Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, June 24, 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; Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 14 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman Caron was recorded absent. Mayor Donnalee Lozeau was recorded absent; Corporation Counsel Stephen M. Bennett was also in attendance. REMARKS BY THE MAYOR – None RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR – None RECOGNITION PERIOD – None READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETINGS OF JUNE 3, 2014, AND JUNE 10, 2014, AND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE ON JUNE 9, 2014, AND THE COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE OF JUNE 11, 2014, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE AND THE READINGS SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Contract Award for Transit Service Operations with First Transit MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT TO FIRST TRANSIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,900,596 MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Ms. Tracy Pappas, 12 Swart Terrace I thought long and hard as to whether I should come tonight. I know people are sick and tired about hearing about Greeley Park and I think that’s why we have a lack of planning there. Things happened and then it’s really about a good neighbor issue. People get tired of hearing about it but the project keeps going and the neighbors are the ones who suffer the consequences. I would like to go into why I believe this became such a divisive issue. In my opinion, it became a divisive issue because the Chair of the Public Works promised something that she couldn’t promise. I know you folks have listened to this and if there’s any public official that has heard about this for an incredibly long period of time, it’s me. From the get go, when it was in front of Public Works, I knew it was about Greeley Park. I listened and I was polite. There were times that I have not been particularly polite about the issue and not particularly proud of my behavior but as soon as I realized this was an issue about Greeley Park, I said this needs to go in front of the Board of Aldermen. I said that for quite some time but I didn’t have the votes on my Public Works Board. We are people of our word. We believe that when the study was done, we thought that was so important. For months we had been talking this empty playground that Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 2 really meant a lot and it was well used. The other problem with this issue was that our former Ward 3 Alderman, from the get go, was pushing for this playground to be in Greeley Park. She said that it was very unsafe, it’s never used, and I’m out there counting cars and no one is going there. Everyone at City Hall got sick of it; I think including Corporation Counsel I know when Mr. Murphy had asked questions about who was going to be there, it was said that it’s just a playground, what’s the big deal. I get that that is what people felt but it was a piece of history. When it was evident to me that that group wanted Greeley Park, I said take the east side. Great, I’m a person of my word and that’s fine. The only thing I will say that a lot of people said they didn’t want hear, and I think it’s extremely important that someone from the neighborhood be involved in planning this. It’s a fairly narrow area and I think Jennifer from the Institute had said that we do need a buffer. I think at some point someone had said the city was going to be responsible for the buffer. I suggest some of you folks go take a look at the east side of Greeley Park. At one point, I was promised a buffer; four very sad looking trees that were half dead that weren’t planted properly. The other big issue, and it may not sound like a big issue to you, but it is to us, is access to the power lines. We have our power lines there and there are maybe 15 of us on that power grid. Whenever public service hears Swart Terrace, there’s dead silence on their radio and one of the older guys will go ahead and show up. When we have those big power outages, as it should be, people who are on the biggest grids get the first service. Our grid is very difficult to deal with so it might not sound like a big deal but yet, if we have these big power outages or even little ones, I won’t be calling you folks up and asking you if you will take in my loud family, my loud self and my loud dog because we don’t have power. That is my main issue; we are people of our word. The other thing I ask is that if you do take that east side, it has to be married with getting an expert to plan it because that can be sticky. It’s narrow, we need a decent buffer, and there needs to be access to the power lines to both fix the power and then on a regular basis, tree companies need to cut down. I get that you folks have a lot of city business to do and that’s not a big deal but think about what a big deal it is to have power. When the power goes out, it’s a big deal to us. I would personally like to thank my current Board Alderman who has really been a gentleman in this, everyone here who has listened, the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, the Board President, and all of you who have listened. I get that you have had it up to here. Remember, there might not be a lot of us but little things like power are kind of an issue. Think of how you felt when you didn’t have power and imagine that you were on the bottom of the list for your power to be fixed. That was a major concern of mine. I thank everyone for their attention on this issue and I thank all of the people. Mr. Bob Burgess, 32 Bates Drive I think we can go back in history as far as Highland Springs on Beauview Avenue. My folks owned that building back in the early 40’s and I lived in that area more or less all of my life. If we look at the west side coming in at Charlotte Avenue, there used to be a dirt road that ran right along the perimeter of all those hills in there. Greeley Park is all roped off because of some fancy activity that’s taken place but there’s a dirt road that used to come out the Milk and Hillside Drive in the old days. It’s a beautiful area to walk through. On the top of the hill there was a log cabin. Back in those days we used to have porches all the way around and there was a lookout tower on the front lawn that was there previously before my parents purchased it. We moved out of there in 1949 but many memories still last of that area of Greeley Park. To me, it’s not over until the shovel goes in the ground. As we look at R-14-042, it states “whereas the IHCD was hired and has completed an assessment of possible locations for the playground and has recommended the east side of Greeley Park on the south side of the access road.” If you look at that study that came back, they gave six or seven different sites. This was their number one site but that didn’t mean that the playground couldn’t go somewhere else like the Four Corners. The site that we are talking about is approximately 100 feet from the band shell. You people have a special account to renovate the band shell. If we have to expand the bathrooms and this is 100 feet from that band shell, there’s no quiet there for the youngsters. How safe is it when you have hundreds of people and we all know that abductions happen. God forsake nothing happens. We all know at the base of those ball fields down in the woods and I know what goes on in there. I was driving by the site tonight and the cars were backed up all the way to the softball field and this is probably one of the quietest nights of the week. Going along with this, I really don’t think this is the site for the safety and I think we need a study of Greeley Park and really see what we want to go in there. We are talking about 12,000 square feet, that’s a good size house lot. I’ve got nothing against the handicapped, they are beautiful Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 3 kids, the parents, and I give them credit with all they have to go through in taking care of these youngsters. I think the majority of them do a commendable job. I worked part-time at one of the schools in Milford and I saw how much work these kids are but I don’t really think that this is the site to put this merry-go-round in the middle of a nice, quiet park. Like I stated before and I stuck my neck out, if it has to go in Greeley Park, let’s put it where the existing playground is. We got something up there, we are not screwing up some place where people can lay down and enjoy the sun and where the band shell has so many activities going on and this is probably 100 feet from there, we are looking for trouble. There is nothing with this study that has stated Greeley Park had to be picked. That was their number one recommendation but there were also six or seven sites that said that they would have been useful. Like I said at the last meeting, what day of the week was this study taken? Was it taken on a Saturday or a Sunday when I’m down there and there’s probably 300 – 400 kids playing soccer, there are softball games going on, there are the horseshoe pits and I have a garden there and you couldn’t get down there even if you wanted to. To me, I think the question