invoice to the city to be paid. That triggered the request for the Resolution, the Resolution came in, didn’t think it was going to be a big problem, has turned into a big problem. At the end of the day, if any of you have taken the opportunity to go stand at the Millyard Technology Park next to the chimney and look across where the Broad Street Parkway is going to be built and where that bridge is going to be put and you look out and you see Cotton Mill Square and you see Clocktower, it’s just an amazing sight that just looks so promising for our city. Now this was a project that I was involved in long before I was the mayor. The agency I worked with was a nonprofit, looked at developing this site and could not afford to do it but if we could have afforded to do it, the first thing that would have had to happen was the building would have had to be taken down. I like to say sometimes things happen for a reason. I can’t imagine what that view would look like without that building there. There was also conversation about the Riverwalk and that the city paid to build the Riverwalk in front of Cotton Mill. The city did not pay to build the Riverwalk in front of Cotton Mill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Stabile paid to build it from property line to property line. Plus, he agreed to put in a way to get down off of that Cotton Storage bridge to get to the other side. It’s about a $300,000 project and then the city took up where his property line ended across in front of the Greeley House and up to Main Street. Every time Mr. Stabile said, I’ll do this or I’ll take responsibility for this, he came through. The city was supporting this project all the way through as we should. And, you know what, I’m not worried about Mr. Stabile in the sense that without that $100,000 whatever will he do, I’m worried about what that says to him about how we do business and worse, I’m worried about what that says to other businesses looking in. Take the Franklin Street building for example. Along Franklin Street as we’re developing the Broad Street Parkway, we have that huge Nashua Corp building that runs almost the whole length of Franklin Street. That building has changed hands multiple times, has fallen in disrepair, has had its sprinkler system break, has had the owners which are just investors that are just sitting on it until the right price comes along, take that insurance money and not repair the building because they don’t have to because it’s not being used. We have few incentives to offer that building owner, potential building owner, in the future. We don’t want that building sitting there falling apart right there. I mean what a shame to lose that building. What do we have to offer? Maybe some federal funds like this that can be borrowed as they were borrowed for this project. When that $2.5 million comes back in 36 months, wouldn’t it be nice to put it on the table for the next one? But we have to show good faith. We have to show that when we say that we’ll do something, we follow through. People often talk about, geez you’ve got to get business in here, you’ve got to recruit people, they need to want to come to Nashua. If you want to recruit businesses and you want them to come to Nashua, follow through on what we say we’re going to do. That’s what we did. We were following through and then we stopped. So, I would ask you to consider all those points that I made tonight and the dollars that are on that sheet and what that’s going to do to our city to have those new units right there along our riverfront as we’re revitalizing that area and I think it boils down to just this simple fact – we said we would, he trusted that to happen, it should happen. The next item I wanted to mention is O-14-011 relative to the Mayor reporting to the Finance Committee within ten days any changes of contracts regardless of what they were changed for, if they were a contract that went before the Finance Committee. Now, at the Finance Committee I voted against it because I’m concerned about being able to follow through with it. I think a ten day turn-around time, I think putting a process in place, that burden will likely fall on somebody other than me. I understand that people were unhappy about how the branding initiative played out. I certainly wish it would have played out differently. I know that it’s probably not intended to be punitive but it feels punitive. I feel like it you would have known what you needed to know on the branding initiative this legislation likely wouldn’t have come in. Do I think that you should know and you should have this information, absolutely. Put it on the website, that site’s up with all the contracts, changes, all that goes in place. Would it be easy then to make sure that you knew when something like that happened, maybe, but you’d be surprised how often things come through for no dollar amounts, things like that happen all the time. Including a termination of a contract sometimes that comes through. So, I’m concerned about what happens if I miss one and I’m concerned about the conversation around the ones that I use my judgment on. So every ten days I image we could have lengthy conversations about whether I did or did not use the right judgment on things below $10,000. I think that’s fair game, I just don’t think it moves the ball forward. I’m generally a pretty good communicator, I try not to miss something for those things that you’re interested in. I’ve been Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 4 able to work with people and I can tell you that I’ll try to work harder. But to actually pass an ordinance to ask me to tell you something in a ten day time frame I think is above what’s necessary to solve this problem. And then lastly, I would extend my sincere sympathies to you, Alderman Soucy, on the loss of your mom and to your family, brothers, sisters, grandchildren of Mariette, and to your dad in particular, former Deputy Chief. What a significant loss you’ve experienced and it’s hard to find the right words. I extended my sympathies to Alderman Wilshire when she wasn’t here because she was at the funeral for her dad who she lost too. So to have two of you with the loss of a parent, I know that I speak for all of us when I say that our hearts go out to you as you deal with this loss. I would thank you as always for your kind attention this evening. RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR Alderman Wilshire I wanted to thank the Mayor for this information. I too, right along, have supported the Cotton Mill Project and will continue to do so. I agree that we made a promise and to not keep that promise feels wrong to me. Alderwoman Brown I also agree with that. I believe in good faith we discussed that issue and feel we need to follow it through. I took a walk along the river yesterday and it’s just beautiful and it used to be an eye sore. The best part about is that there is affordable housing that is so badly needed in the city. I will support that. Alderman Siegel With regard to Cotton Mill Square, the Mayor had some interesting statements but none of them are germane to the arguments that were made. Yes, it’s a pretty project. We all agree that money was spent. I applauded Mr. Stabile for his ability to get the loan money, which was never an issue. It was never an issue if it was a worthwhile project. The specific reason that this was voted down was because there are two contracts, not just one. The first which said that we weren’t responsible for the repairs to the dam. That was the one that was done with Cotton Mill Square, but those arguments didn’t quite carry enough weight so that was voted down 5-2 at the committee level but at the full Board level where I was able to unearth the original 1984 contract, we saw that as again, the city is not responsible for those repairs and to bring this up again and to cloud the issue with elements that are not germane like somehow this is a great project and businesses won’t trust us, well I am a businessman and I can tell you that other businessmen that I’ve spoken to have agreed 100% with what was done. They could not believe that we would actually take two contracts and ignore them and spend $100,000 of taxpayer’s money that we didn’t need to spend. I might also point out that Mr. Stabile had not one but two opportunities to speak to this Board, both at the Budget Committee and the full Board to present his case if he so desired, and that did not happen. To come back now and say well let’s revisit this – I find that troubling and in fact, I think the entire precedent that’s trying to be set here is troubling at best. Once legislation has gone through, it’s time to move on. You win some/you lose some, that’s the way it goes. If the shoe were on the foot, I would not be introducing a motion to reconsider this myself. Alderman Moriarty I want to comment on the remarks made by the Mayor two weeks, you might remember that I was out of town and didn’t have an opportunity to the budget book. We currently have before us a budget which $2 million over the spending Capital Improvements