Finance Committee

REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE APRIL 16, 2014 A meeting of the Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014, at 7:03 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Mayor Donnalee Lozeau, Chair, presided. Members of the Committee present: Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty, Vice Chair Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Also in Attendance: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Schoneman Alderman Soucy PUBLIC COMMENT Dan Richardson – 70 Berkeley Street, Nashua I am here to speak in support of R-14-023. The purpose of this legislation is to have a contract with the Institute for Human Centered Design for the purpose of evaluating potential sites for the location of the Legacy Playground. I think it’s great that the Board of Alderman has seen the wisdom in evaluating the various sites for their adaptability and their purpose in meeting the requirements of ADA and the usefulness for the clientele that this playground is intended to appeal to. I wanted to draw attention to one of the “whereas clauses.” It says “whereas” one half of the cost of the assessment will be paid for by private donations and the other half of the cost will be paid for by the city. We have citizens that are interested in baring the burden on this as it is a contribution to the effort. The Mayor herself, in the past, has supported the concept of having such a study. At the January 24, 2013, Board of Public Works meeting, the minutes indicate that “Mayor Lozeau has made a request for the professional opinion regarding autism as it relates to the Greeley Park and Sergeant’s Avenue locations as well as sketches regarding the footprint of the park layout and road usage and other potential for another grant opportunity.” I thought it was wonderful that the Mayor had also conceived the wisdom in looking at the various sites and the purpose. In the following March an analysis actually was produced by Nick Caggiano relative to the site analysis that had nine different elements for the various parks. He doesn’t say how he rated them but he draws a conclusion that “after evaluating these locations it is our recommendation that we consider Greeley Park.” He also had a matrix that says Pro and Con – Sergeant’s Avenue and Greeley Park. I compared this analysis to the analysis that was shown by the Leadership Greater Nashua and throughout the analysis; some of the very same elements are cited as far as being analyzed. They are actually contrary so we have two different groups looking at the same elements to be analyzed and coming up with contrary conclusions. I can provide those to you if you can’t find them on-line which I am sure you can. I thought that was bizarre. I noticed there is another playground issue going on at Sergeant’s Avenue. This one has an IFB which I think means Information for Bid that was placed so given that the purpose of the Finance Committee is to review the appropriateness of an expenditure, I am sure it hasn’t gotten to you yet because that hasn’t actually cleared the review process. They have bids coming in at around $39,000 which is the amount of money that’s available. I looked at the criteria that was put together for that playground and there were a bunch of questions that came back from the vendors. #1 – there is no scope identified no square footage, no overview of the intended design and no budget number. The only company that has this is whoever did the initial work. Is this a $10K, a $100K for 20 kids, for 200 kids, do you want a climber that is environmentally sound, are you accepting PVC coated, etc. The response that came back from the city for Sergeant’s Avenue playground, which is supposed to be ADA compliant, the playground area is 7,000 SF, Finance – 04/16/14 Page 2 do not see more than 20 – 30 children using the set at any one time. The playground should be ADA compliant for 3 – 12 year olds if we have to break it up into two separate units. The items mentioned are just possibilities not must haves. We are hoping to rely on the creativity of the vendor to get a nature based playground. We did not work with a playground company to develop this scope, in fact, that is why we were so broad so we can see what everyone can offer. That’s an example of what might come to you if that breaks lose. It is an inappropriate expenditure and unspecified and I think the Finance Committee can do a better job than that. I would recommend that you not approve that and that would free up $39,000 to put towards the Legacy Playground and do a good job at Sergeant’s Avenue. Oscar Valasis – 92 Main Street, Nashua As you can see, I am a young professional and I grew up in Nashua. I moved away for a few years but moved back. I work at Apple as a Business Specialist and I am proud to call Nashua my home. I hope to start a family and bring my kids to the playground at Greeley Park. I am sad that Greeley Park is currently not accessible to kids and adults with challenges. Alderman Brian McCarthy made a good point at the Board of Alderman meeting last week. He said that it seems to amazing him that we are not doing such a great job at treating Greeley Park the way we should be. If we agree that Greeley Park is a precious place, shouldn’t we be treating it as precious? Leaving Greeley Park to only be accessible for people without disabilities is a disgust and a very poor mark against the city. You have an opportunity to do something about this by accepting a gift from the community so you can make it accessible to everybody without having to pay anything. This is so simple and I am flabbergasted that the city officials would think of such a logical decision that requires months and months of studies by taxpayers. I ask that you recommend that the study not go forward so we can publicly hear Greeley Park and end the circulation debate once and for all. I am a product of this community; I grew up at the Nashua Children’s Home. What got us out of the house and active was to be able to have a great park nearby so we could run and play and have memories. I had my little brother the other day and he wasn’t able to enjoy Greeley Park to its full capacity. We all want our children to have that precious memory but with a better and bigger park with better equipment that is safe and accessible for everybody. Francis Murphy – 72 Berkley Street, Nashua I am here to reiterate the pledge that many of us have made. We call ourselves the friends of Greeley Park to help fund the study to be made by the Institute for Human Centered Design. We have pledged up to half of the cost at $2,500. I attended the Board of Public Works public session where the Legacy Group put together their proposal and the Board of Public Works voted to place the playground in Greeley Park. I was disappointed by the lack of any reference to the legally mandated requirements for such a playground - the ADA Architectural Barriers Act. I went to the Disabilities Rights Center and I asked them if there were anything regarding to criteria for play areas? They said yes and they would be happy to come down and talk about it but the outfit you really want is the Institute for Human Centered Design. I called them and they were very gracious. They said they had done a study for the Town of Randolph, MA and they would share that with us. They too had concerns of trying to find the best site possible. I got a copy of the study that was done for the Town of Randolph and I shared it with the Infrastructure Committee in January and that’s what started the discussion about going to outside