should have been asked what day of the week the study was done. I think this is the wrong site and I think for the safety of the youngsters, what further we develop with the band shell which we all know there are people up in arms, they are not happy with the band shell. If we expand the bathrooms there, what are we going to do, have this playground 10 feet from the bathroom? This isn’t the site. Thank you. Mr. Ed Mooney, 44 ½ Amherst Street I rise in opposition to R-14-001, approving the location of the Legacy Playground in Greeley Park’s east side. Two months ago, on April 22nd, this Board approved R-14-023, approving a contract with the Institute for Human Centered Design for the purpose of evaluating sites for the location of the Legacy Playground. Only one endorser of R-14-001 voted in favor of the study. According to the transcript, one of the other endorser’s of R-14-001 made this challenge. “If the study comes back and says it should be where the existing playground is in Greeley Park right now, I’m going to assume that everybody who is voting for the study is going to back that decision. If they aren’t, then we are just wasting our money. We really are.” Also according to the transcript, at least one of you, not an endorser of R-14-001, agreed and said “I completely agree with you. If the study that we support says that’s the best place then yes.” If that person or anyone else still feels obligated by the challenge made two months ago, consider this. The conditions of the challenge never materialized. The study recommended a place not where the existing playground is now. Not only that, it recommended a place on the other side of a busy street 300 yards from the existing playground. You are off the hook. You are free to simply be informed by the study and not bound by its rankings. Be glad that you are now able to consider the hours of testimony before several sub-committees, including a public hearing that had transpired in the last two months free of prejudice. We know that Greeley Park is a good place for a playground. What I am not convinced of is if another playground is good for Greeley Park. In the absence of a vision and plan for Greeley Park, any individual project, no matter how well intentioned, is Ad Hoc. In other words, we are just improvising. The outcomes that I would like to see are defeat of R-14-001, defeat of R-14-042, funding for the creation of a planned envision for Greeley Park, acceptance by the city of a gift from Leadership Greater Nashua for building an ADA compliant playground at a site other than Greeley Park. Mr. Michael Umali, 155 Cannongate Thank you for the opportunity to address this Board. For months we have listened to the Friends of Greeley Park, the Leadership of Greater Nashua, the parents of children with special needs, and supporters of the playground. For the Friends of Greeley Park, we do understand that you live next to a community and city park and this is also your neighborhood. In a neighborhood you need to know what is going on and also protect it including the moratorium. That’s why the moratorium is in place, to protect Greeley Park and its neighborhood. For the Leadership of Greater Nashua, they have been tossed in a very difficult time over two years. You continue to work with the parents, community, city departments, state officials, the Board of Alderman, and the neighborhood. You are steadfast to give all children the liberty to build a place that they can all go and enjoy and play together. To the parents of children with special needs, including myself, we only ask for a place that we can bring our children that they can all enjoy and play together with other children no matter what their ability. There are many city parks in Nashua, none came as highly recommended as Greeley Park by the parents, the community, Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 4 and the Institute for Human Centered Design’s independent study. As I spoke before, I’ve been to most of the city parks in Nashua with my son just to find a place where my son could play and enjoy. My son and I never really found a particular park that we could always go and it is the same for other parents like me. Now we are at this moment, the final passing of the location of the Legacy Playground, R-14- 001 and contracting the Institute for Human Centered Design for R-14-042. For years and months now I have heard neighbors of the city come into the Board and be divided. This playground project has become political for some purpose. Does it have to be this way? Can we build a new playground in the east side as recommended by the Institute for Human Centered Design? How and when are we going to rid of the differences and find something in common to get this playground built? Are we going to go forward now for our children? Can we do this project together, as a community and as neighbors? An excellent playground can still be built and we can still protect and preserve Greeley Park and its neighborhood. Can we all lead this together, to build an ADA compliant and accessible playground; to show the community and the people of this city that we can lead together? This is a moment for unity. A community of neighbors and city leaders must make a big step to bring our community and city together. The community needs to know that we are all united for all of our children. Please give this opportunity to our children, for all children no matter what their ability, an opportunity where they can play and enjoy in a place where everyone can go. We ask all of the members to vote yes as a unified Board. I’m sorry I can’t stay tonight as it’s my turn to put my son to bed. Mr. Dave Robbins, 102 Cherrywood Drive I live in Ward 9, Alderman Siegel’s ward. As I was coming in here this evening, I walked around the front of the building and took a look at something that I have looked at several times, the marble bust of President John F. Kennedy. If it were just sitting there without any signage or anything that would be fine but what I find historically relevant is what is says. One of the things it says is January 25, 1960, that the then Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency and said he was going to run in New Hampshire. Why is that important? Can you imagine someone trying to run in the New Hampshire Primary in 2016 and waiting until January 25, 2016? The primary would have probably already been held. Why is that meaningful? It’s meaningful because it says something about history; it says something about what has happened in those 54 years. I’m old enough that I can remember President Kennedy but I have children who weren’t and I’ve brought my children into this building and we’ve come to the front door and we stopped and looked at that. Just by reading the very brief words that on there, we have had a great conservation about history and about what it means and about how things have changed and what’s going on. What’s my point? Words, signage, naming, and recognition matter for any number of reasons. One of the reasons they matter is because they are part of the flow of history, they tell a story. They tell us what has happened; they recognize people who have provided something to the community. Even on that statue, for me, that is not the most interesting bit of information, the most interesting bit of information is down in the back on the bottom. There are two names, Ward 4 representative Cecilia Winn, and Mayor Mario Vagge. That bust was put up in 1965. Mayor Vagge was the Mayor, I don’t know if Cecilia Winn was a member of the Board of Alderman. They were both Chairs of the fundraising committee. Just seeing those names as I was sitting here waiting to speak, I started to look up both of them. Just seeing those names and being interested in history has given me a little bit of a connection to what’s going on and I ask that you keep perhaps a little bit of what I have said in mind as you look at R-14-001 and you look at the current items 7 & 8 and consider that tasteful, appropriate information can be very important and in this playground, if it comes to be built, if you tell the story and one of the great stories that you can tell is the public/private partnership; the City of Nashua and the citizens of Nashua working together can do wonderful things and that says something to people who come along the next generation. Many of us have read Mr. Greeley’s will and his dedication and about how he gave the park and the history and what that means. Mr. Eric Brand, East Brook Drive I am the project representative for Legacy Playground. Dave, I must say, that was very good. Dave was obviously talking about the naming of the playground which was not my intent with what I was going to speak to tonight but I thought he made some very good points to that. I did hear tonight that we have had it out for Greeley Park and that’s where we have wanted to be this entire time. I’ll say it hopefully for Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 5 the last time that this entire process that we have gone through was wanting to find the best site and we were believing in the study to do that and I believe that we are working within the best site based on all of the research that has been done. Buffer zone, I completely agree and I’ve said