Committee. Similar to when the state legislature last year was given a budget that included an $80 million revenue source based on a casino that didn’t exist, there was a hole in the revenue. Currently we have a budget which intends to meet the letter of the Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 5 spending cap based on a Special Revenue Fund which currently doesn’t exist. Mayor Lozeau has submitted legislation to create a Special Revenue Fund to spend $2 million for road repair, which in of itself is actually not a bad idea, but the problem is that it does by-pass the spending cap. Aside from the qualitative issue of that is quantitatively, it creates a $2 million revenue hole. There’s the $240 million budget that we have and it’s paid for predominately by property tax, but $60 million of the budget is paid for by other revenue sources, the biggest one being the State Education Adequacy Aid Grant of $35 million. Another large revenue source that’s not property tax is the $10 million worth of vehicle registration fees. A smaller revenue source that helps pay for the general fund is the Block Grant from the state for roads and highways - $1.3 million. The Mayor has offered us a budget and the mechanism to have it technically meet the spending cap is via the creation of a Special Revenue Fund which we have to vote on and approve. So that Special Revenue Fund takes $2 million out of the expenditure side and excludes it from the cap as if it’s not part of the general fund and therefore it makes the budget technically meet the spending cap but it also takes $2 million of revenues out of the general fund to pay for that. That $2 million of removal means that instead of having $60 million of outside funding, we only have $58 million and that has to be replaced by $2 million of additional property tax. It’s mathematically identical to what would happen if we simply overrode the spending cap. One way to resolve the current situation that we have a $2 million overage is just to vote to override the spending cap. The $2 million that the Special Revenue Fund has, that expenditure would remain in the budget and the $2 million of revenue that it takes would remain in the budget but there’s the additional $2 million which is overages of the other budgets and we would have to vote for a spending cap override. Of course, that takes ten votes to accomplish that where the Special Revenue Fund only takes eight votes. The budget is complicated although it can be easily explained if given time. The public would certainly easily understand spending $2 million over the spending cap override is bad. The Special Revenue Fund is good. Let’s say hypothetically speaking that the Special Revenue Fund resolution doesn’t pass. What do we have? We have a budget that could be passed with eight votes that would have no road repair in it. We would need to move the revenue back into that block grant, the $1.3 million of the block grant would have to be put back into the budget and that may take ten votes, I’m not sure. If the Special Revenue Fund does not pass, which I recommend we don’t pass it because it’s essentially a spending cap override, we would need to put road repair back in which would require ten votes because that would be an increase in a line item. We would need to reduce the budget elsewhere which only takes eight votes. So, we either pass the Special Revenue Fund with eight votes and effectively affect the spending cap override because the residents would have to pay an additional $2 million in property tax, or with ten votes, we just do a spending cap override and it’s the same amount of $2 million of additional property tax that would have to happen. There’s still another option. With eight votes, we can amend the Special Revenue Fund to only spend $1 million. With eight votes, reduce elsewhere by $1 million. If every departmental budget was held to the 2.1% then by definition, the budget would balance. Just unemotionally, everyone gets a 2.1% budget increase compared to last year. Interestingly enough, we can actually balance the budget. $1 million of road repair with a series of eight votes. Of course at that point, the Mayor would be presented with the question of whether or not she would veto that but that’s a question you don’t have to answer tonight. I think it’s important for everyone to understand the subtle, yet important difference in what’s going on with the Special Revenue Fund. Alderman Soucy I’d like to thank the Mayor and the Board of Alderman for all of the support in the past couple of weeks. READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MAY 13, 2014, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE AND THE READING SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 6 COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMMUNICATION BY TITLE ONLY RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PREPARED MOTION CARRIED From: Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Re: Reconsideration of R-14-015, Approving a $100,000 Payment to Cotton Mill Square, LLC for Work on the Right Abutment of the Jackson Mills Dam MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Mr. Ed Mooney – 44 ½ Amherst Street I rise in support of the Finance Committee’s recommendation regarding R-14-030 authorizing the Mayor to enter into a Successor Concession Agreement with Nashua Collegiate Baseball, Inc. of the Futures Collegiate Baseball League. The Finance Committee recommends amending because a Concession Agreement to include a specific reference to the 10:00 p.m. fireworks deadline. I agree with the recommendation. The agreement contains a section entitled “Compliance with Laws.” This section has three paragraphs. The first paragraph “Nashua Collegiate Baseball agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.” In the third paragraph, “the city agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.” Some might argue that those paragraphs suffice. The parties to the agreement don’t think so. Paragraph two, specifically allows Nashua Collegiate Baseball to set off fireworks provided it obtains the approvals and permits necessary for the conduct of the same. Just as some might argue that paragraphs one and three obviate the need for paragraph two, there are those who argue that paragraph two in requiring approvals and permits obviates the need to reference the 10:00 p.m. fireworks deadline. I disagree. In the summer of 2012, the city issued permits to the Silver Knights that violated Chapter 160 of the ordinances, Section II of Chapter 160 states that “it shall be unlawful to use, discharge, or display salute, reports, or thunder shell fireworks between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.” Permits issued by the city in 2012 allowed salute, report, and thunder shell fireworks until 11:00 p.m. According to the minutes of the Finance Committee, the problem lay with assuming the Silver Knights games were city sponsored events evoking an exception in the ordinance. The minutes indicate permits were issued for many years under the same misconception which accords with my experience. Amending the agreement, as recommended by the Finance Committee would make it clear what the ordinances require of the Silver Knights and head off misunderstandings in issuing the permits. Paula Johnson – 15 Westborn Drive I forgot about that legislation I wrote back when I was an Alderman about the fireworks. We need to be respectful of people in the city. I would like to talk about the reconsideration tonight of Mr. Stabile. I took a lot notes Mayor as you were talking. I get it but he’s a businessman and businessmen know about contracts. I don’t think we should be paying for this. I think that $100,000 should be going back to the citizen’s of the city. I think you could use it for road repair and I don’t think Mr. Stabile should be paid this. I think we gave him enough credits. I don’t think we give the same consideration to the taxpayers because I was sitting there going through the budget and God, some hefty raises are going to be given again this year. I’m already circling how much and I’ll be calculating that out. We are talking about an increase, if the budget stays the way it is right now, of about 3% again. I’m not in favor of that. We have a lot of people that are on a fixed income. Mr. Stabile is not on a fixed income in my opinion and I don’t think this reconsideration should be given, I think it should be voted down. I agree 100% with Alderman Siegel, he’s a contract man and I would be more in his camp with contracts than with anybody else. Also, O-14-011, I’m in complete agreement with this. After some of the things that have happened, I did Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 7 a blog on the Telegraph. I believe it was your son, Mayor, that went after me that night. I think this is 100% correct. I think the Finance Committee should come in and look at anything over $10,000 and if it needs to be reviewed again, absolutely. There’s no reason why this Board, that represents us, the people, should have another look at anything. If there’s any questions ever, I would suggest that the Board votes on this, this is an excellent piece of legislation and I’m 100% for it. PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS – None REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Budget Review Committee ................................................................ 