Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, September 22, 2015, at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President David W. Deane presided; City Clerk Patricia D. Piecuch recorded. Prayer was offered by City Clerk Patricia D. Piecuch; Alderman June M. Caron 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 I would begin by saying that it’s really wonderful to say the Pledge of Allegiance with students in the audience. Thank you for standing and sharing that with us. I will move on to two items that are on the agenda this evening. We have the purchase of 141 to 143 Burke Street and I just want to point out that I think this is a remarkable opportunity for this city, both for the consolidation of our public works as well as our proximity to the wastewater treatment plant and what that means for what is next for this city and our responsibilities. It’s not often that we have something that is so well suited to service the city’s need in a location where it can really make a difference so I am pleased that is on the agenda tonight and as most of you know that was passed by the Board of Public Works, the Infrastructure Committee, the Budget Review Committee and the Nashua City Planning Board all with very favorable reviews. Secondly, I wanted to take a moment to talk about the Franchise Agreement that’s on tonight’s agenda. I am concerned about some of the conversation that has taken place around it. I don’t see eye to eye with some of the concerns that have been raised. I can assure you that it was thoroughly vetted from our perspective. We had members of the CTAB Committee that played a role in the negotiating team, as a matter of fact; four of the five members of the negotiating team were CTAB members. My understanding of the priorities were one of which I agree with and one of which I am somewhat ambivalent about. One is that public access instead of being prohibitive to be able to use some of the franchise revenue that we get…in the current contract we have with Comcast funds can only be used out of that 1% the way it’s been distributed now for the government channel and the education channel. Sometime ago I had spoken with Mr. Teeboom about the opportunity to take away that prohibition and allow those funds to be spent for public, government and education. I supported that and I asked the negotiating team to consider it. The second it that the CTAB Committee really wanted to see an increase in the amount of money going into the special revenue fund that would pay for public, government and education which you all have in your budget book. They changed it from 1% to 1.3%. They didn’t increase the overall franchise fee which we should all know is a direct pass through to the people that watch cable television. It was important to me and I hope too many of you after all the work that the committee did including over 900 surveys, a public hearing and multiple meetings that the one thing that people of course were concerned about was the cost of their cable bill. It’s important for us to know that we cannot participate in any of that. The federal government strictly regulates what we are and what we are not allowed to do as a local municipality. We can put any amount of a franchise fee on somebody’s bill that comes to the city and we can use it for particular purposes. Our share has always been 4% and under this agreement it maintains that same 4% but it divides up what goes into the general revenue account and what goes into the special revenue account. At the Finance Committee meeting there was some confusion because there was a public presentation that talked about, I think it was more of an assumption that .5%, .5% would go each to government and education and .3% would go the public access. In fact some of us looked at the contract and I thought gee, maybe I just missed it. I didn’t miss it because it wasn’t in the contract. The contract simply put the 1.3% in the special revenue fund. I support that and I believe the Finance Committee supports that and the reason that we did it that way is because it should be the Budget Review Committee of this Board that makes the determination of how those funds should be shared between public, government and education. Currently our public access provider, who is a Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 2 vendor with the city with a contract that is at $85,000 per year. They have maintained that price since they started with the city. It is why we have not gone out to bid again. Should it go up, perhaps; should it change, maybe. I don’t really know the answer to that but I can tell you that if we are going talk about increasing that contract for the next budget year you probably would be well served to go out to bid and see what others might have to offer. They were the low bidder the last time. The budget that was sent to me by the current vendor proposed a budget of $157,000. While I have been a supporter of public access I am not a supporter of that much of an increase for public access. When I think about the competing demands in this city I am sure that I wouldn’t support spending more money in that manner but I think that decision should be left to the Budget Review Committee. There’s been a lot of talk about the process and I know that all of you have received information from our legal department and their perspective on what the roles should be. I can assure you and would be happy at any time to show you the process that was gone through. I believe the Director of IT has provided that memo to you about how everything played out. In the final analysis I think we have something that serves our citizens well and serves all three of the groups that are involved, public, government and education and think that it puts the decision making in the right hands which is the Budget Review Committee. I would hope that you would be comfortable passing that along this evening. The last thing that I will mention is that I was fortunate enough to participate in an event at BAE yesterday where Ralph Baer received the (IEEE) International Electronic and Electrical Engineers Recognition. He is a fellow in that group. For the kids in the audience, we have a gentleman who worked for this city for a long time back when I was a little bit younger than you and he was recognized and will be featured at the Smithsonian Museum for being the inventor of the video games. He invented the first video game because he believed that television back in those days was not being used to its full potential. Right there at Sanders which is now BAE, he was the first one to invent something called the Magnavox Odyssey and that has been what has created video games that have turned things around. I just think that it’s important to remember that we are so fortunate here in Nashua to be a community of innovation and it’s because of individual ideas and visions on what can happen that can really make a difference. Our small City of Nashua is recognized on the world stage because of an engineer who had a small spark of an idea that will always be forever remembered for changing the way we did video games. It was 1968 when the Magnavox Odyssey was put into play. Thank you all for your very kind attention this evening. RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR - There were none. RECOGNITION PERIOD R-15-174 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Board of Aldermen EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO THE 2015 DESTINATION IMAGINATION GLOBAL FINALISTS Given its first reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-15-174 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-174 given its second reading. MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-174 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-174 declared duly adopted. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 3 READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE AND THE READING SUSPENDED MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Patricia D. Piecuch, City Clerk Re: Record of Returns of the Mayoral Primary and Special Municipal Election MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE THE RECORD OF THE RETURNS AS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY CLERK FOR THE MAYORAL PRIMARY AND SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD SEPTEMBER 8, 2015; THAT THE ELECTION RESULTS FOR THE CANDIDATES NAMED THEREIN BE DECLARED FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE; THAT THE TWO CANDIDATES HAVING RECEIVED THE LARGEST NUMBER OF VOTES BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR FOR THE NOVEMBER 3, 2015, MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION; AND, THAT JOEL ACKERMAN HAVING RECEIVED THE LARGEST NUMBER OF VOTES CAST BE DECLARED ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE REMAINING TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2015 MOTION CARRIED President Deane declared Joel Ackerman duly elected to the Office of the Board of Public Works for a term to expire December 31, 2015. Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel. From: Bruce R. Codagnone, CIO/IT Division Director Re: (R-15-168) Comcast Franchise Agreement – Amended per Finance Committee MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Mr. Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne Drive I am speaking to you tonight with the experience of having been a founder together with former Director John Barker of the Cable Television Studio that the city owns today. I want to address the Franchise Agreement that the Mayor talked about earlier. There are a lot of problems with this agreement. First of all, Nashua Revised Ordinance 12:18 specifically assign legal authority to CTAB to review and comment on this agreement and that did not happen. CTAB voted the last time it met to ask the Finance Committee to hold so it could have the Franchise Agreement referred to it and that the members could at least read the agreement because most members had never even seen t. That referral did not happen. The letter from the IT Director that you have was fine but it does not have legal authority in the Nashua Revised Ordinances, only CTAB has. Only CTAB is named in the entire book of ordinances as having the authority to review and comment and make recommendations to the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor. They would have to act on those recommendations after CTAB had made them. The negotiating team that the Mayor established of six members of which four were CTAB members, they also don’t have the legal authority according to the Nashua Revised Ordinances to make final recommendations to Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 4 the Board of Aldermen. They can negotiate, it’s the Mayor’s team but it cannot substitute for CTAB. There is nothing in the ordinances that says anything about a negotiating team of any number, certainly four members does not represent a subcommittee of fifteen members, it wasn’t even established by CTAB. The Finance Committee to which this Board referred the agreement has absolutely no cable television experience, none. If you look at the minutes it very clearly showed a bunch of confusion over what that agreement was all about. There was no technical experience. There was no review by the PEG manager’s. The Mayor asked why should the PEG managers look at this. Only the PEG managers who are full-time employees or full-time contractors understand what is going on in the studio. It’s a complex studio with a lot of equipment with a very complex network that connects sixteen different buildings. The field operations over at Stello’s Stadium is not a trivial operation. Apparently I don’t understand much of it and I helped establish it. Only the PEG managers can make judgements. I was on CTAB for about six years the PEG managers were never consulted. None of the other cities in the State of New Hampshire were asked what they did with the renewed Franchise Agreement’s. I know because I checked with some of the cities. Finally there was no detailed financial analysis made of what you really need. The IT Director’s recommendation said he made it seven years and if we adjusted the thing from seven to ten years, that’s not a financial analysis. A financial analysis is one of need. What is it that you have and what is it that you need for the next seven years on this contract because once you sign it you are locked in. The experience with Comcast is once they have it signed they will not budge one lever of that contract. 1.3% is proposed now which basically leaves – if you think about it is ½ % currently and roughly it goes to the E channel and ½% goes to the G channel and leaves 3/10%, which represents $90,000 to the public access channel. That is not enough; they should at least each have ½ %. That still leaves for the city over $850,000 for general revenue purposes. Many cities in Massachusetts take 100% of the franchise fees and in this city we are talking about 1 ½ % and 2 ½ % going back to the city. So we are talking about $450,000 to operate all of these three channels and $850,000 to the city to pay for God knows what. Not for cable television. I called Manchester and asked what they spent, it was interesting because they $451,000, just about the same amount as Nashua; 1.5% not 1.3%. They have the same staffing; it’s very interesting, four full-time and two part-time people to operate three channels around the clock seven days a week. We are asking for $450,000. What does Manchester do that Nashua doesn’t do? R-09-166, I know it well because I sponsored it initially established initial funding for the public access channel and guess how much it was? It was $106,000, Cookson would know that. They asked that it be funded for $90,000 in the next seven years. It seems to me that you should give them…I agree with the Mayor, let the Budget Review Committee look at the pink pages and look at the special revenue funds and see if they want to figure it out. They ought to at least have equal share, you don’t want an unequal share because it is going to create serious problems. We are talking about $60,000 in difference between the 1.3% that’s in there now and the 1.5% that we ask for. The Mayor talks about the franchise fee, right now the city requires 4% and that represents about $4.00 on your cable bill every month. To go to 5% it would go to $5.00. Most every city including Concord and Manchester is 5%. Why does Nashua stick to this 4% for the next seven years? Who negotiated that? What is your objective for keeping the same franchise fee? We are talking about $1.00 out of a typically $150.00 bill. There are technical issues. There is no high definition clause. We are talking about a seven year operation with no high definition television. If you don’t put it in the agreement you’ll never get it because Comcast will say it’s not in the agreement. There ought to be at least a clause about high definition sometime in the seven years. The high definition server needs to be upgraded and that’s going to cost about $120,000. The education channel is still an analog channel and that’s very strange. The public and government channels are digital interface and education is still analog and that should be fixed, that’s not a Comcast problem. They provide the modem interface and they haven’t upgraded the education channel to digital. The franchise agreement proposes $201,000 and the current one is $150,000; maybe it’s good and maybe it’s not but which is the correct number? There’s no financial analysis anywhere on what their needs are. Finally, there are exhibits at the back of the agreement, two, three, four and five which are the same exhibits that existed ten years ago. They need to get fixed, nobody fixed it. I don’t know what this negotiating team did for one year; all they did was adjust a couple of dollar figures. I can’t figure out what they did, maybe Alderman Moriarty can explain it because he was on the team. I recommend in summary that this Board holds this Franchise Agreement, R-15-168 at the Board level and send it to CTAB and tell CTAB to review it and then send back the recommendations to the Board and they can decide what to do with the recommendation. That’s the Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 5 process described in the Nashua Revised Ordinances and that’s a process that was not followed and it should be followed and I urge you to follow that approach. Mr. Dan Toomey, 10 Lantern Lane I work in the field; I work in Lowell at the Community Access Center. We have four channels, one of which run out of the high school and have a separate budget. We have two community stations and then one government channel. We have a budget of almost $800,000 and that’s not including the budget that the high school has. We have been in effect for about 25 years and we serve a demographic of largely immigrants and refugees. We have one station that just services them. What public access does is that it serves underserved communities meaning communities that commercial television can’t service because of the fact that they have to make a profit. There are communities such as the arts community, the immigrant refugee’s community, the non-profit communities and a number of other groups that are serviced by community television. I wanted to give a contrast of what is going on down in Lowell which is only 20 minutes from here and what’s going on here in Nashua. Thank you very much for support of our community television station. Ms. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive I hate Comcast so the less money I have to give them the happier I would be. I am here to talk about R- 15-172 and I know that this is just going to pass and I understand the reasoning why we need that piece of property. I understood why we wanted that property close to ten years ago where First Student is and we didn’t buy it. Here are some of my concerns, I get it that the wastewater treatment plant is going to have to be expanded but $4.2 million is a lot of money. We just had a debate here in May or June regarding that we need a new health department and that didn’t happen. I mean the Mayor is leaving and come January we are going to have a new Mayor, it could be somebody sitting in this chamber or an outsider but why are we doing this now? Why isn’t the new Mayor having the chance to weigh in on these things? Also, the $17 million that’s going to come up on road repair, why aren’t we going to hold that off? Everything is being done at the last minutes. The end of the year everything has to be done and rammed through. Some of my problems here are that we buy the building for $4.2 million, asbestos remediation, here we go with this asbestos and reading from the minutes and I didn’t catch really what Mr. Sullivan was saying last night, I wasn’t too happy when I caught the streaming this morning about behaviors and attitudes. This could cost us “optimistic price to build out is probably $6 million but a more realistic is probably $10 million which could mean that we’d spend about $14 million all in for everything that has been described and what needs to be done with the building.” We’ve got this Broad Street Parkway that’s coming on with our taxes. I didn’t want that parkway but the Board voted for it. We are going to start running people out of the city. Our taxes have gone up about 20% to 24% in the last eight years. You know, this is getting out of hand, we’ve got people on fixed incomes, do we understand what fixed incomes mean? It means they are getting one income and they can’t go out and get another income and there are people on social security and disability or maybe can only have one income in the house. I know that I am not able to work right now due to illness; I had to quit my job so there’s one income coming into my house right now. I think we have to start taking a look at our taxpayers and what is our burden to be able to afford to pay our taxes. My taxes are over $5,000 per year now. When we couple this with the Broad Street Parkway, we are going to buy this and what exactly is the true cost going to be here? What is the true cost of the sidewalks now? What also bothered me was the streets garage, I am proposing that be removed which opens up the opportunity for Conway Ice to build a second sheet of ice over that reception area.” So that is our sports complex now and remember the Aldermen that were on the Board when we gave that land to Conway, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Deane, Alderman McCarthy and myself; I voted against it. I believe they pay $1.00 per year. If Conway wants this let’s sell them the property for fair market value and this way the amount of money that they will pay us for this goes into this building that we are going to buy and it brings the cost down to the taxpayers. That’s not a hard thing to figure out, that’s a good business decision. Don’t give me that look Alderman Siegel, I don’t appreciate it. Be respectful. I am asking the Board to please consider this, if you are going to give the sheet of ice to Conway, if this is one of the reasons why we are doing this make them pay for the land and also consider the cost. What is it going to cost to retrofit that new building Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 6 down there if you are going to bring all your lifts and everything out of the garage, the barn over there, and move it down? We had to buy that building which is the administration building right now and it had a lot of issues with mold but we could have bought the building right now that housed First Student and it wouldn’t have cost us all of this money. Thank you. Mr. Dick Gagnon, Operations Manager, Access Nashua I would like to begin by publicly thanking Mayor Lozeau for taking the initiative to establish a public access channel here in Nashua and through her efforts and the approval of the Aldermen at the time; Access Nashua was established on July 1, 2011. My company was hired to operate and manage it and since then, Access Nashua has become a community of innovation. This is bragging but it’s honestly the truth. Other public access channels around New Hampshire do not have the quality that we have in Nashua. Since December 1, 2011, which is when our first show was recorded, we have produced over 54 series totaling over 1,300 episodes. We are talking about almost one show a day. At the present time we have about fifteen shows that are actively producing episodes of which eleven of them are almost every week. I’d also like to say that in the four plus years that we have been in operation, we’ve only had one complaint from the Mayor and the Aldermen and that was our Hands-Up Project which was on our website that automatically e-mailed the Aldermen and the Mayor and we heard comments to please tell them to stop and we heard and we stopped. Our slogan is “It’s Your Station.” It’s not myself and my team members, it’s not our station, it’s your station and it’s a chance for people of the public to give their views and opinions and share their interests with other people. At the CTAB meeting it was said that they were putting in .3% for public to fund it and again, I want to thank everyone who has been instrumental in getting us protected by being in the Franchise Agreement. There was a budget put forward, which as Mr. Teeboom said would equal anywhere from $90,000 to $95,000, however what we are talking about is for the next seven years. Our budget would have to be roughly around that area unless the Budget Review Committee the way it is set up now would determine that education doesn’t need as much or government doesn’t need as much and we will pass it on to the public channel. I’m not sure that will happen and that’s the reason that I am here requesting that you seriously take a look at a 1.5% paid share of the franchise fee so that the three channels could be budgeted equally and we can all perform our jobs to the best of our abilities. Another item that is not in the Franchise Agreement and I should also mention that I am the past president of the New Hampshire Coalition for Community Media and have been on the Board for many years, and I also worked with Pete Johnson who is your education channel director and Dottie Grover who is the mother of public access. We worked on Franchise Agreement’s to come up with a sample template that towns and cities could use and I do know that Pete had mentioned to the committee members and to the powers that be that there were two workshops on Franchise Agreement’s because it’s not an easy thing. I don’t know if the members attended or not. In looking over the agreement that is in front of you today, one of the other items that’s not in there is HD. We are talking again about a seven year agreement. Seven years ago DVD’s replaced VHS. HD in seven years isn’t even going to be the normal. Apple is coming out with a little camera on their IPhone that’s going to shoot ultra HD and here we are with standard def. I would recommend that you insert in the Franchise Agreement a stipulation with Comcast that if any station in the State of New Hampshire receives a HD channel that the City of Nashua automatically get an HD channel as well. I know we can’t dictate it but you need to cover yourselves. Another thing also is about the 4% franchise fee. The max that you can legally ask for is 5%. I understand the Mayor’s thinking of keeping it at the 4% however, a clause should be put into the agreement that stipulates that at any time during the seven years if the city warrants and agrees that they should request an increase whether it’s ½% or 5% up to the 5% that they can just be allowed to do that with a letter in writing to Comcast. I think the agreement needs a little more looking at. Thank you and respectfully I hope you will consider raising