that before publicly to make sure that we working in a very good fashion to make that there is a buffer zone to take place in there and tonight actually introduce another piece that hopefully we will be discussing later on in the design process and that’s working with the utility pole issues in the background. There are definitely some concerns to make sure that we are addressing all of those types of issues so that we are not creating additional problems just by putting a buffer in there. I haven’t looked at that area to see about the wires, but I’m sure that’s something that’s going to be addressed as we continue to move forward. I had a great conversation this weekend with Jennifer Brooks for about 1 and 10 minutes trying to understand how a process like this could work. How could we really get along and still continue to create something good. One of the recommendations that she actually had within the conversation was well, I can see where there would be some controversy or issues and she recommended adding in somebody else to this group. I tried to come up with someone that I felt would be doing something great for the kids regardless of their abilities. The person that came to my mind was Jan Martin, the Special Education Director for the City of Nashua. Who else has the experience level of working with these children to be able to make sure that they are getting the best services that they can on a daily basis? Who else could go out and ask for other opinions from other specialists that could possibly review any plans that are going on to make sure that everything is being accounted for. If there are questions that come up, we can get those answered. I know that she has spoke before the different committees at different times and she spoke in favor of Greeley Park. I’m not sure if she specifically said Greeley Park or not. I didn’t go back to the minutes to look that up but she was obviously very much in favor of building this playground. If we are down to the site and we know what the site is, she is kind of neutral at this point. It doesn’t matter to her where it’s going but I think it matters to her that this is built in an appropriate fashion and make sure that it is addressing the needs of the children. I ask you tonight, as we heard some amendments last week, I didn’t have a chance until now to really comment about them, I ask you tonight to consider putting an amendment together that could include her in the design process. I think that really adds to the neutral partisans. The second piece, I’m concerned about trying to make sure that we can recognize those who have donated towards the project. That was one of the amendments that were added last week. I don’t’ remember if it was 001 or 042, I think it was number 8 does specify about not having any signage done without having the Board’s approval and I’m okay with that. I want to make sure that is there and I want to make sure that even in 001 or vice versus that it balances each other to actually have work with the Institute for Human Centered Design, to have Jennifer Brooks make sure that she is putting together some type of recognition that can be in good taste and actually be done in a very low manner where it’s not going to draw attention. The idea of this is not to draw attention to it. I’m curious to see what Jennifer will say. Could it be a little footplate with perennials around it, could it be a little plaque on the side of a piece of equipment, I’m not sure. I just want to make sure that we are not ruling that out. As we all know, everywhere in the city, donors are recognized. I don’t think this should be treated any differently. I do want to thank this Board, the President, the Mayor, and all of the different committees. One of the things that we have gotten down to is that we wanted a yes or no answer. Hopefully we can get that tonight and I thank everyone for all of their time and hard work that went into this. Ms. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive I spoke with Alderman Soucy earlier and I think some of you will have a good chuckle. No one’s ever said that I speak eloquently but he did in the Finance Committee about free F-R-E-E. I am a little bit concerned about the $15,000 for the site design. I looked at this legislation and I looked to see what department the money is coming out of. Its department 194, which I spoke with Mo earlier because I knew to get to the 2014 budget not the 2015 coming up that I had to do a little comparison. I believe that’s coming out of contingency, am I correct? In the contingency from last year was about $197,500 that was allotted and this year, 2015 is $300,000. $15,000 out of contingency, some people say it’s a drop in a bucket but I say its F-R-E-E gift and I shouldn’t have to pay for this. This has nothing to do with the kids; I raised three children of my own. I love kids. It’s the principle of the thing. It’s a gift to the city and I’m so glad that Mr. Robbins finally said, as I’ve been saying all along that this is a public/private partnership. In such a partnership, public money is expended and there’s going to be more money expended in this. Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 6 Putting names on plaques, you know, if I was donating money I couldn’t care less is my name was up in lights. In fact, my name is at Stello’s and I didn’t want and my name is at Holman’s and I didn’t want it. If people need to have their names in lights then go to Broadway. I’m not happy about it and I guess I’m going to keep squawking about it because that’s my money too. Nobody cares if my taxes go up. How many people are going to have the guts here on this Board to make the reductions that need to be made this year because the Mayor said that next year is going to be worse? As I looked through the agenda, and there was a great article in today’s Telegraph about Brian McCarthy wanting to put a movie theatre on top of the parking garages. Again, this is a public/private partnership. I’ve said for years when I sat on the Board that why do we build out in this city? Why don’t we use our air rights and build schools up and down. I’m a little concerned because we want to look at the economic vitality of downtown. We talk about the Nashua Regional Planning Commission gives us all these wonderful ideas, it used to be called urban re- development and then it became the walk able, sustainable communities and now I don’t even know what the heck it’s called. The problem I have here is that we are all focusing everything on downtown; forget about the rest of the neighborhoods and the rest of the city. Number two, what jobs are we bringing downtown to bring people into the downtown to live? What type of store fronts are we bringing downtown? We brought this up in our debates for Alderman-at-Large and I think I brought up many things. How many people on this Board grew up in the big city? The Economic Development Director, I asked him if he knew what a superette is. He said what’s a superette? I said go to Manhattan. Manhattan doesn’t have big store, they have small stores and they cater to. Who are we catering to in Nashua? That’s what you have to ask yourself. Who do we want to bring to downtown? If we are going to bring working class people all we are doing is bringing more retail to Amherst Street. What types of jobs are we going to be bringing. I have sat on this Board and I would say that people can’t buy a home on retail salary. Well, I guess they could but then they would foreclose on the home because they really can’t buy a home on those salaries. So what are we really looking for downtown, $7.25 per hour? People can’t survive on retail so you have to plan around on how people are going to survive downtown. I mean we have those million dollar sidewalks there now and so we have to build something around the million dollar sidewalks rather than planning. I watched the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting with Mr. Manoian and I’ll tell you that my head was spinning by the time I was done. Nashua Regional Planning Commission, Agenda 21 is coming to Nashua. Mr. Dick Ianncone – 35 Swart Terrace I do want to bring up one thing, it’s this R-14-042 and there’s a part here that says “be resolved that the IHCD shall work with a member of the Leadership Greater Nashua and a member of the Friends of Greeley Park. I want you all to take a deep breath because if I am asked, I will not serve. As I have said from the very first meeting, I am biased. Even tonight, it’s interesting to listen to the words being used about what’s been going on. It’s not about us or them. It has nothing to do with the Friends of Greeley Park, or the neighborhood people. The very first meeting I went to, I made a presentation because they were talking about this is for everyone, veterans, people with disabilities, and the elderly. The first thing I said was I feel kind of guilty being here because I have a child with disabilities, I served a tour in Vietnam, and of course, now I am elderly. My realization the very first night was that 99% of the people in that room and until recently, most of the members around this room were not discussing the same thing I was discussing. It never has been about us and them from day one; it’s been about Greeley Park. It’s