Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, February 10, 2015, at 7:40 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 Diane Sheehan 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 I would begin my remarks tonight with a four letter word that I never want to say again. It begins with an “S” and ends with a “W,” you might be somewhat familiar with it as it’s everywhere. I wanted to take the time to tell you, and people may not realize that in 15 days we have exceeded about 4 ½ feet of that white stuff; whose name shall not be mentioned. I would like to thank our staff, they have been just remarkable in the work that they have done; particularly because there is no place to put it and by the time they have enough of a breather that things have been cleaned up enough to start removal a new storm starts. That has been a huge challenge. I would also like to thank Whole Foods. During this latest storm, Whole Foods called in and asked if they could come and provide lunch at no cost to all of the plow drivers. They put out a beautiful spread in the break room that the staff so much appreciated. Often times when we thank our employees we concentrate on the plow drivers and the people who are actually moving the snow but I think it’s also important to remember the managers. The Director of Public Works has been working non-stop and during storms she comes in to support her staff as do our Operations Manager, Andy Patrician; John Ibarra, our Operations Foreman; they are on-site doing this work and our Superintendent of Streets; Eric Ryder, who is still here and employed which is good news. He has had two very challenging seasons. Just when we think it can’t get any worse, it does. I also wanted to mention that spring is 38 days away and I wanted to thank the Community Development Staff and the Public Works staff, and the Public Health staff for the item that you see on the agenda tonight under communications for the work that they did for our Transportation Alternatives Grant that they put into the city. They met with success there which is pretty remarkable and it goes a long way into helping us to continue to make sure that we have connectivity throughout the city for pedestrians, when they can again walk in our city, and bicycles. When that legislation comes in we will talk some more about that. I appreciate the President and the Board for giving me the opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting about the Retirement Trust Fund legislation. Now that I know it is Alderman Sheehan’s last evening I would like to say thank you and I have appreciated working with you and getting to know you. I have learned a few things from you and I think we have done some good things together. That Transportation Alternative Grant was something that you pushed pretty hard for and I thank you for that encouragement. You have been a huge advocate for your constituents, particularly in the French Hill neighborhood, which you know has greater challenges than other areas in the city. I wish you all of the best in North Carolina. Lastly, I would like to thank the people in the community that are helping their neighbors and helping the city by clearing sidewalks. All of that is really terrific. Thank you for your kind attention this evening. RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR Alderman Siegel I wanted to echo the Mayor’s remarks about the DPW crews and management but I would also like to thank the Mayor who also has to work very hard too. The Mayor is the head of this whole operation and it is quite a remarkable job, it’s very difficult so thank you, Mayor. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 2 RECOGNITION PERIOD - None READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2015, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF JANUARY 20, 2015, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE AND THE READINGS SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: James B. and Mary E. Cutter Re: No Parking Sign at 85/87 Palm Street MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Police Department FY2015 Budget MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess Mayor Lozeau, the letter where you inform us of the issues in the Police Department refers to something the Commission wrote. Would you mind distributing that to the members of the Board? Mayor Lozeau Sure. MOTION CARRIED From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Transportation Alternatives Program Application – Grant Award MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Mr. Jim Cutter – 86 Palm Street This is an addendum to the letter I wrote earlier. Alderman McCarthy What agenda items is Mr. Cutter addressing? Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 3 President Deane He is addressing his letter. Alderman McCarthy That is not an item on which final action is anticipated this evening and those comments are generally deferred to the second public comment period. The purpose of the two public comment periods is deliberately not to allow communications to be addressed at the first one. President Deane Mr. Cutter, would you mind waiting until the second public comment? Mr. Cutter No problem. PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS Appointment of Timothy Lavoie to the Capital Equipment Reserve Fund  Tabled 8/12/14 REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Finance Committee............................................................................. 01/21/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the January 21, 2015 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Human Affairs Committee ................................................................... 