experts. I also took note that at the Board of Public Works meeting, Eric Brand acknowledged that the donors who have pledged the money – up to around $125,000 towards the playground had not conditioned their donations on the playground being in Greeley Park. The donations are not tied to Greeley Park but to a universally accessible play area so why not put it in the best possible place. Why not take it to an objective outfit that has nothing gain from this discussion. The Institute for Human Centered Design has a web page and their mission statement says “We were founded in Boston in 1978 as Adaptive Environments. We are an international non-governmental educational organization committed to advancing the role of design and expanding opportunity and enhancing experiences for people of all ages, abilities through excellence in design.” Their core beliefs are listed as “design is powerful and profoundly influences our daily lives and our sense of confidence comfort and control. The variation in human ability is ordinary not special. It affects most of us for some part of our lives. This outfit acknowledges that there are challenges to accessibility for many people and many Finance – 04/16/14 Page 3 chapters in our lives. Their purpose is to find the place for a very well intentioned play area as proposed by the Legacy Group. The Infrastructure Committee has suggested a number of sites all in the northern part of the city including three in Ward 3. There have been suggestions for the east side of Greeley Park, there’s Sergeant’s Avenue but there is also the Atherton Avenue play area. That’s one that has some special qualifications that should be considered. We have an excellent handicapped accessible play area at Roby Park in Nashua. If you took that footprint and found some comparably sized play area, that would be wonderful and in my mind, Atherton Avenue fits the bill. It’s quiet, there’s very little traffic, and it’s flat. We could take what’s already been done and it would surprise me to no end to find out that outside consultants were not used on Roby Park because it’s such an excellent facility. An outside consultant will save the city money and give you an idea of how to do it right. Why not draw upon the expertise of acknowledge experts to get this right? If we are going to do it now, let’s do it right. Doris Hohensee – 15 Swart Terrace, Nashua I’m not sure if I am for or against the study because I don’t know if the Legacy Group is willing to even consider the results or if they are locked down on one location in Greeley Park. Why pay for a study when Alderman Sheehan said at the last Infrastructure Committee meeting that the gift givers will not consider anything but one location in Greeley Park. I’ve also heard that they won’t consider Sergeant’s Avenue or Atherton. All are great locations that should be considered but I think you need a commitment from the group of gift givers as to whether or not they will be open-minded enough to consider the study. The parking is a large issue. Roby Park has 97 paved parking spots designated with white lines, some handicapped, some not, and two lots – 64 on the lower lot and 33 in the upper lot. Sergeant’s Avenue has 120 street side parking spots and over 250 in various lots that are off-street. That’s huge when you have little children, if you can eyeball the kids that’s a huge difference of having to go three blocks down the road because there’s no parking spots like at Greeley Park. On the west side of Greeley Park, there’s no paved off-street parking, there’s just Cotton Avenue. On the east side, which has the better bathrooms, there are potential for paved marked spots but there aren’t too many that are marked, except up by the park & rec building which is supposed to be going at some point. There are pre-existing conditions. There is a tot lot that was put into the west side right next to the public pool. It’s accessible to little kids and probably handicapped kids. It’s small but why plow that over? It’s appropriate with a puddle pool, it corresponds. If you took out the horse shoe pits, you would make a great spot but do you take things out that already exist? If you take out that old equipment, we can’t use that publicly anywhere else. You can’t relocate that. If it’s safe and it’s an existing location, the children can keep on using it. Some kids might look at these handicapped accessible playgrounds as not challenging enough whereas the existing one poses higher challenges. I think we ought to challenge everybody. Put one on one side of the park and one on the other. I don’t see any reason for destroying something that is serviceable and good and has a purpose that will never achieve anywhere else in order to put in an accessible playground. Jeff Kleiner – 32 Courtland Street, Nashua This committee has a great opportunity tonight – to almost squash what is turning into a civil war in this city over a playground. If you pass this study, there should be no questions beyond the results of that from either side where the location should be. We been listening to comments from both sides forever, meetings until midnight, Saturday morning meetings, Facebook meetings and a lot of the same things are said over and over and over again. I know you are getting sick of them and we on both sides are as well. All the comments spoken have been opinions; no one has said they represent a professional organization that can determine where the playground should be built. If the Leadership Greater Nashua is against this study then they are clearly telling you one thing and one thing only. We only want Greeley Park and it is strictly political. That makes no sense. It should be put in the best location for the kids and families that they want to serve for generations to come. We should not be back here in 5 years talking about how it is falling apart because it wasn’t the right location whether it’s EPA things, the footing of the land or anything. Why not look at other locations? It’s a great opportunity and the city will only have to foot half of the bill. I would be surprised if it wasn’t unanimous to do this because it’s the way to start to bring this together. Alderman Donchess has done more than anybody in this entire city to try to bring everybody together and make this work. The Mayor, based on the minutes of that meeting, agrees as well. I am surprised as to why she is Finance – 04/16/14 Page 4 not an endorser on this because it was her idea and I thank you for that. Pass this and let’s get the study and let the cards fall where they may. Debbie Navatney – 65 McKenna Street - Nashua I am not part of the Leadership Greater Nashua from 2012 that planned this study. My 16-year old would say “we are arguing over a playground that everyone can use, what’s going on?” Greeley Park is a beautiful park that should be accessible to everyone. I think every park in Nashua should have an ADA accessible park because everyone should be able to use all of them and why not start at Greeley Park? I think we should do everything we can to make Greeley Park a place that can be enjoyed by everyone. The study you are considering tonight is going to delay it. How many studies do we need, how much more time are we going to spend talking about it and how much more money on the study will be spent? Let’s end it tonight, let’s get the playground built and this summer, not two years from now. Eric Brand – Eastbrook Drive, Nashua I am the leader of the Legacy Playground. One of the comments I heard earlier this evening was why we started with the Board of Public Works. It’s been an interesting comment