been about the moratorium. The moratorium was put in for a reason. A lot of people have a tough time in a political arena. A lot of average citizens are questioning what is going on with our political system. We voted people in to take action and it was done for a reason and then we find out later on that wow, we can change that if we so desire. The issue has been all along about Greeley Park. If someone wants to put a plaque on something, and by the way, there was one comment, Chris Williams and spoke to signage. It was all about their group not needing signage. He said that we had raised money for this project or that project and there was nothing about signage. Now we hear that. Once you put something in Greeley Park, it doesn’t go away. I was driving by the park the other night and it was all lit up and people were playing horseshoes. How did that get approved? The people who are talking about Greeley Park and really want to preserve it, we are worried. It’s slowly being taken away one more time. You know that study? The so-called Friends of Greeley Park that contributed to the study, what they really wanted to show was that do you know what, there’s more than one site in this community. Everyone’s new best friend, Jennifer said that how many times? We are fortunate; we have a lot of great sites. We wouldn’t have spent two years on this project Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 7 now if you want to put it any other place than Greeley Park. It is not just another playground, it’s huge. Pretty soon there won’t be anything left on the east side. What’s happened to the little wading pool? Will that be under a tarp for the rest of the year? The park doesn’t look good, it needs work. I am asking you tonight, and I know it’s tough. There was one individual who stood up here at the meeting last week, which a lot of people are really proud of because he gets it, it’s about Greeley Park. We all want the playground folks. I’d be happy to donate to the playground. That’s just not the place. Why does it have to be Greeley Park? What is this about Greeley Park that you have to put it in when there is a moratorium against building anything else? Someone talked about getting a plan together. To me, that’s pretty easy. It’s a preservation and not to develop land. It’s the Nomad approach; you put in the park what you carry in on your back and when you are finished, you carry it out. The park will be there for everyone. There have been reports written about the area along the water, it’s an historical part of that park, we should be talking about for all kids and all disabilities to adding trails through there. It’s a different format. There are already playgrounds out there. Why can’t people see that? It’s a different type of enjoyment. Why do we have to destroy it? I now it’s tough tonight. Most of you have already made your mind up which is unfortunate. I am asking each of you to dig down deep and really think about what this really means, what Greeley Park really means. It has nothing to do with the playground, vote it down. Thank you very much. PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS – None REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Budget Review Committee ................................................................ 06/05/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the June 5, 2014 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Budget Review Committee ................................................................ 06/09/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the June 9, 2014 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Budget Review Committee ................................................................ 06/12/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the June 12, 2014 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee ............................................................................ 06/18/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the June 18, 2014 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure ............................................................. 06/11/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the June 11, 2014 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Human Affairs Committee ................................................................ 06/19/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the June 19, 2014 Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Jt. Committee on Infrastructure/Budget Review Committee .............. 06/18/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the June 18, 2014 Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 8 Joint Committee on Infrastructure and Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee ...................................... 06/10/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the June 10, 2014 Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-001, Amended Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman June M. Caron Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown APPROVING THE LOCATION OF THE LEGACY PLAYGROUND AT GREELEY PARK EAST SIDE Given its third reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO AMEND R-14-001 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse What are the amendments? Alderman Sheehan First and foremost, it aligns it with the site recommended by the Institute for Human Centered Design which is on the east side of Greeley Park. Again, no mature, healthy trees shall be removed. The resolution is contingent on R-14-042 getting final passage which is for the design by the Institute for Human Centered Design. No expansion of the project shall be taken without a separate resolution so what’s going to be approved is what is in the plan. The Leadership Greater Nashua shall have all of the funding before the project starts and no plaques, signs, bricks, or anything else bearing the names of companies or organizations shall be placed anywhere in Greeley Park without the approval of the Board of Aldermen. No expansion shall be made to the parking footprint inside of Greeley Park and a planted year-round buffer zone shall be established and maintained between the playground and the neighbors by the city. It shall not be lit or have any stadium seating. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-014-001 AS AMENDED Alderman Chasse I missed a few meetings but I did watch them on TV I am not against the kids getting a new playground, I’m all for it. My question is where do they stand on their 100%? What if they don’t reach the 100%? Is this all a waste of our time? One of my biggest concerns is this, Greeley Park is so packed, like with the Summer Fun Days; there’s no way that any challenged children can get to that playground where it’s Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 9 going to be. There are three ball fields down there. When all three ball fields are active, the parking is all the way up past the tennis courts. We are looking at four handicapped spots, there’s just no parking on that side. I don’t think this is the right spot. There’s also a moratorium and I’m for it. We are piece mealing it down there again. The horse shoe pits went in and then this went in and that went in, they had the RV’s down there one year on the soccer field. I personally feel that we should be looking at this; I know that it was a study that was given to us but that doesn’t mean that we have to abide by that study. My main concern is this, regardless of where you put it, what is it going to cost the taxpayers of Nashua? Nobody has come up to me and said that it’s going to be $10,000 or we are going to have to invest $100,000 or $1 million to put it there; I have heard no numbers so in my opinion, unless I get those numbers, I will not support this. I want some numbers on what it is going to cost the taxpayers. Alderman Schoneman I want to talk about the study. What it tells us and what it doesn’t. I think when we hire a consultant to come in, I think that person is meant to inform us in making a decision and not meant to make that decision for us. The idea that the study somehow made our decision I think is erroneous. We need to make sure that we understand how what was revealed to us can inform our decision. A gentleman spoke earlier about the sites that were recommended, that it wasn’t just one, it wasn’t just Greeley Park. Greeley Park wasn’t ranked necessarily by being the most accessible or the best. In fact, the consultant said numerous times here and in the written report that there are many sites that are available and would be suitable. In fact, the ones that made that list of seven are all considered suitable. The ones that were unsuitable were rejected out of hand. They weren’t even ranked. All of those seven sites were considered suitable. The only comment about lack of suitability on those top seven was addressed to the west side of Greeley Park when they said they recommended it with reservations due to the access issues there. We have multiple sites in the city that are available that would be successful for this park which means that the success of this playground to meet all of the needs that have been raised over all of these months is not dependent on it being in