01/15/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the January 15, 2015 Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure .............................................................. 01/14/15 MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE OF JANUARY 14, 2015, PLACE IT ON FILE, AND GRANT THE REQUEST OF NASHUA TS LODGING AND 110 GRILL TWO, LLC, TO INSTALL DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE IN THE CITY STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy I haven’t been paying as much attention to this issue as I would like to, could the Chairman of the Committee on Infrastructure tell us what the request was. Alderman Donchess The request by the two entities; Nashua Lodging and 100 Grill Two, LLC is to place directional signs along Somerset Parkway to direct traffic to the mall area where there location is. It is a more complicated issue than just that in the sense that the DOT is involved and they want to enable these two entities to put signs on Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 4 the turnpike right-of-way to direct people where to go but in order for them to do that they want to be assured that there will be some continued direction along Somerset Parkway. They needed to come to the city to make this request to help with direction and to enable them to then put directional signs on the turnpike. When I first saw this I had grave reservations but here it felt like it was well reasoned and all tied to the state DOT and their requirements. After hearing the whole issue the committee, I think unanimously, granted their request. Alderman McCarthy Is this consistent with what DOT’s normal policy is? Alderman Donchess It is yes. In fact, there was a letter from DOT sort of endorsing this whole thing. Alderman McCarthy And these are all out in the Somerset Parkway right-of-way and not on the site itself? Alderman Donchess Correct. Alderman Sheehan I’ll just add for clarification that because you can’t see the building from the way you would be entering, that was their concern; that people would make dangerous turns at the last minute. They wanted to make sure that people were in the right lines and going to the right place. Alderman McCarthy I don’t necessarily have any issue with it. My concerns are twofold. One is that we have a consistent policy on signage that’s in the right-of-way and two that we not step out of bounds and overrule the Planning Board on things that are actually the province of site plan approval, which would be directional signage on the site. Alderman Siegel I did review the minutes of the Infrastructure Committee meeting and I have no problem with this per se. I think it makes a lot of sense. The only question I had was whether or not this sets the type of precedent where somebody that is allowed to do a much less desirable and attractable sign. This seems to be fairly clearly tied to a DOT directive. It’s the camel’s nose is under the tent problem. Attorney Bennett, what is your view on that? Attorney Bennett I reviewed briefly the program that the state has for this and they have certain requirements for the signs themselves and what can be used for these directional signs. There are limits on what people can put on the signs. There is also a limit on how far these businesses can be from the exit ramp, it’s one mile for urban areas and three miles for rural. This would clearly be an urban area. Alderman Siegel The specific question I had wasn’t so much what the DOT requirements would be on their sign, it’s to the extent that we approve this; I didn’t want to set a precedent for any random right-of-way signs in the city but that this is specifically tied to a requirement of the DOT if it’s approved by the Board. Again, I don’t have a problem with this, I just wonder about this becoming the first of colonization. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 5 Attorney Bennett This is strictly a step in the process with the state DOT. This request would not have come in except for that program. We do have an ordinance that does limit signage in the right-of-way and that’s NRO 329-9. There is no requirement that you approve this at all, you could say no and that would, in effect, end their request to the DOT. I don’t believe you are opening it up to everyone coming in and requesting directional signs. Alderman Dowd One, it’s not the first; there are already some signs there for other establishments in that same area. The second thing is that when we have new businesses that are located in Nashua, I think we ought to do whatever we can to make sure they are successful. Alderman Moriarty I wonder if the Mayor has any experience regarding this. Mayor Lozeau I am very concerned. It is true that it is a step in the process of DOT. The DOT says if you want your name on a highway saying that you can get off of this exit and get food, gas or hotels, that if you are not within sight of getting off the exit that the city has to be willing to portray what they call trail blazers. It is true that there are some for the Crown Plaza but it’s a little bit different on where they are because they are more noticeable from this area. What concerns me is that nothing prevents any other business within one mile of all of our exit ramps who are asking for this same opportunity. They too could say that I want the DOT highway signage. Think about Amherst Street and D.W. Highway. We have a lot of those businesses there. I have asked DPW – I don’t have a problem if we put up a single sign that we can add people to, I would agree to help our businesses. I am concerned that they would come in one at a time and then you end up having multiple signs up and down Somerset Parkway, Amherst Street, D.W. Highway, and Spit Brook Road. Our Traffic Department reminds us that it’s not safe to have that much signage in locations where the drivers are constantly looking. There is also the other side of the coin which is you also don’t want a driver that’s lost. I would be interested in finding some middle ground and make sure it’s the kind of sign that we could add to instead of multiplying. I suppose that could be done administratively in the sense of what type of sign and what you would add to it but it does concern me. I would love to consolidate. Thank you for asking. Alderman Donchess I agree with Mayor Lozeau’s perspective on this. We did not get administrative input at the committee but if the Mayor is saying that she would like the committee to make sure that the criteria that she has articulated are met in this case, I don’t have any problem with sending this back to the committee. In fact, I agree that we do not want a proliferation of signage. That’s sort of what my attitude was when we came into this but because it was all tied to DOT, I think that’s why the committee approved it. If the DPW or the administration has a structure for unification of directional signs that they would like the committee to apply, I am sure we would be glad to consider that. Alderman Deane Are you going to withdraw your motion and re-refer? Alderman Donchess I’m trying to figure out exactly what Mayor Lozeau is proposing. If you, Mayor Lozeau, would like us to try to take a look at what you suggested I would be happy to refer it back. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 6 Alderman McCarthy I suggest that we do send it back and look at that. I would recommend making the approvals subject to anything desired by the Public Works Department to want to relocate the signs later on. I’ve seen them in a lot of places where they work fine. Rather than have individual sign owners go out and put them up, I suspect the better thing to do is for us to put the sign frames up and allow people to put things on them. Alderman Donchess Because the motion here is to simply grant the request, I think if I withdraw the motion we do not need a re- referral because it just remains at the committee and the Board has not taken any action. I withdraw my motion to approve the request and simply ask that Public Works or whoever, the Planning Department is going to take a look at this to just let us know when they want to submit whatever it is that they think is best. MOTION WITHDRAWN President Deane I think that something else that should be done also is that 320-9 should be updated because it’s no longer a Traffic Committee and there’s no longer a Traffic Department. A lot of the language has changed. Planning & Economic Development Committee .................................. 01/20/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the January 20, 2015 Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-097 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $58,000 FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE INTO POLICE GRANT ACTIVITY “FY2015 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN GRANT PROGRAM” AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF $51,622 FROM DEPARTMENT 194 “CONTINGENCY,” ACCOUNT #70120 “CONTINGENCY, POLICE GRANTS” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-097 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-097 declared duly adopted. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 7 R-14-098 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-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $25,865 FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY “STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM” INTO FIRE GRANT ACTIVITY “2014 HOMELAND SECURITY GRAN PROGRAM” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-098 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-098 declared duly adopted. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-14-033 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane ESTABLISHING THE UNNAMED STREET BETWEEN PEARSON AVENUE AND PARK STREET AS A ONE-WAY STREET IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO AMEND O-14-033 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA Alderman Chasse Can you please explain the amendments? Alderman McCarthy I believe that it changes it to disallow through traffic on Pearson Avenue and a stop sign at the northern end so the people don’t go through there while cutting from Park Street to Main Street. I read the amendments and they address the concerns that I had with the original ordinance. President Deane Those are the amendments that I brought in. Thank you very much for explaining them. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-033 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-14-033 declared duly adopted as amended. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 8 Alderman Schoneman I want to make a comment on this. One of the things that we discussed was the need to change the traffic light timing in that area as well. How is that going to be accomplished? President Deane I can put a request into the Director of Public Works to take a look at it. Mayor Lozeau I would be happy to do that. I did speak with the director about that and she was already looking into it. There is a problem there and we know that. It’s generally during the times when Main Street is very congested and she’s not exactly sure what can be done but she is looking into it and I will let you know. O-14-036 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess RESCINDING THE NO U-TURN ON DANIEL WEBSTER HIGHWAY SOUTHBOUND AT THE EASTBOUND J-RAMP Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-036 MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-14-036 declared duly adopted. O-14-037 Endorser: Alderman Sean M. McGuinness INCREASING THE PERIOD OF VIABILITY FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES Given its second reading; President Deane For everyone’s reference the Planning Board has given a favorable recommendation on January 8, 2015. MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCGUINESS TO AMEND O-14-037 BY REPLACING IT IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse Can you explain what the amendments are? Alderman McCarthy Our ordinances simply mimic what was in the state law for the expiration of variances and exceptions and rather than continue doing that what the amendment does is simply points to the state law and says what that says. If the state law changes we won’t have to change the ordinance again. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCGUINNESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-037 AS AMENDED Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 9 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel The previous version of this legislation said that given reasonable judgment or reasonable exception that they could bypass whatever it was in here. Is that in the state statutes? Alderman McCarthy The state statute I believe grants the Zoning Board of Adjustment authority to give variances but they must be viable for at least now two years rather than one. Alderman Siegel It wasn’t the timeframe that was a concern of mine; it was that there was an open-ended ability to just grant whatever you wanted if you felt that “a good reason” was the exact wording in the legislation. I was unable to attend the meeting but I communicated my concerns to Alderman McGuinness. Alderman McCarthy The ordinance change only addresses the durability of the variance, it doesn’t address the criteria by which they are granted and frankly, we have very little authority over that anyway. It’s established in state law and by case law with about three precedential cases that pretty much got land/use in New Hampshire completely. Alderman Siegel That’s pretty much what I was expecting so that’s fine, thank you. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-14-037 declared duly adopted as amended. NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-15-105 Endorser: Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Mellizi-Golja APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE NASHUA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS FROM JULY 1, 2014, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-15-106 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $25,780.50 FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTO TRANSIT GRANT ACTIVITY, “HURRICANE SANDY RESILIENCE PROJECTS” AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF MATCHING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,593.50 Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 10 R-15-107 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF NASHUA AND LOCAL 365 OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), AFL-CIO FROM JULY 1, 2014, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-15-108 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $66,700 FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT GRANT PROGRAM INTO GRANT ACTIVITY – FIMBEL LANDFILL SITE ASSESSMENT Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane R-15-109 Endorser: Alderman June M. Caron AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF $730.00 TO CORPORATE INTERIORS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE FEES PAID FOR 620 SOUTH MAIN STREET Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-15-110 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ESTABLISHING AN EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR STATE EMPLOYER PENSION COSTS AND APPROPRIATING $2,730,000 FROM FUND BALANCE ASSIGNED FOR THIS PURPOSE INTO THE EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-15-111 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SURPLUS BROAD STREET PARKWAY PROPERTY Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane R-15-112 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman June M. Caron AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000) FOR ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUNSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Given its first reading; Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 11 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO ACCEPT THE FIRST READING OF R-15-112 BY ROLL CALL, ASSIGN IT TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015, AT 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy When we came in with the original bond for the Sunset Heights project I had thought that the estimate that we got was complete from the architect and construction manager only to find out that it was just a refinement of a study that had been done of several schools a couple of years later and that they had not addressed the on-site traffic problem in the schematic estimate. When we toured the school the other day and were giving a picture of what needs to be done to the circulation and the circulation at Sunset has a lot of off-site problems that need to be corrected. I was rather surprised to find out that at least $8,000 to $9,000 of those improvements had not been included in the original schematic estimate. We talked about some other