that’s going around. We as a group with doing some different consulting throughout city, we went with the Board of Public Works because they jurisdiction over all of the parks in the City of Nashua with the exception of Greeley Park. If all we had on our mind was Greeley Park, why would we have started with the Board of Public Works? We went through a vetting process with the Board of Public Works. To date, there have been 19 meetings between the Board of Public Works, the Board of Alderman, the Infrastructure Committee, and now tonight marks #20. I don’t believe an outside firm that’s going to do a study is going to bring anything new to light. I think it’s very apparent that whoever is putting the list together for the study hasn’t done the research and didn’t look at the notes that were provided back in December on the reasons why some of those sites are not sufficient. If we look at the horse shoe pit at Greeley Park, there’s a 5-6 foot grade change, retaining walls would be needed in order to balance off the height, and that area could not accommodate all of the equipment that we were trying to have in the design. The trees and fencing area greatly reduces the square footage that we actually have to work with the equipment. There are existing underground utilities in that area, it’s in full sun and it’s a loud area. It doesn’t give the walking through the park type of setting. Greeley Park on the Manchester Street side, I have stated before that I don’t feel its right to take away from other people’s activities at different parks. We’ve got Frisbee golf over there and medieval actors on the weekends. We would be taking away green space and looking at additional parking areas that would have to be created which would create additional cost to the city. We would need to bring in infrastructure to have bathrooms in that area which could cost anywhere from $50,000 - $100,000. It’s also in the works for a future sewage pumping area. Sergeant’s Avenue would require fencing; the bathrooms are only open 50 days out of the year, additional noise from the pool and baseball area. It also wouldn’t give that walking through the park type of setting. Yudicky Farms and Mines Falls are two differently types of areas because they would be start from scratch. Our gift is to have zero tax payer dollars associated with it. Lincoln Park is not even on city owned land and has gas lines underneath it. Atherton Avenue is a prior asbestos site. Site work would disturb the barrier to the asbestos cap and there are drainage issues, a lot of it has full sun and again, it’s not that walking through the park type of setting that we are looking for. Kirkpatrick’s is a capped landfill, there’s not enough space, utilities are needed, bathrooms, and not a walking through the park type of setting. What I find more frustrating is that I have spent so many hours working on this project. Two out of the three final sites that we came up with aren’t even in this legislation – Labine Park, I stand corrected because this not one of the final three because behind the bath house, Sergeant’s Avenue and Labine Park were the final three but most recently, we’ve been talking about the existing site location, that’s not even in the legislation. Somebody is not looking back at the research that’s already been done and completely avoiding what we have been talking about and trying piece it all together. At one of the last meetings, someone said, if you are hell bent on putting it in Greeley Park, put it on the east side. I looked at the east side; there is a rolling green meadow area, why would we want to take that area. The flat area right across from some of the parking spaces does not have shade. We have heard a lot tonight about professional qualifications and actually referring back to a January 24th meeting where somebody was trying Finance – 04/16/14 Page 5 to recite the minutes, which I believe was cited incorrectly, where the Mayor supports the study. I read the minutes and it doesn’t quite say “supports a study” it says “I wanted to have a professional opinion.” If I am not mistaken, last week we had at least 15 professionals to talk in their opinions of what was going on and if Greeley Park was the right place or not. Over the course of the 19 meetings, we must have had over 20 different professionals come in and talk about multiple different types of disabilities from autism to deaf/blindness, severe disabilities, and mobility issues. I’m not quite sure how many more professionals we need let alone an outside person come in to look at parks that doesn’t know the history of all of these parks. What are the things that they are going to look for in this study that we haven’t already looked for? Is the playground going to be accessible – yes. Do the design and the qualifications of that playground have ADA compliant certifications to make sure that they have gone through testing? We also look at the engineered plan. I submitted documentation last week during the Infrastructure Committee meeting that states the qualifications and a licensed engineer also has to know all of the ADA compliant laws to make sure that the plans they are putting together follow all of those laws. Again, why do we need a study when we have all of that information from qualified people that are hired by the city? We started talking about this back in December of 2011. I first spoke publicly in October of 2012 and myself and my group would like to finish this project this year which I don’t think is unreasonable after 19 meetings that this has been discussed. I can assure you that if we go forward with this study and just knowing how long the process is going to take, as Chris Williams tried to explain last week, we are not even going to have an answer on this. By the time that study comes back and is presented to the Board of Alderman, probably sometime in July, will hinder any more additional fund raising that we need to do, let alone have the opportunity to make any changes to a design, get materials ordered, arrange for volunteers, and be able to site work completed. It’s just not going to happen this year and I’m not sure that’s something that our group is prepared for. I would at least like to have the study tabled until after next week’s Infrastructure Committee meeting where a formal engineered plan with all the costs and other questions can be answered. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. James Mahoney – 13 Eastbrook Drive, Nashua Eric is a neighbor but lived on Hull Avenue years ago. Personally, I don’t see the need for a study by an outside group when this delay could jeopardize available private funding. Many years ago I spent time assemble a privately funded playground in the back of Mt. Pleasant Elementary School. I have been hearing from my neighbor about getting this accessible park built for over a year. I’ve had a great many memories of the parks in the area and having been a property owner for nearly 30 years, at a timeframe when Nashua was rated so highly by Money Magazine on two occasions, I think this would add value to the city and to the neighborhood so I don’t see the utility of further delay. Ken Gravo – 26 Abbott Drive, Nashua I live within walking distance to Greeley Park although not adjacent to it. I don’t intend to rehash the compelling arguments for and against. I think the decision before you tonight is quite simple. It’s whether or not to spend the taxpayer’s money on an additional study for the location for the playground. Leadership Greater Nashua has done considerable studies on this in the past. I would like to present