Committee on Infrastructure

JOINT MEETING COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE JUNE 18, 2014 A joint meeting of the Committee on Infrastructure and the Budget Review Committee was held on Wednesday, June 18, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess, Chairman of the Committee on Infrastructure, presided. Members of Committee on Infrastructure present: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess, Chair Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan, Vice Chair Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman Sean M. McGuinness (Arrived at 6:05 p.m.) Alderman David Schoneman Members of the Budget Review Committee present: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane, Chair Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire, Vice Chair Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Michael Soucy Also in Attendance: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja (Arrived at 6:30 p.m.) PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Doris Hohensee, 15 Swart Terrace I want to talk briefly about the playground location in Greeley Park on the east side. I think it’s great that we are coming to a resolution. I’m delighted to see that but I wanted to point out something. There’s an easement for electricity behind those houses. When I was in Ward 5 all the electricity was in the front and if the power went down it came back up quick. Where we have it behind our houses, it’s difficult for the trucks to get in. They have to go in over snow and it’s not just an easy fix. We are usually the last to get it fixed. There are power lines behind the houses next to Greeley Park. There are tracks of a heavy vehicle going right across the green space to this pole with a transformer on it because it just recently went down and they had to fix it. So, if you are going to put a playground in there you have to take that into account. Will it depress the rubber material you are putting in? If there is snow on the ground, will it mess up things if they can’t see it? Should there be a fence around it? If the trucks have to go a little to the right, or to the left, they’d have to go through trees. You have to take that into account. Is it an attractive nuisance if you have disable kids coming and there’s a thunder storm or a wind storm, and you have downed wires, you want to keep all of that in mind. Thank you very much for all of your hard work. Ms. Tracy Pappas, 12 Swart Terrace I am here to speak in favor of keeping the legislation regarding site #1 at Greeley Park linking the legislation authorizing the city to hire a designer from the Institute for Human Centered Design to draw up plans for the site. In an effort to smooth out the differences between the two sides of this issue, the neighbors of the park offered the entire east side of the park for a possible playground site. We didn’t Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 2 have to do that and we didn’t have to pay for half of the study. We did so in order for this community to start the healing process. This has been a contentious issue causing a rift within this community. We trust the Institute for Human Centered Design. The Legacy Group trusts the Institute. As such, it makes sense to keep these two pieces of legislation linked. Without the Institute for Human Centered Design, their professional designer, I can’t support site #1. I don’t want a peg and a poke. We have already had to live with the consequences of a half built band shell, let’s not make a similar mistake. This project has been too divisive for too long. It’s time to ask, do I want to take the high road and become part of the solution or do I want to fuel the fire and continue down the road of political division. I know that my neighbors and I want to be part of the solution, that’s why we helped pay for the study. As such, the neighbors earned a seat at the table with the designer. I ask the former Ward 3 Alderman to join us in being part of the solution. Mr. Tom Dionne, 24 Stark Street I want to thank the Aldermen for the work you do. My gut tells me that the proposal for the current playground in the current location on the east side is going to pass. I certainly appreciate all of the effort that’s gone into on both sides and I think we have come to a political compromise. However, I think the Board has been put in an untenable position. Who wants to be the person who votes against a free playground, especially one that’s going to be designated for children with special needs? Also, I think that there might be a lot of support simply because there’s been so much divisiveness and so much argument. People just want to put this behind them. After a lot of thought, I am going to urge you guys not to support this. I just don’t think it’s the right thing to do for Nashua. I understand that Greeley Park might be the best location but the study didn’t say that the other locations were bad, just that they might need a little bit more work. It may be a good location for the playground but is the playground good for Greeley Park? I can’t understand why the one park that needs Aldermanic approval has got to be the park at all costs, even the divisiveness and the discord that it has caused within this city. I don’t think the war and division are worth it and there may be some other motives at work. If you do decide to support it, I hope you will do so in a fiscally responsible manner. It’s like winning a free vacation and then finding out it’s going to cost several thousands of dollars. We have already spent $5,000 of tax payer money. I understand that we are going to do a design study for $15,000 so that’s a total of $20,000 plus infrastructure. That doesn’t really sound free to me, not to mention the fact that we’ve got no commitment. They could back out and then we would be left with a price tag. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the Legacy Group to either pay for that design or maybe escrow some funds so that if they can’t raise the funds or they have to back out, the tax payers aren’t left holding the bag. I’ve lived in Nashua for 47 years and I’ve never seen an issue like this. This is a war and I was hoping someone from the Legacy Group might be here tonight so if you allow me, I’d like to address them a little bit. Mr. Brand and the Legacy Group, I applaud what they are doing. These people have taken the time to study how to become a leader. Nashua needs good leaders and the fact that they want to build a playground for children with special needs is a tremendous effort. However, now we are embroiled in a huge battle and there’s divisiveness and people are polarized and are vehemently fighting to win. In a war, no one really wins. In this case, if the playground does go into Greeley Park, what could be a wonderful gift and a legacy to our children will become marred in controversy, kind of like the band shell or the horse shoe pits. It will be spoken of by many with ill will. I encourage the Legacy Group if they hear this that they alone have the power to resolve this. They alone can lead our city to a resolution that will sew peace and cooperation and avail their project with good will. They have the ability to choose an alternate location. Please do what you have trained yourselves to do, to be good leaders that seize opportunities given to them. Eric and the Legacy Group have been an opportunity. Take the opportunity and lead Nashua and give us a true legacy, change the location. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 3 Mr. Bob Burgess, 32 Bates Drive Now that I am more or less retired, I think I spend every day at Greeley Park during the summer. I’m fortunate to have a garden there. I think this site is the wrong site. Look at the activity that goes on at the band shell, we have the Summer Fest, we have band concerts, and these cancer drives; everything starts at the band shell. Now we are talking about this playground approximately 150 feet from here. This group said these youngsters need quiet, they need serene and everything else. There’s no quiet and there’s no serene there. On a Saturday, there are hundreds of kids playing soccer there. You have all kinds of baseball tournaments down there. This is too close to the band shell. I believe there is money to improve the band shell. Now if we put this in, God knows what’s going to happen there. We look at Greeley Park, the horse shoe pits; I contacted two of the Aldermen. There are 19 plow blades down there sitting there at Greeley Park being stored. These people couldn’t even park where they normally do. I don’t who you have to see to get anything done to clean up that pig pen done there. I’ve been coming to these meetings now for years. It’s an eye sore down there and everybody just turns their head. If the playground is going in Greeley Park then I’d like to see it where the existing playground is now and not down there. It’s too close to the band shell and all of the noise down there. If there’s hundreds of people playing soccer and hundreds of people at the band shell, who is going to monitor these youngsters? It’s so close to all of the noise. This isn’t a political move, this is