Greeley Park. In fact, if we didn’t have Greeley Park and they came in and looked at other sites, they would have found a suitable site. We have multiple sites that are available which means that it’s not about a playground any more. If it was that only Greeley Park was suitable then it would be well, if we don’t put it in Greeley Park then we don’t get a playground but that’s not the case. It is really only about Greeley Park and the question is do we develop it or do we preserve it. The moratorium is in effect. In the absence of a Master Plan that says we are going to do “X” with the park, the only thing we have in the city is a moratorium. That moratorium was designed to protect and preserve it, not to develop it. If there is any precedent for what we should be doing this evening, I think that precedent is for preservation. Someone had asked is this playground really good for Greeley Park and it’s not because it represents development. This legislation is about development and I said last week, after I made many of those amendments, that I would not support it. I do not support it; I am simply explaining my position. I support the preservation of Greeley Park and I will not support this. Alderman Sheehan One of the things that Jennifer from the Institute for Human Centered Design told us was that before they do any work to see what something is going to look like, they need to see a site. We wouldn’t be able to have those dollars until we had a picture of what the park might look like and then we get what our numbers would be. The process for any location that this went to would be to first accept the gift. So if a project came back and they said this is what the plan looks like, this is what it costs, and the Leadership Greater Nashua wants to build it, we still have another process to go through where we have to submit legislation again and accept the gift. This isn’t just moving forward. The person from that place told us that the way that you do it is first you select a site and then you do a plan. Until we have a plan, we don’t know what the ground work is going to cost. I think the bathroom door would need to be changed because it’s a pull door. There are some minor costs there but the site work costs we wouldn’t have until then. Just because we say that this is the site and that is approved and we do the site work, that’s when we get the other numbers. I share your concern as that is something you definitely want to look at. Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 10 Alderman Chasse I don’t buy that. I’m sorry, I have been around long enough to know that if I am going to put it at say Sergeant’s Avenue and I’ve already got a bathroom that I don’t have to spend any money on, I may have to make a path for the wheelchairs or something like that, somebody can figure out and say it’s going to cost $2,000 for that path. If I have it at Greeley Park then I have to expand the bathrooms or build them so somebody is going to say it’s going to cost us $20,000. I mean we are going to spend $15,000 for these people to say this is what it’s going to look like and then I’m going to decide? Well now it’s going to cost us $1 million for the infrastructure. That’s basically what it is so you can take every site and say I already have a bathroom, I need a bathroom, I need shade, I need this or that and you put it on a piece of paper. Somebody has those numbers, a guesstimate. That’s what I was looking for and nobody has come up with it. President Deane Like the sidewalk project where we throw $500,000 into a pot and then we don’t account for the Public Works labor and at the end of the year we ask for another $500,000. I wanted to inform everyone that I asked Attorney Bennett to speak with Ms. Brooks about the design and Attorney Bennett shared the e- mail with me about the concerns and I am of the impression that – when I brought the legislation in, it was for design only. They were going to work with a group and she presented a scope which would be the review of existing survey as supplied by the City of Nashua, there would be a kick-off meeting with the team where expectations are discussed. She would have a site visit and presentation of initial landscape concepts, usually two or three options and a team workshop format based of course, on the programming objectives. Refining and presenting the preferred design options, development of conceptual site grading plan including vehicular use areas coordinated with a civil engineer or other city authority, which would be the Board of Public Works. Representative images that convey the landscape design intent into a slide presentation for public review. Preparing a statement of probable construction costs and having the ADA review done by the Institute for Human Centered Design. That is basically the scope of work that she has presented. I will give everyone a copy of this. Attorney Bennett just received it at 5:06 p.m. Alderman Siegel First of all, what we are doing here with this legislation is that we are making a decision to give permission to use the best site identified. The Legacy Group can make a decision to put it outside of Greeley Park and that has nothing to do us. Again, our only legislation is to allow a site, which we probably wouldn’t have shot down if it had not been the number one site identified. The Legacy Group can change their mind if they decide to and work with the Board of Public Works. I know from my particular case, I had pledged that I would support the best possible site and I think the way I see the design coming out, although I understand Alderman Chasse’s concern, I think with the original design, I would have shared those concerns. It was a one size fits all. You buy this gigantic thing at some large expense and you put it down somewhere and hope that the entire cost objective can be met but because I think Ms. Brooks was in favor of a hybrid approach, I believe that we have a certain amount of funding that’s been identified. In any case, whatever design is made, we would want it to be scale-able for a number of reasons. One, just for financial reasons but also I think we will learn as we go along, what’s going to work and what’s not going to work. Let’s face it, we are not experts and it’s probably a reasonable idea to say that we might expand this if it works and maybe not if it doesn’t. As far as Mr. Brand’s concern and Mr. Robbin’s concern about recognition, I don’t think anything in the current legislation prevents recognition. I think all it does is recognize that the Board of Aldermen has a duty to approve the recognition however it might be put in place such that it is tastefully designed. We are putting a lot of trust in Jennifer Brooks already, I would believe that she would understand that is part of our concern and I think it’s unlikely that we would come up with something that’s glaringly bad. I think it’s entirely possible to do recognition in a tasteful fashion. I am going to support this legislation as it is. Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 11 Alderman Dowd I can understand the concerns that have been raised. I believe relative to the cost that this is probably the least expensive as far as infrastructure costs. The bathrooms at Sergeant’s Avenue are not adequate for handicapped. They are not insulated and only used during the summer. Because the location at Sergeant’s Avenue is right near one of the busiest streets in the City of Nashua, it’s a great concern so you might have to put up a fence. Yes, there are times that Greeley Park is very busy. Sergeant’s Avenue is busy all of the time and there’s a preponderance of older kids that hang around there all of the time. There are baseball fields there. To me, that is not a good location, handicapped accessible or not. I would not want to spend a lot of money developing more playground infrastructure there without making sure that we have all of the infrastructure that’s needed. That would be a lot more expensive than the east side of Greeley Park. I think three of the top four sites were Greeley Park. Maybe I’m wrong, but at least the top two were Greeley Park. I think the firm we are hiring will look out for those concerns. I agree with the moratorium but the moratorium says that anything that goes in Greeley Park has to come before the Board. I also agree that long-term there should be a plan for Greeley Park. I think the Parks & Recreation buildings should come out of there. There’s been a playground in Greeley Park for at least 60 years that I am aware of and it certainly hasn’t detracted from Greeley Park so why would we have a problem with putting some additional playground equipment in. There are some minor changes that have to be made to the bathrooms at Greeley Park. We have been talking about this for months. I was first opposed to the study but in retrospect I am glad we did it because we learned a lot. I have no problem with having Jennifer help design the park. I think it’s time to pass this resolution and move on. Alderman Soucy It’s time to finish this tonight one way or the other. Are we talking about the preservation of just the west side of Greeley Park or Greeley Park as a whole? If you are for preservation, because it’s pretty clear to me that it’s not about the best ADA