a slightly different perspective. I have had a long involvement with the Rotary International. The last few years I have been a director of Rotary International. In that capacity, I have traveled extensively to numerous countries for the purpose of supporting the service projects that are being done by Rotary Clubs in those countries. The Rotary has a very long history of supporting youth. In virtually all of these countries, what I have seen have predominantly been project that aimed towards assisting youth and notably, youth with disabilities. Without a doubt, the single most common project that I have seen are handicapped playgrounds in the premier location within each of these cities. I think that’s the motivating factor, the premier location. I have met with the leadership of these communities and they have been so proud to have partnered with Rotary to put such a facility in what they consider to be their city gem – as we consider Greeley Park. I’ve met with the parents and they take pride in what their city provides to them. I think this is what we should be providing to our city. I’ve lived on Abbott Drive for 47 years and raised our children there. We have taken our children and grandchildren to play at Greeley Park. I was concerned when I took my children to the playground 40 years ago. This city needs to show its support of our youth and notably those individuals with some Finance – 04/16/14 Page 6 physical handicaps. I’ve also had very great respect for the stewardship of this committee and I have great hopes that this committee will further that fiscal responsibility tonight by not committing additional taxpayer monies to a study that has already been covered in considerable depth by others and will vote instead to proceed with the development as quickly as possible. Laurie Gordy – Eastbrook Drive, Nashua I have been following this issue quite closely in the paper and I too feel like doing another study would just be a waste of time and effort when a lot of research has already been done. I live in Nashua and have a child who uses many of the playgrounds. I also have a brother who died two years ago who was developmentally disabled. He was excluded from many places and I think to have Nashua be a welcoming community with a central park like Greeley Park to create a place where people like my brother could have felt welcome would be a testament to this city. I think another study would just stall the contribution that people are willing to make to this city. I think the playground should move forward at Greeley Park. Carolyn Abouda – 178 Lake Street, Nashua I am very proud to call Nashua my home for the last 14 years. As the Mayor knows, I got my citizenship in Nashua and I refused to move from here because of the values that the citizens and leadership of Nashua shows. From what I have been told, this would be the first all accessible playground in the whole state. I’m so proud to say that. We should be doing everything we can do to keep this project in the city. There are many people watching in this city to see what you will do about this so that they can take that money and do something else with it. There are a lot of people that want to copy of we do. I am very alarmed to hear that our city seems to be everything that we can to delay this project. For the past two years, it has appeared before the Board of Public Works and once Greeley Park was chosen and approved as a best site for the playground, we have to now wait another four more months or so for the study to be done. It won’t be done in the next three weeks. Politics is politics, it takes time. I think all of the people who have agreed to give funds would like to see this project move forward so our children can enjoy the playground this summer. Please do not insist on having this study because it’s already been done. Let’s make Nashua a better place to live and have other cities around us want to be like us. Faith Canner – 34 Laurel Court, Nashua I am going to speak as a senior citizen who has lived here for the past 10 years. I have family how has lived here for more than 30 years. I have one grandson who has Asperger’s Syndrome and fortunately it was caught early enough so that he has grown into a fine young man but I have a great-nephew who is disabled for which this would be a wonderful place for his parents to be able to take him. All of the speakers have made good comments and have spoken earnestly. My concern is that since so much study has already gone into it, from a taxpayer’s point of view, to spend the extra money on this when that money might go to something else that is needed in the city, I am not in favor of the study. Hopefully, it will go to Greeley Park, not because I think that’s the only place it could go, but because I know there is a playground there that has deteriorated that needs to be fixed. What a wonderful way to fix it with a gift of Legacy Playground where children of any means can go. COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PREPARED MOTION CARRIED From: Mario Leclerc, Superintendent, Wastewater Department Re: Wastewater Pump Building MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE Finance – 04/16/14 Page 7 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane What’s been done to date? Mayor Lozeau You’ve received that lengthy memo that I got at the end of the day today, just barely. I think that sums it up pretty well. Alderman Deane I like the first few words. The first phase is to correct the situation. I was hoping we were moving in that direction. Mayor Lozeau We are. They found the problem, and now they are working on correcting it. Saturday night late into the night, they had this flood of wastewater due to a PVC pipe that broke under the pump building. It filled the room with about 12 feet of wastewater. Sunday morning I authorized an engineering company to go in. They subcontracted with, I to hate to say this even out loud, divers that dove into that water to find the problem. Then they laid out for us what they are planning to do next. They managed to get the water out of there, find the problem and now they are looking at what the solution might be. They don’t know yet what the cost is. My bet it’s going to be a very expensive problem to fix. I couldn’t have more information for you today, but because I knew about the problem and we were meeting I thought it best to give you as much as I knew at this phase. Alderman Deane We lost the sludge pump? Mayor Lozeau We did lose a pump. Alderman Moriarty Is there any action that we have to take on this tonight? Mayor Lozeau Just accept the communication. I already authorized it. That will be the same with the BOMAG compactor. Alderman Siegel Perhaps we can get some royalties from America’s Dirtiest Jobs, that show, just filming these divers. Not nice. MOTION CARRIED Finance – 04/16/14 Page 8 From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Emergency Repairs to BOMAG Compactor MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I went back and reviewed a lot of stuff pertaining to this. We had quite a bit of discussion about purchase or lease purchase or lease to purchase or just straight-up lease, and I have a suggestion. I think we should fix this thing, cut our losses and get rid of it. My opinion: we bought something that didn’t work out. In fact, I think one of my remarks during those meetings in ’08 was why do we want to own something like this. Look what we are doing with it all day long. The discussions I had with you, now we’re shipping stuff to Germany to get parts. We should have bought a Caterpillar. We had