a private citizen talking and I don’t think this should be made out of politics but this is the wrong spot. Now we are hiring this firm. How many playgrounds have they designed? I went to the website and I didn’t see any playgrounds that they have designed. They have designed a lot for handicapped buildings down in MASS and everything. I don’t know if we are going to be hiring a red heron there. To me this is the wrong location. The group that came in said they wanted it over where it would nice and quiet; well the kids aren’t going be able to do anything there. I think this is the wrong site. Mr. Dan Richardson, 70 Berkeley Street I wanted to let you know a little bit about me. I came to Nashua about 30 years ago. I came for a job which was in Massachusetts a short way from the border. When I went looking for a place to live, Nashua stood out as number one. I didn’t want to live in Massachusetts. I don’t want to subscribe to their laws. New Hampshire was significantly different at that time and we know what has happened since then. The things that Nashua offered were hospitals and at the time, we were much lower in terms of build out. There were still neighborhood lots with a small town environment. We had large city parks and a lot of green space. In the intervening years, a lot of those residential lots got filled in with houses and actually some of the older residents got lamb chopped where you put one house behind another house. Really ugly things started happening and Nashua has become a lot less attractive since then. One of the things that we still have is Greeley Park, Mine Falls Park; the public green space that we have. I used to brag about Nashua. It was only 1 ½ hours from anywhere you would want to be. Now it’s turned into a joke because Nashua is 1 ½ hours from some place I’d want to be. The one thing that you still have is the green space, the little bit of green space that we still have. It’s precious to the public and if you squander it then it’s gone forever. I do warn that we probably will vote to consume even more green space without any kind of remuneration by opening up other space. That’s due to several factors, some of which are essentially being offered on the altar of political expediency due to lies. We’ve had lies pervade. It’s an ugly thing to say but it’s true. Things like the existing park is dangerous; we have people cry and say they wouldn’t let their children play on Greeley Park playground equipment. It’s not dangerous. We had lies that said the playground could not be repaired. That’s not true at all; it just wasn’t repaired because there was a lack of interest in maintaining it. The plan was all along to not maintain it and not to put money in it because it’s going to be replaced. It’s in the Quadrant Report if you are interested. There are other things. This is not a gift. Seriously, take a look at what’s happening. Who is giving the gift? It’s the City of Nashua that’s giving the gift. We are giving the gift of our most precious possession which is our green space. That is first and foremost the most costly thing that is being given and its being given by the public to the Chamber Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 4 of Commerce as a marquee for their accomplishment. The other thing is that to date, the Chamber of Commerce has exactly nothing financially or otherwise. They have had meetings but they have given nothing. Private citizens have given $2,500 to have a study done so that there’s some reasonable basis to make a decision. It was completely opposed at many different levels. The city has spent $2,500 for the same thing. Now we are looking at another $15,000 for the city to spend on this park. When it comes to fruition, we could be spending as much as $100,000 of city money to destroy the green space and dig it up to condition it to put in the equipment. The city will own it at that point and the city will pay for its maintenance. I understand that the grounds area would be kind of a crushed rubber or whatever and that it has to be replaced every several years. That’s an expensive material. You have to clean it, you have to rake it out and perhaps vacuum it. What will the Chamber of Commerce be doing? They will be funneling other people’s money. They are going out and getting donations from other people. It’s not Chamber of Commerce money; this is money that they are getting from somebody else and it’s only enough to pay for the play sets. In the end, the Chamber of Commerce will have given nothing. Perhaps some of the individual within the Chamber of Commerce may contribute but as of yet, they have given nothing. So, I have to ask you, how much does it cost to acquire a free gift? Be truthful to yourselves. I hope tonight that if you don’t do the wise thing which is to reject consuming more green space in Greeley Park that you take some actions at least to minimize the impact and to make it a more welcoming thing. It has continued to be divisive. Try to make an effort to make it less divisive. Ms. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive At the last Board of Alderman meeting I did speak about Greeley Park and how much it was going to cost for the design to be done; $15,000 of tax payers dollars. I’m concerned about how this whole thing has played out. In my opinion, the Mayor is very good friends with Chris Williams of the Chamber of Commerce. They came to the Board of Alderman after the fact and it should have come to the Board of Alderman to begin with versus sitting at the Board of Public Works because you have the ultimate decision about Greeley Park as the moratorium states. The Alderman-at-Large from Ward 3 had the duty and obligation to back when this whole thing started to start sitting down with the abutters of Greeley Park and start talking about plans that were going to happen but she left it for the current Alderman to take the brunt of this. It becomes a vicious cycle. In politics, we tend to make friends with a lot of people, right or wrong, for our own political reasons. The Chamber of Commerce does a lot of good but they do more good for the downtown people and not for the rest of Nashua so I have a lot of concerns. Number one, the Friends of Greeley Park donated $2,500, the Legacy Group did not. The Legacy Group, as far as I was told, had a seat at the table. The people who donated the money had nothing. How fair and balanced is that? It is not. I guess if you are friends with certain people then you are entitled to a seat at the table. Corporation Counsel should have been challenged on that. If you are not friends with somebody, you don’t get a seat at the table. Number two, $15,000 of tax payer’s money for the study. We are supposed to be getting a “free” playground but “free” has no value sometimes when it doesn’t come in anybody’s hands. We are supposed to be getting a free gift from the Legacy Group. They should be responsible for the design study and the Friends of Greeley Park should have a seat at that table. They have already donated $2,500 into this whole mess. Then, the Telegraph never reported it because I do feel that there are times that they are one-sided with certain reporters. It was through the Union Leader that Alderman-at-Large Sheehan, who was representing Ward 3 when this whole mess was starting, that in order for the site to be developed, it’s going to cost about $86,000+ and they talked about the park and how much it was going to cost to do parking, etc. Excuse me, “free” means “free.” Why am I going to have pay in my taxes that the Mayor said Tuesday night that our taxes are going up under 3% to pay for this? We’ve got senior citizens that can’t afford this. We’ve got people on fixed income but we have to do it for the children. It’s always about the children in the city and I don’t want anybody to ever tell me that I don’t like anybody with a disability and I hate children. I raised three children and my mother was disabled so don’t tell me that. I understand about people with walking disabilities and people in wheelchairs because my mother was one of them. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 5 Some people will remember that when I got sworn in, my mother was there at the south high school in a wheel chair. We also focus, and we do a class warfare basically, the seniors against the kids. The kids against the seniors, this against that; rather than sitting down at the table and saying what is going to be the best for Nashua. If we are getting a “free” gift then I think they should have a bond or put the money in escrow so that we, the people, who elect all of you and pay your stipends through our taxes, we, the people, have the right to see the money. Show me the money. I’m tired of listening about this free gift and I’m tired of the Mayor being friends with everybody. We, the people, don’t get a shot at any of this. I want to see this and I shouldn’t have to pay for this out of my tax dollars. The question becomes if we are paying for all this site work, Alderman Sheehan, please tell me where all this money is going to come from since you told everybody it’s going to cost us money. Which account is it going to come from? Maybe we should take it from the sidewalk account. There you go. I’m tired of this and I think the people of the city are tired of not being told the truth until after the fact. What is the best area? I don’t know; there’s been so many areas thrown out but Sergeant’s Avenue is a flat area with plenty of parking. Could that be the best area, I don’t know, maybe. You don’t have any residents right over there, there’s no one abutting anything. You’ve got Holman Stadium and the pool. You can expand the bathrooms off of the pool. Here we are again fighting in this city because where is the transparency that our Mayor talks about that she’s going to have government transparent. I haven’t seen anything. If it was a transparent government then this whole thing would have been laid down on the table versus going to the Board of Public Works. It would have come to this Board and everybody would have understood what exactly was going on and nobody would have been put in the dark. The old playground equipment, my oldest child is 31, my middle one is 28, and my baby is 23. They were little when I was on the Board. I used to take them to the playground; I have no problem with monkey bars or the metal slide. I grew up with that, I’m 60 years old and I’m still alive, I didn’t kill myself on it. If I remember correctly the report also said that when you put the kids in all that plastic, they don’t have a chance to really realize what they need to do to adapt to different types of equipment. When we take a look at what’s going on here, I hope that this committee and the full Board will finally say enough is enough. It is the will of the people that most of us don’t want that $15,000 to be paid out of our taxes for the study and that the Legacy Group needs to put up or shut up already, that the site plans will be paid by the Legacy Group, put up or shut up, and that we will finally come to an agreement with everybody around the table being civilized on what is the best for Nashua not just for a small group at this point in time. Either they come up with the money or we scrap it and I don’t want to hear from anybody else in another community that I have to have it here. We’ve got to build it here so they can bring their kids from Litchfield, Hudson, and all over the place. If they want it, then they can call the Legacy Group and ask them for some of the money or they can ask their own town or city to please build a handicapped accessible playground. Mr. Tom Dionne, 24 Stark Street The Legacy Group was not here and I’d love for them to hear what I said previously. Mr. Brand, you have seen the discord and it’s obvious. I want to applaud you for the effort that you guys have put forth and I think it’s a wonderful thing. The idea of donating a playground, especially one that will meet the needs of everyone is just applaud able and noble. However, we are embroiled in a battle here. This is truly a war and each side is polarized and fighting vehemently to win. From the sounds of it, it sounds like the group might get their way and Greeley Park might be the location for the playground. As you are well aware, I don’t think anyone in a war wins. If Greeley Park is chosen for this location, what could be a wonderful gift to this town could become myriad always in controversy and a lot of people would look at it with ill will. However, Mr. Brand, you alone can lead our city to resolution that’s going to sew peace and lead your group to choose another location. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 6 Mr. Bob Burgess, 32 Bates Drive I read this study that this group out of Massachusetts came in and took at Greeley Park and the sites and I’d be curious what day of the week they went around. What was actually taking place at Greeley Park when they picked this site as a number one site? Was anything going on at the band shell? Was the soccer league playing? Was there any tournaments? Were there people at the horse shoe pits? This was one thing that was omitted out of that study that you people all praise that they did a fantastic job. To me, I would have asked those questions, I would’ve asked Ms. Brook that question when she was here. I think it’s important to find out what day of the week and what activities were taken place at that time. I could say gee that’s a nice seat out in front of city hall but if I go out there and there are people begging for money I’ll say geez, this isn’t the place to go. I think it’s important if we hire this outfit and I’d be curious how many playgrounds Ms. Brook has designed to this date. Mr. Michael Umali, 125 Cannongate I heard a speaker earlier and it breaks my heart how this has become the word they used was “war.” I have lived in Nashua for a very long time and I am speaking of a parent of a child with special needs. The gentleman who said that Mr. Brand should talk to Leadership Greater Nashua about how they should move forward with this project; if they read the documents that LGN presented at the Infrastructure Committee meeting, everything is in there, the studies, the survey, every single site that they looked at is there. It’s written and there’s a description about what’s bad about the site, what’s not good, what we can do about it, and how much it would cost the city to fix that site. Every single line item was described there including the designs that LGN put together. As far as the report that the Institute for Human Centered Design, LGN did not have any input about this. LGN was not asked to put the money, the $5,000, for the purpose of we don’t want to have a seat in there so that they could independently do their own survey and their own report without any knowledge from the Legacy Playground Group. This was selected by the Board of Alderman, which site to visit. I speak as parent and as a citizen of the city. I work with the community of parents of kids with special needs and I’m just really surprised that this has become about war. I did not expect that from the people of Nashua. You have to do this for the kids. The old playground has been sitting there for a long time. No one wants to touch it. I don’t know why. The city doesn’t want to spend any money on it or because the rules or the moratorium is stopping them from fixing that playground. Where else can you put an ADA compliant playground in the city without fixing or adding a bathroom? Last week someone said about the bathroom, “when you have a kid with special needs, a bathroom is a very important part of our lives.” Have you ever travelled with a kid on a long drive without planning your destinations? We have to make sure we have a plan. We go to a playground without a bathroom that’s ADA compliant and accessible it’s hard, especially with a kid in a wheel chair. Do you think Sergeant’s Avenue is easy to go to? It’s not. You have to understand us parents of kids with special kids. We are not accusing them of hating the people with disabilities; we never said that, we are just asking this Board, this city to put a playground in for kids. Where is there a site that has a bathroom that our kids can go? Have you offered one particular site that we could really bring our kids? None of you have offered one? We have to bring this community together. We decide today whether or not to go forward with a site. It’s your decision, not ours. You guys have the power to do this thing and you guys should have that decision based on what you have asked for. You have asked for an independent study for a site location and you got it. I remember that one of you said to me “you know I wish LGN could compromise.” I said okay, what kind of compromise and you said “well, maybe they could look at the east side.” I had to say look at the east for me to agree with your argument. Now, the east side is selected and we are still delaying that. LGN has offered every single compromise that was thrown at them from the west side to the existing playground to the east side. They offered different sites. Since 2012, everything is documented in here. What was given to the Aldermen, it’s written on the minutes, everything is right here. The designs, the site, the square footage, the bathroom, how much will it cost? It’s right there. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 7 Please, do this for the kids; it’s long overdue for the kids. We need a playground where kids with disabilities can play and go to without any fear of hurting themselves. Mr. Eric Brand, Eastbrook Drive I wasn’t planning on speaking tonight but I felt obligated just to give a few remarks. As I heard a previous speaking talking about bringing the community together and going through Leadership, you are supposed to learn how to bring the community together. I feel that we were accomplishing that. Our struggle that we had about going forward with a design after all of the research that we did going into this project, we felt we had done enough research. When the study indicated that things should move forward we said okay, we are going to believe in the study, we are going to let this Board and the residents believe in the study because for some reason, everybody wanted to believe somebody aside from local residents had done the tremendous amount of research. We accepted that and we still accept that. We are accepting the results of that study and the site that it chose. Last week I said that my personal and professional opinion is that you could hire ten different people and get ten different results as you are talking about different designs and architecture and different needs. At different times throughout this process we brought in 25 or as many as 30 different professionals, yet we chose to believe the last one that came in. That’s okay, we accepted that. So as you are talking about and having communication about the design later on, I feel comfortable with the design and I feel comfortable with it for one clear reason, to help bring the community together because I feel if we don’t go forward with that design that this is going to come right back to our group and it’s going to be debate over debate over debate over what does this look like, what is included with it, what’s not included with it, did we cover all of our bases? I am attempting to be a leader here, I am trying to lead in that direction that I feel is the best thing to do for the community and that is to let an outside company work with us to help us create that design so we can get what is best fitted and that there is nothing that can be thought of as hidden agendas behind the table. We want to make sure this comes out great. I want to put a lot more effort into it. I’ve already come up with three different designs. To this point, not one person has really questioned the designs that I’ve come up with but again, I want to make sure that this is transparent and everyone has the opportunity to speak before the Board approves the final design. I feel as being a leader, this is the right thing to do. I am happy to put together another design because I believe in this project but I don’t think that’s going to bring the community together. We had no seat at the table with the study. When the study came out and Alderman Deane had e-mailed me and asked me if I had anything that I wanted to include and pass onto the study I actually specifically thought about that and I thought about what I wanted to include with that; I specifically left out some items. I left out these items so that no one could ever sit here and say that I was trying to persuade this study in any direction. I left out the last design that we had done that we presented to the Infrastructure Committee back in April, the day after the Board had voted to push forward with the study. I left it out because I didn’t want to have any interference with that. I left out all of the research work that we had done that we spent two years on. We left that out so that group could do a clear independent study and come up with a site that they wanted to talk about it. We have clearly stated the amount of money that we have. I have clearly stated at previous meetings going back 12 months that we do not expect to start construction until we have all of the money in hand because I am not expecting the city to put up money that we don’t put out. I completely agree with that comment but that takes time and we have, as I have stated previously, we need to have site. Most people that do fundraising are actually surprised at how much money we have raised to date without having a site. How long do you want to fund raise for and put out your efforts, I mean you are only going to put your true efforts into something as long as you actually see an end in sight and with having a site, we can actually move forward and finish our fundraising. There were comments about the safety of the equipment. I made this comment back in December. There’s a difference between 1974 safety and 2014 safety. You can look at vehicles, what was the safety like in cars 70 years ago. When you look at more modern playground equipment, there’s a lot more modern safety. Those are some of the things that we are listening to and trying to Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 8 make better and trying make sure it is the best thing we can create. We are very open to listening to concerns and addressing everything we can. Thank you for your time. Ms. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive I just have one comment. I understand that he has raised the money for the playground but I think we and everyone else want to know if he’s going to pay $15,000 for the site plan design since he has so many designs already. COMMUNICATIONS - NONE NEW BUSINESS - RESOLUTIONS R-14-042 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman David Schoneman Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman Ken Siegel Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNING THE LEGACY PLAYGROUND Also assigned to the Finance Committee MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-042 BY ADDING IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH THE WORD “SCALE-ABLE” AFTER THE WORD “A” AND BEFORE THE WORD “DESIGN” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman I would like to consider a couple of amendments to R-14-042. In R-14-042, the paragraph that starts with “now therefore be it resolved by the Board of Aldermen of the City of Nashua that the city enter into a contract with the Institute of Human Centered Design for the purpose of proposing a design for the Legacy Playground. I’ve proposed to insert the word “scale-able” between the words “a” and “design” so it would read “Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of Alderman of the City of Nashua that the city enter into a contract with the Institute of Human Centered Design for the purpose of proposing a scale-able design for the Legacy Playground. My thinking for that is that I would like to try to avoid the issue if this resolution, R-14-001 is ultimately approved, I could try to avoid the issue where a project is specked out and then cannot be afforded. The Legacy Group has said that they have raised approximately $160,000 and their target was $250,000. If the designer comes up with something that’s going to cost $250,000 then we have a choice of either waiting until all of the money is raised which would be required or doing something smaller to begin with. If something was done that was smaller, I would like that to look like its complete when it’s done. If they were to come up with a design that is scale-able so that they would have let’s say $150,000 program, maybe a $200,000 program or maybe Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 9 even a $250,000 program, so that if we choose to go forward with a plan that matches the funds that they have, that when built would look complete. Alderman Siegel I would like to believe that the Institute of Human Centered Design would have proposed a scale-able design anyway but I am very much in favor of it for a couple of reasons and not just financially. I think as a practical matter this is something new and it would be really nice to learn from our experience without having some gigantic structure put in place that partially may need to be removed. I think the idea that we can scale it based on the available funds but also based on the available experiences, it’s helpful. Alderwoman Brown Would we be able to get a copy of this to the public that’s here so they can see what we are discussing? Alderman Schoneman Yes, I have more. Alderman Dowd I think in the context of the word “scale-able” I don’t have a problem with it. Chairman Donchess I think this resolution is also before the Budget Committee but for the purposes of the Infrastructure Committee meeting I don’t see any other discussion. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I believe there’s also a second part of the amendment. Alderman Schoneman There are two amendments. Are we going to vote on them individually or separately? Chairman Donchess You had only offered the first part so that’s what we were voting on. MOTION CARRIED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE TO AMEND MOTION CARRIED BY THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE TO AMEND MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO FURTHER AMEND SAID PARAGRAPH BY ADDING “AND A MEMBER OF FRIENDS OF GREELEY PARK” AFTER THE WORD “LEADERSHIP GREATER NASHUA” Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 10 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman The sentence would read “IHCD shall work with a member of Leadership Greater Nashua and a member of the Friends of Greeley Park, and will also hold a public input session during the design process.” The intent there is to circumvent or preempt issues that might only come to light during the public input session. By preempt, I mean deal with them during the design process so that by the time it comes to public input, any particularly egregious issues that would only crop up then would have been dealt with. Alderman Dowd The only concern I have is how you select who. Perhaps the amendment might want to address how they select the people or if they want to just offer one person. Chairman Donchess Just by reading the language I would comment that we don’t say who the Leadership Greater Nashua representative would be either. I suppose we would leave it up to those two