05/19/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 19, 2014 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee ............................................................................ 05/21/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 21, 2014 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Human Affairs Committee .................................................................. 05/20/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 20, 2014 Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure ............................................................. 05/14/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 14, 2014 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Planning & Economic Development Committee ................................. 05/06/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 6, 2014 Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-025 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $147,200 FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC HEALTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITIES “FY15 AND FY16 STD & HIV DISEASE CONTROL” Given it second reading; Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 8 MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-025 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-025 declared duly adopted. R-14-026 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $120,000 FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC HEALTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITIES “FY15 AND FY16 IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM OF GREATER NASHUA” Given it second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-026 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-026 declared duly adopted.R-14-027 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $70,000 FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC HEALTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITIES “FY15 AND FY16 TUBERCULOSIS PROGRAM OF GREATER NASHUA” Given it second reading; MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-027 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-027 declared duly adopted. R-14-030 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A SUCCESSOR “CONCESSION AGREEMENT” WITH NASHUA COLLEGIATE BASEBALL, INC. OF THE FUTURES COLLEGIATE BASEBALL LEAGUE Given it second reading; President Deane Before we move on this, the Public Work’s Commission gave us a favorable recommendation on May 20, 2014. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 9 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-030 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman The changes are the result of discussion at the Finance Committee and page 8 of the contract, under Security, there was a sentence added. “Franchiser shall not conduct or permit to be conducted fireworks displays at the Holman Stadium after 10:00 p.m.” That is the only change we made to the best of my knowledge. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-030 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-030 declared duly adopted as amended. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO RECONSIDER R-14-015, APPROVING A $100,000 PAYMENT TO COTTON MILL SQUARE, LLC FOR WORK ON THE RIGHT ABUTMENT OF THE JACKSON MILLS DAM ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel Just to reiterate my points, we went through this twice. The information that I provided to the full Board was available to anybody had the wished to do the research. Again, Mr. Stabile was welcome to attend either the Budget Committee meeting or the last Board of Alderman meeting and that didn’t happen. None of the arguments that were made in favor of voting again to reconsider this, which was voted down, was specifically germane to the issue. I believe that what carries today and still believe what carries today is the fact that there were two contracts including the 1984 contract. I might also add that the contract is up for renewal this year so if we are concerned about maintaining the liability clauses in there, I am quite sure that Nashua Hydro would be more than happy, especially with a brand new dam, to renew the agreement given its profitability for them. I think this is a terrible precedent to go through this. I think it’s a mistake. I understand people may not be happy about it but the time to have had that discussion was before the Budget Committee and before the full Board of Alderman. That happened, everyone got to say what they wanted including Alderman Sheehan and the vote went as the vote did and I do not believe it’s healthy for the Board to constantly resurrect legislation because we have to move forward. Whatever you think about the legislation, pro or con, that is your right but there’s a larger picture here which is that we need to continue to move forward as a Board and be productive in our deliberations. Alderman Chasse Is the full Board going to vote on this or is just the thirteen individuals who voted on the legislation? President Deane The full Board votes on it. The motion to reconsider can be made at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting by somebody who voted on the prevailing side. The motion was to indefinitely postpone the legislation in which Alderman Sheehan did vote on the prevailing side of that motion that carried. She has the ability to move to reconsider. Everyone will participate in voting on whether to reconsider this. It’s my understanding that her intention is to reconsider and that re-refer it to the Budget Review Committee but that’s not a motion that I am making. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 10 Alderman Moriarty I’d like to ask the maker of the motion to explain why she changed her mind. President Deane Alderman Sheehan, would you like to answer that question? Alderman Sheehan We were provided a lot of information at the meeting but in addition to that, while we were voting, some assertions were made that I did not pick up on in any of the research that I had done such as, we were able to go after potentially New Hampshire Hydro for this work. There were a significant number of things that were said, that given a stack of paper like this and other remarks that were made, that takes time to go and research that. In the interest of giving people the opportunity to fully vet that, I thought that was a valid concern and deserved to go back to the Budget Committee on further reflection. When I was in business with people, there were times that you have to make a decision and there was a meeting had between the Stabile Company and the city being that this isn’t typical maintenance. When you find out when you’ve dug down that something was built wrong 100 years ago. I think the information that was given, particularly who was responsible for it caused me to need to talk with legal council to find out about the side agreement that said in order to get the Hydro Company to even allow us to put in the Crest Gates that we had to assume their liabilities and that to me, is new information and that wasn’t available that night. I appreciate your question, I also appreciate Alderman Siegel being concerned that things get reconsidered all of the time. I don’t know that it’s happened more than twice in all the time I have been on the Board so I don’t think we are in any danger of that. This isn’t something that happens frequently, this isn’t something that I invented. As President Deane said, it’s something that is there so that when we do have information and we would like to reconsider, this opportunity is there. I think that I’m probably not the only Alderman that felt this way but this was something that you unearthed, Alderman Siegel, that deserves to be vetted before we permanently put this to bed because we do have a business reputation and we do want to be attractive to other businesses and what you are saying may very well still be the outcome but there are times that you re-visit something before you put it to bed and I think this is one of those instances. Alderman Moriarty I thought it odd and rather than speculate on motive, I thought I’d ask because she had voted for the Stabile project and then five minutes later voted against the Stabile project and now today she’s working for the Stabile project. Thank you for your explanation. Alderman Siegel With regard to the due diligence or whether to go to legal counsel, once again, a contract is a contract. I provided the contract with the relevant clauses. Everybody had the opportunity to do their homework, including you, Alderman Sheehan. I understand that you like to digest that but it was fairly clear, the clause was inescapably clear and it was presented clearly. It was presented at a full debate and once again, I don’t see that anything would be gained by taking that same contract and rehashing the exact same argument. It wasn’t like the vote was going to be that close. I believe that contract clause carried the day. It’s not like we are going to read the contract and find out it’s different and that contract expires in December anyway. We’d be happy to renegotiate it if we so desire, including any clauses for maintenance should we so desire, so again, I thank you for applauding my doing my homework but I did my homework because I believe that we shouldn’t have to pay that money and apparently there were several Aldermen that agreed with me. I don’t think anything will change. I don’t see the value of this at all. Alderwoman Brown I would like to thank Alderman Sheehan for bringing this up for reconsideration because when we were given the 30-year old contract, I certainly didn’t have time to read it and I think that information was Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 11 important. I would also like to comment that reconsideration of a bill is very common at the State House level and I don’t believe it’s an unnecessary precedent with this. I also want to thank the Mayor for the additional information that we received regarding the Cotton Mill contract. Alderman Chasse I’d like to request a roll call. Alderman Schoneman I’m going to vote against the reconsideration. I think that some of our conversation tonight is about reconsideration but it’s also about the issue of the contract. I think that we have discussed this thoroughly and I agree that the contracts will not be changing from what has already been discussed. I respect the arguments about the commitment that was supposedly made last year, and I say supposedly not to provide any insult but to distinguish between a commitment to pay and an escrow account. An escrow is something that’s set aside in case that we do decide to pay later and that decision, to the best of my knowledge in reading the minutes, does not indicate to me that there was a promise to pay. Secondly, I’d like to address the notion that we somehow damage our reputation by not paying the money to Mr. Stabile at this time. I think that one of the foundations of doing business in any type of economy, and certainly in a contract is that the parties will ultimately behave rationally and that means that we do what the contract says. I also think it means that when something falls perhaps outside of the contract that there would be a tendency towards rational behavior. In this case, I think would be to say that the city is not responsible for this payment. Furthermore, I think that part of our duty, certainly my duty, is to not come back to the people that elected us and ask them for a request for additional money for purposes such as this. I will vote not to reconsider. President Deane The motion on the floor is to reconsider R-14-015 by roll call. A viva voce roll call was taken on the request for reconsideration which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, 7 Alderman Sheehan, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderwoman Brown, Alderman Wilshire Nay: Alderman Schoneman, Alderman Chasse, Alderman McGuinness, 8 Alderman Soucy, Alderman Donchess, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman Siegel, Alderman Deane MOTION FAILED UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-14-011 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Michael Soucy REGARDING FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENTS Given it second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO AMEND O-14-011 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 12 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess I wanted first to explain the difference between the amendment and the original version. Contracts that are for more than $10,000 need to be approved by the Finance Committee. The Mayor, under these ordinances, the Nashua Ordinances, has the right, after Finance Committee approval, to amend or alter the terms of the contract in any way that he or she wishes and only needs to come back to the Finance Committee if there is an additional amount to be expended. The ordinance, as it was originally proposed, would have required that once a contract was approved by the Finance Committee, that any change that the Mayor wanted to make with either an amount or in terms or terminating that contract, that change needed to be approved by the Finance Committee. That was the original proposal. After discussions with Mayor Lozeau and the Finance Committee the current amendment has been proposed. Rather than requiring Finance Committee approval for amendments and changes to contracts that have previously been approved by the Finance Committee, the amendment which we are seeking now, and this is a motion simply to amend, merely substitute’s language which requires simple disclosure. If a contract has been approved by the Finance Committee previously, the amendment proposes that instead of approval, the Finance Committee merely be told about the changes that have been made. I can address the merits of the proposal but right now we are just proposing an amendment. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-011 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse I love the changes that were made. I did not support it down at the Finance Committee when we discussed this and I still will not support this. I would rather ask the Mayor if she would make a verbal commitment that you will do everything in your power to let the Finance Committee, let the Board of Alderman know of any changes in contracts from here on in. Mayor Lozeau I will always do my best to inform the Finance Committee or anybody that asks a question. Alderman Chasse That was a little bit of a weak commitment. Mayor Lozeau If the ordinance passes, Alderman Chasse, with all due respect, I’ll do my best but if it doesn’t – I don’t want to make a commitment I can’t commit to. Alderman Chasse I would rather you said “yes, I will do everything in my power” because my outlook on this is that I like it but I feel like you, that it’s kind of punitive. That’s my feeling. I would like to see that verbal commitment that was made and the rest of the people over here, accept the verbal commitment and take the ordinance and table it at the full Board and if it doesn’t happen, I’ll be the first one to pull it from the full Board and give it my blessing. However, right now I don’t feel I can support this. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 13 Alderman Donchess This is an open government transparency reform in the Nashua Revised Ordinances. As it stands, once the Finance Committee approves a contract of more than $10,000, the Mayor can change, or amend that contract in any way. The only limitation is that if $10,000 or more is going to be added to the amount of the contract, the only requirement is that under that limited circumstance, that Finance Committee approval be obtained. As originally proposed as I just explained, the ordinance said that if you wanted to make any changes to one of these big contracts that the Finance Committee has approved you need to get Finance Committee approval but Mayor Lozeau argued that was too burdensome – that there were changes that need to be made on the fly when unforeseen circumstances were encountered in the field. It was an argument that I was at least partially convinced of, not completely but I listened to that. It seemed to me that a disclosure would meet the real purpose of the legislation which is that if we have a contract of more than $10,000 that’s been approved by the Finance Committee, if that contract is going to be changed or amended or terminated, the public has a right to know what’s going on and so does the Finance Committee. Yes, this came up after the branding initiative series of contracts which were changed and were terminated without, and these were very visible and important contracts, any information relayed to the Finance Committee or the public and yes we did read about these changes many months after the fact in the Telegraph. However, I don’t agree that this is punitive. I think what this circumstance did was that it educated us to the fact that there is a hole, a lack of transparency, and a lack of open government within the Nashua Ordinances which needs to be corrected. These are all important contracts and the public has a right to know. They watch us approve a contract and they understand its terms. It’s a public meeting and the public has a right to know that when the work that we have done in that committee has somehow changed, not that there is anything wrong with that but we should at least know what’s going on. I think that is a requirement of open government and transparency. Mayor Lozeau and Alderwoman Brown have argued that this burden of informing people what is going on is too great to meet. I don’t agree with that at all. Any revision to one of these contracts that is approved by the Finance Committee has to be in writing so someone