them in the past. In fact, we had one down there now. I believe a lot of this was driven by compaction and the fact that this BOMAG weighed 4,000 pounds more than a Cat. We should have additional compaction ratios and things of that nature. I think if you look at the big picture of what we saved with landfill air space and what we’ve invested in this piece of equipment, there was a five-year maintenance policy on it too that ended last April. We have quite a bit of life expectancy left in our landfill. The real killer part is we bonded this thing. It hurts even more. We have to fix it, but it would be nice to take a good, deep thought about getting rid of it. Mayor Lozeau I don’t disagree, Alderman Deane. I regret that we didn’t buy the Caterpillar as well. I can’t figure out for the life of me if it’s the one we got was a lemon or all of these are a problem. I really don’t know that. But we have had nothing but trouble with this since we got it. I think it was within the first six months that we had the first problem. Now that the warranty is gone on it, the problems that happen are ours, and I’m concerned too. I don’t know what we’ll do. But in the meantime, getting it operational and working at the landfill is our first priority. Alderman Donchess Just for background, how long have we owned the machine and how much did it cost in the beginning? Mayor Lozeau It’s a million dollar machine. Alderman Deane $865,000. Mayor Lozeau That’s about a million dollars. We bought it in 2008. We did a ten-year bond on it. That bond, I believe, is Fiscal 2019, calendar year 18. I’m hoping that we will do an analysis as Alderman Deane has described: Are we better off paying off the bond and getting a new machine, taking a different approach? I think that exercise will be done. MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None Finance – 04/16/14 Page 9 NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-023 Endorsers: Alderman David Schoneman Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING POTENTIAL SITES FOR THE LOCATION OF THE LEGACY PLAYGROUND MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse A lot of good opinions came in front of us tonight for and against. I do not want to spend extra money for a study. Let’s go back to the very beginning. Professionals doing the study, the study that was done to eliminate all these parks, I can walk down Atherton Ave and say there’s no trees. But trees can be planted. Let’s look at the big picture. I don’t care where we put this park. I’m for it, but it’s going to cost us in infrastructure anywhere we put it. It does not matter. If it goes in Greeley Park where they wanted to put it, how much infrastructure is it going to cost us? Probably just a walkway. If we put it at Greeley Park old, are we going to open up that other side street for parking? It’s a longer walkway, more money. Greeley Park east, the footing is no good they say. More trees are going to have to come down. No tranquility. Sergeant’s Avenue, no tranquility there, fencing. There’s just about fencing in all of them if you want to look at it that way. Labine, pretty quiet for tranquility. Again no trees so you are going to have to plant trees. Trees take time to grow. Atherton Ave., I don’t agree with their study. Anybody that says there's a drainage problem at Atherton Ave. does not know anything about Atherton Ave. I touched every piece of grass at Atherton Ave. when I was a kid. We were the only ballpark when it rained that still played the Babe Ruth games because the drainage was so good down there. Was Mr. Brand and Mr. Caggiano the only two that did the study, I don’t know who else did, Mayor could you help me out? Mayor Lozeau First of all, Alderman Chasse, if you’ll let me, I’ll clear up the beginnings so Mr. Kleiner might want to take back his thank you to me. Just so we’re clear on who’s doing what part of what’s professional and what study, January 24, my remarks said “I just want to say that I’ve made a request…” Alderman Chasse That’s not what I’m looking for. What I’m looking for is the names of the individuals who were on the study group for these parks. Just the names. Mayor Lozeau I’ll give you the names. When I’m done, I’d like to clear the record. Alderman Chasse I want my questions answered. I’ve read the notes. I just want my questions answered please. I want to know the individuals who are on the study group. Please. Finance – 04/16/14 Page 10 Mayor Lozeau We had members of the playground committee, we had Mr. Caggiano. There were a list of playgrounds made, it came back to the Board of Public Works, and we went through it. The professional opinions relative to study wasn’t about the landscape or whether it was a capped landfill, the professionals that we had asked opinions from were relative to autism. We got one from the Director of the Plus Company, the Director of Family Services at Gateways, from the staff at the Nashua Center, and from the Clinical Director at Gateways along with our Special Ed Director for the schools. Those are the ones that gave us professional opinions about the parks as they related to children with disabilities and autism. As far as professional opinions about which parks could be used or could not be used, that was Mr. Caggiano and some of our engineering staff. Atherton is a capped landfill as is Lincoln Park and a few others. Some of those were taken off the list for some of those reasons. There are different reasons that some of them were taken off the list. Alderman Chasse The ballpark, itself, at Atherton Park is not capped. It’s the hills behind. I remember seeing the asbestos thrown down there and that’s been buried. I don’t believe there’s a hazard there anymore. It’s been years. I’m not saying it has to go there, I haven’t picked a park. I want to see the thing come in. I don’t want to spend extra money for the study, but what I would have like to have seen is Mr. Brand and his committee come in and say, “Hey city, we want to give you an ADA park” and let us decide where it goes. Let us do the study. Let us go find this Human Centered Design for the purpose. Let the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Public Works decide where the best place for this playground would go. That’s what should have happened not spend two years up at the BPW and then come down in front of us and try to say it had to come in front of us because it’s at Greeley Park. In my opinion it just wasn’t the right way to go about it. Thank you. Alderman Donchess I did want to address and hopefully a little briefer in this occasion some of the concerns that have been expressed, particularly the time period that has elapsed and the reason for a study and the reason why people are so concerned about Greeley Park. Briefly, Greeley Park has been the subject of a building moratorium for many years because people have been concerned for two decades now about overbuilding. That’s particularly focused on the west side of the park which is sort of the passive recreation side which is the most historic. Agree with them or not, that is a pre-existing concern long before this existed. That’s anything in Greeley Park has to be approved by the Board of Aldermen. That’s the only park where that is true because of a 20-year old effort to save whatever is left of Greeley, and I will get back to Greeley Park in a second. Number two, the time period. I don’t know why people didn’t come here years ago but this was introduced on January 10th. The Infrastructure Committee met. We held a roundtable on February 3. We offered to hold more of these things to get everybody together to discuss it as quickly as possible. Legacy Greater Nashua for whatever reason said they didn’t want to meet until March 22, so we waited for six weeks. Fine. We met on that day. Then they said they wanted a vote so four days later we came forward with the recommendation that the committee came forward with which is the study. Why the study? During the time we were considering it, we had some people who were disabled come to us with very common sense concerns. Of course at that time we actually were on the meadow site not on the site we’re on now, but the concerns apply to both sites. They are common sense concerns and one was Tom Miller who is a severely disabled individual. He said the problems with these sites on the west side of Greeley Park is they are not accessible to disabled people. The site we’re talking about now is probably 250 – 300 yards from Cotton Drive which is a dirt area which, yes, could be paved but still a long way and kind of an upward battle. He said that parking on Concord Street is very difficult if you are in a wheelchair. We know parking on Concord Street is very limited anyway. If you want to try to get out on the traffic side, there’s a lot of traffic. It’s very difficult and he basically said impossible. I’ve never been in a wheelchair, and I don’t know but this is what Finance – 04/16/14 Page 11 he has told the committee and come to us more than once. Alright so how would we deal with that lack of accessible? Is that just something that we should ignore? Despite all of the fine work that Leadership Greater Nashua has done and I’ve told Mr. Brand personally in the committee settings more than once that he has done a great job in educating Nashua as to the need for this park. I, like Alderman Chasse, fully support the need for this park. He has awaken us; raised our consciousness so to speak in the language of my youth, raised our consciousness about the need for a park such as this. But the question is: Should we put it in a location where at least some disabled people from our community are saying they would have a great deal of time getting to it. The only way to solve that would be to put a parking lot, to pave part of Greeley Park. We look at all these locations, and when I say Greeley Park, I mean the west side of Concord Street, we look at Westford, we look at the Tom Menino Park in Boston, we look at Roby Park. They all have pretty big parking lots right next to the playground. To do that in Greeley Park would require that we put in a lot of concrete, a lot of asphalt. So how do we deal with this? One idea and it’s frustrating because we have a lot of speakers come in but none of them address questions like this. If Greeley Park is important, why not just put it on the east side? Let’s just put it on the east side. What is wrong with that? That would satisfy the people who are trying to preserve the west side. Why not the east side? Mr. Brand came before us tonight and gave us some reasons why that may or may not be possible, but I think everybody who’s on the committee will agree with me that despite the meetings and all this, that is the first time I have ever heard anyone give us any specific reasons as to why a compromise like that might not work. Yes, Mr. Brand said will look at the results of our work, look at the study. I’ve been to all the Infrastructure meetings; nothing has ever been presented other than just verbal conclusions. The materials, the study material has never been handed to us. I don’t know so why not do the east side? Mr. Gravo testified and he pointed out his Rotary service which has been very considerable and there’s a four-part Rotary test which if he is still here he could say very easily. My memory of it is not as good but I think the last statement is what is best for all concerned. When I apply that test to the east side of Greeley Park, agree with them or not, it will satisfy people who, right or wrong, want to preserve the west side of Greeley Park. It would put an accessible playground in Greeley Park where we could make it far more accessible to people with cars and wheelchairs and the like. Mr. Brand says it would have to go on a lawn, but if the people who are concerned with preservation are satisfied with that particular location, what’s wrong with it? Why can’t we just compromise and get behind a project? Maybe the east side of Greeley Park doesn’t work but Mr. Chasse has mentioned Atherton Ave. Atherton Ave looks pretty good to me. It is better for the autistic kids because it’s a lot quieter than anywhere in Greeley Park. We had the parents of two autistic children, the Barren’s, they have two autistic kids. They came to us and said we don’t think Greeley Park is a good choice because based on our experience with our own children it’s too loud. West side, east side, wherever, there’s bands, there’s music, there’s people running around. It’s too loud. If we are focused on that, the Atherton Ave site is good because it’s far quieter than anywhere in Greeley Park. There’s no perfect location. If we can find a location that everyone can agree on or that everyone who has been objecting or whatever agrees to and meets most of the criteria of Leadership Greater Nashua, maybe trees have to be planted or whatever, or maybe even bathrooms have to be built, but if it meets most of the criteria and we can use city resources to make it a better and a very high acceptable location, why can’t we just compromise and get together behind a project that everyone can support? So what is the reason for the study? The reason for the study is people came to our committee and they said they can’t get to the proposed location. As you heard tonight no one from Leadership Greater Nashua answers that question. They don’t say that’s not a concern because x, y, z. No one answers it. We ask it, we ask it, we ask it, and no one answers us. It’s like everybody is talking by each other. These people are saying this; these people are saying that. They are even becoming close to answering each other. Without the ability to meaningfully discuss this among people in the community, given all that has gone on, let’s have a professional look. People who are experts in accessibility and disability and everything. They can tell us Greeley Park, don’t worry about it. It doesn’t matter because it’s perfect because you can do this. Or, we think Atherton Ave is best or we think Sergeants’ Ave or we think wherever is a good location. What might that get us? It might, might, might bring harmony. Why? Because if someone from the outside comes in and says the west side of Greeley Park is the best, probably the people who are objecting and Finance – 04/16/14 Page 12 certainly a majority on the Board of Aldermen will probably endorse that site. Yet if someone from the outside comes in and says Atherton Ave works the best for the following reasons, Leadership Greater Nashua may reconsider its insistence on a single site in Greeley and maybe they will come around to that location. So why not? They say they can do this thing in three weeks. Let’s try to achieve harmony because the way we are going we are not going to get there. Just an up to down 8 to 7 vote, somebody is going to be really unhappy. Why can’t we work together? Why can’t we use the study as possibly a way to develop a consensus and to answer some common sense questions that remain unanswered? That is my reason for the study. We are not against the playground. We are not against disabled people. Believe me. We want the playground. We want it in a good location. We want a project that everybody can support and contribute to and we want it without disharmony and without bitterness if we possibly can get it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mayor Lozeau My apologies Alderman Schoneman. As the sponsor of this legislation even before committee members, I should have given you an opportunity to speak to the committee and introduce your legislation. Would you like to make comments before we continue our discussion? My apologies. Alderman Schoneman I appreciate all the folks who spoke tonight. Clearly there are passionate feelings on both sides for and against. I agree we need to get some unity out of this, a strong unity in the city around doing the playground. But there is strong disunity around this particular location. I think we need to try to make some progress towards that. Alderman Chasse spoke earlier about process, and process is really key. If we follow a good process, I think we can end up at a good result. I think the process that we followed, whether it was not good or good is hard to say, but it was perceived as being less than optimal. I think that has resulted in some of the disunity that we have in the community. One of the goals that was stated by the Legacy Playground and this just comes from their website, I heard someone speak about it tonight, this is to be New Hampshire’s largest, most comprehensive, most accessible playground. New Hampshire’s. That’s a very, very broad, tall order to try to fill. If we look at Roby Park which is right here in Nashua or if we look at the Westford playground which is the model for the Legacy Group down in Westford, we see in both cases, as was already pointed out, these areas are flat and have very, very large parking areas. How can we make the claim that this is going to be the largest, most comprehensive, most accessible in the state in a site like Greeley Park even at the site of the existing playground or even on the east side for that matter? It’s very, very difficult. I think if we’re going to do that we have to make that choice about site based on the concerns for the target populations. I appreciate the idea and there’s been notion about asbestos here or pipes there or whatever, those are infrastructure considerations. Clearly as was also pointed out, there’s going to be significant expense to the city for whatever site is chosen for infrastructure. But we ought to start with that target population if we’re going to attempt to achieve this goal. The success or failure of this playground is not going to be based on what’s inside the parameter. It’s going to be based largely on where we put it. I think we need to take a very good objective look at where it goes. I think to call in someone else who is an expert in the matter, who is not bias, it is certainly possible to bias a study, to try to find somebody who can come in and give us an objective opinion would help us greatly. So in an effort to gain unity in the community, to actually work toward achieving the goals of this playground of being as the most successful playground in the state, I think we need to start with the target population and see where those facts lead us as opposed to steering in a particular direction. Again I can’t claim that it was steered, but it’s certainly the perception. So I advocate for the study and the other comments I would have made, I’ve already heard. Thank you. Finance – 04/16/14 Page 13 Alderman Siegel I just want to point out that there’s been a solicitation by Alderman Donchess for the Infrastructure Committee to provide answers to questions. I know I submitted some questions that were very detailed. Alderwoman Brown submitted some questions. I think with those questions and the answers to those questions is going to come the data we really haven’t seen. We’ve seen presentations, PowerPoint presentations, people have claimed they have studied things which is all well and good, and I’m not saying there hasn’t been any work done, but the actual data, I think Alderman Chasse was looking for that, which will include the cost of infrastructure which Alderman Chasse rightfully pointed out is a fairly significant thing to consider, is going to come into play. We’re going to see why certain sites were chosen or not, what’s the cost of everything associated with this beyond just playground equipment. Then we will be able to really have a honest discussion about what the tradeoffs would be. Until that data is available, I appreciate everybody’s comments but really we don’t have the facts in front of us. They might be in front of other people but to date they haven’t been in front of us, the people that have to make this decision. I’m looking forward to seeing that. I’d also like to point out regarding the study, truthfully I wish in a sense there was no need for this study but we are at lager heads and we, in a sense, are buying a peace in the city. I think what we are also buying is an unbiased opinion as to what’s the right thing to do. We clearly can’t come to a very quick consensus on our own. It seems like relatively short money and short time to fund this study which by the way if for some reason the LGN group changes their mind before it gets approved by the full Board, there would be no money spent. I also might point out that given the amount of time and effort, people’s energy being spent in the city and outside, that there has already been quite a downside in economics beyond what this study may cause. I’d like to point out that’s the case. Finally if there is a worry about taxpayer funding delays, the LGN group is more than willing or more than happy to choose some place other than Greeley Park that would not involve the Board of Aldermen. It could involve us; that would be fine but there is that option. I will tell you as a business person if I’m looking at this from strictly a business perspective and how I would make decisions, even if site number two is 90 percent of what site number one is, and I don’t know that there’s that ratio, it might be, they might be even, there’s no way I would make a decision to butt my head against a wall for what’s purported to be two years, a year and a half, which I agree with Alderman Donchess that we have only received this in January. If you really want to expedite things and you want to function like you are leaders of business because this is a Chamber of Commerce which is supposed to be business leaders, you’d make a business type of decision and you would choose a site that doesn’t involve this. I offer that up to you also. Remember you’re supposed to be a junior member of the Chamber of Commerce. Commerce is about making intelligent, economic decisions. Alderwoman Brown I believe that having a this study would be a waste of taxpayers’ dollars because as Mr. Brand has told us they have done extensive research. We have requested the details of that research, and I believe that will be given to us next week on the 23. Mr. Brand told us why a number of those sites were inappropriate. I haven’t seen the list of exactly the details that you just gave us but that’s neither here nor there. I am also very disappointed. The leadership came to us with this gift. They said we have raised all this money, we’d like to give this to you. We have decided Greeley Park is the best location. There was a lot of disagreement from many individuals that felt that particular location behind the stone house was not going to work. So they came back to us and said let’s just keep it simple. Let’s just replace the existing playground equipment, and the city can decide what we want to do from that point on. There is a service road there. It has the