pieces that need to be done and again, everything as it turned out not to be in the budget. Alderman Dowd and I brought in a resolution for $1.5 million which is, as far as I know, the ceiling on how big those omissions in the initial estimate could have been. We are going force that down as small as it can be but I think we have to take care of that one set of improvements. I am disappointed to have to come back and do this as anybody is to see it but there are issues over there that we need to take into account while we are doing the renovations. Alderman Moriarty When that $7.5 million bond came through here I did my best to persuade my colleagues to postpone this by a year since the Broad Street Parkway project ended up being so much more than the plans had been several years ago. The plans being that there was a book we got that projected $6 to $7 million bonds per year for each of these schools and the $6 million became $10 million and now this schools’ $6 million is becoming $9 million. I was trying to say let’s delay it by a year and save the taxpayers $500,000 in bond payments sometime in the future. Some people listened and the answer came back that there is a lot of cost savings by doing Broad Street and immediately following by Sunset Heights. I am going to vote no on this, not that it’s going to have any impact but once again, I ask that we think about delaying this a little further because it’s just growing into another large bond project that we need to delay. I don’t think the rush to get it done this year is worth the $30,000. Alderman Dowd I’d like to point out that when we found this out we found that the impact of not doing this is impacts the neighborhood as much or more than the school. The traffic backs up on Osgood and out onto Main Street which causes traffic issues in the neighborhood. According to all of the details this change will take the buses out of that loop and put more holding area near the school so that the cars can get in there to drop more students off simultaneously and take the cars off of Main Street. The neighbors fully support this because that’s a real traffic issue in that section of town. Alderman Donchess Is there a small schematic drawing that shows the traffic improvements that you were describing which you could circulate? Alderman Dowd We had a preliminary architectural drawing of a solution. It’s been modified since we had a meeting with the neighbors and I have not seen the next draft as yet. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 12 Alderman Donchess When you get it would you mind circulating that? Alderman Dowd Sure. Alderman Caron I just wanted to say that I think it’s important that the neighbors had some say when they had that informational meeting. That was a real concern for them, the traffic going onto S. Main Street and how to resolve that issue. A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman Sheehan; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Moriarty 2 MOTION CARRIED R-15-113 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman June M. Caron Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja RELATIVE TO FUNDING THE SALMON BROOK SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT UNDER THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT’S HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-15-039 Endorser: Alderman David Schoneman AMENDING THE PARKING TIME LIMIT ZONES ON A PORTION OF CANAL STREET Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane O-15-040 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Richard A. Dowd AMENDING THE COMPOSITION OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 13 O-15-041 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy RESCINDING THE AUTHORIZATION FOR PARKING AND PARKING METERS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST HOLLIS STREET BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane O-15-042 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy ESTABLISHING A VALET PARKING PROGRAM Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane Alderman McCarthy May I ask if the Infrastructure Committee intends to take any of those up tomorrow? Alderman Donchess No, they are not on the agenda. PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. James Cutter, 86 Palm Street Dear President Deane, In addition to my absences on October 9, 2012; and November 13, 2012; it can be from having the mistake of removing our ordinance O-025-24 from the NRO’s §320-69, O-12-025 corrected, I have found another reason. The city clerk book NRO §5-27(C) states in part “whenever the city shall make a general revision of all of its ordinances no publication of such revised ordinances shall be required at any newspaper.” There was no public notice to alert me. The no parking sign is now more important than before because the Broad Street Parkway street design. There is a yellow line that allows drivers to park 11 feet opposite of our driveway. The police say that the yellow line makes a restricted parking area where they cannot ticket. Lastly it appears that our ordinance can be reinstated per RSA 626:3 “Effective Ignorance or Mistake Caused by a Public Servant.” Sincerely, Jim. Mr. John Koutsos, 3 Dunstable Road I am the owner of Alec’s Shoe Store in downtown Nashua as well as a member of the Downtown Improvement Committee. Tonight I am here representing myself and my business and not as a member of the Downtown Improvement Committee. I would like to speak to the ordinance for valet parking. This is a tremendously slippery slope that we are going down. One point I’d like to make is the timeframe which starts at 4:00 pm which is a