the 1.3% to 1.5%. Ms. Kathy Merrin-McCoy, 4 Birch Hill Drive I am here as a resident of Nashua. I have lived here for 43 years and I watch Access Nashua, I enjoy it and I think the quality of it is unbelievable. I saw an advertisement looking for volunteers for the station so I was never in the studio until about six months ago. I really liked the way the television shows looked so I thought it would be interesting and fun. I was stunned at what they produced because for that Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 7 amount of money I don’t understand how anything can operate. I started looking at other public access stations throughout New Hampshire and they reminded me of the old stereotype of public television and this was not the old stereotype as it reminded me of real television. My message is that I really enjoy it and I can’t believe it only gets $85,000. Hopefully this will be looked at and reviewed and somebody can realize that you are making a big mistake if you only give them that budget increase. Thank you. Mr. Ken Gidge, 22 Hayden Street I am one of many of your state representatives and my wife is also a state representative. I don’t always agree with Fred Teeboom and hardly ever do but ten years ago it was Fred Teeboom, myself and one other person and you people were ready to sign a contract with Comcast. We stood up and said really loud, don’t do it. We said look we need one more channel so we can have a public access television station and it made such a raucous that I believe that they turned the T.V. off and I believe they turned the sound off. When it came back on and we were talking about, Alderman Bolton asked did if anyone ever went to the meetings and asked for another channel and he said no. I stood up and said yes I did. Finally they stopped the meeting signing the contract and then two days later Comcast said sure, we’ll give you another channel. When I hear something about HD, while it is a big deal the way things are going so fast it isn’t. In fact it may cost more later just to catch up because we will be two steps behind. Public access is so important. After the contract was signed you didn’t finance it for four years I believe. The first show that was taped was with the former Mayor Bernie Streeter, Richard Gagnon and myself. I just got a bill through the committee, it went through the House and Senate and the Governor signed it and I’m going to be the chair of 279 which is to study the economic impact of arts and culture in the State of New Hampshire. This is a big deal because this means that we have an opportunity for public access to influence the entire state. Some of the shows that we will be doing on this will be shown on other stations. When it comes down to financing, just understand this, you are getting great quality and you are not paying as much as everyone else. It is an honor to stand here and talk to you and I thank you very much for giving me the time. Mr. David Robbins, State Representative As I look around I see some faces that I have seen on television and I’ve seen them on Access Nashua. I am a political junkie so I think of the political aspect of this and one of the things that I really love about community access television is the ability to really drill down on a very local level. Where else can local officials come on and have a forum to present, debate and be questioned about their beliefs. The democratic process is tremendously important. This is where our lives are lived, in Nashua and the folks that represent us, you folks, are in many ways the most important representatives that we have because you have the impact on our lives. I would ask you to keep that in mind. I would suggest to you that based on what you heard tonight and what I suspect you will hear that maybe it’s time to take another look and look at what the consequences may be. Doing that might be prudent and useful. Thank you very much. Ms. Lisa Law, 78 Concord Street I just wanted to speak tonight in support of public access. I worked for ten years in public broadcasting; as a television producer at channel 9 and channel 11 and also at Manchester Community Television. It is a gem to have the resources that we have at the public access station here in Nashua. I started producing a show about six months ago featuring different people in the community doing positive things. In one of my shows which we put all on You Tube and I’ve had about 600 views worldwide so the impact that we have is not only creating a positive atmosphere in our city but we also have the ability to impact people across the world and have them think more positive thoughts. Please look deeper into these decisions tonight and if you can put off the vote please do so and do some more research. We don’t want to make decisions tonight that will impact the creativity and innovation going on down there. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 8 Ms. Denise McIntosh, 35 Edmond Drive I also produce a show with Access Nashua and it is called Fairytale Access and we’ve had some great success with it. We have children that come in from the city as hosts. Our shows have 1.8 million viewers when we share it across the United States. We are in 109 countries because they like the concept of the show and the way the station operates. This past March we were invited to Egypt to do a show there. The biggest concern that I have with what happened with this contract is that it didn’t go through the CTAB that you have set up and that sends the wrong message. If you have a CTAB then they should be able to look at it and give you their recommendations. Moreover, if you are giving something back to Comcast, we are not getting a break on our bill so you should use all of the funds that you have available so they can upgrade equipment and show the great things we do in Nashua. We are on travel lists all over the place and it just brings in more business. Thank you so much for your time. Senator Kevin Avard, 68 Bartemus Trail I host two shows; one is called the Gate City Chronicles and the other is Speak Up. We’ve done about 260 shows and we have about 71,000 views and these views range from Egypt to Australia and it puts Nashua on the map. Local businesses can come on the show and say come take a look. Nashua is building into their infrastructure with new sidewalks and the parkway. Part of the infrastructure is your local access and I strongly believe that allows you a huge trophy to put on your shelf. We have one of the most premier local access shows in the state. We have the capability of high definition. People can come on our show and be heard. Kids can come in high school and junior high school and learn how to edit for free. It’s putting in action what we have here in education. You can apply it and it doesn’t cost the individual anything. High definition is one of those things that will be gone tomorrow it will be ultra. I would strongly urge you to at least consider holding off to re-look at this and maybe adding to this infrastructure. Thank you very much for your time. PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS Joint Convention with Edgewood Cemetery Board of Trustees MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCGUINNESS THAT THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEET IN JOINT CONVENTION WITH THE EDGEWOOD CEMETERY BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING TWO TRUSTEES MOTION CARRIED President Deane called for nominations. Trustee Maffee nominated Hollis Harrington and Kevin Slattery for five-year terms to expire March 31, 2020 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS MOTION CARRIED A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was taken on the appointment of Hollis Harrington and Kevin Slattery to the Edgewood Cemetery Board of Trustees for terms to expire March 31, 2020, which resulted as follows: Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 9 Yea: Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Schoneman, 20 Alderman Chasse, Alderman Caron, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Soucy, Alderman Donchess, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman Siegel, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderwoman Brown, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Deane, Trustee Douglas Barker, Trustee Norman Hall, Trustee Morgan Hollis Trustee Thomas Maffee, Mayor Lozeau Nay: Trustee Carl Andrade, Trustee Allan Barker, Rev. James Chaloner, 5 Trustee Charles Hall, Mr. Hollis Harrington, Mr. Kevin Slattery MOTION CARRIED President Deane declared Hollis Harrington and Kevin Slattery duly appointed to the Edgewood Cemetery Board of Trustees for a term to expire March 31, 2020. As Mr. Harrington and Mr. Slattery are not present they will be sworn in at a later date. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY THAT THE CONVENTION NOW ARISE MOTION CARRIED Appointments by the Mayor The following Appointments by the Mayor were read into the record: Conservation Commission Sherry Dutzy (Reappointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2018 18 Swart Terrace Nashua, NH 03064 Richard Gillespie (Reappointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2018 15 Spencer Drive Nashua, NH 03062 Zoning Board of Adjustment Jean-Paul Boucher (Reappointment) Term to Expire: September 11, 2018 8 Fox Meadow Road Nashua, NH 03060 Mariellen MacKay, Alternate (New Appointment) Term to Expire: October 1, 2018 9 Webster Street Nashua, NH 03064 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR AS READ AND REFER THEM TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Finance Committee............................................................................. 09/02/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the September 2, 2015 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 10 Finance Committee............................................................................. 09/16/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the September 16, 2015 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure .............................................................. 09/10/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the September 10, 2015 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Special Committee on Infrastructure .................................................. 09/14/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the September 14, 2015 Special Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Pennichuck Water Special Committee .............................................. 09/15/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the September 15, 2015 Pennichuck Water Special 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-15-155 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau AMENDING THE BY-LAWS OF ALL SUBSIDIARIES OF PENNICHUCK CORPORATION Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-155 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Moriarty I just thought I would mention a couple of things of what happened. There are several subsidiaries of Pennichuck and they each have their own set of by-laws and the most impactful thing is that there is going to be one set of by-laws for each of the individual subsidiaries so they will all be the same. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-155 declared duly adopted. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 11 R-15-162 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau RELATIVE TO THE RE-APPROPRIATION OF FISCAL YEAR FY2016 ESCROWS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO AMEND R-15-162 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PLACED ON OUR DESKS THIS EVENING ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse What is the difference between the original and the golden rod? Alderman Siegel There are two changes. The first one is to fund the police overtime expendable trust fund. As you recall we created that trust fund and the decision was made to fund it later depending on what was left over from the budget. In fact, the likelihood of there being additional money from the welfare department was the target. This is in fact where the money is coming from and it is $90,000. The second thing is to amend the engineering from transit to fund some of the Yudicky Farm changes, the southwest park at Yudicky Farm access road improvements that we discussed previously. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-162 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Moriarty What does downtown IC expenses 2014? Mayor Lozeau It stands for the Downtown Improvement Committee. That’s the amount beyond the $728,000 for calendar year 14’. President Deane I will not be supporting this and I stated my reasons last night. Alderwoman Brown Would it be possible to allow Mayor Lozeau to comment on this if she so desires? President Deane If she would like to comment on the legislation she certainly can. Mayor Lozeau I would just say that this is the money that each year they are able to…it’s above the revenue of $728,000 for the parking meters and it’s the money that they often come in to the Budget Review Committee or the Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 12 Finance Committee, depending on where it is with their recommendations of where they would like that money to be spent. Alderwoman Brown I am concerned about taking monies out of welfare assistance, could you… Mayor Lozeau Alderwoman Brown, I thought that your question was relating specifically to the Downtown Improvement Committee money. We are not taking money out of welfare assistance, it’s out of what was surplused not spent appropriations this year. That’s where it came from so it doesn’t impact our current budget for welfare assistance. Alderwoman Brown Thank you. Alderman Cookson I have a question about the Downtown Improvement Committee because I believe that the legislation was originally intended to cover the $728,000 which we had to meet initially before anything over and beyond that was allocated to the improvement committee. The $728,000 was put in place to cover the staffing of downtown parking enforcement including payroll, benefits and overtime. Is that still correct? Mayor Lozeau The $728,000 was actually the number that was determined by the committee at the time to be the minimum amount of revenue that was needed for that and then the amount above that came in because of the increase in parking meters was what was used. If you are asking me right now off the top of my head if I can tell you that the $728,000 covers the cost that you have outlined, I haven’t looked at it recently but it has been covering that cost and I don’t think that those have increased at an amount that could exceed that. Alderman Cookson No, I don’t believe so either, Mayor. My follow-up question to that would be do we still have the same staffing levels because I know that we’ve gone through some transition with parking enforcement in downtown and I’m wondering if we are still at those staffing levels that require the $728,000 be set aside so that they are there to cover payroll, overtime and benefits? President Deane But the $728,000 is outside of the escrows. Mayor Lozeau Exactly. President Deane So what you are wondering is if the $728,000 covers the cost for parking enforcement, we can find that out. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 13 Alderman McCarthy My recollection is that the $728,000 singularly because it was the revenue number for the year when the ordinance went into effect and I don’t know that we had any knowledge of whether that was more or less than enough to fund the parking enforcement at that time. President Deane Well if it wasn’t enough I am sure we would have heard about it by now. Alderman Cookson That was absolutely part of the conversation back then was the staffing and being able to cover that staffing with that amount of money. President Deane Mayor, can you please have Mr. Griffin provide the Board with the operating cost in its entirety of the parking enforcement since this legislation’s inception and what balance we had left over if any since the legislation was approved? Mayor Lozeau I would be happy to do that. I know that we have somebody on every shift but I can’t tell you if we have three or four staff on every shift. MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-162 declared duly adopted as amended. R-15-167 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ESTABLISHING THE USE OF FUND BALANCE FOR TAX RATE Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-167 BY ROLL CALL A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Schoneman, 15 Alderman Chasse, Alderman Caron, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Soucy, Alderman Donchess, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman Siegel, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderwoman Brown, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-167 declared duly adopted. R-15-168 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau APPROVING A PROPOSED CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT RENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY OF NASHUA AND COMCAST Given its second reading; Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 14 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO AMEND R-15-168 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse The difference is that it’s going to be handled by the Budget Review Committee during budget time. Alderman Moriarty I was going to direct your attention to section 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3; there was a copy that I’ll talk to you about after we approve this assuming we do that was missing some very substantial pieces of text. MOTION CARRIED Alderman Moriarty Is a motion to re-refer non-debatable and the reason I ask is I don’t want to talk about something and then make a non-debatable motion out of line. President Deane It’s a debatable motion. MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO RE-REFER R-15-168 AS AMENDED TO THE CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY BOARD WITH COMMENTS TO THEN BE FORWARDED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess I would like to support the motion and suggest also the CTAB Committee. I think a number of the speakers tonight have raised some questions about the details of the agreement. Some corrections would seem to be really simple, for example, the idea that there should be a provision for HD to be included if some other agreement elsewhere in New Hampshire includes HD. Alderman Siegel I certainly understand Alderman Donchess’ comments about wanting to re-refer to CTAB based on public comment but the re-referral to the Finance Committee, what has changed that would merit that? I assume that after CTAB it would come back to the Finance Committee. Is there something else that we didn’t see last night? Alderman Moriarty The issue isn’t that the Finance Committee didn’t see it, it’s that CTAB didn’t see it. There was a mix up at no fault to anybody. The document that went to CTAB didn’t contain any of this language so CTAB had agreed to put down a short list of recommended changes and send that to the Finance Committee and a couple of things got in the way and I wasn’t able to table it in the Finance Committee in order to let the Finance Committee get an opportunity to hear CTAB’s input. We are hoping to send it back to the Finance Committee so that input from CTAB can show up and the Finance Committee can hear their comments. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 15 President Deane So we want CTAB to review and send their comments and recommendations as part of the legislation to the Finance Committee, is that correct? Alderman Moriarty Correct. Alderman Dowd Are there any time constraints on this agreement? President Deane I don’t think so. Alderman McCarthy I wanted to comment that during the public comment section Mr. Teeboom had commented on some things like the appendices’ that are attached to it and that they ought to be revisited and I suspect that he is correct because a quick look at it showed that Comcast is still responsible for giving free service to the Chandler Library which is probably not appropriate to say the least. MOTION CARRIED R-15-172 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman June M. Caron AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 141-143 BURKE STREET, TAX MAP 11, LOT 158, FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $4,200,000 Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-172 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Moriarty It’s interesting that we have a $14 million impact to the city and the gallery emptied. In general I think this purchase has a lot of merits. There is one thing I would like to get on record and that is I don’t mind approving the bond for this and also understanding that there is going to be $10 million of money that’s going to be needed to upgrade the building but the idea of spending next year’s money this year if we plan for it properly. I just don’t want to spend next year’s money this year and then spend next year’s money again next year. Is there anybody that can go on record from, in particular the School Construction Project Committee that can assure us that there will not be another bond from the School Construction Project Committee next year? Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 16 Alderman McCarthy The short answer is no because those requests come from the school board and the Joint Special School Building Committee. I suspect that there is intent not to do that for a year or two. Alderman Dowd I have talked with Shawn Smith and his planning budget is moved out a couple of years before we touch another school. Alderman Moriarty Can we recognize that if such a bond did appear in the next term that there are at least five of us here that are willing to vote no? Chairman Deane I don’t think it’s appropriate to be asking people to commit to anything. Alderman Moriarty I recognize that we can’t vote on such a thing but I would be willing listen to other’s on the Board of Aldermen and hear what they have to say and if they are likeminded then that would be good to hear. Alderman Chasse This is kind of going crazy here because some of us aren’t even going to be here next year. Alderman Dowd The Board of Education doesn’t plan to do another project for a couple of years but one never knows in maintenance what could happen. Something might happen that is beyond our control. Alderman Cookson I’d like to ask for a roll call vote on this. Alderman Donchess I think that the strongest reason to move forward on this has to do with the fact that wastewater treatment plant is adjacent to this property and we’ve heard that it’s likely that an expansion of the wastewater treatment plant will be required to handle phosphates or other pollutant that the EPA want us to remove. If we were to not purchase this and it fell into other hands and they developed this property and we had to take it by eminent domain then $4 million would be a drop in the bucket. I think we should move forward with it. Alderman McCarthy I have a question for corporation counsel. We had discussed unsealing the minutes of the non-public meetings and I am wondering whether there is a reason why we need to…as I understand it right now is that we have three options, which are to leave them sealed until we have executed the sale and then unseal them entirely, we could unseal them partially with the redactions about the purchase and sale agreement and I think that’s the only one that we can do tonight if we don’t leave them sealed. I’m looking for some guidance on which of those is most expedient. Is it difficult to do the redactions and Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 17 provide that portion to the public immediately or is there a reason why we need to leave them sealed until the transaction has been executed? Attorney Bennett I don’t see any reason to keep the majority of the minutes sealed. The redactions are straight forward and ready to go. President Deane The Legislative Office completed all of the non-public minutes. MOTION FOR FINAL PASSAGE WITHDRAWN MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO UNSEAL THE MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC SESSION RELATIVE TO 141-143 BURKE STREET MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO UNSEAL THE MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC SESSIONS THAT WERE HELD REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF 141-143 BURKE STREET WITH THE REDACTIONS SUGGESTED BY CORPORATION COUNSEL MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-172 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Cookson I had asked at the committee level to see if there was some way to understand the impact on mileage on the vehicles and while it’s not pertinent to this particular resolution I would like to make sure that request is still being looked at and I should expect some information back with regard to it. President Deane Mayor, can you get the information for Alderman Cookson? Mayor Lozeau We will do our best, we have discussed it. As I told you that night I am not quite sure it can be done quite the way you would like it to be but we are happy to continue to talk about it. Alderman Cookson Thank you, I appreciate that. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja At the committee meeting we had discussed the financial benefits of this and one of the things that was mentioned was the price that would be paid by Conway for that land. Could you refresh my memory? I know that there was a dollar amount that came up on your slide. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 18 Mayor Lozeau There was not a dollar amount as it related specifically to Conway but there was some conversation in minutes that have now been unsealed. I am meeting with Conway and we had talked about an amount of $500,000. I don’t know that that is still on the table so that is why I am meeting with them. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja Thank you. Alderman Moriarty I would like to make one comment for the record that mentioned during the no-public session and that is that we don’t know who we are betting against. It would be useful for me to know if we did know who they are because I could speculate that it was a company that wanted to come in and put this building to good use and possibly employ several hundred people. In essence, by purchasing this building we may be in effect reducing jobs in Nashua by several hundred but we don’t know. Alderman Siegel While I am sensitive to the idea of leasing or having this in private hands the wastewater treatment plant drives this and the eminent domain process would be a nightmare. We have to have the ability to expand the wastewater treatment plant based on stuff we already know is on the table on our horizon. I don’t think it’s a good option to not do this. President Deane I agree. Alderman Schoneman I agree as well. My perspective on this is to have the ability to expand the wastewater treatment plant as necessary and the benefit to consolidation is very good to the city as well and specifically for Ward 3 the idea that we can restore and preserve Greeley Park further I think is very advantageous to us. When we do this, in my mind, it means we can’t do other things and I recognize that trade-off but this I think is a priority. Alderman McCarthy I just wanted to comment on the prospect of someone using the building for another purpose. I think when people read the minutes on the non-public session, from what I saw it certainly looked like the person we were bidding against was merely engaged in speculation on the real estate as an investment probably with the intent of ultimately selling it to us at a higher price and I don’t think we are going to see that we stopped someone from opening a major new manufacturing plant on that site. A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Schoneman, 14 Alderman Chasse, Alderman Caron, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Soucy, Alderman Donchess, Alderman Siegel, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderwoman Brown, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Deane Nay: Alderman Moriarty 1 Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 19 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-172 declared duly adopted. R-15-173 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FOUR MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,200,000) FOR THE PURCHASE OF 141-143 BURKE STREET Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-173 BY ROLL CALL A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Schoneman, 14 Alderman Chasse, Alderman Caron, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Soucy, Alderman Donchess, Alderman Siegel, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderwoman Brown, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Deane Nay: Alderman Moriarty 1 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-173 declared duly adopted. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES 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 second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO AMEND O-15-054 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess The change that was recommended by the committee was to alter the end date of the no fee period for Zone 3. The original proposal had been for December 27th and the committee thought that it made sense to extend the deadline to January 3rd. MOTION CARRIED Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 20 MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-15-054 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess Last year the committee and the Board passed a no fee period for Zone 3 which is the two parking garages as well as some outlying areas on the street. Last year it was a compromised approach because some people on Main Street had objected to any no fee period Zone 1 and 2. The recommendation here is that we proceed as we did last year. The meters do get bagged and the like. The only change from last year is that the end date of the no fee period for Zone 3 was extended to January 3rd. Alderman McCarthy I am not going to support it. This was a subject of substantial discussion at the last Downtown Improvement Committee meeting and a number of the members of the committee who are merchant’s downtown recommended strongly against it. Part of the argument was you find someone that leases spaces for my employees in the two parking garages so why would I just not do that for the month of December and pay the daily parking for the first few days and use the free parking for the rest of the month which has two negative effects. One is that we lose revenue and two is that they will then park in the metered spaces which are now bagged so it makes life harder for the people that do want to come downtown. I think we should be working on things like the better marketing of downtown. We’d be much better off in making it easier to find the parking that we’ve got than trying to entice people with free parking. Alderman Donchess With respect to the point regarding the garages, I believe it is correct to say that in years prior to last year the garages were administratively made free in December. The reason that we just included the garage language in this resolution as passed last year was to make sure that there wasn’t an implication that if we did not say the garages that somehow we were saying that they should pay so I think that the garages have been free for some years and really what this does is to make sure that the garages are included and then add a little bit more. My only point is that this garage program, I believe has existed for quite some time. Alderman McCarthy I believe you are right but I don’t believe that we have any data that says it was successful or unsuccessful or otherwise. I don’t think we ever bothered to measure whether we lost lease revenue in December when we did that or what any of the effects were. Alderman Moriarty People like free parking, I’m on board. Alderman Schoneman We are talking about the extension of one week here and I think it’s still part of the holiday season. I think the holiday season is what draws people out for evening activities downtown. I will support it. Alderman McCarthy We are talking about final passage at the moment, correct? It’s not just the one week amendment, it’s the entirety of it being free for the month of December that we are debating. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 21 Alderman Schoneman I thought the concern was with final passage was for the extra week. If not that’s fine. MOTION CARRIED Ordinance O-15-054 declared duly adopted as amended. NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-15-175 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SITE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SPRINT SPECTRUM REALTY COMPANY, L.P. (SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.) TO RELOCATE THE LESSEE’S COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT WHIPPLE STREET, MINES FALL PARK TO THE NEW REPLACEMENT TOWER Given its first reading; assigned to the FINANCE COMMITTEE and the BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS by President Deane R-15-176 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Michael Soucy APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND UAW PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE NASHUA POLICE DEPARTMENT, LOCAL #2322, FROM JULY 1, 2015, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2018 AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Deane R-15-177 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF UP TO $270,000 OF LEASE PAYMENTS GENERATED FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25 CROWN STREET, ACQUIRED WITH FEDERAL FUNDS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARK AND RIDE Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-15-067 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman David Schoneman EXTENDING THE OVERNIGHT ON-STREET PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM FOR ANOTHER YEAR Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane O-15-068 Endorser: Alderman Sean M. McGuinness EXEMPTING CERTAIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Given its first reading; Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 22 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO ACCEPT THE FIRST READING OF O-15-068, ASSIGN IT TO THE PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND THE NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD; AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2015, AT 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd Shouldn’t that also go to the Zoning Board as setbacks are zoning issues? President Deane No. MOTION CARRIED O-15-069 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Michael Soucy AMENDING CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE ORDINANCE FINES AND REQUIRING MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS TO PAY TOWING FEES Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Deane PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Mary Elizabeth Carroll, 91 ½ Chandler Street Hi Aldermen, I need some help. I went to the Environmental Health Department at the end of July and also called her on Friday. I have an environmental health issue in my house and car. Heidi Peak, the environmental lady still does not believe me. Chemicals are deadly. She told me to go to Community Council for a doctor. Something in my house and car is an environmental health issue and not a psychiatrist issue. The chemical spill that happened in November of 2013 should have been put in the newspaper or television and it was not. Heidi Peak and Patti Rogers, the Mayor’s former secretary kept this a secret. Heidi Peak is still keeping this airborne chemical a secret. I need someone to tell my son about the chemical as he is not feeling it. This airborne chemical is an allergy and it is in everyone’s pores of their skin. Massachusetts is worse than New Hampshire; Nashua is not bad, it’s just in the clothes, I don’t think it’s in the houses. I am trying to get it out of my house but my son is allowing his girlfriend in the house and they are passing these chemicals back and forth. Neither one of them feel it and I believe this chemical is an allergy just like the bed bugs but bed bugs are not deadly. How do I get rid of something contagious when my son is allowing people in my house and going to their houses. The spill in November, 2013, should have been put in the newspaper but it was not. Since Nashua passed this to the whole state, well Heidi by herself by not doing anything, and Massachusetts and maybe the other states and the other six continents through the tires and the soles on the shoes. Maybe we are stuck with it until God ends the world but in the meantime people in New Hampshire and Massachusetts have a right to know what is in their skin, houses and cars. Symptoms are pain in the whole body, burning, sore throat and cutting sensation. Thank you and I’d like some help. Ms. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive I guess I am surprised that we passed $4.2 million we passed just like that. Mr. Cutter, conversation after conversation and nothing has been done yet. When it comes to spending we do that very quickly here. I think it is great that the minutes of the non-public is unsealed but now that it is unsealed the Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 23 public gets to read it but the legislation is passed. We, the people in this city have no right to read what on in non-public and question any of the information because the legislation has already passed for $4.2 million which will really cost over $10 million when you start with the asbestos remediation. I get it about it about the wastewater. I am really shocked about the downtown parking meters for Christmas I mean you can’t let people shop for free. Downtown merchants don’t get why people don’t shop down there, some of the Aldermen don’t get why people don’t shop down there. They can go to the mall for free. When I sat on this Board I voted against the meters. There are not a lot of stores down there that cater to the average person anyway, the prices are too high. Now your anchor store is leaving and where do his customers go? They go with him. You can attract more people with free parking and if you have traffic enforcement down there you could chalk the tires and give them two hours for free. The merchants and a lot of people on this Board are driving the customers out of the downtown. You want to build the downtown, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. You have to bring in the stores and make it user friendly down there. I don’t care how much money you invest to downtown but if you don’t have the right clients and the right stores you are not going to bring in the people. You have the stores that cater to the people who live in the downtown area and not expensive boutiques that people can’t afford. I’m tired of giving my parking meter “X” amount of revenue to corporate welfare downtown. That money should be taken and put into street paving versus $17 million for bonding which is going to be shameful. Eventually somebody has got to pay for it and us poor schnooks in the city who don’t get raises; look what is happening in the school department. Why do you think the school district is getting rid of their custodians? The unions priced themselves out of the market. There are just so much raises that can go on. Nobody else gets raises out there but the union contracts keep going up 2%, 3% and 4%. This economy is not prosperous but $4.2 million went just like that. I won’t be able to make the meeting tomorrow night but I hope something is done with Mr. Cutter once and for all. Let’s have some respect for this 83-year old man. I want to end this by saying a comment was made about me two weeks ago. If I am harassing someone then call the police. Thank you. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderwoman Brown There is an employment opportunity tomorrow at St. Patrick’s Church at the gym at 29 Spring Street. Between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. there is a dress for success opportunity for people to get free business attire and the whole job fair is between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and that’s tomorrow. Alderman Moriarty I would like highlight R-15-176 and give everybody a heads up. It’s the collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Police Commissioners and the UAW Employee’s. The base salary plus other costs of 3.1% one year; 2.3% the next year and 2.3% the next year. It’s way above inflation and the spending cap. Alderman Soucy I want to speak briefly on tonight’s public comment referencing R-15-172 indicating that this Board spent $4.2 million without any significant conversation. I want to let the public know that there was plenty of significant conversation at the committee level and then there was a very good public hearing where the Mayor gave a very good presentation and people were allowed to speak. The prevailing opinion was valid. To say that this was just done is incorrect, it was done with a lot of thought. Alderman Cookson I’d like to congratulate the Board of Public Works newly sworn in commissioner, Joel Ackerman and I’m looking forward to working with him. Board of Aldermen – 9/22/15 Page 24 Alderman Schoneman At the airport the last two days and continuing tomorrow there are some World War II airplanes and it gives you a chance to look at pieces of history and go for a ride if you want. It’s a great event and the parking lot was full. President Deane I’d like to make a comment about the amount of work and the minutes that were released on that piece of property. It’s kind of hard to be in the middle of a negotiating the sale on a piece of property and take our strategy that we’ve sealed in a non-public session and release that for who to look at because once it’s released everybody has a right to look at it, even the people that we are bidding against. Folks might not be happy with the process. I strongly supported the project. Alderman Siegel, happy birthday tomorrow. Committee announcements: Alderman Donchess The Infrastructure Committee meets tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman Dowd The School Construction Project Committee is going to meet at 7:00 p.m. and the Joint Special School Building Committee will meet at 7:30 p.m. at the Sunset Heights this coming Thursday. Alderman Chasse The Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee meets right here next Monday night at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2015, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:39 p.m. Attest: Patricia D. Piecuch, City Clerk