is processing this in writing anyway. The only additional requirement is that either the amended contract be passed on to the Finance Committee or that a short memo be prepared and sent to the Finance Committee. It informs the Finance Committee, the Board of Alderman, and most importantly, the public as to what is happening with important city contracts and obligations. In the name of open government and of transparency in Nashua, I ask the Board to consider approving this change, which is a compromise to the Nashua Revised Ordinances. Alderman Siegel As the ordinance was originally conceived, there were some issues and the Mayor did bring them up in Finance and I think her arguments were persuasive, the persuaded me and this was tabled because we really did need to rethink it. In this case, the idea that things are burdensome, I don’t agree with that either. Right now, we have a system where we post contracts to the web already, they are publicly accessible. The actual burden would be no more than sending us an e-mail saying a contract that was approved by the Finance Committee has been changed and it’s posted and here’s a link to it. There’s not that huge a number contracts that fit the criteria of both being seen by the Finance Committee and being modified. I am sensitive that there are certain changes that would probably not be material that get made to contracts, that’s the normal course of business, but I’ve seen instances where material changes were made to contracts, and in particular it was the branding initiative, specific material changes which definitely we should have been made aware of. I’m not even talking about them being canceled; I’m talking about the change of the copyright responsibility which was amazing to me that got changed. I believe this is nothing more than an open government initiative. How is more information, which is not that difficult to give us, a harm? Also, I would like to thank Alderman Chasse for his statements and asking the Mayor if she would agree to this. The response that I got did not make me feel comfortable. I think honestly, if I had felt a stronger response back, I might have been comfortable saying okay, let’s leave it at that. I think now more than ever, the legislation becomes something we really ought to consider. What happens if you miss it Mayor? We don’t have a prescribed set of penalties. I think it ultimately comes down to a piece of legislation which puts some constraints on what the best effort Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 14 should be. I don’t think it’s burdensome at all. We have a 10-day Right to Know Request Law and that is truly burdensome. I don’t think that comes anywhere near the same zip code as that. Alderman Chasse I would like to request a roll call. Alderman Sheehan I understand what drove this. The bigger items this is going to happen with anyway if it’s over $10,000. Some people maybe didn’t pick up on the massaged information that that contract was terminated and we moved and I think some of that might have been to not embarrass the company that we stopped doing business with – I picked up on it, I could understand how other people wouldn’t. My concern with being this focused on something that’s $10,000 and under is sometimes we need a stick to enforce things and to be able to say “I can fire you” without needing to say I need to schedule a meeting so that I can terminate this contract. Those sorts of things worry me but I think that what we have right now is open government in that no money gets out without it having to go through the Finance Committee so it is tracked. I think what would maybe be more reasonable is if a contract is closed and it didn’t match, that there is a memo line that says why – that we added three more months or we ended a lease early but I think the employees that are doing this work and perhaps finding that they need to get out of a certain contract a little early because there is an incentive for the new bid. I think it adds a lot of bureaucracy for what is often times going to be a small amount of money and I think most of the time we are going to be looking at getting more e-mail saying to go look at this contract when what I would like to see is something in the register which explains why. We get a list that says every bit of money that goes out, it’s not that it’s secret. If not enough money went out because something was terminated, put that in. I think this is just a lot of bureaucracy for what a lot of times is going to be small money. Alderman Schoneman I am going to support this legislation and I want to comment on the notion that it could be punitive. I don’t believe it’s punitive. I think if it were punitive, it would be directed solely at this Mayor and I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s directed at all future Mayor’s. The idea is that if something comes to the Finance Committee from the Mayor, whoever that may be, and then is later changed, then that Mayor should let that Finance Committee know it as part of its oversight. I agree that it’s good for the public to know that. If it proves to be burdensome, I think that will become clear too. The case that we had with the branding initiative was something that should have come and didn’t and this legislation would have prevented that. It’s not punitive, it’s just procedural. Alderman Soucy If I believed for one second that it was punitive, I would say no based on that alone. I’m going to continue to listen to the arguments and make my decision shortly. Alderwoman Brown I do admit that originally, without the amendment, I felt that it would bring our government to a screeching halt but I appreciate the compromise that this amendment does add. As Alderman Donchess said, a simple e-mail would be appreciated. The term “scope” can be a very vague term so I am a little concerned about that but I think we are moving in the right direction. I would have liked however, an idea of how many contracts would go through this. If we are going to be getting five to ten e-mails a week, I would be concerned about that because I know that would also require additional employee time to do this and really analyze the impact. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 15 Alderman Siegel I’d like to know two things. One is if we got five to ten e-mails per week about changed contracts that appear before the Finance Committee, that would be a gigantic canary in the coal mine that we have a much larger problem than just disclosure. I think in general, once contracts are negotiated, settle out. The second thing is, and this is extremely important, because I think a rookie mistake may have been made here. The idea that you can track changes in contracts by staring at money flows completely ignores the fact that many provisions of contracts don’t involve money at all, they involve contractual rights and obligations. In fact, often times those contractual rights and obligations are much more important than the actual money flows and those are the types of things that are generally changed, sometimes inadvertently. So, without being told, there is no way to look at the documentation the Finance Committee gets and say okay, something changed because I see a different money flow here nor would it be reasonable for us to pay attention given the thousands of lines of items that we have to look at it. I just can’t buy that argument. Alderman Wilshire When I first got this ordinance, I didn’t support it at all. I thought the amendment seemed to make a little bit more sense. It kind of felt punitive, the original, and I think it would cause a burden but I’m sure the amendment would. President Deane The motion on the floor is to recommend final passage of O-14-011 as amended. Alderman McCarthy I just want to comment that I’m sure that an e-mail does the trick. While it may meet the requirement of this ordinance, it probably does not meet the requirements of the Right to Know Law. Alderman Dowd If I understand the ordinance correctly, the Mayor still has the right to make the changes other than the $10,000 change in scope and if she doesn’t notify us within the ten days, there’s nothing punitive. Basically, we are trying to pass an ordinance that says please tell us more about the contracts. Do we really need an ordinance to do that? I think the Mayor understands that we would like to get this information. I’d like to believe that somebody that’s elected to the position of Mayor can do that without legislation. Alderman Sheehan I have a question for Attorney Clark. Somebody had asked about terms changing that are not necessarily financial but material terms. Is that something that is strictly an executive branch, or is that something that once we have approved the money that the Board of Alderman has any authority over? Attorney Clark The existing language in NRO 5-91 states that “no contract may be amended as to its scope of work or so as to increase sums payable without Finance Committee’s approval for amendments over $10,000. Some of it, to answer your question, depends on if the change would be considered a change in the scope of work or if it is more in the nature of a contract term, I would say that under the current ordinances that the Mayor can make those changes administratively. The amendment being proposed today would add an informational obligation to let the Finance Committee know of any of those changes to contract terms. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 16 A viva voce roll call was taken on the request for reconsideration which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman Soucy, 8 Alderman Donchess, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman Siegel Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Deane Nay: Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Chasse, 7 Alderman Caron, Alderman Sheehan, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderwoman Brown, MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-14-011 declared duly adopted as amended. 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 it third reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO AMEND O-14-016 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd The amendment was to just add some clarifying language as to the fact that it’s in areas where parking is only allowed for students by permit only and has to be marked as such and that only vehicles displaying that required parking permit will be allowed to park there. Also, in the faculty & staff parking area you can only park there with a faculty or staff parking permit during school hours. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-016 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-14-016 declared duly adopted as amended. O-14-019 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane AUTHORIZING A NO U-TURN ON DANIEL WEBSTER HIGHWAY SOUTHBOUND AT THE EASTBOUND J-RAMP Given it second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-019 Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 17 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess One of my colleagues asked me where this intersection is. This was recommended by the Infrastructure Committee and gentleman came to explain the reason for this and it was his idea that generated the ordinance. The eastbound J-Ramp refers to the road in the south end that comes across the bridge from Hudson and the problem is at that intersection you have the road coming from Hudson entering a T intersection from the east and you’ve got north and southbound traffic on D.W. Highway. What happens is that as traffic is turning north or right from the J-ramp onto D.W. Highway and in to proceed in an orderly direction, southbound traffic on D.W. Highway is also making a U-turn to also proceed north of the D.W. Highway so there is a conflict between the west bound traffic on the J-ramp seeking to turn north on D.W. Highway and the U-turning traffic on the D.W. Highway. The gentleman who testified before us said that he had seen many instances of near collisions. The burden on the southbound is not terribly great because about 100 yards further down there is another left turn into a mall where there is much less traffic than is coming from Hudson. Based upon the explanation provided and I have tried to replicate, the committee recommended final passage of the no U-turn sign. Alderman McCarthy How much further north is the previous intersection on the southbound side that allows left or U-turns? Alderman Donchess I think it’s where Veteran’s Drive comes in and where the Wendy’s is. Alderman McCarthy Are there businesses on the east side of D.W. Highway in between those two intersections? Alderman Donchess I don’t think so. Alderman McCarthy I’d be concerned that we would be asking people to sit through three lights instead of one to get to the next intersection. Where does the U-turn traffic go that’s causing this conflict? President Deane The one at the intersection of Wendy’s, I had asked the Public Works Director to remove those islands which they did and they put the stop bar back and people started driving over them. Alderman Sheehan The next intersection up where the gentleman suggested is a safer place is because there’s an additional turning lane. It’s a lot safer to make the U-turn where there’s three lanes to turn into. Alderman Donchess As to why someone would make a U-turn in that location, I’d have to speculate that D.W. Highway is a little bit chaotic and there are a lot of people making a lot of turns for a lot of different reasons. The gentleman that’s observed this quite a bit says that there’s not that much U-turning traffic so that says two things. Number 1, we are not inconveniencing that many people but there are not that many close calls but there are close calls so we are trying to balance it all out. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 18 Alderman Chasse I don’t foresee too much of a problem with this except for Saturday’s and Sunday’s because BJ’s and Lowe’s are up there and the traffic is backed out to the light at the main entrance to Tulley Buick. Just something to think about. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja Although there are not any businesses there, I believe heading north on the east side of the road there is a condo community, is that in that area? Alderman Donchess I think that is correct. Where they currently make the U-turn, where we are proposing that the sign be installed, there is no condo community but if you go down to the next intersection south on the left side, there is a condo community. Alderman Moriarty I recognize Alderman Donchess’ very good intentions and I personally think there’s way too many no U- turn, stop signs, and no turn on red signs and until it becomes a quantified danger where there are actually accidents that we can accumulate, I’d leave well enough alone. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-14-019 declared duly adopted. NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-036 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman June M. Caron ESTABLISHING POLLING TIMES FOR THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 AND THE STATE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 2014 Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-14-036 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-036 given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-036 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-036 declared duly adopted. R-14-037 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF NASHUA TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH AC PRODUCTS, INC. FOR A PORTION OF 25 CROWN STREET Given its second reading; assigned to the FINANCE COMMITTEE by President Deane Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 19 NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES – None PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Cutter, 86 Palm Street Dear President Deane and Board of Aldermen/Alderwomen, To start, we would like to thank Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess for trying to help us get our full driveway and clothesline area. And, we like his plan. The following is a continuance of my May 13 letter that you may need to help constituents. This is how 86 Palm Street came into being. Book 344, Page 136-8 dated Mary 25, 1862. Samuel Ferson sold to Chas. Matthews. Deed goes sough down Ash Street from Hollis Street 35 rods west, 9 rods north, 35 rods to Hollis Street, east 9 rods to beginning. Book 491, Page 173 dated October 18, 1887. John Lund sold to Caleb Richardson. Deed starts 337 ½ feet south of Hollis Street, east 70 feet, south 150 feet, west 70 feet, north 150 feet to beginning. Book 498, Page 424 dated December 3, 1888. Caleb Richardson sold to Henry Proctor. This deed took 30 feet more or less southerly and 30 feet northerly from Book 491, Page 173. N.B. When land is not surveyed more or less in a deed means footage; ‘about’ means inches. This lot was in rods, Book 344, because rods have priority over feet. Because 30 feet was known not to be exact more or less was in deed. It should be 33 feet, 2 rods with 3 feet gap on north side of deed. Photo of about 1940 of a sailor and his family was taken at the foot of our driveway. The utility pole shadow can go 10 times across driveway and the small barn that is 10 feet wide aside of house at rear of the driveway proves our driveway is 10 feet wide. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive. I’m a little bit concerned on some articles I read in the paper this week. This was Sunday, May 25, 2014. City employee retires after being disciplined for violations with city plow truck. I don’t know if any of you read that article this weekend. A public works employee disciplined for taking a snow plow without authorization and using it to plow his friend’s driveway has resigned. I want to emphasize on the word “resigned” and will retire next month according to records released by the city last week. I don’t know if this is true or not. I had to assume because you know what happens when you assume, but my problem is here if this was the private sector he would have been fired. He would have been terminated. He wouldn’t have even had a chance to resign and collect his pension. What is wrong with this? This is taxpayers’ dollars. You take a city plow truck that you’re not supposed to be using to plow a friend’s driveway. Now we have to get GPS for everybody. I went to the public works meeting and now we’re talking about GPS because we can’t trust anybody anymore. I’m not going to say everybody is an angel, but I’m going to say not everybody is bad that works for the city. When you have an incident like this why does that person have the right to resign? That person should have been fired instantly and no pension which is taxpayers’ dollars. The salary is taxpayers’ dollars. If that person got into an accident with that truck, it’s taxpayers’ dollars but yet that person got to resign. I think it’s sad. And then you want to talk about contracts and why things change and why we ask questions. Where’s the transparency in government? A guy takes a truck. Then it says in the article that he took the vehicle assigned to another employee without the employee’s knowledge and went to an area of his route to plow a driveway the man had said. Again if this is accurate from the Telegraph that’s like stealing the vehicle in my opinion. To put it under somebody else’s name if he gets into an accident then that other employee has to prove he doesn’t have that vehicle. What’s wrong with this picture? That person should have been fired, not the right to resign. That’s the difference with government and private sector. Anybody who works in the private sector that worked in a place where a cash register is and you put your hand in the till and say I’m going to put a couple of these dollars in my pocket, nobody will ever know, but then they catch you because they have cameras, guess what? You don’t have a chance to even tell your story. What happens? You’re fired. Maybe Donald Trump should be running this city. He wouldn’t have a problem firing people. Then I was reading in the paper, and it’s not just me, but other people questioned this also, so I went to legal counsel today and thank you very much. It has to do with the East Hollis Street Gateway Improvement Planning Study. In the paper it talked about to approve the award of the contract for East Hollis Street Gateway Improvement Planning Study to STV, Inc. Boston in an amount not-to- Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 20 exceed $140,000. Funding for this contract would be $70,000 through Department 169, wastewater fund, waterwater activity, East Hollis Street Gate Improvement and the remaining amount would be from the developer. We talk about contracts again. The contract hasn’t come before Finance yet. It hasn’t been done. I read that in the paper today and said something is not right here. $70,000 from wastewater and again we just had that 15 percent increase this year. Other people have been talking about this, not just me. I had to find out from legal. I was told everything would be okay with this $70,000 as long as it pertains to the stormwater Part D, E, wastewater flood control system improvement, F, environmental and part of G, utilities impact assessment. You get these stories and you see these things and you say to yourself that’s my tax dollars. Is my tax dollars really at work? 15 percent increase in my sewer fees. Everything is going up. My taxes are going up again. I can’t wait to see how much money is going to be subtracted from the budget. It’s not a cut, it’s just a reduction. I really would like to see a big reduction this year. Like I said there are some salaries that are outrageous and there are some things here that really need to change in this city. I think the people are getting fed up with our taxes going up. We’ve got people on social security, fixed incomes. Public Service wants a 1.7 percent increase in the electric. Under 3 percent on our taxes. Our sewerage just went up. Our water is going up. What do we do to our taxpayers and to the people on fixed income? Drop dead. You got to pay all of this. Thank you. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman McCarthy I just wanted to welcome one of our anchor downtown businesses, Chuck’s Barber Shop, to their new location on the other side of Main Street in the block by San Francisco Kitchen. Alderman Schoneman I’d like to remind everybody that on Friday there’s an airport tour on part of the airport. The airport is not in my ward, but there’s a tour and you are welcome to come out for that. There’s a cookout too at 5:00 p.m. to get to know some of the airport community. There have been some issues around the airport and all that’s put aside on Friday. Come out and take a look at the airport and we’ll show you around and enjoy the barbeque. If anyone cannot make it on Friday but would still like to see the airport sometime, I’d be glad to show them around. Let me know. Alderman Sheehan I’ve been asked to let people know that the Special Olympics Team is going to have the State Competition in Durham on Friday and Saturday. The torch run is actually coming through Nashua tomorrow. It’s very early but they would really like to see some people out if you can. At 6:00 a.m. they are meeting up at the North Church at the top of Library Hill. They will be running with some members of the police department up to the Merrimack line, pass Greeley and the Big One. The basketball team made it to nationals and they are going to New Jersey. There is a track team and a swim team that is going to states so they should be congratulated on those efforts. And to remind people that at the end of this week there is a few performances of Our Town being performed at Nashua High South which is dedicate to Walter Heinhold who was in the drama department. He ran it and it’s dedicated to him. We lost him this year. The students are really putting a lot into this because it was one of his favorites. If anybody can be there, it starts Thursday and then Friday and I believe Saturday afternoon there’s another performance. Alderman Moriarty As a communications engineer, I’ve learned that it is difficult to get a message across. It doesn’t matter how good the transmitter is or how well you phrase your communication when the receiver is not working, it doesn’t help. When I spoke earlier I was trying to portray a message about the fact that currently the way the budget is crafted it is asking the taxpayers of Nashua to chip in an extra $7 million. It’s what the numbers say. The Spending Cap currently says that they should only have to chip in an extra $5 million. Let me repeat. The Spending Cap says the taxpayers need to pay an extra $5 million. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 21 The budget as it currently is in my car, not here, is asking the taxpayers to pay $7 million. All the taxpayers, their property tax rate, their property tax bill should only go up 2.1 percent. As drafted it’s going to go up closer to 2.8. What I was also trying to portray to the Board of Aldermen as best I could with leaving out accusations, without being hostile, without adding accusations of motive, when people asked me what I thought the Mayor’s motives were for submitting this bill, I did not say that it was some nefarious act. When the press asked me what I thought the Mayor’s motives were, I did not say it was some evil plan. I tried to approach my comments that way. I was trying to offer to the Board of Aldermen that there’s a way that we could fix this budget, not everybody is going to be happy. A good mediation is when everybody walks away like they feel like they lost something a little bit. Then you know you succeeded. Everybody’s budget goes up by the Spending Cap, taxes goes up by the cost of living. It balances out. We could beat that up with ten votes and make it veto-proof override, ten votes. We could do it that way. Or, we could get along and get it done with 8 votes and ask the Mayor to go along with it. Maybe I stumbled possibly at the end when I was trying to say a rhetorical question. I’m not asking you know to make the decision of whether or not you would veto that, but when people start rolling their eyes and go “fine” it doesn’t help. Not you. It doesn’t help. Like I said, no matter how hard we try to communicate something, I accept the fact that I’m not going to be perfect in communicating a message and neither are you. It would be helpful if you try to be a little bit more receptive and be forgiving sometime. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja Two announcements although today doesn’t feel much like planting season even though the weekend did. This coming weekend in Ward 8 there’s going to be two plant sales. One is sponsored by ADK, the teacher plant sale at 15 Spencer Drive which is from 8 – 2 p.m. The Senior Center is going to be having their plant sale at 16 Shakespeare from 9 – 3. Alderman Caron The Senior Center was last Saturday. President Deane I heard it was successful too. Alderman Melizzi-Golja Well if you didn’t get them last weekend, try the teacher’s plant sale. All I can say is go early. Then I have a question for Attorney Clarke, through you, if I may. Two weeks ago there was much discussion around this horseshoe about the independent study. I was just wondering if there’s an update as to when we can expect the study to be available to the members of this board. President Deane Are you talking about the playground study? Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja Yes. Attorney Clarke I can confirm that Attorney Bennett has been in contact with the consultant. They were quite clear that it would be submitted to the city this week. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 22 Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja Okay, so by the end of this week you anticipate receiving it? Attorney Clarke Yes. Alderman Wilshire Tomorrow is the groundbreaking ceremony for the Nashua Soup Kitchen and Shelter. That’s at 2:30 p.m. Also on June 4 is the Taste of Downtown from 6 – 8:30 p.m. I’m pretty sure there’ still tickets available for that. It’s always a great event. On June 25 there’s a Cotton Mill Open House from 5 – 7 p.m. And, I wanted to thank everyone, colleagues and a lot of people in the community, for their support and condolences. I appreciate it. Alderman Chasse You forgot June 26. Alderman Wilshire June 26 is the Club National Golf Tournament. Thank you. Alderman McCarthy I was just reminded when Alderman Wilshire spoke that the dedication of the Holocaust Memorial is this weekend, I believe, Sunday at 2:00 p.m. President Deane I’d like to send my condolences to Mike and Lori for the loss of their parents. It’s not an easy thing to go through. I know when my father passed away; you just always try to think of the good stuff that went on because there was plenty of it. Seeing that tractor that he used to drive. I don’t know how they got all the mud off of that thing, but that thing was a pretty neat piece of equipment. It’s tough, but things roll along. Alderman McCarthy I want to correct myself. It’s at 1 o’clock. Committee announcements: Alderman Donchess The Infrastructure Committee meets tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman Dowd Next Monday we have a school construction here in this Chamber at 6 p.m., followed by the Joint School at 6:30 p.m. We’re going to finish up the last few contracts for the Broad Street School. As soon as school closes, they will be going in there and starting the project so they can get it done during the summer months, the first part of it. Bd. of Aldermen – 05/27/14 Page 23 President Deane I had asked Alderman McCarthy about the fence over there and the wetlands. I don’t know if he talked to you about that and the lady that had called. Alderman Chasse Two weeks from tonight, June 10, 7:00 p.m. prior to the full Board, Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee. Alderman Moriarty Tuesday, June 3, PEDC. Wednesday, June 4, Finance. President Deane Budget Review Thursday night. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE MAY 27, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk Cotton Mill Square and the Nashua Riverwalk As part of the Planning Board approval, the Cotton Mill Square development is funding and constructing a 10 foot wide segment of the Nashua Riverwalk from their property line to the Cotton Transfer Bridge. The Riverwalk segment includes construction of a stairway to/from the Cotton Transfer Bridge and a direct connection from Cotton Mill building to the bridge for ADA access through the building. In addition to the walkway. Cotton Mill Square constructed and funded a stonewall adjacent to the walkway as part of the floodplain control. These public improvements cost approximately $300,000. Separately, the City completed a segment of the Nashua Riverwalk from the property line of the Cotton Mill Square along the river to Main Street. The completion of these two segments closes a gap in the Nashua Riverwalk, which will complete the western loop of the Downtown trail system. Responsibility for Dam Repair Under the terms of the 1984 lease between the City and Nashua Hydropower Associates (NHA), NHA assumes full responsibility for repairs to the Dam. This is limited to duration of the lease term, which is set to expire 7 months from now. The 2012 agreements between the City and Cotton Mill Square and City and NHA transfer this responsibility to Cotton Mill Square, LLC while the crest gate project was underway. The City felt a desire to partially reimburse Cotton Mill Square for the repairs to the right abutment because it was felt that this work was over and above repair work that relates to the crest gate project. The right abutment situation was revealed as a structural deficiency that has existed for 100 years. This deficiency would not have been the responsibility of Nashua Hydro Associates. It likely would not have been revealed until some point in the future, perhaps during a dam failure (and cause of the dam failure). Rectifying the right abutment now, while the dam was under construction, potentially saved the City substantial future funds and liability.  Cotton Mill Square Local Public Assistance Cotton MU! Square - Nashua Assistance Loans Date Reference Amount Repayment Status 36 month loan, variable Interest rate, principal due in 36 months or i t 60% of building HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee 3/3/2011 R'll-91 $ 2,500,000 occupancy, whichever is sooner HUO HOME Funds 3/4/2011 R-ll-92 S 700,000 40 year loan, zero Interest due, principal due In year 40 HUD HOME Funds 4/26/2012 R-12-024 (switched $ 40,000 41 year loan, zero interest due, principal due in year 40 HUO HOME Funds 3/21/2013 R-13-098 s 300,000 42 year loan, zero interest due, principal due in year 40 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Loan 4/16/2013 s 500,000 20 year loan, 2.75* interest rate, principal and Interest due monthly Drownfle ds Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Loan 6/11/2013 $ 160,000 21 year loan, 2.75% Interest rate, principal and interest due monthly Brown fields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Loan 11/19/2013 s 209,000 22 year loan, 2.75% Interest rate, principal and interest due monthly Total $ 4,409,000 Tax Relief Date Reference Amount Community Revitalizatlon Tax Relief Incentive 2/12/2013 Chapter 79E $ 1,087,063 Total $ 1,087,063 2013 Tax Rate Estimate Tax Value /$1000 valuation Revenue Prior Assessment $ 2,200,400 S 2350 $ SI, 709 Current Assessment $ 11,452,000 $ 23.50 s 269,122 Incremental Value $ 217,413 Total (5 years) $ 1,087,063 Board of Aldermen City of Nashua 229 Main Street / P O Box 2019 Nashua, NH 03061-2019 (603) 589-3030 • FAX: (603) 589-3039 Memorandum TO: Board of Aldermen FROM: Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan DATE: May 27, 2014 SUB J: Reconsideration of R-14-015, Approving a $100,000 Payment to Cotton Mill Square, LLC for Work on the Right Abutment of the Jackson Mills Dam Based on Alderman Siegel's copious information presented at our last meeting regarding Resolution R-14-015,1 will be seeking the Board's concurrence this evening to reconsider indefinite postponement so it may be re-referred to committee. The assertion that Hydro could be responsible for the addition work should be fully vetted before final disposition. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to discussing this in further detail with you this evening. :sl  1 James B. and Mary E. Cutter 889-4246 86 Palm Street, P.O. Box 69 Nashua, NH 03061-0069 May 27, 2014 Alderman-At-Large David W. Deane OPEN LETTER. President, Board of Aldermen Nashua, NH Dear President Deane and Board of Aldermen/Alderwomen, To start, we would like to thank Alderman-At-Large Jim Donchess for trying to help us get our full driveway and clothesline area. And, we like his plan. The following is a continuance of my May 13th letter that you may need to help constituents. This is how 86 Palm Street came into being. Book 344, Page 136-8 dated 5/25/1862. Samuel Ferson sold to Chas. Matthews. Deed goes south down Ash St. from Hollis St. 35 rods- west 9 rods-north 35 rods to Hollis St.-east 9 rods to beginning. Book 491, Page 173 dated 10/18/1887. John Lund sold to Caleb Richardson. Deed starts 3 3 7 V south of Hollis St.-east 70'-south 150'-west 70*-north 150' to beginning. Book 498, Page 424 dated 12/3/1888. Caleb Richardson sold to Henry Proctor. This deed took 30' more or less southerly and 30' northerly from Book 491, Page 173. N.B. When land is not surveyed 'more or less' in a deed means footage; 'about* means inches. This lot was in rods(Book 344), because rods • have priority over feet. Because 30' was known not to be exact more or less was in deed. It should be 33'(2 rods) with 3' gap on north side of deed. See survey in May 13th letter. Photo of about 194 0 of a sailor and his family was taken at the foot of our driveway. The utility pole shadow can go 10 times across driveway and the small barn that is 10* wide aside of house at rear of the driveway proves our driveway is 10' wide. Sincerely, cc. Donnalee Lozeau, Mayor. Stephen M. Bennett, Corporation Counsel. Board of Aldermen and Alderwoman.