organizations to designate someone, although we could make that clear, I’m not really arguing against making that clearer. Alderman Deane When I did the original legislation, I didn’t want to propose having us make a decision on who the individuals were. I don’t have a problem with amending it to reflect the group but let them figure that out. The same with the Leadership Group, I didn’t put anybody’s name in, it’s just the group itself, let them figure that out. That way, we are not playing any part of that and the three of them can sit down. I think the amendment is fine and I agree with Alderman Schoneman’s position on it. I think things can be worked out and people can look at things and hopefully diffuse a lot of the issues just by everybody putting their heads together. Alderwoman Brown I am a little surprised that this amendment is including a member of the Friends of Greeley Park. Please don’t take offense but it wasn’t their project. They did offer to participate and pay half of the expense for the study but we have not asked the Leadership Group what they thought about this. We haven’t been able to get any kind of public input about this concept and I don’t think it would be wise. I don’t know that any members of the Friends of Greeley Park have any kind of background in design or playgrounds. I just feel a little uncomfortable about that and I certainly would like public opinion, especially from the Leadership Group. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I’m comfortable with the addition of a member of the Friends of Greeley Park. To make sure for both groups that we don’t have different people coming as the representative that each group will designate a representative who shall work with the group so it’s very clear it’s one person. If someone is coming and meeting with them and then for whatever reason someone else comes, you’re not backtracking. Just to help the movement forward so we know who the point person is for each group. That person is responsible, although it’s not in here, to then get the information out to their group. Everyone from each group as well as the person from IHCD will know who the point person is as well as members of the Board of Aldermen and the chairs of the committees. That would be my only comment, that we very Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 11 clearly state there would be a designated member from each group that would be participating. I’m not making that as a recommendation because I don’t sit on either of these committees so I’m not offering that up as an amendment. Alderman Wilshire I fully support having a member of the Friends of Greeley Park involved, so I will support the amendment. Alderman Soucy I’m not sure if we’re really opening up another large door for continued conflict when we have different organizations possibly with different agendas. I think the item before us is it going in Greeley Park East and are we going to pay the $15,000? Are we really going to get involved in the design process and who is going to design it? We’ll have the final say but I’m just not sure I really want to go down there. I think the Legacy Group should go and do their work. They are willing to work with the Institute. I’ll listen to some more conversation before I make my final decision, but I’m just not sure it’s a good idea. Alderman Sheehan Correct me if I’m wrong, Alderman Deane, but my understanding when we were talking to them about this was that there might be more than one public input session where they might come up with an initial draft, take some feedback and then tweak things. I wasn’t seeing this as a one-session issue. If that was the case, my fear is design by committee often takes forever and doesn’t come out as good as if we basically let the professionals run with it. My concern was I thought that there was going to be multiple times for everybody to ring in. I don’t want to have one Friend of Greeley Park ring in. I’d like them all to be able to ring in. I’d like the public to be able to ring in. That’s my only concern. I thought there was going to be more of a process, a more charette type of input and then coming back. Alderman Deane If you look at the language in the fifth paragraph or so down, it says: “and will also hold a public input session during the design process.” That doesn’t limit anyone from going and offering concerns or ideas. My thought process was to have the people at the table and get some ideas and some concerns by anyone who wanted to bring them forward and then work from that; come back with a design and have everybody look at it. The last thing we want is people unhappy with everything. I’d like to just make it right the first time, while the session is going on, get the input. Maybe a few tweaks at the end and then be done with it. That was how I was looking at it. Alderman Sheehan I agree. Alderman McGuinness I absolutely believe a Friend of Greeley Park must be included, but I don’t’ think we really need to micromanage this. The parties are sufficiently motivated after these six months. I think the amendment is sound as it is, and it will just take its natural course. Alderman Siegel I also will support the amendment. I think it’s good to head off problems as the pass. People should feel like they are part of the process. That’s been part of the issue in the past. I think this just heads off Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 12 a potential problem. I’d also like to point out that it is us approving money from the city for the design. We really do get a sense of choosing of who gets to participate. In this instance, we’re funding it I suppose. That’s to address Alderwoman Brown’s concerns. I just don’t see how having a designated participant would be a bad thing at this point. In general I think most people are calming down and recognizing that this seems to be a good way to go about things. Alderwoman Brown I certainly believe that the Friends of Greeley Park would expectedly participate in the public input, but we have to realize the Leadership Group, it’s their original project. They are raising over $200,000. We need to ask them if this will work for them. I think it would be appropriate to ask the Leadership Group of Nashua what their opinion is. Alderman Deane I had a conversation with Mr. Brand about this. If he wants to come up and say yes or no, is that what you want to hear? Alderwoman Brown Sure. Alderman Deane If he wants to do that, that’s fine. If he doesn’t, he doesn’t have to. I can’t force him to do anything. Mr. Eric Brand Obviously this is new so I’m trying to absorb the amendment and put some light on it. My first thoughts are I want to work with the group and I want to make sure that everybody is happy with the design. But I also go back to Alderman Sheehan’s remarks that you can’t do a design by a committee. What I would propose would be an amendment to the amendment which would allow us to work with the Institute so we can, as designers and architects, put together a concept. I’m happy to once we have an initial concept down on paper, something that we can present, because this still is, thank you Alderman Brown, our project and it’s still near and dear to our hearts as to what we want this to come out as. I would be happy once something is on paper and we have something to talk about to then sit with as many of the members of the Friends of Greeley Park and talk with them and mark up that design prior to coming back to the Board for any type of meeting to save all of that time. I agree. We don’t need to have ten meetings to talk about the design at that point. I really feel we would be better served and get a better design by us working together as an architect and a designer that have many, many years of landscape, architecture and design experience. Alderman Deane If that’s the case and the amendment passes, will you be walking away from the project? I know it’s kind of a pointed question, but I’d just like an answer to that. Mr. Brand I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair question at this point without having enough time to absorb and really think about that. Chairman Donchess Why don’t we go on? The question has been asked. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 13 Alderman Deane You can think about it. Alderman Dowd The way I envision this amendment is the Institute is going to take input from the people that are donating the money for the park and all of the work that they’ve done. If they have someone from the Friends of Greeley Park there that might present suggestions or objections, it will be weighed by the Institute who is the actual end designer so they have all the input. Everyone else is going to have a shot at this at the public hearing but it might let them adjust the design if there’s some major concern that the Friends of Greeley Park have that they can live with the design. The ultimate decision will be by the Institute because they are the ones being paid to do the final design work. I don’t see it as a problem if you have a small group working together and just taking the input from the Friends of Greeley Park. There are a lot of very intelligent people that have given presentations and stuff. I know they are going to select somebody that is going to be articulate. It shouldn’t be somebody that’s slanted against everything they do. It should be presenting whatever input they can. They should also have the opinion that in the end when the Institute selects a design that they have to live with it until the public meeting and comment. Then the design comes back to the Board of Aldermen to see if we have anything. I don’t see it as a major problem as long as it’s not one person has veto rights and tells the Institute what they should or shouldn’t do. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t be paying them the money. They are going to take input from those two parties, make the design to the best of their ability to meet everybody’s requirements. Alderman Soucy Is this amendment going to be voted by Infrastructure or the whole Joint meeting? Chairman Donchess As I understand it, first by Infrastructure and then by the Budget Review Committee. Alderman Soucy Based on what Mr. Brand’s assessment, I can’t support this amendment and I won’t be supporting it. Alderman Schoneman I do want to emphasize that IHCD is being proposed to be the designer here. They are the one that is being hired. As Alderman Dowd said, if they can do that with input from the Legacy Group and from the Friends of Greeley Park, I think that would be good. By getting that knowledge during the process, I think would hopefully eliminate problems later on. Alderman McGuinness I’d just like to support both Alderman Schoneman and Alderman Dowd’s suggestion. Essentially what we’re giving the Institute is access to the opinions and they should have that without particular discipline. Alderman Schoneman I would add that if this passes I would hope that each side would designate a particular person so there is consistency in attendance. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 14 MOTION CARRIED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE TO FURTHER AMEND MOTION CARRIED BY THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE TO FURTHER AMEND MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN THAT THE COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE RECCOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-042 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE THAT THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE RECCOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-042 AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED TABLED IN COMMITTEE MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE R-14-001 MOTION CARRIED R-14-001, Amended Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman June M. Caron Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown APPROVING THE LOCATION OF THE LEGACY PLAYGROUND AT GREELEY PARK EAST SIDE Tabled at Committee on Infrastructure – 6/11/14 MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-001 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman I have some additional amendments I would like to discuss before we take up that question. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO FURTHER AMEND ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman I have a handout sheet with some amendments. This is a little more complex by virtue of the fact that we do not have a master plan and there are some elements that I believe would be covered in a master plan that wouldn’t need to be covered now. In the absence of a master plan I think that there are certain things that ought to be considered because we are making choices about Greeley Park in the absence of master plan but as if there was one in place. There could be one that says we can develop it or one that says we can preserve it. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 15 Alderwoman Brown Can the public have copies also? Chairman Donchess Yes. Alderman Schoneman MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #3 WHICH SAYS “THIS RESOLUTION IS CONTINGENT ON R-14-042 GAINING FINAL PASSAGE” MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #4 WHICH SAYS “A BUDGET AND DESIGN MUST BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BEFORE BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE PREP WORK” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd I think it goes without saying this but I would have no problem with putting it in the motion. Alderman Sheehan Yes, that was my point. That’s already the law. We can’t break any ground until we accept the gift and so if these things aren’t in place before we accept the gift that has a design and a budget, we can’t do that anyway so it’s a little redundant. Alderman Schoneman It may be redundant but I’ll take that risk. I know that the city will be doing some of the work and I assume it will be done by Parks & Recreation or the Public Works Department and if the process was moving forward with a design and a budget and somehow the city decided it would be advantageous to begin in advance in anticipating that a design would be finally approved, I wouldn’t want any of the city work to begin either and that’s my main interest there. Alderman McGuinness It may be redundant but I like it in there. Alderman Sheehan It is and I’ll support it but that rule applies to the city as much as it applies to outside people. MOTION CARRIED Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 16 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #5 WHICH SAYS “ONCE THE DESIGN AND BUDGET IS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, NO EXPANSION OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT A SEPARATE RESOLUTION AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN APPROVAL” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman I think this is important if we end up doing a scaled back design because of the funds that are available. If, for instance, IHCD comes up with a design for $150,000 that meets the funds that are currently raised, I want to make sure that if we approve that as the design and the budget, that any addition must be further approved and not covered by the original legislation R-14-001. Alderman McGuinness What expansion are you considering? Alderman Schoneman This would be if the complete design is a $250,000 playground and $160,000 is what’s been raised. We approve a $160,000 playground as a scaled back size. We are not going to go from the $160,000 up to the $250,000 without further approval and discussion. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #6 WHICH SAYS “LGN SHALL VERIFY THEY HAVE 100% OF THE REQUIRED FUNDS FOR THE APPROVED PROJECT BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE PREP WORK IS BEGUN” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman Whatever is approved, whether it’s the full project or a scaled back project that 100% of those funds are available before any construction or site prep work has begun. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #7 WHICH SAYS “IF NAMED, THE PLAYGROUND SHALL BE NAMED AFTER A HISTORICAL FIGURE SIGNIFICANT TO GREELEY PARK’S HISTORY SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Sheehan I would prefer it just said “no naming.” We already have Cotton on the building, there’s Greeley on the park, there’s plaques everywhere already in there. Let’s just stop putting famous people’s name in there. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 17 Alderman Schoneman I have no objection to that. I think the idea is to avoid naming it inappropriately. I think that the Joseph Cotton Playground at Greeley Park would be a nice name but if we decide simply not to name it, I’m okay with that. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #7 WHICH SAYS “THE PLAYGROUND SHALL NOT BE NAMED” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd Once the playground is built it’s going to become the property of the city and I think we already have legislation that covers #7 & #8 which says it can’t be done without the Board of Aldermen voting on it. After it’s given to the city, the Legacy Group will have nothing to do with it. Alderman McCarthy I’m not sure I know of any such legislation. In general, somebody has to approve naming stuff. If I look at other things in the city that have been done, Don Otto’s name is on the field at Stellos Stadium for a $100,000 contribution to a project that the city spent $4.5 million on. It seems like some recognition of the fact that the entire bill is being footed by the Leadership Greater Nashua might be appropriate. Alderman McGuinness I agree with Alderman Sheehan on this. I have had constituents suggest to me that there should be nothing there at that playground honoring anyone in the form of a memorial, an icon, or a plaque. I would further propose that we put that in paragraph #7. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #8 WHICH SAYS “NO NAME PLAQUES OR SIGNS OR BRICKS OR ANYTHING ELSE BEARING THE NAME OF A PERSON, COMPANY, ORGANIZATION, OR GROUP SHALL BE PLACED ON THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN GREELEY PARK” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman This is to diffuse any notion that the playground is being done to accomplish notoriety or publicity. Alderman Dowd I might suggest at the end of the sentence that “without approval of the Board of Alderman” be added since we have control over what happens in the park. Alderwoman Brown I am strongly opposed to this because as Alderman McCarthy noted, there are other locations in the city that have acknowledged the contribution of the groups. I think it would be appropriate for us to wait Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 18 until after the project is completed to discuss that. I would prefer that we not have this as a constraint. I think that we need to have the Leadership Group as part of that conversation. Alderman Sheehan They have no interest in having their name on it. Chairman Donchess I think that Leadership Greater Nashua has made it clear that they were not seeking this type of recognition. Alderman Schoneman I agree with that assessment, it’s just to put it in there. I agree with Alderman Dowd’s suggestion. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #8 WHICH SAYS “NO NAME PLAQUES OR SIGNS OR BRICKS OR ANYTHING ELSE BEARING THE NAME OF A PERSON, COMPANY, ORGANIZATION, OR GROUP SHALL BE PLACED ON THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT OR ANWHERE ELSE IN GREELEY PARK WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN” ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy I have no objection particularly if the Leadership Greater Nashua does not want to do that. I brought it up simply to point out that it is inconsistent with other actions taken by this Board and in the future we should be careful of that. I don’t particularly care for the selling naming rights option to get funding. There’s nothing that we so desperately need and can’t afford that we need to start plastering advertising all over a public facility. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #9 WHICH SAYS “NO CHANGE SHALL BE MADE TO THE PARKING FOOTPRINT INSIDE GREELEY PARK” ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy I am just concerned that the IHCD report did say that we needed to put in handicapped spaces. In order to provide van accessible handicapped spaces, it may require some additional pavement. I might recommend that it say “parking not be expanded except to accommodate the handicapped parking required for the site. Alderman Dowd There is room for parking although they will have to pave it. They will also have to put up a sign that says handicapped parking only. As long as it doesn’t preclude the paving and there’s plenty of room for Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 19 more than the four spaces she talked about on the same side of the road as where they want to put this. I think the space is there but we have to pave it and mark it. Chairman Donchess My recollection is that they were talking about the existing parking on the north side of the driveway next to the tennis courts. So you are saying that the existing parking area would have to be paved? Alderman Dowd Yes. Alderman Sheehan Perhaps we should do what Alderman McCarthy suggested and add the word “significant” between the words “No” and “change” to the parking footprint except to permit handicapped access inside of Greeley Park. There are also going to be some lip needs to change the elevation and the playing of semantics could happen later. I don’t want to change the character. Chairman Donchess The language as proposed gives authority to pave where there is no parking now. Alderman Schoneman I think the main concern is that the footprint not be expanded. I agree that the parking there was sufficient in terms of space but it would need to be paved. By not changing the footprint I think that allows for paving as necessary without an expansion of the area required. Alderman McCarthy I think the wording as it is allows us to pave it and stripe it for the handicapped access. That may reduce the total amount of parking that is available for things other than the playground because it will create some number of handicapped spaces. Chairman Donchess I think that is correct. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #9 WHICH SAYS “NO EXPANSION SHALL BE MADE TO THE PARKING FOOTPRINT INSIDE GREELEY PARK” MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #10 WHICH SAYS “A BUFFER ZONE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE PLAYGROUND AND THE NEIGHBORS” Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 20 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman I think this is important to be in here. This was the only site chosen by the way, that had neighbors. Alderman Sheehan The words “buffer zone” is rather broad and doesn’t really mean anything. I would hope that we could add the words “an evergreen buffer zone.” I know that shrubbery had been removed to create that green space and that was a concern of the neighbors. I think that would accomplish probably keeping the character of their backyards while keeping the ability to use the area. Alderman Schoneman I like the idea of having some kind of vegetation in there. I suppose that a 10-foot cleared area could be considered a buffer zone. If we say evergreen, that limits it to just evergreens so we could say a planted or vegetative buffer zone. I wouldn’t want to limit it to just evergreens because it could be a mix of evergreens and deciduous but I like the idea of specifying what it would be a little bit more clearly. Alderman Sheehan I would think that we could have some deciduous as well but I just think having something year round that’s green would be nice for them. Alderman McCarthy I think we are overcomplicating what’s going to get planted in trying to determine that here. Who is responsible for doing the planting? Alderman Sheehan I would hope it’s us; we have a bunch of stuff. Alderman Schoneman I would assume that it’s the city. Alderman McGuinness I like Alderman Sheehan’s idea about the evergreens because it’s year round. Alderman McCarthy It’s fine to put that in there. Candlestick pines or evergreens are terrible for buffer zones because after 10 years the sound just goes right underneath them. I would say vegetative and leave it to our experts in plantings as to what to put there. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I would agree that we need to leave it. We have people in the city who understand plantings. We’ve got two landscape architects who are going to be working on these designs. I don’t think you want to just Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 21 evergreen because you don’t know what you are going to get. I think you should just say that it’s going to be a planted area to provide a year-round buffer for the neighbors and then let them decide on what’s appropriate based on the scale of the design for the playground as well as the size of the property. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #10 WHICH SAYS “A PLANTED YEAR-ROUND BUFFER ZONE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE PLAYGROUND AND THE NEIGHBORS BY THE CITY” MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #11 WHICH SAYS “THE PLAYGROUND SHALL NOT BE LIT” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd I don’t think I’ve ever heard them say anything about lighting it. The only way you are going to light it is to run electrical service to that area which is outside the confines of what we are looking at. Alderman Sheehan They don’t want any lighting in it and because some people have floated the idea that they are going to put in stadium lighting, I think it will make people feel better to spell it out. Chairman Donchess There was an earlier design that I think did incorporate some type of lighting but I think that was some time in the past. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-14-001 TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH #12 WHICH SAYS “THERE SHALL BE NO STADIUM SEATING” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman I have heard that stadium seating can increase the draw for an area at night. Alderman Sheehan There was never any stadium seating in the other one. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-001 AS AMENEDED Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 22 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman These amendments perhaps substitute for a master plan. An existing master plan would have made our choice a lot easier. These are intended to protect Greeley Park if in fact this resolution is finally approved by the Board of Alderman. There are very strong considerations that remain on both sides of this. The notion that Greeley Park is irreplaceable has not gone away. A gentleman had made the statement that it’s clear that Greeley Park is good for the playground but it was not the only site that was good for the playground, there are other sites that are good for the playground. The question that he asked, which I have not heard a convincing answer to, is the playground good for Greeley Park? I want this to go the full Board for disposition but I do have reservations that I wish to express tonight not just when the full Board meets. I have no secrets about how I feel about this and I wouldn’t want to act one way tonight and then say something different when the full Board does convene. I think that the idea that the contentiousness is somehow going to go away; it’s not going to go away easily. It may someday go away but it’s not going to go away easily. We’ve hear people talk about the band shell and about the horse shoe pits, and the millennial statue. There have been a number of projects that have gone in there and they are not spoken of positively and that is a sad thing. I think if something else comes up before the Board of Alderman in a years’ time that’s another good idea and we still haven’t got a master plan, those who speak against it will speak negatively about this playground and that’s a fear that I have. I do not want to stand in the way of getting this to the full Board for final disposition; however, I feel that I would not be able to vote in the affirmative; to recommend final passage. MOTION CARRIED GENERAL DISCUSSION Alderman Sheehan I’d like to thank my colleagues for their time and work on this. I think that this is a move in the right direction. I think whether or not there is contention is something that we play into and we can either make it worse or we can make it better so I would urge everyone to work together to make it better. Additionally, I share Alderman Schoneman’s concerns and I had the same ones after band shell work that we did. Everyone was so sick of Greeley Park that we never did anything which is why I had entered legislation for a couple of things in Greeley Park so that we would be forced to talk about it and be forced to having some sort of recommending committee and my hope would be that their first issue would be to get a master plan. I think we all share those concerns. I went to Greeley Park before we moved here in 1973. It’s something that is very important to all of us and I think we’ve seen that by the level of commitment and passion. Alderman Schoneman I look forward to having conversations about the other piece of legislation. I will note though that the legislation, one of the operative words in that legislation is the development of Greeley Park and I think that as we move forward, what we really need to think about is whether Greeley Park going to be developed or preserved. R-14-001, if it’s approved, it is a resolution that it is in keeping with a master plan that advocated development, not one that advocated preservation. I would strongly advocate that we write that master plan with the notion of preservation and not development. Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 23 Alderman Dowd I fully support our Board starting or implementing a master plan for Greeley Park. I think it’s to the benefit of the entire city to have a plan and guidelines and rules associated with Greeley Park so we don’t get into these kinds of discussion in the future. I fully support that playground there because I think it is a natural wonder of the city but it’s also a place where our youth can go and enjoy the park. There is a significant amount of Greeley Park that’s not used whatsoever and I think even keeping in its natural state, we should find ways in that master plan to allow the use of that additional land which is probably just as much land as there is on the east side. Whether it be nature trails or whatever, I wouldn’t dictate what but I think if you have a master plan you can outlay how the park should be preserved and maintained going forward. I would support a master plan. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Dan Richardson, 70 Berkeley Street I want to thank my Ward Alderman, this turned out wonderful and a lot better than I had ever expected and the other Aldermen, thank you very much for your support. These are wonderful amendments, these address a great number of the concerns that a lot of us have had about this particular proposal. If it goes forward, it certainly does remove a lot of the antagonism. I also want to note one thing; what you’ve got now is sort of the beginnings of a template for putting together a Board of Alderman policy on how to control what’s going on at Greeley Park. The Parks & Recreation Department does have policies on their individual parks. They are AD Hoc and you almost have to go banging on the door to go get one. They have a policy on the band shell and other things. It really is your prerogative to develop a policy. I would recommend that you steer away from terms like a master plan because it does intonate development and I certainly do support preservation over that. Ms. Paula Johnson, 15 Westborn Drive Maybe a preservation plan would be a better word. I’m sorry Alderman McCarthy isn’t here but I have to let people know that comparing Stellos Stadium to Greeley Park is comparing apples to oranges and although Mr. Otto’s name is on the field, Stellos Stadium is not historical. I remember the controversy; I was on the Board of Education when that whole thing happened with the neighborhood. So before we talk about Stellos Stadium, people learn your facts about what happened and it’s not historical like Greeley Park. I just want to say that now that we are all aware that this has really become a public/private partnership and Alderman Donchess is usually so good at sending out e-mails to everybody and I would appreciate it if in fact, we the people, who are on your e-mail list can find out exactly where the $15,000 going to come from. Which line item in the budget and which department it will come from in order to pay for the design. Also, I’d like to know exactly how much it is going to cost we the people, for the site work and where is that going to come from, which line item and which department in the budget. To think anything less that we don’t have that right to know, because this is what my fear was, that whenever somebody is going to give us a gift that’s going to be free, it’s never free because somewhere along the line, we the people, have to do the site work and I’m not really happy about this. I have nothing against children. I have something against the fact that a gift is gift and we shouldn’t have to put our own money into this especially when our taxes keep going up year after year after year and the Mayor never proved me wrong when I said to her about a month ago, my taxes are rounding off to about 2% a year and I even talked about that at the budget hearing. My taxes have gone up by about 14% over the course. People on fixed incomes can’t do it anymore, we just can’t. I think that’s an important piece and I’d like to know exactly where this money is coming from. Also, handicapped spots, the law says one spot per 25 and two per 50. I believe it’s a $200 fine, I can’t remember, if anyone parks in a handicapped spot because they got tired of people parking in handicapped spots in the city and being disrespectful of people with disabilities so in case people think I Jt. Infrastructure/Budget – 06/18/14 Page 24 hate people with a disability, I don’t. I think these are important issues that have to be ironed out and again, I’d like to see where all of this money is going to come from. Mr. Dan Richardson, 70 Berkeley Street I wanted to talk about a different subject. I attended a meeting one time during public comment and I mentioned that there was a mailbox that was hanging out onto the street near Soprano’s Pizza. The very next week I found that it had been straightened up. I don’t know who did what but whoever took action and got the city to make that correction, I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Mr. Tom Dionne, 24 Stark Street Alderman Deane asked a question tonight that if we propose this amendment, will they walk away. As a taxpayer, I think we are entitled to answer. I’d like that question to be answered at some point and know the resolution to that. I think it would be fair before we go and spend $15,000 that we should know what they are going to do. REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN Alderwoman Brown I think this has been a wonderful discussion about this resolution and the proposed amendments and I want to thank Alderman Schoneman for putting this together and I also want to respond to a comment made earlier about various Aldermen making lies about how dangerous the park is or that it is unfixable. I just want to say that these are opinions. I certainly didn’t ask some agency to decide whether the playground was dangerous or not. As a parent, when my children were young I would not let them climb the slide because I thought it was too high. Also, someone had mentioned that the Chamber has not giving anything and the fact that they sponsor the Leadership Group; I think that they have paid for that group’s time and efforts. I wanted to acknowledge the hard work done by them. POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION - None ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 8:03 p.m. Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess, Chairman Infrastructure Committee Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane, Chairman Budget Review Committee Alderman David Schoneman, Committee Clerk Infrastructure Committee Alderman Ken Siegel, Committee Clerk Budget Review Committee