site, it’s always been about Greeley Park. If you are for the preservation of Greeley Park as a whole, then have the courage tonight to vote no. If you believe this is the best site then vote yes. I’m not happy about the fact that we have to hire the Institute for Human Centered Design. I don’t care who designs the playground. I am definitely not in favor of spending $15,000 of taxpayer’s money for the design. Initially the gift could have been up to $250,000 for the “biggest” and “bestest” playground in the state or even in New England. Now we are talking about a scaled down playground. The Mayor said a few weeks ago that probably the cost would be in the area of about $140,000 - $150,000 so why not let the Legacy Group pay for that $15,000? Why does it have to come out us? Again, it’s supposed to be free. I’m not in favor of R-14-042 for the $15,000 and sure, if the Legacy Group wants to work with the Institute, that’s fine, if they want to bring in Jan Martin, I don’t care, she’s wonderful, I know her. If R-14-042 fails tonight, that means no matter what we do with R-14- 001, that’s done too? President Deane That’s correct. It’s contingent upon it. Alderwoman Brown I disagree with the opinions that this was all about Greeley Park. The way it started was that the Leadership Greater Nashua wanted to give a gift to the city. They looked at a dozen or more playgrounds and they decided Greeley Park was the place. We paid for a study and I am glad we did because it opened my mind to having an alternate site to where the old equipment is now. It terms of the cost, we discussed having it scale-able. Scale-able, in my opinion means that if the Legacy Group – we have various donations that could be in kind, for example, different landscaping organizations might decide to donate trees or landscaping. I think that’s something to keep in mind. I want to get this done and move on. I believe there are enough safeguards in here to protect the city from exorbitant costs. I think we need to move forward and I will be in support of it. Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 12 Alderman Schoneman There is more than a dollar cost. There’s the opportunity cost or maybe the opportunity to preserve cost. When IHCD ranked the sites, they ranked them by what they perceived to be the least amount of site prep required to the greatest. All of the sites were suitable but they said the likely cost to the city to prep the site in Greeley Park east is less than in other places and that is why it is number one. There is a cost associated with giving out a piece of Greeley Park. I would be much more inclined to spend money elsewhere if I felt that would mean Greeley Park is preserved as a result. I feel strongly about preservation for all of Greeley Park. Greeley Park can be used for many things, like opening up trails and that sort of thing. That is the purpose of its use and I think we can preserve Greeley Park for future generations. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I am in agreement with Alderman Siegel’s earlier comments. I think that one of the important pieces in terms of supporting R-14-042 is that it is going to present and allow us the opportunity to look at that hybrid model that I think most of us were interested in when it was discussed. Not taking an off the shelf playground and plopping it somewhere and also not just starting from scratch and trying to figure out how to integrate the site with the opportunity for children to have a play space. I think that’s the expertise that they are going to bring to the table and I think it is about Greeley Park. It would not be before us tonight if it wasn’t. Amendment #4 really speaks to the fact that it is about Greeley Park. Both the budget and the design need to be presented to us and we talked about having a public hearing prior to it even getting to the Board of Aldermen. It’s not until the budget and the design are presented and approved by the Board of Aldermen that any construction or prep work can begin. If we are presented with a design that we think is inappropriate for Greeley Park, then that’s our time to totally halt the whole project. Voting on this tonight is allowing one small step forward but there are still places where we can say no and stop the process. I think if we get to the point where the cost of the playground is less than the anticipated $250,000, at that point we can talk about who will pay for the $15,000. I would like us to move forward. I am going to vote in favor of this and I’d like to see what this hybrid model might look like. Alderman Wilshire I agree with Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja about this not being the final vote tonight. I have to point out that half of the $5,000 for the study came from the neighbors. I know Jan Martin and I have the utmost respect for her but she is a city employee so I don’t know that I would support that. To be appointed through a piece of a legislation, I just couldn’t support that. I am going to support this and I’d like us to move forward. Alderman Siegel I’m not very happy about having to spend $15,000 of taxpayer money but I’m trying to be a pragmatist about it. I don’t want to create a disaster that we have to live with. That $15,000 or more could be chewed up if we go to a site other than the number one site. I do respect the idea of preservation of Greeley Park. I was against the west side and the meadow but let’s not treat it like its Jerusalem like this playground somehow soils the integrity of the park. If anything, it might increase the integrity in a positive way. Alderman Moriarty Mason’s rules does make a comment that as a matter of policy, everybody speaks once per piece of legislation unless new information is offered. That aside, I’ve learned a lot from the IHCD and the study. There are two things that helped me make my decision. The playground does not need Greeley Park and Greeley Park does not need this playground. To override the moratorium, I would think there would be some compelling need to override it and go against it with the preservation of the park. There are many other sufficient places to put the playground in the city. Not only is the existing equipment in Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 13 Greeley Park not only sufficient but it is actually a prized possession. I urge you to vote against this R- 14-001. Alderman Chasse Can we have a roll call on that. President Deane We certainly can. Alderman Donchess This is going to be a close vote for me for the following reasons. First of all, I completely agree with the moratorium in Greeley Park, especially on the west side. I think that should be preserved as the old style park that it is forever. I never could have voted for this on the west side of Greeley Park under any conditions even if the IHCD recommended it, which they did not. I think the work that the committee and the Board of Aldermen has done has greatly improved this potential project. As a result of the changes that were recommended and as a result of Ms. Brooks’ involvement, I think we have greatly improved this potential project. I could never support this without the amendments which I think also improved the project but I was stunned by the level of animosity and bitterness which was stirred up by this proposal on both sides. One thing that this recommendation of Ms. Brooks does offer is a reconciliation of sorts. Those are my considerations going into the vote. A viva voce roll call was taken on final passage which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Sheehan; 8 Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: Alderman Schoneman; Alderman Chasse; Alderman McGuinness; 6 Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-001 declared duly adopted as amended. R-14-040 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $419,337 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY INTO FIRE GRANT ACTIVITY “FY13 ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-040 MOTION CARRIED Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 14 Resolution R-14-040 declared duly adopted. R-14-041 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman Ken Siegel Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $71,800 FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY INTO FIRE GRANT ACTIVITY “2013 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-041 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-041 declared duly adopted. R-14-042 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman David Schoneman Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman Ken Siegel Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNING THE LEGACY PLAYGROUND Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO AMEND R-14-042 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy The changes are in the fourth paragraph “Therefore be it resolved by the Board of Aldermen of the City of Nashua the City enter into a contract with the Institute of Human Centered Design for the purpose of proposing a scale-able design for the Legacy Playground, which also includes a description of necessary site work and a cost analysis. IHCD shall work with a member of Leadership Greater Nashua and a member of the Friends of Greeley Park, and will also hold a public input session during the design process. Once completed, the design shall be presented to this Board, which shall retain final design approval. The contract with the Institute for Human Centered Design shall not exceed the amount of $15,000.00. MOTION CARRIED Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 15 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO AMEND BY ADDING “THE DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE CITY ON NASHUA AFTER THE WORDS THE FRIENDS OF GREELEY PARK” Alderman Soucy I think her input would be very valuable but do we need to legislate that? Can’t they just seek out her opinion and advice? I won’t be supporting that amendment. Alderman Siegel I am very concerned given what Alderman Wilshire pointed out. I think it’s hard to ignore and I don’t understand why we need to legislate this, I don’t see the value added. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I understand Alderman Wilshire’s concern but we have other city employees who serve on committees so this would not be unique. In my experience with Jan Martin, not only with her experience with special education, but as a psychologist, she has an understanding of children, play, and environments. I think it would be another area of expertise. My only reason for supporting legislating it is that it seems like we are putting everything else into legislation so things aren’t viewed as being suspect and people having inappropriate access or input which worries me because if there is an expert person at Rivier who is an expert in outdoor play for children, then why shouldn’t that person be able to come in and sit at the meeting? I would hope that Jan would be able to be there as a content specialist and would not be conflicted. Alderman Wilshire My concern here is not Jan Martin at all. I think she is the most respected person in special education in the city. What concerns me is at the last meeting we talked about specifying someone who is a Friend of Greeley Park, I just think it should just be left at if someone with her capability wants to be part of it, yes but to put it in legislation, I am not in support of. We didn’t specify anyone from the Friends of Greeley Park and I think that was intentional. President Deane It all started when we had the study done. I just tried to make things simple and I was accused of this and accused of that. This is my vision. We hire the lady, we have the three people meet, they go through this list of stuff and they come back to us. If there is valuable input that Ms. Martin could add, fine but the next thing you know, someone else is going to come down the road and say well I have some valuable input as well. Then the next thing you know it turns into a dog and pony show. I thought this would be a simplistic way to do something. Alderman McCarthy I agree with Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja but as long as we understand that the Director of Special Education is a resource that the Institute is capable of using, I don’t care whether we put it in the legislation or not. I just don’t want someone saying why did they talk to the Director of Special Education, that’s not in the resolution. MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION President Deane If the Board doesn’t mind, I’ll send Jan Martin an e-mail and ask her if she has any interest in participating and if so, please advise. I’ll send everyone a copy of the e-mail. Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 16 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO AMEND BY ADDING “AS PART OF THE DESIGN PROCESS THE INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN WILL INCLUDE SIGNAGE AND DONOR RECOGNITION CONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS IN OTHER LOCATIONS TO BE DONE IN A TASTEFUL MANNER WITH FINAL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN FROM THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN” AFTER THE WORDS INCLUDES A DESCRIPTION OF NECESSARY SITE WORK AND A COST ANALYSIS ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy I think Alderman Siegel hit the nail on the head before when he said that there are ways to do this that will work out and why not have a recommendation from the designer. It doesn’t change anything about R-14-001 which requires us to be the final arbiter of whether the sign goes up or not. There are individual donors who are going to put large amounts of money towards it and they might want their name on it somewhere. Not everyone would like to remain completely anonymous so I would like to allow Leadership Greater Nashua to be able to leverage that and still not put any 8’ x 8’ signs up in the park. Alderman Schoneman I am not in favor of that amendment. I don’t think there is anything here that precludes her from including a sign as part of her design work but I don’t want to specify it here. They were adamant in the beginning that there would be no signs and in fact, Mr. Williams spoke at length in January about not needing any signs. I think to bring it in now begins to change things and that’s what people have been fearing. I do not advocate that at all. I do not favor any sign in there at all because that is what they promised. Alderman Chasse Let’s just build the thing and we’ll deal with the signage later. We can decide later on. Alderman Wilshire I think it can be done tastefully. It could maybe be etched into the side of a piece of equipment. I’ll support the amendment. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I will support it also because I think when you are looking at the design, you want the complete design so to see how the proposed signage would look, you need to consider that as part of the whole design. If we don’t like the way it looks we can get rid of it. The Legacy Group needs to understand that when they are soliciting donations that they cannot guarantee that donor’s names will be somewhere in that playground unless it is approved as part of the design. Alderman Moriarty A cynic could probably say to let them mount the signs so that way future generations will know who to blame. I urge you to leave the commemorative plaques out of this. It is worth pointing out that the late John F. Kennedy did not pay for his own statue to be mounted in front of City Hall. Alderman Siegel I understand the pragmatic need to have some recognition for some donors as not everyone is willing to be anonymous but to legislate the idea that a sign will be part of it is, I mean at a certain point you could say let’s legislate that slide or slope. I think it’s covered by the fact that Mr. Brand is participating in this Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 17 and it’s clearly something that is important to him. I don’t see the need for legislation when there is a mechanism already in place. Alderman Dowd I am going to vote in favor of it. I think it’s already been said that a sign would not be allowed unless it was approved by the Board of Aldermen. Either way, it has to come back to the Board for approval. Alderwoman Brown I will be voting in favor of this because I don’t think it will hurt at all. Alderman Soucy Alderman Dowd is correct, it’s already been covered under R-14-001 under section 8. I will be voting against it. A viva voce roll call was taken on final passage which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Sheehan; 6 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 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-042 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-042 declared duly adopted as amended. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES – None NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTIONS R-14-043 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Richard A. Dowd RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $33,740 FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY INTO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GRANT ACTIVITY “2013 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM” Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 18 R-14-044 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman David Schoneman Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman Michael Soucy Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Ken Siegel RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $3,500 FROM DEPARTMENT 194, ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION 70 – CONTINGENCY INTO DEPARTMENT 109 – CIVIC & COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION 56 – OUTSIDE AGENCIES IN THE FY14 BUDGET FOR GOLD STAR OF NASHUA Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-045 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A PERFORMING ARTS VENUE AND A MOVIE THEATER ATOP THE ELM STREET AND HIGH STREET GARAGES Given its first reading; assigned to the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-046 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AMENDING THE PURPOSE OF A FISCAL YEAR 2014 ESCROW FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-047 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown RELATIVE TO FUNDING THE PLANNING STUDY FOR THE EAST HOLLIS STREET GATEWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Given its first reading; assigned