Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Wednesday, November 12, 2014, at 7:31 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President David W. Deane presided; Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch recorded. Prayer was offered by Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch; Alderman McCarthy led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 15 members of the Board of Aldermen present. Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and Corporation Counsel Stephen M. Bennett were also in attendance. REMARKS BY THE MAYOR Mayor Lozeau This evening I will concentrate my remarks on the resolution before you tonight relative to purchasing land for the Public Health Building on Mulberry and Elm Streets. I’m not sure that I can really give you a lot of information that you haven’t heard before but I have tried my hardest to come up with additional information that some of you may find helpful tonight in your decision making. I’ve also distributed a packet that looks like this that have some photographs that I will refer to in my remarks. I thought about putting it up electronically on the screen but thought it might be easier to hand out the photographs, not that any of you don’t recall what it looks like. The first thing is that I wanted to make sure everyone understood that the current building that houses our Public Health & Community Services was built more than 100 years ago. It was built in 1906 as a Catholic school and the city acquired it 44 years ago in 1970. It’s functionally obsolete. I think many of you have toured the facility and you understand what it looks like and how it’s spread out. Its issues are around accessibility, things like that are really a problem. It’s not easy to work together on 3 floors; the stairways are steep and difficult for the staff to use. In the past we have had to add a stair lift for one or two of our employees that had some challenges with the building. The HVAC, the windows, the boilers some of which are beyond end of life. You’ll see in one of the photographs that the roof leaks just happened in October and that is yet another challenge that we have with that building. There were two studies done, one in 2004; a space needs assessment that was done looked at the replacement of that building at $2.4 million. The Jordan Institute report that was done in 2009 looked at that building and their purpose of looking at it was what would it cost to seal the envelope, fix the roof, do the HVAC, replace the windows; many of the things that we were doing at City Hall at the time and that came back between $500,000 - $700,000; just for the envelope, not to make it handicapped accessible or anything else. In 2009, R-08-063 passed which included public health as a building that we wanted to replace. Among those buildings included the Hunt Building, City Hall, the parking garages for structural work, and all of those sorts of things. We earmarked through that process about $1.2 million that we wanted to hold onto for public health. We’ve looked at a number of possibilities on where to site Public Health & Community Services that is convenient for the folks that use it, that’s available to public transportation, and that has enough parking for city employees. One of the first sites that we looked at was 22 Marshall Street which is the site across from the East Hollis Street Fire Station, formerly BB Rubber and we couldn’t make that site work. We looked at property that the city owns on Ledge and Pine Streets adjacent to the Broad Street Parkway and that didn’t seem feasible for any number of reasons. That was something that we had presented, I believe it was a joint committee of the Planning and Economic Development Committee and the Infrastructure Committee when we talked about that and the development in the Steven’s Street area. We looked at 21 East Hollis Street, the former Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic and that was far too big for our needs and really could not be renovated in a way that would make it really successful for public health. That building has since sold. We actually looked at the space at Palm Square where they have 10,000 square feet of space thinking maybe we could strike some kind of a deal with the landlord or maybe we could make that piece a condominium so we could still own it and that didn’t work partially because of how it was laid out. We are looking at, and I think multiple times I have talked about a 10,000 square foot number. Many of the reports talk about 15,000 square feet so depending on the shape of the building, it will make a difference. The 2004 study actually looked at the Elm Street parking garage to add public health to and that didn’t seem feasible. When you look at page two, you’ll see all of the different areas that we looked at marked by stars. The site that we are looking at, as you well know, is this last page with the green star on it. It shows you the city owned property and the blue star is the current public health building. The land there is about 17,600 Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 2 square feet and the current building is a two-story concrete block building that used to be a bakery. The building itself is 32,000 square feet and it was built in 1920. It’s owned by the Pentecostal Church. They purchased in 1994 for $295,000. I think that was one of the questions in a conversation that took place. I think that people thought they got a really good deal on it. Of course at the time, based on what it was assessed for, it was a good deal. The current city assessment on the property is $637,300. When you look at the opportunity that is before us tonight, we can acquire the property for $355,000. Is it true that we could potentially make it difficult for somebody to build on it, maybe? Is it true that it’s difficult for it to be for sale with the city owning the entire parking lot that surrounds it, it is. When we made an offer a year ago, we lost out to someone else that was looking at it and potentially putting housing there. It’s not that often when an opportunity comes along right across the street. It gives us the opportunity to demolish this blighted property and build a new public health building on it with new office space, the clinic, the infectious disease and environmental health labs. Remember, public health isn’t just about welfare and that’s a very small part of the responsibilities of Public Health & Community Services. Emergency preparedness, public health for everyone in this community and in this region, all very, very important. It’s convenient to the site that’s there. We believe that it is a cost effective option when you compare it to some of the other numbers that I have mentioned and other studies that have been done. This also may set us up for some potential future development. If you look at that site and look towards Main Street, there could be a future opportunity there depending on how we site that building. I also think it’s important to remember that some of the other things that we have discussed include that we applied for tax credits from the Community Development Finance Authority as part of that application. We talked about the Maple Street lot because we knew that we owned that lot and it was a way to get our application through and we were hoping that we might have the opportunity to have this other piece so we talked about other non-profits in the community so it wasn’t just about public health. We applied for about $1 million in tax credits. That application was not approved but I would like to think that we have an opportunity to file again for this coming year and I think that we will move up in the pecking order. As you know, the Capital Improvements Committee has put this on the A list for many years now. I think the opportunity is there to gain additional outside funding for this project. I think all of the discussions that surround whether or not another agency goes in there or not or what the size of the building is what the cost of the building is; all of those things I think can be determined as we work through the Infrastructure Committee doing the building design. As you all know, it’s this Board that oversees city buildings and those are discussions that we can both in the Infrastructure Committee and at the full Board level where we could potentially mitigate costs and know more specifics as we go forward. I think tonight’s discussion really is about not should we build a new public health building or if we build a new public health building, I think tonight’s discussion really is about if this is the right location to build a new public health building. It’s certainly less expensive than buying another site somewhere else in the city. I think we all know what city property goes for, particularly raw land that you can build on. The last piece is the current building is at the end of a residential street. There’s a great opportunity to sell that building and look at it being turned into some residential units; somewhere between 4 and 6 I imagine could go in there and the income that we generate from that could potentially offset some of the costs of moving forward. Hopefully I’ve made the best case that I can make tonight. I am hopeful that a majority of you would agree that this makes sense and I look forward to moving forward on this project over the next year or so. With that, Mr. President, I would thank everybody for their kind attention this evening and stand ready to answer questions during the discussion if I can help. RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR - None RECOGNITION PERIOD – None READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2014, AND OCTOBER 28, 2014, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE AND THAT THE READINGS BE SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 3 COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk Re: City Results from State General Election MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED From: Stephen M. Bennett, Corporation Counsel Re: Resolution R-14-092 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND REFER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED From: John L. Griffin, Chief Financial Officer Re: Fiscal Note for Amended Ordinance 14-008 MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE A COMMUNICATION PLACED ON OUR DESKS TONIGHT FROM MR. JAMES CUTTER MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING - None PETITIONS Petition for Street Acceptance – Montclair Drive MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO ACCEPT THE PETITION FOR STREET ACCEPTANCE, ASSIGN IT TO THE COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014, AT 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER MOTION CARRIED Alderman Donchess Just an item for information; also at that time there is a public hearing scheduled for the Hughey Street discontinuance. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 4 NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS Appointments by the Mayor The following Appointments by the Mayor were read into the record: Business & Industrial Development Authority Heath Gaffney (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: September 13, 2017 27 Cathedral Circle Nashua, NH 03063 Jack Tulley (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: September 13, 2017 110 Middle Dunstable Road Nashua, NH 03062 Bradley Vear (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: September 13, 2017 547 Amherst Street Nashua, NH 03063 Downtown Improvement Committee Mary Lou Blaisdell (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: December 31, 2017 32 Webster Street Nashua, NH 03064 John Koutsos (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: December 31, 2017 3 East Dunstable Road Nashua, NH 03060 Richard Lannan (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: December 31, 2017 7D Taggart Drive Nashua, NH 03060 Nashua Arts Commission Paul LaFlamme (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2017 28 Lutheran Drive Nashua, NH 03063 Elizabeth Racioppi (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2017 15 Middle Dunstable Road Nashua, NH 03062 Eric Valliere (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2017 6 Church Street Nashua, NH 03060 Nashua Housing Authority James Tollner (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: October 14, 2019 1 Sequoia Circle Nashua, NH 03063 Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 5 Eric Wilson (Reappointment) For a Term to Expire: October 14, 2019 60 Indian Rock Road Nashua, NH 03063 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR AS READ AND REFER THEM TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Moriarty I would like to offer the short opinion to further transparency of residency. I’d like to request, if possible, in the future that the addresses used be their home addresses. I recognize one of them, 7D Taggart Drive, as not a home address. President Deane Duly noted. MOTION CARRIED Appointment of Timothy Lavoie to the Capital Equipment Reserve Fund  Tabled 8/12/ 14 REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Budget Review Committee ................................................................ 10/27/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the October 27, 2014 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure ............................................................... 10/22/14 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the October 22, 2014 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS – None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-057 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ESTABLISHING AN EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR DONATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ART WALL LOCATED AT ROTARY COMMON Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN BROWN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-057 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-057 declared duly adopted. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 6 R-14-065 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF LAND AND BUILDINGS AT 11-13 MULBERRY STREET (MAP 82, LOT 26) FOR ROTATION OF THE DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-065 ON THE QUESTION President Deane The Planning Board gave a favorable recommendation on 9/4/14. Alderman Wilshire As we all know, this is a building that’s long been in disrepair. We have many city employees who perform professional jobs in their capacity in that building. I go there every month for the Board of Health meetings and it’s really time for us to do something. I think this is a really good acquisition, the Mulberry Street property, because it’s in the same neighborhood where the people that utilize these services live. It’s a good plan and what I feel really strongly about is that we should buy this, it’s long overdue but it is going to come back before this Board. We will have say and input and we will vote on all of these things. I would really urge you all to please support this. Alderman Sheehan I am going to agree with my colleague. I know that the building, for as long as I have been on the Board of Aldermen, has been on the list of things that needed urgent addressing and it’s not going to get any better. One of the things that I used to do professionally was site location and what we didn’t do was always look for the cheapest place but for the place that would work the best and that meant location and what amenities or features were available because of that location. I think this building meets that in that if we buy anywhere else, we are going to have to buy enough land to put in a parking lot and we already own this. We’d like it to cost a little less, yes, but I don’t think the price is outrageous and it really fits what our needs are. When you consider the most important thing is location. There isn’t another place that’s readily accessible that we are going to not need to buy parking and that for me is the deciding factor. It’s long overdue and the building just doesn’t work and hasn’t for a very long time and I support this location. Alderman Siegel I fully support putting a new public health building up, that’s never been an issue. I think it’s fairly clear to everyone that is paying attention that the building has to go and that it’s very expensive to replace it. There have been a number of discussions in the Infrastructure Committee surrounding the cost benefits of retrofitting the existing building vs. a new build. The question before us is whether or not we take the existing building on this site, purchase it, which is adjacent to a large parking lot that we already own and then we scrape the building. As my colleague described her experience in site selection, that’s obviously a key component of what I do also and I have to do in a current basis. This building is clearly overpriced. I don’t think anyone has defended the price as being reasonable and it is the taxpayer’s dollars that we are paying for this with. I understand that it’s a good location but we actually have a solution which preserves that location and the ability to do a new public health building and does so cheaper. That is merely to construct a building on the existing lot that the city already owns. I would also suggest that if you care about the urgency of the public health building being replaced, this is much more expeditious. We don’t have to close on a real estate transaction; we don’t have to scrape a building and put a fill in and then build on top of that. We can start building now, we own the property there. There isn’t a plan for an existing building. Understand that this legislation originally came in with the idea that we were going to Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 7 build a 20,000 square foot building and then at the last Infrastructure Committee meeting, Mr. Galligani said well, we really aren’t going to do that, we are going back off to some smaller number like 10,000 square feet. There was some concern about the city being landlord. That was a surprise and I believe my colleague, Alderman Donchess pointed out that that was an inconsistency. If the need of the public health facility is indeed 10,000 square feet, we have more than enough space right now. I don’t understand why we would overpay for a building which clearly is not worth what the price is. Then to have to spend at least $100,000 in demolition fees to get rid of the building that’s there and then grade the site for some additional money. We can save that money and then put a building on there. We have the flexibility to make plans. We don’t have a plan in front of us but that site is clearly large enough to site a new public health building so I would urge everyone to consider that. You are not really trading off buying this building against doing a new public health facility, you can have both and do it cheaper and let’s not forget we have a large amount of expenses coming up. Next year is going to be very difficult, the pension expenses are going to get bumped if we have to pay and admittedly this is a bonding issue but we can’t bond ourselves into the Stone Age when we have better solutions. Again, I’m all for the public health facility, in fact I would strongly urge a purchase order for new boilers if required since we are going to try to sell the building that we talk about. I assume that someone who is going to want to purchase it is going to want to know that there is a viable heating system in there. I believe that we have an opportunity here to do what we want to do and save the taxpayer’s some money. Alderman Donchess I agree with Alderman Wilshire and Mayor Lozeau part of the way. I think they have been very persuasive in arguing that the current public health building is inadequate. I have been in there a number of times, not so much recently but for many years it has been a problem. A former Director of Community Health reminded me about the lift that was put it in the 80’s and various changes that were made at that time to try to make the building more usable. 30 years has gone by and the building is clearly in disrepair and we clearly need a new public health building. I agree with the arguments made about that. Then the question becomes what should we do? Should we rehab the existing building? If you look to the studies that have been sited and I have read those, one by the Jordan Institute and the other by another organization. It seems clear that trying to rehab that building would be more expensive than building a new one. One cost that is provided is $2.4 million to rehab the existing building. So where else can we build it? We could acquire the property as is proposed in this resolution which would cost $355,000; which is more than the building is worth plus the tear down cost of at least $50,000. Or, we could use the land that we already own and build a public health building right away on land that we already own. When this was originally proposed the idea was to build, the city needs 10,000 square feet for its various uses that take place in the public health building and the original proposal was to build 20,000 square feet; twice what the city needed in order to accommodate various social service agencies. Those are worthy causes but in my mind we should not build more than the city itself needs; therefore, we should be looking to build a 10,000 square foot building to accommodate the city’s needs only. If we look at the lot that the city owns which surrounds this former bakery now church building, it is clearly large enough to accommodate a 10,000 square foot building. With a 2-floor building that is a 5,000 square feet footprint with some landscaping around it. The lot that we own is 29,000 square feet and therefore more than enough to accommodate a 5,000 square foot building. Mr. Galligani was kind enough to provide the two studies on how potentially the current former school/current public health building could be renovated. He also provided me with a grant application that the city submitted to try to get tax credits to pay for the public health building. This application was submitted just this year in April and in that application the city proposed that our current lot be used to build a building, not a purchase, not a tear down, but the current lot and it is summarized in the beginning “the land that may be used for construction of the new building is currently owned and managed by the City of Nashua. It is located at 19-23 Maple Street. The land is approximately 29,442 square feet.” In April, the city correctly concluded that we could use the current lot even to build a 20,000 square foot building. This application is for a 20,000 square foot building. So certainly if we just build what the city needs, the 10,000 square feet; the current lot would accommodate that. How much would we save by building a 10,000 square foot building on a current piece of property that is owned by the city? We would save the $355,000 for the purchase of the former bakery. We would save at least $50,000 that it would cost to tear that building down and if we reduce the size of the building from 20,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, the approximate savings would be $1.2 million. When we Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 8 put all of that together we can build a building for 10,000 square feet, what the city needs on its current lot for a cost of about $1.2 million and save more than that by making the changes that I have proposed. Therefore, I support building the building, I support putting it on the current lot and I think we should move forward expeditiously but I don’t think at a cost of $355,000 that we should buy this run down building as proposed in the resolution. Alderman Dowd On the surface that sounds okay but I can remember that every time I have been to the public health building I park in the parking lot where we are talking about building a building. If we decided to build a building there, that would take up all of those parking spaces. Where would the people using the public health building currently park? After we build the building there, that’s going to reduce the parking for that existing building and it will probably sit there and rot into eternity because no one is going to be able to buy a building that size with no parking and we would certainly control the parking for the public health building that we put up in the existing parking lot. Somebody is going to have to explain to me how you are going to solve the parking issue, both for the current public health building while it is being built and in the end, after you have built a new building, is there going to be enough parking for the public health building and its use and how do you resolve the fact that that building we were talking about would never be able to be sold because there would never be enough parking to meet any kind of Planning Board requirements. Alderman Soucy Where does the current staff park now? Mayor Lozeau The current staff parks in the Maple Street lot and the majority of the spots in the Maple Street lot are used for public health. Alderman Soucy How many spots do they currently need? Mayor Lozeau We have about 35 spots dedicated to staff. As I said during my remarks, I just want to make sure that it’s clear. When we spoke at Infrastructure, I was under the impression that it was 10,000 square feet for public health. Alderman Donchess, in that application you have, you also have the floor plans that were done by an architect with public health and those demonstrate 15,000 square feet for public health. Just so we are clear about the numbers on the record. It was 5,000 that they were looking at for the non-profit. Alderman Siegel Right now, the building could still be put up with existing parking. We do have spaces that are used by other entities. It is not the city’s responsibility to provide parking for this adjacent building. If that building is not useful because it has no parking of its own, that is really not the city’s problem and in fact, it’s a specific driver for me which says this is way too expensive. If we were looking at the purchase of this building for significantly less, which would be in line with what it’s likely worth, then it would be a different discussion. One of the arguments for putting the building there in the first place was that a certain percentage of the population that need to use the services of the building don’t have transportation and so they need it to be in some place like where the current building is where they can access it. If all we are talking about is staff parking, the Maple Street lot has room for staff parking and an existing building. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 9 Alderman Dowd I would yes, a lot of the people walk there but not all. Various people who use that facility do park in the Maple Street lot and it’s not our responsibility to be concerned about the building not having enough parking spaces but it would be our concern if that falls into disrepair and becomes a dump. At some point we may end up buying it just to get rid of it. President Deane If we bought every building in the city that was in disrepair we would be in some financial dire straits. Alderman Sheehan I’m not sure who could best answer this, perhaps Attorney Bennett. Would this area of zoning be allowed a zero clearance building or would we need to have the 20’ setback. Attorney Bennett I can’t provide you that answer right now; I would have to look at the zoning for that area. Alderman Sheehan There’s a 90’ driveway on one side and a 50’ on the other. I like the idea of building it on what we own but my concern is what does a building look like on an L-shaped lot. Attorney Bennett I’d be glad to look at it for you. Alderwoman Brown I am in favor of this purchase because I believe it’s a win-win for our community. The current building is dated and doesn’t even have handicapped accessibility and by purchasing this new location we have the parking available, we’d be demolishing a blighted building, and I see that there is the possibility of so many improvements. We could use the old building for housing. I still believe we have a serious problem with affordable housing. Alderman Chasse Roll call. A viva voce roll call was taken on final passage 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 Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 10 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE R-14-065 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-065 declared indefinitely postponed. R-14-078 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF TWO SIDEBAR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND AFSCME LOCAL 365 REGARDING ASBESTOS DISPOSAL AND CNG VEHICLE INSPECTIONS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-078 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-078 declared duly adopted. R-14-081 Endorsers: Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($7,500,000) FOR SUNSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HVAC IMPROVEMENTS AND BUILDING RENOVATIONS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-081 BY ROLL CALL ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd Mr. Shawn Smith and Mr. Carl Dubois, the architect is here if there are any questions. I think that this was discussed thoroughly in the Budget Review Committee and recommended. The reason for doing this school right now is that this is a carbon copy footprint of the Broad Street School. We did a bid for the two schools and we have reduced rates from the construction and architect. We also have all of the lessons learned and the drawings from Broad Street that we applied directly to this and if it were to be delayed, it would cost significantly more. This will resolve the issues at the Sunset Heights Elementary School. The HVAC issue is just as severe as it was at Broad Street. A viva voce roll call vote was taken on final passage which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Caron; 12 Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Sheehan; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: Alderman Schoneman; Alderman Chasse; Alderman Moriarty 3 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-081 declared duly adopted. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 11 R-14-082 Endorsers: Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,150,000) FOR ROOFING REPLACEMENTS AT FIVE SCHOOL LOCATIONS AND REPLACEMENT OF GYMNASIUM FLOORS AT THE TWO HIGH SCHOOLS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO AMEND R-14-082 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd The amendment takes the cost of replacing the two middle gyms at the two high schools out of the bonding. The school department is seriously considering right now using school capital reserve funding to do those two floors. They are doing research to find the best flooring. There is no issue with taking that out of this particular motion. Alderman Donchess Alderman Dowd, how much would taking those items out reduce the amount of the bond issue? Alderman Dowd I believe the amended version is $1.5 million. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-082 AS AMENDED BY ROLL CALL ON THE QUESTION President Deane Do we have an updated fiscal note on this since it changed? Alderman Sheehan Yes, it’s on-line. President Deane We had an updated fiscal note for the 008 which was part of the parking. Is there also one for this? Alderman Sheehan Yes, if you look on-line and look at pending legislation, it has the old one and it also has the new one with the new reflected amount of $1.5 million. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 12 President Deane So there was an updated fiscal note from Mr. Griffin in the form of a memo? Alderman Siegel The legislation was amended and that’s what you are referring to. I have that in front of me but there is no updated fiscal note associated with that. Alderman Sheehan He’s right, it just has the amount. Alderman McCarthy I think when we cut the amount of a bond it’s clear what the impact is on the fiscal note. The reason I brought up the issue with R-14-008 is that we substantially changed the way the fiscal note would have been developed and I had no way to understand what the impact was based on that. In this case, I think the fiscal note is obvious. President Deane I understand that but if a fiscal note is required per our rules then it’s a requirement. Alderman Soucy The initial was for $2,150,000 with the gyms being $650,000. We took the $650,000 and then the goldenrod copy does reflect that indicating $1.5 million. President Deane Yes, but we have a policy in place that requires a fiscal note when we amend a piece of legislation, it changes the fiscal note. Alderman Dowd Both pieces of legislation had a cost analysis from architects and design engineers so it was a number that was calculated. Alderman Siegel Would it be appropriate to make a motion to suspend the rules such that we could address this bond issue without that fiscal note? President Deane We can waive our own rules anytime we’d like. Alderman Siegel I believe there was some sense of urgency in getting this going is that correct? Alderman Dowd Yes, we do need to get the bids out so that we can have the material and the contracting in place by next spring so they can start the work. We are running late on this as it is. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 13 Alderman Siegel Then it would probably behoove us to be a little bit pragmatic about this is that is reasonable with everyone else. Alderman Schoneman If we are not going to do it until the spring, I would presume that if we are delayed a little bit it would be the summer and that would be even better. Alderman Dowd No because the construction is going to take the full period of spring, summer, and into the fall to complete. Alderman McCarthy I would also point out that the contractor’s, when the weather starts to get cold, get aggressive about booking their work for next year to make sure they have it and once they have their work they start to get aggressive about pricing. President Deane Does anyone have any issues with waiving our rules requiring an updated fiscal note? Alderman Chasse Do you need that in the form of a motion? President Deane We already have a motion on the floor and it’s for final passage as amended. Alderman McCarthy I think the general interpretation of the rules is that if the Board knowingly does something that would have required suspending one of those rules, it is implicitly suspended by that vote. President Deane So we are doing something that is contrary to what our normal policy is and we’ve discussed it enough so I think that everybody is aware of it. Alderman Moriarty I am in support of Alderman Chasse’s motion; I don’t see a problem with taking a vote to move to suspend the rules so far as to waive this requirement. We may as well formalize it. MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO DISCUSS THE BOND WITHOUT A FISCAL NOTE MOTION CARRIED President Deane The motion on the floor is for final passage of R-14-082 as amended. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 14 Alderman Schoneman I just request that since we are moving forward without having what we would normally have before voting on it, that the fiscal note is still compiled and will be added to the files. President Deane I’ll ask the Mayor to ask Mr. Griffin if he can provide that. Alderman Moriarty I am going to vote for this bond. As a note, I stumbled on the previous one and I wanted to explain why I voted against it. I appreciate the patience of the Board of Aldermen. I made the request at the last Board meeting to please delay the bond for fiscal prudence. I was at the Budget Review Committee meeting where we talked about this and this particular bond is a good example of when we all got together on the committee, we looked at things, we recognized that finances are tight and we decided to make a hard decision and cut something out that everyone wanted but we recognized that we can’t pay for it all. I like that process and I support it. Alderman Sheehan I just crunched the numbers to give us an approximate if anybody wanted to know what the interest payment would be based on what the other note was. It would be a total payment of $2,084,651.16. President Deane What percentage rate were you using? Alderman Sheehan That’s using the 4% that was in the original fiscal note. A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 15 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Sheehan; Alderman Soucy; Alderwoman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-082 declared duly adopted as amended. Alderman McCarthy I have a question regarding the fiscal note. While I made the motion to accept it in the minutes, I can find no record of ever having gotten the fiscal note. How was it delivered to the Board and when? President Deane It was attached to the agenda. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 15 Alderman McCarthy It’s not attached to my agenda. And by the way, it is not updated in the amended copy that is on the website. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-14-008, Amended Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan AUTHORIZING FREE HOLIDAY PARKING AT METERS IN ZONE III WHICH INCLUDES THE ELM STREET AND HIGH STREET PARKING GARAGES FROM DECEMBER 10, 2014, THROUGH DECEMBER 26, 2014 Given its third reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-008 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess At the last meeting, we amended the proposed ordinance to create the free, no fee parking for zone III; including the parking garages as opposed to zones I, II, & III. We did that to accommodate the concerns of people who had come in to express opposition to waiving the fees for zones I & II. We came up with compromised approach and hopefully it will encourage people to come downtown and enjoy themselves during the holiday season. In addition, we have received the amended fiscal note which actually reduces the fiscal impact from around $20,000 to $8,600. Alderman Sheehan I was surprised to see $4,000 in meter bags. How are we shutting down Main Street now? That seems to be a lot of bags. Mayor Lozeau The way we do it now is we’ve only always made the garage available for the two weeks during the holiday season and so we post the garage. Under this proposal, we have to bag each of the meters and I’m sure you’ve seen the locked bags before that we’ve put on the meter heads. Based on the count of meter heads, that’s what it’s going to cost. It’s an actual cost for meter bags and for bags to go over the pay station at the garage. President Deane Why would you do that? Why don’t you just put a sign up that says free parking? Mayor Lozeau Alderman Deane, you have meters up and down the street. I can’t post a sign for that. I can post the garage, I agree. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 16 President Deane I wouldn’t put bags on anything but that’s me. Alderman Sheehan Is there time to get this many bags? Mayor Lozeau Yes. Alderman Siegel The meter bags would probably be a one-time purchase so you can amortize it out over the length of time this is done assuming we can get past our meter bag crisis. Can we please put those nice blue P’s that mark where the parking garages are for those people that we would welcome to come shop in Nashua? Mayor Lozeau As far as the P’s, we are working on the sign package for downtown and that includes parking. As far as the meter bags, I don’t believe anybody said that we have a crisis. Alderman Siegel That was a joke. President Deane We have meter bags, don’t we? Mayor Lozeau We have some meter bags. Alderman Schoneman I am curious about how this $8,600 affects the money that goes to the Downtown Improvement Committee at the end of the year in excess of whatever was the threshold. This comes off the top, is that correct? So if the forecasted total parking revenue is decreased by this amount, then this is the amount, assuming we go over then this amount comes out of the Downtown Improvement Committee allocation, is that correct? President Deane Yes. Alderman Soucy Is this something that our downtown merchants support? Alderman Donchess The feedback we got was in opposition to suspending fees for zones I & II. The people who opposed waiving fees in zones I & II, there was one gentlemen in particular and he supported this approach as one that could actually attract more people and increase business downtown. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 17 Alderman Dowd I’m sort of ambivalent on this. Is this going to open it up so people can park in one of these spaces all day long if they have an office on Main Street? Alderman McCarthy Its zone III and the garages which I believe are 10-hour limits anyway so its places that people could have parked all day to begin with. I’ve heard mixed reviews from the merchants. I did get a note from Ms. Blaisdell that said just make sure we keep it simple and that she would prefer that it be the garages only. I think that zone III is fine other than the fact that it presents us with the meter bag problem. It is in only the places that would have allowed all day parking anyway. Alderman Sheehan The remaining issue the merchants had was just that zone III can be confusing so make sure it is super clear to the person using it that that one is the free one and I believe bagging it will accomplish that. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-14-008 declared duly adopted as amended. NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTIONS R-14-090 Endorser: Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE NASHUA SCHOOL CUSTODIAN UNION, LOCAL 365/COUNCIL 93, AFSCME, AFL-CIO FROM JULY 1, 2013, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-091 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($747,000) FOR A CATERPILLAR LANDFILL COMPACTOR Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ACCEPT THE FIRST READING OF R-14-091 BY ROLL CALL, ASSIGN IT TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014, AT 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 18 A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 15 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Sheehan; Alderman Soucy; Alderwoman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED R-14-092 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF NASHUA TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH CVS MANCHESTER NH, LLC FOR FUTURE PARKING RIGHTS AT THE CITY OWNED PARKING LOT LOCATED BEHIND CVS PHARMACY Given its first reading; assigned to the FINANCE COMMITTEE by President Deane R-14-093 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $20,000 FROM DEPARTMENT 186 TRANSIT ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION 89 INTERFUND TRANSFERS OUT INTO DEPARTMENT 166 PARKING LOTS ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION 55 OTHER SERVICES Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-14-034 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane AMENDING THE TRAFFIC ORDINANCES ON BROAD STREET NEAR THE RED BARN Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE, the BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, and the PLANNING BOARD by President Deane Alderman McCarthy I would also request that it be referred to the Planning Board since the ordinances that it proposes to change are in fact, required by stipulations of the site plan on the Red Barn and I suspect that they actually have to remove those stipulations before we can do this. President Deane We will ask our Attorney about that and we will see what he has to say but we can refer it to the Planning Board as well. O-14-035 Endorser: Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown PROHIBITING PARKING OR STOPPING AT ANY TIME ON A PORTION OF WEST HOLLIS STREET Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 19 PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Jim Cutter, 86 Palm Street Dear President Deane, We do not need legislation when Ordinance O-00-24 was adopted to solve the problem of people blocking our driveway now or anticipated with a no parking sign. And since a no parking sign had been in place for about 12 years before BSP construction it cannot be overridden by Ordinance O-12-025 because it has superior authority due to it becoming grandfathered based on circumstances previously existing. Now, Alderman Deane, you and everyone else knows why a no parking sign was installed and needs to be returned. You have agreed with me the crosswalk, speed hump and tree that was installed as part of the new street design should not affect our driveway that is 100 feet away. Another fact, whoever chose the street design should know the law allows only enough time to pick up or discharge a passenger or passengers. RSA 265:69,II(f). At any place where official signs prohibit standing. Thus, no effect on the street design. Since I am not in the position nor should any Aldermen/Alderwoman be involved to get this corrected. We need your help to direct this to the person who will give the no parking sign replaced as soon as possible. Sincerely, Jim. Mr. Mike Broderick, 8 Boxwood Court The first topic I’d like to talk about is these transients that are pervading our city holding signs that say, I need food, I have kids to feed, I will work for a job. These people are scam artists. They have a vehicle down at Smokey Bones in Tyngsboro and a friend of mine was there and heard one of them say I was just out there and I made $250.00 and now someone else needs to go out there and get some money. These people don’t go to the food kitchen, they are scam artists and they are taking money from the citizens and the visitors to our city. I’m not sure no one has empowered the police to correct these people. In other cities, these people need to have permits to hold signs like that. They are all over the city and they are not indigents. Secondly, yesterday was Veteran’s Day and there was a piece on WBZ from the North Shore about this disabled vet. He’s not a veteran but he has come from a family of veterans and they go into the cemeteries of the North Shore of Massachusetts and they are digging up these stones from the Civil War or the Korean War and they are revitalization the stones. These people gave their lives and I would implore that the Board or the Mayor approach the Veteran’s Services Committee to try to start a volunteer program to do something like that. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman McCarthy I’ll start by thanking all of our Veteran’s for their service. I also want to comment that my phone has been almost silent and that no one was interested in my opinion this week. I will point out that I got a call from Windows Technical Department who wanted access to my PC and that was a scam and I would like to make sure that people understand that they are not real and they should not tell them anything. Alderman Dowd Being a veteran I wish I had been able to walk in the Veteran’s Day Parade but BAE is open and we have a lot of work going on but we did have individual veteran celebration ceremonies at every one of our facilities. Congratulations to past, present, and future veteran’s. Alderman Schoneman The parade was great yesterday. I think it’s great that we do take time to honor the veteran’s that served and I was pleased to see the turnout that we had. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 20 Alderman Chasse It will be interesting when the Budget Review Committee gets R-14-090 which is for the custodians because most of the custodians don’t want this. It appears that there is 16 hours that they could be forced to work. It will be interesting to see if they come out in numbers when this happens. President Deane Normally they vote on a contract and ratify it before it gets brought to the legal department. Alderman Caron I’d like to congratulate the City Clerk’s office for a great performance last week at the election. I worked Ward 7 and we were busy from 6:00am until 8:00pm. I have to agree with Paul Bergeron in that the tale of two ballots was very interesting because you had to keep reminding people that they needed to deposit two ballots in the box. Everyone worked really hard but thank you for all of the help you gave us. We had a lot of absentee ballots. I’d also like to thank Mrs. Jenest and the students at Sunset Heights. I was invited there on Monday and they did a wonderful ceremony for their veterans who attended. I didn’t walk in the parade yesterday but I did hear a lot of good things. Last of all, I want to thank Ms. Simpson’s 4th grade class at New Searles Elementary School because they invited me to read to them. They had some interesting questions as to why people want to be on the Board of Aldermen, one of which were what happens if someone threatens you? I told him that no one threatens; people just get upset because you didn’t vote the way they wanted but if you explain things, people understand. Alderman Sheehan I was not able to march this year but I am grateful that we have such an effort and I will be there next year. I also wanted to thank Bobby Desjardins for reaching out and inviting us to read. I got to read to Mrs. Robbin’s 2nd grade class and to Mr. Suiter’s 5th grade class. If any other schools are interested, I don’t know of any of us that say no so keep asking and we will keep reading. Alderman Soucy As an army veteran I too wished I could have marched in the parade but as a current police officer I realized the bad guys don’t get a day off so I didn’t get one either. The Nashua Exchange Club will be hosting their annual ski swap on November 28-30th at Nashua High School South. The money all goes back to the community for the children’s programs that the Nashua Exchange Club supports. Alderman Donchess The weather and the parade were great and the veteran’s deserved everything that happened. Alderman Moriarty I also enjoyed the parade. Alderman Siegel I’d like to thank everyone who not only participated in the parade but the planning and the Mayor’s office. I’d also like to congratulate the Actors/Singers on Young Frankenstein. It was tremendous. What is the status of the charter change re-count? Ms. Patricia Piecuch, Deputy City Clerk As of today, we have not heard on any of our recounts from the Secretary of State. We are still waiting to hear when they will be scheduled. Bd. of Aldermen – 11/12/14 Page 21 Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I’d like to thank all of the veteran’s as well as all of those who lined the parade route. Also, thank you to the city clerk. I’ve started sending out an e-mail regarding a project that puts Christmas wreaths on graves in Arlington National Cemetery as well as other veteran’s cemeteries across the country and it’s called “Wreaths Across America.Org” You can purchase a wreath if you choose. Alderwoman Brown I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to our veterans for their sacrifices and also to Ward 4 for re- electing me as state representative; I am honored again and please contact me if I can be of service to you. Alderman Wilshire I too would like to thank the city clerk’s office; they did a great job last week. I’d also like to send my thanks out to all veterans, especially my son who is active military. President Deane That was a nice parade. We also have a championship pop warner football team that we have to bring in here and acknowledge their accomplishments. Tomorrow there is a Special Board of Aldermen meeting to look at the railings on the River Bridge and Budget is on the 24th. Committee announcements: Alderman Donchess Tomorrow at 7:00pm is a meeting of the Infrastructure Committee. Alderman Moriarty Monday, November 17th is the Pennichuck Water Special Committee meeting which is after Personnel & Administrative Affairs which starts at 6:30pm. Alderman Chasse will chair the meeting where we will interview the candidate that the Merrimack Valley Regional Water is nominating. At the Pennichuck Water Special Committee meeting we won’t address that but a bunch of other things. The next day, Tuesday is the Planning & Economic Development Committee. We have two guests, one is Director Tom Galligani. Alderman Wilshire Human Affairs is Thursday, November 20th at 7:00pm. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE NOVEMBER 12, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:00pm. Attest: Patricia Piecuch, Deputy City Clerk Acquisition of 11-13 Mulberry Street November 12, 2014 From: James B. and Mary E. Cutter 889-4246 86 Palm St., P.O. Box 69-Nashua, NH 03061-0069 Date: November 12, 2014. To: Alderman-At-Large David W. Deane, President, Board of Aldermen/Alderwomen, Nashua, NH. Cc: Donnalee Lozeau, Mayor and Stephen M. Bennett, Counsel. Subject: Ordinances 0-00-24 and 0-12-025. Dear President Deane, We do not need legislation, when Ord. 0-00-24 was adopted to solve the problem of people blocking our driveway now or anticipated with a No Parking sign. And, since a No Parking sign had been in place for about 12 years before BSP construction it can not be overriden by Ord. 0-12-025 because it has superior authority due to it becoming grandfathered based on circumstances previously existing. Now, Alderman Deane you and everyone else knows why a No Parking sign was installed and needs to be returned. You have agreed with me the crosswalk, speed hump and tree that was installed as part of the new street design should not affect our driveway that is 100' away. Another fact, whoever chose the street design should know the law allows: Only enough time to pick up or discharge a passenger or passengers. RSA 265:69, 11(f). At any place where official signs prohibit standing. Thus, no affect on the street design. Since, I am not in the position nor should any alderman/alderwoman be involved to get this corrected, We need your help to direct this to the person who will get the No Parking sign replaced as soon as possible. Sincerely, tr