very busy time for most merchants and the opposed ordinance grants licenses for people that they can apply to from 4:00 pm to 12:00 am for any business. For a business like mine at 4:00 pm in April/May when the weather is good, parking is very tight downtown. There is no open parking, it’s 100% taken up. I just feel like it’s like the DOT discussion you had tonight. If you extend this out, by the number of businesses that are open at those hours of the day, from 4:00 pm – 12:00 am and in this proposed ordinance it allows each one of those license holders to take up an encumbered three parking spaces by taking one of the spaces and putting a podium on it so that takes the space out of use and I guess there would be two others. There are 15 restaurants on Main Street and if you do the math on that and 45 spaces, if they are just restaurants and it doesn’t say and I’m sort of making a leap saying this ordinance is for restaurants because it is for any business holder I would imagine. I think you are giving an implicit endorsement to businesses that operate at those hours; from 4:00 pm – 12:00 am at the expense of others and I think you are sending a very bad message to the general public as well as to other businesses that are looking to come downtown. We really favor in Nashua now businesses that operate during those hours and they are getting almost preferential treatment. It’s certainly held in higher esteem than the businesses that are operating in the daytime. You are seeing the downtown really become empty Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 14 in the daytime and I think you are going to make it much worse if you put this ordinance in. I think the parking spaces are there to have the general public to have fair access to them, not for the City of Nashua to pick winners and losers of who is going to benefit from using it and we also don’t want people to step up and – I mean I look at the financial analysis that’s here and I think you should all ignore it because it’s such nominal dollars it doesn’t add up to anything. We charge $1.00 per hour for parking and the financial analysis says the license holder would – the city would make $2.00 more over the three or four hours. I mean are we going to start selling parking spaces to the highest bidders? I think that’s where we are heading here. If you are going to grant a license for $5.00 I guess I would pay $10.00 not to have it. You are going to close out businesses that don’t want to pay for valet parking. For me it’s a public policy issue and I think it really needs to be discussed. I think the idea is to get restaurants to turn over more and I’m in favor of that but I’m not sure that this is the right way to do it. There are plenty of parking lots in Nashua, maybe we could designate one of them for patrons that come down between 4:00 pm and 12:00 am and have them drive directly to that parking lot and maybe shuttle them to where they want to go. I just think it’s really bad public policy to start taking the public spaces and dole them out to those who want to step up and pay for them. Clearly I would want to have valet parking for my business on Saturday’s maybe in August for back to school. Where do you draw the line? The proposed ordinance also says person’s or businesses. I think you will create a lot of animosity downtown and pit neighbor against neighbor. I pay a substantial amount of taxes in Nashua based on the assumption that my patrons can get a public parking space as they historically have been able to in the past. If it’s going to change I would say be prepared for tax abatements and perhaps litigation. Presentation on Pensions Mayor Lozeau I wanted to at least set the table for the future conversation around this trust fund. We are talking about the budget right now and different city divisions and departments and certainly this is something a little bit unusual but as you know, the last few years have been unusual times. I wanted to walk through some of our FY 2016 our budget challenges. This is a slide that looks familiar because I presented it when I did the budget presentation. What you will see is in blue is what we had on this slide when it was presented to you and in green is where we actually are. We talked about the CPIU being as low as 1.5% and the spending cap index is actually 1.5% this year and that’s based on the new measurement tool. Under the CPIU had we used that it would have been 1.6%. The new amount available under the spending cap, we talked about it being as low as $4 million and it is actually $3.6 million. The retirement system which is what we have talked about quite a bit is that we believe that we could have a projected increase of $2.5 million. Our best approximation right now is $1.9 million. It is important to note that $1.9 million represents 53% of that amount that is available under the spending cap. I only left the last line there because I wanted to legitimately say that this is the slide I showed you. Some of those costs have been determined. On January 12th we had the presentation with the Municipal Association talking about retirement costs. One of the things that you were all interested in was knowing how we compared to others in the state for our pensions. You will see that Nashua is in blue and the statewide average is in red. It is important also to note that we are included in the average in order to make sure that numbers did not get skewed. You will see that with the exception of the employees, we are at a spend greater than the average in teachers, fire, and police and those numbers speak for themselves. The group one is employees and teachers and group two is fire and police and this slide is to show you what has happened year after year to those rates. This slide I think is incredibly compelling because when you look at the bottom line we have seen a146.7% increase since 2008. Since 2008 we are now adding an additional $12.5 million in the pension line in our budget. You can see that we bump every two years and we especially bumped when the state subsidy ended and then we had the bump in 2014. For quite some time I have talked to you about being prepared for this change in the pension and that we had been planning on that and so you will that on your desks tonight is the new CAFR. On page 73 you will see that we have reached $2.7 million that we have assigned for this purpose and basically in its simplest form this resolution that was introduced tonight and sent to the Budget Committee is looking at taking those savings from the assigned fund balance and moving them into a trust fund. The goal of that is to smooth out those two year bumps. You may recall one of the things discussed at that meeting with the New Hampshire Municipal Association was some send of at some point that unfunded liability is not going to keep hitting us so hard. If you look at the unfunded Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 15 liability line, the second line, they are showing you what we are carrying in addition to what we normally would if they were properly funded. That’s the unfunded liability. Some have said somewhere over the next five to six years that unfunded liability percentage will go down significantly and the bumps might not be so volatile. One of things that I have paid a significant amount of attention to every time I have presented you with a budget or a tax change is that stability piece. That’s why we are held in such high esteem as it relates to our bond ratings and other things that are really important in the financial markets because we have stopped that volatility that you were seeing in the tax rate some years back and also in other costs, some of which we could control and some of which we couldn’t. I wanted to at least have you thinking about that as we move forward to a further discussion on that legislation. In order to pass that legislation, we are going to have to look at the exemption under the spending cap, which the lingo that we all use even though apparently isn’t the technical term is an override of the spending cap. In my opinion, I think that it is noticeable that we did not look at overriding the spending cap to pass the FY 2015 budget and we are not looking at it to pass the FY 2016 budget. We are looking at it to move the savings that we had over here into the savings where we can actually appropriate the funds and use it. It will not impact the tax rate and it will not impact, technically, the spend, the way that you would see if it was done while a budget was being passed. I wanted to at least give some time in there to actually call this out for what the concern is. I wanted you to understand why I am proposing this and it’s based on these numbers that you are seeing here tonight. Thank you, Mr. President; I appreciate the opportunity to share. Alderman Donchess Would Mayor Lozeau mind circulating the slides to the Board? Mayor Lozeau I don’t mind at all. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman McCarthy Alderman Sheehan, I am very happy that you took a position on this Board. I want to thank you for the service you have done to the city. I will miss your service on this Board. Alderman Dowd I want to echo Alderman McCarthy’s statements and wish you all of the best in your new life down in North Carolina. You have worked exceedingly hard for your constituents and I’m sure they appreciate it. I also want to mention that I think the Department of Public Works has done a fantastic job with the challenge of the word we are not going to mention (snow) and I know we are running into an issue where to put snow. I think something needs to be looked at as to where to put the snow. Alderman Schoneman Alderman Sheehan, once again, thank you for your service to Ward 3 and French Hill in particular. I wish you the best of luck. I am having a ward meeting this Thursday at 7:00 pm at the Amherst Street School Media Center. Alderman Chasse Good luck, Alderman Sheehan. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 16 Alderman Caron I too wish you the best in your new place and I am sure that you will get right in there and help the town that you are in. I enjoyed working with you. I also want to convey the Nashua Senior Center’s appreciation for the Board of Public Works going in and cleaning up that municipal parking lot near their facility. Alderman McCarthy We will miss you and I wish you the best of luck. Alderman Sheehan I have enjoyed my role and working with my colleagues. I will be back to visit but I have to look at this as an opportunity to do something else but I will miss everyone so much. Alderman Soucy Thank you for your service, Alderman Sheehan. Good luck to you. Alderman Donchess I want to thank Alderman Sheehan and wish her the best. Alderman Moriarty Travel safely, Alderman Sheehan. Alderman Siegel I wish Alderman Sheehan the best and I know it will be difficult for her and the kids to adjust but hopefully there will be a longer baseball season. I also want to mention that there is a Nashua PTO Benefit Fund and our first benefit is March 14, 2015, and that’s going to at the Crown Plaza and will be an 80’s themed prom night. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I would like to thank Alderman Sheehan for her service to the city and we will certainly miss you here. I have received calls and comments from people about how happy they have been with how the streets have been maintained with all of the snow. One of our most troublesome intersections has been so well maintained that people have commented on it and that’s Timberline and East Dunstable. Those efforts are truly appreciated. Also, thank you to Whole Foods and Jamie Roubideaux who is the community liaison person here. Jamie is leaving the city so thank you to Jamie and congratulations as she moves on. Congratulations as well to the city employees who worked on the grant to connect the rail trail to Mine Falls. It’s great to see that it’s going to become a reality. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 17 Alderwoman Brown I would like to thank all of the hard work of the city employees who have worked around the clock for the past few days. Alderman Sheehan, you are the one that first got me involved in becoming an Alderman and I want to thank you for all of your service, compassion, and dedication. Nashua is a better place because of you and I wish you all of the luck in the world. Alderman Wilshire I am going to miss Alderman Sheehan, especially on the Human Affairs Committee. She is very compassionate; she understands the social service network in the city and has really been a good advocate for those agencies. Good luck in North Carolina. Tomorrow night is Empty Bowls. The Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter has a fundraiser at Nashua High School South from 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm. Its $15.00 admission and you get a nice, handmade bowl by one of the art students. Thank you to all of the city employees who have worked so hard. Alderman Chasse I have a special invitation to the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor Lozeau. There is a sponsorship for Ryan Pitts who was the Medal of Honor recipient from Nashua. It’s on Tuesday, March 10th at 6:30 pm – 10:00 pm. Unfortunately, we have a meeting that night. President Deane Alderman Sheehan, good luck. Thank you for all you have done for our community. I wanted to comment on the Public Works Department, from the director to everyone that has been there for the past 3 ½ weeks. It’s been an awful lot of work and I know what it is like. They have done a great job. The operations have been fluid. Committee announcements: Alderman Chasse March 9th is a Personnel & Administrative Affairs Committee meeting here at 7:00 pm. Alderman Donchess Infrastructure is tomorrow night in this Chamber at 7:00 pm. Alderman Wilshire February 19th is a Human Affairs Committee meeting here in the Chamber at 7:00 pm. President Deane I have scheduled a short Budget Review Committee meeting right after the Mayor’s State-of-the-City Address in lieu of Planning & Economic Development. On that agenda so far will be two collective bargaining agreements and Alderman Caron’s piece of legislation which was brought in this evening. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/10/15 Page 18 ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN THAT THE FEBRUARY 10, 2015, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk  City of Nashua Pension Trust Fund Presentation February 10, 2015  FY 2016 Budget Challenges as presented on June 16, 2015 • FY 2016 Budget Issues – Increases in NHRS Pensions Costs • CPI-U Northeast for Spending Cap will likely be less than 2.0% and could be as low as 1.5% Spending Cap Index is 1.5% for FY 2016 • The new amount available under the spending cap for FY 2016 could be as low as $4.0 million $ 3.6 million new money available • The NHRS can raise the Employer Contribution Rates in FY 2016 Preliminary projections - $2.5 million increase for Nashua in FY 2016 New NHRS rates increase Nashua’s pension cost by approximately $1.9 million. • $1.9 million represents 53% of the new $ amount available for FY 2016 – Increases in wages and costs – undetermined February 10, 2015 2 Comparison of Nashua & Statewide CY 2014 Average Annual Pensions $50,000 $46,938 $45,000 $41,984 $40,000 $36,292 $34,648 $35,000 $30,000 $26,283 $25,000 $21,505 $20,000 $15,000 $12,830 $11,346 $10,000 $5,000 $- Employee Teacher Fire Police NHRS (Statewide) Nashua February 10, 2015 3  Group I (Employees & Teachers) and Group II (Fire & Police) Employer Rates July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2017 Employee Teacher Fire Police Normal Cost 9.14% 8.69% 18.36% 16.61% Unfunded Liability 8.72% 11.03% 18.76% 17.48% Total Cost 17.86% 19.72% 37.12% 34.09% Less: Member Contribution (7.00%) (7.00%) (11.80%) (11.55%) Employer Pension 10.86% 12.72% 25.32% 22.54% Employer Medical Subsidy 0.31% 2.95% 3.84% 3.84% Total Employer Rate 11.17% 15.67% 29.16% 26.38% 3.7% increase 10.66% increase 4.3% increase 5.1% increase over FY14/15 over FY14/15 over FY14/15 over FY14/15 February 10, 2015 4  City of Nashua NHRS Pension Costs Fiscal Year Actual/ NHRS Contribution $ Increase % Increase Estimate (Decrease) (Decrease) 2008 Actual $ 8,592,317 2009 Actual 9,137,236 $ 544,919 6.3% 2010 Actual 10,703,913 1,566,677 17.1% 2011 Actual 11,840,610 1,136,697 10.6% 2012* Actual 14,759,025 2,918,415 24.6% 2013 Actual 14,571,560 (187,465) -1.3% 2014 Actual 18,450,237 3,878,677 26.6% 2015 Estimate 19,300,000 849,763 4.6% 2016 Estimate $ 21,200,000 $ 1,900,000 9.8% 8 Year Increase $ 12,607,683 % Increase from 2008 146.7% *State Subsidy Eliminated February 10, 2015 5  Fund Balance Assigned for Future NHRS Pension Costs CAFR Fund Balance Assigned for Future Year Ended NHRS Pension Costs June 30, 2011 $ - June 30, 2012 $ 614,000 June 30, 2013 $ 1,200,000 June 30, 2014* $ 916,000 Total $ 2,730,000 *Page 73 of June 30, 2014 CAFR February 10, 2015 6