to the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE and the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 19 R-14-048 Endorsers: Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman David Schoneman Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Ken Siegel AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($400,000) FROM THE CONSERVATION FUND FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONSERVATION TRAILS Given its first reading; assigned to the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE and the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-14-022 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman David Schoneman Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan ESTABLISHING AN ALDERMANIC LIAISON TO THE NASHUA AIRPORT AUTHORITY Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane O-14-023 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess PROHIBITING A RIGHT TURN ON RED FROM ADVENTURE WAY NORTH ONTO DANIEL WEBSTER HIGHWAY Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Cutter, 86 Palm Street. Dear President Deane and Board of Aldermen/Alderwomen, Last month, I showed you approved building permits that gave a strip of our driveway/clothesline area to our neighbors, and told you the permits were in violation of the easy to read ordinance that called for actual dimensions on the plot plan. It is hard to believe anyone could misunderstand an ordinance. The building permit ordinance in 1950/1971 was not enforced for 88 Palm Street so the Gilbertson’s feel they own our property. Our driveway/clothesline area is part of the curtilage of our home and is protected by the 4th Amendment. The city knows it and could care less about depriving us of a constitutional right. See F.B.I. Website for Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law. Title 18, United States Code, Section 242. President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying: “Freedom is never more than one generation away Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 20 from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” We would appreciate your help. Sincerely. MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED TO ACCEPT THE COMMUNICATION FROM MR. CUTTER PLACED ON OUR DESKS THIS EVENING AND PLACE IT ON FILE MOTION CARRIED Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive What always amazes me is you spent $15,000 that you debate for on and on and on, and for millions of dollars you vote right away. It has always been that way with the Board, it has never changed. I’m sorry the Mayor is not here tonight. I’m sorry that Mr. Cutter has to keep coming in every two weeks for the same issue. I guess it’s not going to happen on her watch. She’ll leave it to somebody else’s watch to maybe rectify his situation. The man has proof here. You know, someone has to take care of this. It’s sad. He’s a taxpayer of this city. I’m sorry that the Mayor is not here. Everyone told me that I needed to watch the Finance Committee meeting with the police cruisers and the computers. I think it’s sad. If IT can’t get the job done and the Mayor doesn’t know what’s going on, you know, it’s not like we are crime free here in Nashua. People move to cities because you have low taxes, good schools, and low crime. Nashua has pretty high taxes, high crime and I don’t know about the schools. I’d like to talk about body language and looks. Last year I got this memo from who was then the President of the Board of Aldermen, Brian McCarthy, over an issue with then Ward 3 Alderman Diane Sheehan about a gesture that I never made and the confrontation in the parking lot. Alderman McCarthy wrote “Alderman Sheehan does not claim otherwise. She does however state that she was speaking and you made several facial gestures and other body language that showed contempt for what she was saying.” I also pulled some of the meeting minutes of what happened and the Mayor wasn’t happy because she thought, “first of all, I would have appreciated a heads up what was coming tonight regarding the computers.” She was not happy because she felt that the Board side-stepped them, the Finance Committee members, about the computers. Well, if you have antiquated computers that are not doing their job in a police car, I as a member of committee would be upset too if it wasn’t getting to the desk that started back in March. I, as a citizen, want to make sure that the police have updated equipment because of the rampant amount of crime that is going on in the city. So, when this letter came to me over an issue, maybe I should give this letter to the Mayor and just put her name on it, Dear Mayor Lozeau, I’m just handing off the letter that President Brian McCarthy wrote to me regarding body language that never happened that night. This was over an Alderman who said that her son said that I make faces that I never made. Be careful of your body language here in the horseshoe. Be careful of the rolling eyes and the faces and gestures because it can be caught on television or in the galley. Be careful if you are texting someone or doing something that you are not supposed to be doing because under the Right-to-Know Law, anything that’s done in this horseshoe is public information because you are doing public business. I never did get my apology. I suggest under the code of conduct that any Alderman that is disrespectful or whatever. I put the code of conduct on a laminated poster. Maybe it should be over there again. It’s sad that our Mayor who is a professional can’t act like a professional when it comes to body language. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman Wilshire The Club National is having their 15th Annual Golf Tournament to benefit the Nashua Children’s Home. I’d like to say that over the last 14 years they have raised $250,000 for the transitional living program at the Nashua Children’s Home which helps young adults from ages 18 – 21 get on their feet. I also wanted to mention that I read in the paper about the soldier from here in Nashua, Brian M. Pitts will be awarded the prestigious Medal of Honor on July 21st. The military’s top award for his heroic acts in Afghanistan in 2008. I am very proud of him. Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 21 Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I would like to echo Alderman Wilshire’s comments about Solider Pitts. Someone had made a comment about how things have ended up in Greeley Park and how messy the process was and how things are out of control. Although this process has certainly had its ups and downs, I am hoping that as we move through this and we look at maybe developing a committee that will be the caretakers of Greeley Park, we can look at the process that we have gone through and talk about what has worked and put something in place. Alderman Siegel I wanted to thank everyone for attending the Ward 9 informational meeting that was held last night. We had a fruitful discussion. Alderman Moriarty There’s a Nashua Ordinance that says the city has a Strategic Plan that’s supposed to be updated every term and there’s something called the Strategic Planning Committee which is formed through the Chairman of different committees. The idea of planning for Greeley Park would be an obvious section of the updated Strategic Plan. The only one I could find is from 1999. Once the budget cycle is done and the two Chairmen aren’t beat up on that, we’ll call that committee and make a point to let everyone know. I’d like to say happy birthday to Rosemary, my program manager and Symphony New Hampshire garden tour this Saturday and Sunday. You can go on-line to www.symphonynh.com to get tickets. It’s a fundraiser. Alderman Soucy My Ward 5 meeting will be a Q&A constituent coffee held Friday, July 11 th from 6:30- 7:45 p.m. at the new Dunkin Donuts. If you have a Ward 5 address, the coffee is on me. Alderman Sheehan I’d like to echo the expression of gratitude for the Solider Pitts and happy birthday to my son. Alderman Chasse I don’t want to be the bad guy not sponsoring anything but there were already a lot of sponsors. I don’t usually sponsor things because I don’t want to look stupid if I change my vote. Alderman McCarthy Last Friday, the B.I.D.A. met at the School Street parking lot to discuss the development proposal and it was a good and productive meeting and I’ll be drafting some amendments to the legislation to bring back to the Planning Committee next week. President Deane Happy Birthday to Alderman Caron who was on June 8th and to Alderman Sheehan as well. Thursday’s budget meeting has been cancelled due to the Joint Special Committee meeting. Committee announcements: Alderman Donchess The Infrastructure Committee meets tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Bd. of Aldermen – 06/24/14 Page 22 Alderman Moriarty Tuesday, July 1st, is Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting at 7:00 p.m. We have Kerrie Diers, Executive Director of the NRPC will be talking about development on 101A. Alderman Dowd The Construction Committee is on Thursday at Nashua High School North at 7:00 p.m. and the Joint School Building is at 8:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE JUNE 24, 2014, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk