Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, May 26, 2015, at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President David W. Deane presided; City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron recorded. Prayer was offered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron; Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 14 members of the Board of Aldermen present. Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and Corporation Counsel Stephen M. Bennett were also in attendance. REMARKS BY THE MAYOR - There were none. 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 MAY 12, 2015, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE ON MAY 11, 2015, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE AND THE READINGS SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCGUINNESS THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Robert Sullivan Re: Follow Up to March 2015 BIDA Minutes – Response to R – Sullivan’s BIDA Questions MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCGUINNESS TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE A LETTER RECEIVED FROM JAMES B. AND MARY E. CUTTER MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Mr. Jim Cutter, 86 Palm Street This is on Ordinance 15-052, prohibiting parking. It has to do with the letter I am reading later. Thank you. Mr. Dave Wendt, 4 Melissa Drive I’m here in response to R-15-134. This is a collective bargaining agreement with the principals and the administrators. I spoke on this the last time and it really entails looking at how the school and the school board are performing, and the performance of the school board. It’s absolutely a disaster. I worked with numerous companies. Never did we ever expect or get a raise if we didn’t perform. You give this raise it’s for people that did not perform. I am totally against this. I think it’s just a sham. The previous administration that was in this room, we were told as citizens repeatedly that you have no control over anything. You have no control over the police department. You have no control over the board of education. You have no control over public works. This is how you control them. You just tell them unless you have performance, we are not going to increase your collective bargaining agreement. These Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 2 people at one time were independent. They now, I’m going to say due to lack of performance, have organized. Big deal. You deal with unions every day. If you’re not going to perform, there’s no reason why this board should ever vote for an increase. Thank you. Ms. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive I’m talking about R-15-141, authorizing the Mayor and City Treasurer to issue bonds not to exceed the amount of $550,000 for road and traffic improvements on Amherst Street from Charron Ave to Diesel Road. I went back over the minutes. There wasn’t much discussion on this. Why are we bonding a little over a half million dollars? A sidewalk project that was $2 million we didn’t bond. And this is for what? 20 years? The bond is going to outlive the road. I think there should be somewhere we can find $550,000 that we don’t need in the budget. To bond a half million dollars is ridiculous. That’s really ridiculous, and it just went through the committee with very little discussion. That’s my kids that are going to be paying off this bond. If I ever have grandkids, that’s going to be them that are paying off this bond. That’s ridiculous. I think it should go back to committee. The budget committee really needs to find $550,000 to pay for this road as opposed to bonding it. Then you do your homework. That’s called accountability. I want to talk about O-15-052 that’s going to read for the first time tonight. I want to applaud. Finally something hopefully is going to be done to help Mr. Cutter. A month ago I did set up a Facebook page, “Justice for Mr. Cutter” but I couldn’t come in. I had to go to work that Tuesday, two weeks later. How many people are going to sign on as a cosponsor? Put the big boy pants on and your big girl pants on and let’s do what’s right for Mr. Cutter. Thank you. Mr. Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne Drive I’m here to talk about R-15-134, which is the principal union contract. That contract calls for a total increase of 2.65%. The cost of living, the average increase people get, is 1.5%. Seniors get less than that by the time they get their Medicare, probably 1%. These raises are unsustainable. Let me remind you that the police contract not long ago you approved much more than that, 8.6 % in FY14, 7.6% in FY15, and 8% in FY16, and 3% FY17. Gentlemen, ladies, these raises are unsustainable. You can’t be giving these kinds of raises because taxpayers make far less money and certainly don’t get those increases to pay for these raises. The average person is not getting 5% in FY15. They certainly don’t make 8%. Thank you. Mr. Dan O’Donnell, Assistant Principal, Nashua High School South I’ve worked in Nashua for 36 days and I’m retiring in 12 days. I remember coming before the Board in 1988 and we were talking about getting band uniforms and I was successful. The Nashua Association of School Principals is a vibrant group of people. The amount of this entire contract for this year is $89,000 which is the exact same amount as the position that Mark Conrad cut from the administration. The other thing is that I found in my experience as a school administrator I will tell you that we were always the first ones to give back and it’s interesting that when it comes to contracts ours tends to be last. Tensions grow as more contracts come and there’s nothing left. I would say that if you took a look at the past several years; back about six years ago we were given a 3% raise. At a meeting with Mark Conrad one of the members raised their hand and said we’d like not to have this raise. We realized at that time that the city was in a crisis and so we gave that back. We knew that the teachers hadn’t had a contract in a while and we didn’t want to dealing with that kind of morale. We are in supervisory positions so you are not going to see us boycotting, we can’t; all we can do is come to you. The information that was given to the Budget Committee last week, if you look at other schools in New Hampshire that are near our size, at very best we are not at the top end. I don’t think we are asking for a lot. The other thing is that the budget we are dealing with, this contract if you approve tonight ends in about 30 days. That money was already put in the budget, 2.7%, by the Board of Education and when we did our contract negotiations we went down to 2.6%. I think we are being very reasonable and I would encourage you to support the administrator’s that are sitting behind me. They work extremely hard and they work year round and we also take stuff home with us all of the time. I thank you personally for 28 good years in Nashua. Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 3 President Deane Thank you very much. PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS – None REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Budget Review Committee ................................................................ 05/11/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 11, 2015 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Budget Review Committee ................................................................. 05/18/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 18, 2015 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee............................................................................. 05/06/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 6, 2015 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Human Affairs Committee ................................................................... 05/20/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the May 20, 2015 Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS - None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS – None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS 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  Amended & Tabled – 2/24/15 R-15-134 Endorser: Alderman Richard A. Dowd 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, 2015, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-134 Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 4 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd The union that was just formed, they felt that they needed to enact that union to have some fairness. The contract we have before us tonight is a one-year contract. It’s to get them even because of all of the previous sacrifices they have made relevant to cost increases and insurance and everything else. They were always first to the plate and here they come last in for a contract renewal. As was also stated the amount of money that will be applicable to the contract this year has already been cut from the budget for next year by one administrator’s salary which is the entire amount of the increase so it’s basically a net wash. I know going forward we need to look at the union contracts and look at the percentage of increases that are given but this is the last group in the education area of the unions and I think it’s time that we are fair to the principals and administrators and pass this. The funding is already sitting in the Board of Education budget and it will be zero going forward because it’s already been cut from the 2015 budget by reducing one of their staff. I would ask my fellow Aldermen to pass this. Alderman Chasse What was the vote of the Budget Committee? President Deane I think it was 5 to 2. Alderman Schoneman I was one of the two that voted against it and I expect I will vote against it tonight as well. I listened to Mr. O’Donnell who spoke very eloquently and I appreciate that very much, I appreciate the sacrifice that group had made. Unfortunately, the school board is still over budget. It’s not on the Board of Aldermen for not giving them a raise, it’s with other groups who got the money that could have been given to them. The school board still brought their budget in over the target. If they were at the target or below the target that would be a different story but they are over their target and even though this particular contract looks like it would be a wash, they are still over their target. Where does that money come from? I think that the school department needs to live within the limit that they are given to the extent that they can do that. I think we can expand other contracts and I feel completely for a group of people that gave up so that others could have. It wasn’t so that the city could save it so that others in the school department could get. It’s not fair to them, I full agree but they are in over their number and until that number is hit there’s no room there. Alderman Soucy I am in agreement with Alderman Schoneman that the school budget is in fact over their budget however rather than taking a tactical approach saying that this department is over the budget and another one is under the budget, I’d rather look at it as a bigger strategic kind of thing where we’ve met our obligations as a Board. We are going to come in under the cap. This money was already budgeted for this year. Yes, Alderman Dowd is absolutely right as is Alderman Schoneman, we do need to look at our union contracts going forward but this is the last contract coming in and we are going to say no to the last one and what we’ve been watching is the compression rate of the teachers making more and the principals getting nothing because they have a past history of doing the right thing. I thought the best question in my 1 ½ years of being an Alderman was presented by Alderman Siegel when he asked how they were going to pay for it and Mr. Conrad answered it quite appropriately. This $89,000 is a wash because there is a position that’s going to be eliminated. Not fired, not laid off but just a position that’s going to be eliminated. So, we know how we are going to pay for it and we are going to be within the cap. I appreciate the hard work that all of our city worker’s do and I appreciate the past history of the principals but to say no to them at the last contract, at some point we have to say yes or it’s going to go to Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 5 arbitration how much is that going to cost us? It’s probably going to cost us more. I am going to support it. Alderman Moriarty The total cost of this contract does exceed the inflation rate averages and it also exceeds the average family’s salary. In my opinion, I would rather not reduce staff in order to pay for a contract that is unsustainable. I would much rather the contract to be within the inflation rate and not lay people off. The argument that they have accommodated the unsustainability of a contract by eliminating any staff in unacceptable to me and I will very likely vote against this. Alderman Siegel To address some of the remarks that I made during the Budget Committee meeting, I was initially opposed to this contract. It’s true that I asked how it was going to be paid for and I got an answer. Just to clarify, that is not a position that is eliminated in the sense that it is someone who is losing their job, it is a position that is just not being filled or retained as a positon. The good news is that nobody is losing their job because I would agree that is not the best way to solve the problem. I don’t believe that it is a wash because whether we like it or not, yes we pay for the position, we swap that out but the increases still come. There were two things that swayed me. The first thing is the notion of penalizing a group of people who have had a history of at least being reasonable. I didn’t want to encourage people to abandon the notion of being reasonable because it has no reward. That said the rewards are limited. I looked at what the actual affect was of this contract if you subtract out the amount of money. There are some residual increases but those residual increases are definitely offset by what would happen if we just plain turned this down. They are a collective bargaining unit and they would go to arbitration and something would happen and it would be unlikely that it would be something helpful to anyone. It would certainly cost more than what this is going to cost. I’d like to address Mr. Wendt comment because I think they are actually worth commenting on. I don’t know that the principals have performed well or poorly to receive this increase and Mr. Wendt has a legitimate gripe. I just think the issue is more complex than to pin it on any one individual group but there is an issue here. My voting for this will not be because I believe the principals should be rewarded on their performance; it’s strictly an economic vote. Alderman Dowd I heard that some want to vote against this because the Board of Education’s budget was too high. Well, this bargaining group has no control over the Board of Education and they are coming in a position where there’s a wash. The Board of Education has elected not to fill a vacant position to make this contract a zero impact on the budget and I don’t see why we should penalize this group for another group. I think we should address this as an individual item. If we think the school budget is too high then during the budget deliberations we should find a place that you think they can give up something. I will tell you that just one item alone if you have gone the education budget, the transportation increase this year was 9%. They have no control over that, it’s a competitive contract and they took the low bidder and even negotiated it down but it’s still 9%. Here we are talking about basically zero because it’s a wash from not filling the position. I think in fairness we have to look at this group individually and allow this to pass. Alderman Chasse Roll call. Alderman Schoneman I just wanted to make one last comment on the issue of being under the cap. It’s true as a city, collectively we are under the cap by about $150,000 but the only reason that we are is because under Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 6 necessity they came in, the FY 15’ appropriations a few weeks ago for the $500,000 generator for the police department. If that had not happened we would be way over the cap. A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, 9 Alderman Soucy, Alderman Donchess, Alderman Siegel, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderwoman Brown, Alderman Wilshire Nay: Alderman Schoneman, Alderman Chasse, Alderman McGuinness, 5 Alderman Moriarty, Alderman Deane MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-134 declared duly adopted. R-15-138 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman June M. Caron Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $1,430,000 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITY “HOPWA – HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-138 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-138 declared duly adopted. R-15-139 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman June M. Caron RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $41,571 FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY INTO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GRANT ACTIVITY “2013 HSEEP – ADVANCED NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES (ANT) TRAINING” Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-139 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman What are advanced neutralization techniques? Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 7 City Clerk Bergeron The resolution says it is for the purpose of providing training to the Nashua Police Department and other law enforcement partners in the operation, installation, diagnostics, and prosecution/bypass of intrusion detection systems. Alderman Schoneman Under what circumstances are these techniques likely to be used? Are we anticipating riots in the streets? What are we anticipating with this? Who are we trying to neutralize? Alderman Siegel I believe it’s to by-pass the alarm system so people can get into places where there might be criminals or potential bobbietraps. I think that’s what the planning is supposed to be for, and we’ll have very well trained ants. Alderman Wilshire A five-day training course is what the funding is for. It’s to fill some overtime to ensure staffing. There’s no city match required. Alderman Schoneman I understand we’re not neutralizing people with this. We are neutralizing an alarm system so we can get into buildings. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-139 declared duly adopted. R-15-140 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($550,000) FOR ROAD AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ON AMHERST STREET BETWEEN CHARRON AVENUE AND DIESEL ROAD Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-140 BY ROLL CALL ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd As we all know, the traffic on Amherst Street is one of our worst nightmares in the city as far as transportation. Because of the development in the area of this intersection, both of the jug handles have failed as was stated by our city engineer. There’s a new mall going in across the street from the Turnpike Plaza and through the efforts of the Mayor and her staff we were able to talk to the people that are going into the new mall plus the people that are in the other businesses in the area. It’s a $1 million project to fix this so the traffic will flow through that area more easily and get rid of the congested jug Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 8 handles and we can do this at half the price that it would cost us if we wait because the second motion right after this is to approve accepting the matching funds from the local businesses and this is a one- time deal. If we don’t accept the money they will spend the money to find another approach for their particular mall. This is an opportunity for us to solve a major problem on Amherst Street. It will allow for left turns off of Charron Avenue onto Amherst Street going west which is something area residents have been fighting to get for a long time. Alderman Soucy My question is not that we need to do this; it is how we are going to pay for it. I have to agree with Paula Johnson on this one. I don’t like the idea that we are going to bond $550,000 on a 20-year bond that might outlive the road itself. Because we have the second resolution coming up, we are going to get matching funds and it’s going to cost half the amount I am going to make an economic decision and vote for it because I don’t want to see this money disappear. I’m not happy about bonding the money but if this is the way we have to do it because of the matching funds then I’m all for it. Alderman Siegel I am very happy that we are bonding it because the cost of capital right now is at an all-time low. Now is when you should bond. As far as the project not lasting as long as the bond, by definition that’s not possible. Bonds last as long as the project. I am guessing that the road is going to last more than 20 years. The fact that we are splitting the cost is a big advantage so I think we should give this one a thumbs up. Alderman Donchess The traffic out there does need to be fixed. The jug handles have been there for 45 years or maybe more and at this point they do not work. This does need to be fixed. This is more than a pavement project, it’s a reconfiguration of the entire area so the life of this project is going to be more than 20 years. In my opinion we really need to fix this problem area in the city and we are getting a 50% match so it’s definitely worthwhile. A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Schoneman, 14 Alderman Chasse, Alderman Caron, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman Soucy, Alderman Donchess, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman Siegel, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderwoman Brown, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-140 declared duly adopted. Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 9 R-15-141 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman June M. Caron Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $550,000 FROM THREE PROPERTY OWNERS AS CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD THE ROAD AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ON AMHERST STREET BETWEEN CHARRON AVENUE AND DIESEL ROAD Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO AMEND R-15-141 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE BLUE COPY PLACED ON OUR DESKS THIS EVENING ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess In order to explain the change, the local property owners are still contributing $550,000 towards this project. However the flow of the funds is being amended. The city is running the construction project and therefore the money for that portion of the project will come to the city under the amended resolution and that number is $445,000. The amendment deletes $105,000 from the funds that the city is going to accept because those funds are being spent directly by the private property owners to pay for the design. With respect to the design they are paying the design firm a total of $105,000 directly and that money is not coming to the city. The amendment takes care of that. President Deane I believe it also takes care of the fact that OKORP Associates will take the place of the Nelson Family as shown on the golden rod. Alderman Donchess Yes, I believe that is correct. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-141 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-141 declared duly adopted as amended. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES – None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS – None Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 10 NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-15-052 Endorser: Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF THE WEST SIDE OF PALM STREET given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane O-15-053 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown ALLOWING PERMITTED OVERNIGHT ON-STREET PARKING ON A PORTION OF PRESCOTT STREET given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane O-15-054 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown AUTHORIZING FREE HOLIDAY PARKING AT METERS IN ZONE III WHICH INCLUDES THE ELM STREET AND HIGH STREET PARKING GARAGES FROM DECEMBER 10, 2015, THROUGH DECEMBER 27, 2015 given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane O-15-055 Endorser: Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane ESTABLISHING A 25 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT ON TIMBERLINE DRIVE AND A PORTION OF MIDDLE DUNSTABLE ROAD given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Jim Cutter, 86 Palm Street Dear Alderman Deane, On September 9, 2014, Mayor Lozeau should not have ordered our no parking sign removed because it’s parking spaces are like driveways and fire hydrants and not part of the Broad Street Parkway. Since ordinance O-00-024 was not revoked the sign should be replaced. I have a layout on here which I hope is good. It will save anybody a trip down to my neighborhood to see what it’s all about. So far there has been about four Aldermen that have come down to look at it. The no parking sign prevents the blocking of our driveway, etc. and the parking spaces used for it due to an increased number of speeders has become a safe place for children left and picked up at Marguerite’s Place daycare. A new street design has cut the number of parking spaces on Palm Street with parking on one side of our 28-foot wide street. Parking spaces citywide need 21 feet of space and as it increases the number of speeders; it is more dangerous for pedestrians and children. Our street has lost many parking spaces but those concerned about it like the people who work at Marguerite’s Place can easily find parking on streets from where they can take a short, healthy walks to and from work. The sketch shows why there should be no parking outside of our driveway. Our current driveway is done to scale. The car, like most everyone else’s is 5 ½ feet wide and we have a driveway that’s about 8 ½ feet wide so you can see that there is not much space. We have to be straight on backing into it, you can’t come in on an angle. When Mayor Lozeau’s friend called her to have a no parking sign removed neither thought of the children in danger of not having the reserve safe parking space for dropping and picking up. Our no parking sign should be replaced as soon as possible to prevent any harm. Sincerely, Jim. Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 11 Ms. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive Remember O-15-046? I want to thank again the sponsor and co-sponsors of that ordinance that had to go back to committee. For those of you who voted against it, I’m still a little bit upset; Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd; Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja; and Alderwoman Brown. I got some quotes out of the paper and the National Firefighters Association president John McAllister said “the proposed ordinance would shut down firefighter’s successful boot drive to raise money to fight for Muscular Dystrophy.” Ward 9 Alderman said Nashua’s police favor the bill and he also questioned the Nashua firefighter’s motives to opposing it knowing that their job is public safety and not raising money for a charity. I have a SmartPhone and on Saturday I was down on Spit Brook Road and I’ll pass this around, these are pictures of our firefighters in the middle of Spit Brook Road in traffic lanes. Daniel Webster Highway where an accident could be cause and most people were stopping as the lights were turning to give money for the boot drive. These are the people who come to our rescue when there’s a severe accident and pull us out with the jaws of life? These aren’t even the panhandlers on the islands, these are the firefighters right in the middle of the road. The president said that they opposed Alderman Soucy’s proposed ordinance because it would make their annual boot drives illegal. I think it should be illegal for them to be in the middle of traffic; that could cause a serious accident. I hope everyone is looking at this on the Board; your eyes should be on this, especially those who voted against this. This was a busy Saturday on a holiday weekend. We know how fast cars come down on Spit Brook Road and it’s not 25 mph and yet there out in the middle of the road. These are the firefighters that said poor me, we have to be out there; we won’t cause any accidents. There is a Whole Foods in Andover and they did their boot drive in the parking lot. I hope everyone who decided to vote against this, changes their mind and reconsiders because this is a horrible thing to have happened here in Nashua, it could have caused a terrible accident. Mr. Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne Drive I would like to go back to R-15-134 which you just passed. Everyone keeps talking about $89,000; that’s true that the salary increase is $89,523 but it is also the intentional part of the iceberg so when Alderman Siegel asks who is going to pay for that to apparently Superintendent Conrad but what he should have asked also is what about the remainder because the contract value is $125,000. The difference between $89,500 and $125,700 is your overhead, the 30% overhead for teachers. Who is supposed to pay for that? Mr. Conrad doesn’t care, he cares about the Board of Education. What I really want to talk about is the Supreme Court case that just came down on May 12th. It’s the famous case of the Secretary of State vs. the City of Nashua. This came out of the City of Nashua filing a recommendation in Superior Court and gets the Secretary of State for not printing the ballot on the recount for the spending cap question. Changing the index to a government index. The City of Nashua wanted the Secretary of State to print the ballot. The Secretary of State refused to print the ballot and it went to court and the court said that the Secretary of State needs to print the ballot. The Secretary of State printed the ballot on the second page and the City of Nashua went back to the Superior Court and said that’s not fair, you should print the ballot question on one page and at that point a Superior Court judge said Nashua go away, don’t bother me. The question was who should pay for the printing and who would pay for the recount. The Secretary of State because it lost the original recommendation took it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had to make a judgement about all of these things, it was not all that complicated really. In the 3 ½ page decision that came out on May 12th, the Supreme Court decided not to decide anything. It was basically 3 ½ pages of complicated terminology. It basically said that they decided to decide nothing. The recount is being done, the election is over and the law changed meanwhile as well. So, why am I here talking about it, because why would this go to court in the first place. We have one question and it had to go to court. The City of Manchester had a question that they put on the ballot and it was a very complex question but they put it in a very simple, two sentence statement. People voted on it with no problem. The City of Laconia had seven Charter questions and they were all on one page and there were no problems; people voted. Only the City of Nashua created a problem. It costs money to prepare all of this stuff and it costs money for the Secretary of the State to file the case and it takes money for this whole thing to go to the Supreme Court. What happened, the recount is an extremely confusing question on the ballot and most people did not understand. 1,900 voters did not vote on the Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 12 question and because they had a recount they had a chance to look at some of these ballots and the questions on some of the ballots were we don’t understand it. Why are you confusing us with this kind of question. Some crossed the whole thing out, it was confusing. The explanation talked about the City of Nashua buying fighter planes, it was total confusion. Out of all of this the results were very close. What I am asking is that next time a question comes up, make it very simple so you don’t disenfranchise 1,900 voters and create this craziness called litigation. Do not take this golden rod language, just make it simple; people don’t understand what any of that means and people don’t sit there for a ½ hour reading the ballot. Number two, ask the Mayor and the Mayor’s staff and the city attorney to look at it. The Supreme Court said they decided not to decide this case. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I wanted to thank Ledge Street Elementary School; they were one of four schools in the state who received a $250.00 from New Hampshire Project Learning Tree for an outdoor classroom. They are going to use it to enhance the existing classroom. Also, I know some of the Aldermen were at the Nashua Art’s Commission presentation on May 19th regarding the Performing Arts Center and just for members of the public, if you would like to look at the proposed locations and also make comments you can go to the Community Development and Arts and Media and there is an arrow where you can check to review the proposed locations as well as make comments. Alderman Chasse What a beautiful day for a walk at the parade yesterday for Memorial Day. I was glad to see a good crowd out there. I wish the parade on Veteran’s Day that we would get the same kind of a turnout. Everybody has somebody that they know that is either has not come back or has relatives in the armed services. Alderman Schoneman It was a beautiful day and thank all who organized it and who came out. In Ward 3 opening day at Holman Stadium with the Nashua Silver Nights is next Friday, June 5th and they are playing the Seacoast Mavericks. Saturday, June 6th is opening day of Summer Fun 2015 down at Greeley Park. Alderman Dowd I want to thank everyone for supporting that project on Amherst Street. There was a lot of hard work done behind the scenes and it’s a win/win for everyone. Committee announcements: Alderman Chasse Tuesday, June 2nd at 7:00 p.m. there is a Personnel & Administrative Affairs Committee meeting. President Deane There is a Budget Review Committee meeting on the 28th of May, the 1st of June, the 3rd of June and the public hearing is on the 4th of June at the Nashua High School South auditorium. Alderman Dowd Thursday we have a short CPC meeting and a JSSB committee meeting prior to the Budget Review Committee meeting. Board of Aldermen – 5/26/15 13 President Deane There was a great turnout at the parade yesterday, it was very nice. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE MAY 26, 2015, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk From: James B. and Mary E. Cutter 889-4246 86 Palm St., P.O. Box 69-Nashua, NH 03061-0069 Date: ¿May 26, 2015. To: Alderman-At-Large David W. Deane, President. Cc: Donnalee Lozeau, Mayor, Stephen T. Bennett, Counsel and Pamela T. Brown, Alderwoman, Ward #4. Subject: Ordinance #0-00-24 and return of No Parking sign. Dear Alderman Deane, On Sept. 9, 2014, Mayor Lozeau should not have ordered our No Parking sign removed because its parking spaces are like driveways and fire hydrants and are not part of the BSP. Thus, our Ord. #0-00-24 was not revoked and sign should be replaced. LAYOUT for Ord. #0-00-24. The No Parking sign prevents the blocking of our driveway, etc. This is to show the problem and the parking spaces used for we have going in/out of our it due to an increased number of driveway. speeders has become a safe place for children left and picked up who attend Marguerite's Place #85-87 Day Care. The new street design has cut Or 1veway Sidewalk ^ ho P a r k i n g sign the number of parking spaces for Palm St. with parking on one No P a r k i n g side of our 28* wide street. Parking spaces 71 wide leave 21' of open space that has increased the number of speeders and is P A L M S T R E E T more dangerous for pedestrians and children. Our street has lost many parking Sidewalk utility poi. Sidewalk spaces. But, those concerned about it like the people who work at Margerite•s Place can easily find parking on streets from where they can take short #88 #86 healthy walks to work and back. s f Sketch shows why there should be no parking opposite our narrow driveway. Car and driveway are done to scale. We have to be straight on backing into it. When Mayor Lozeau's friend called her to have our No Parking sign removed neither thought of the children and danger of not having the reserved safe parking spaces for leaving and picking them up. Our No Parking sign should be replaced ASAP to prevent any harm. Sincerely,