appropriate grading that’s required for ADA compliance. Also the individuals that were part of the group that the Legacy Leadership team worked with they have the credentials. I sent an e- mail to all of the aldermen. The MRC Company has a specialist that’s a certified playground equipment specialist who worked with them. Also our city engineers are required to know this information. That’s another reason why I don’t think we need this. This resolution doesn’t even include the location of replacing the playground. That to me doesn’t make any sense. Mayor Lozeau has walked through the whole list of the city experts that have come to us and talked to us about this playground and the location. I trust those individuals and their expertise. I just really believe that this would be a delay of information, a delay that Finance – 04/16/14 Page 14 would be a waste of time and money, and I believe we have the information. We will have the exact details next week so I plan on voting against this and hopefully we will have those exist details next week. Alderman Moriarty I will try to remain focused on the specifics of why we need a study. I personally don’t need a study, but other people do. To clarify because I think everybody has said, we all like the idea of a magnificent, fantastic playground. I think that’s agreed upon. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize people who don’t want it in Greeley Park as being against the playground. I think we agree with that statement also. What this is in my mind is an issue, we’re not talking about a playground, we’re talking about a parking lot. We’re talking about putting a parking lot in Greeley Park. You do need a substantial parking lot to support the playground. You need it, and Roby Park is an example of that. I have a lot of reasons why I don’t think it should be in Greeley Park, but I’ll save that for another time when that actual vote occurs and focus on why we need the study. In my mind I agree with the moratorium. I agree with the ordinance, and I agree with the reason why we’re talking about this. I agree with the fact that Greeley Park needs special treatment and that the burden of proof of why we should put it in Greeley Park is much greater on the people that want to put it there. To my mind all that needs to be accomplished by the study is to determine whether there is a location elsewhere that’s as good or better. That’s just my opinion because I am of the mind that I want to keep Greeley Park more pristine and I think the burden of proof should be on the other side. The study needs to see is there somewhere elsewhere that’s as good or better. We have a different of opinion, and I’ll just restate what people have already have said. We have a difference of opinion. The people that have to decide are you going to hold to the moratorium or not need to be able to have a firm foundation to break the tie. It’s common in life to go through a mediator when you have two sides that disagree. It’s common in life when you want to sell a car, the person who is selling it to you, you trust everything they said to take the car to your own inspection station. I rebuilt my engine and stalled up my own vehicle but I’m not allowed to certify my own car. Even though I’m perfectly qualified to do automotive, I still have to go and get it certified. There’s nothing unusual with the idea of getting our own unbiased third party individual so we can do what Alderman Donchess has said. The people that need to make this decision there will be some sort of a harmony towards that decision. At some point we’re going to have to vote on whether or not we’re going to adhere to the moratorium. At some point people are going to have to decide do they want to override that moratorium. If I can endorse a study to give them the information they need to either override it or not, I’m for the study. Alderman Soucy I’m here to speak for and against the study, and I’ll tell you why. Are we really talking about an ADA compliant park or are we talking about Greeley Park? All of the emotion, all of the heartache evolves around Greeley Park. I’m told there are 55 parks in the city. I looked on line, I think I found 47. I was told 55, but I found 47. Granted the significant majority of those parks could not host an ADA compliant park, but I think the top three can. Whenever I hear about Atherton or Sergeants’ or Thornton Road or anything else, there’s a hurdle that’s put up that we can’t do it. Whenever I hear a negative about Greeley Park, we can do this, we can overcome. So I’m not sure if we’re really talking about Greeley Park or an ADA compliant park. My attitude is if it’s really Greeley Park, if the moratorium is what we’re talking about, that there’s no way, nothing is going in there other than a spaceship landing from Mars nothing is going in there then let’s tackle the issue by the horns and vote yea or nay. But if it’s really about an ADA park, the best ADA park, because I’m not sure there’s really much of a difference between the first and the second, but if it’s really about the best ADA park then maybe we should do a study. LGN put a lot of work in this, I’m sure, but a reasonable person can expect that it wasn’t an unbiased study. So I’m telling you right now if it’s about Greeley Park, we should put it on the table. Let’s vote, and my vote I’m with Alderman Moriarty. It’s no on the moratorium. But if you go the route of the study and the study shows that Greeley Park is the best place then yes, I’m going to go with the best place. I’m hearing shame on us, shame on us for not having an ADA park in Greeley Park. With that argument, I say shame on us for not having one at Atherton or Cleveland or Finance – 04/16/14 Page 15 Thornton or any of the other places. Again it becomes the argument of Greeley Park. What really, really troubles me on the Greeley Park issue is there’s really two parks we can talk about on the west. We’ve got the meadow, we’ve got the current playground. If we could separate both parks and say put the playground a half mile down the road, let’s do a study of the parks. One has shade, one’s got sun. One’s got a nice meadow, one’s got roots. Neither have adequate parking. The bottom line, the point I’m trying to make is there’s only one commonality: Greeley Park. So it tells me Greeley Park has always been the desired park, and I don’t blame LGN for that because it is our front yard. It is the jewel and this is going to be a wonderful, wonderful park. If I was a member of Leadership Greater Nashua, I believe I would want my park in the jewel. But this moratorium troubles me. It troubles me that there’s no other alternative. I would suggest this, and I would hope that if we do the study because if its’ really ADA, I invite this Board of Aldermen and I invite Chris Williams, Leadership of Greater Nashua to do the study, have an unbiased study done. Has anybody considered Sergeants’ Ave, and I’m not talking about the current playground? The only argument I’ve heard against the four corners area where Sergeants’ Ave and Manchester meet, you can push it back, the only thing I’ve heard against that is we’re taking away a skating rink. A skating rink is good for about two months. Furthermore, if you can skate you can walk 150 yards down around behind Holman Stadium where there’s a football field and put the skating rink right over there. We’re losing nothing. It’s a beautiful north end location. It’s got all of the parking. It’s got everything we need there. It’s very, very visible. I think picking a spot like that we might even have two jewels in Nashua. How cool is that? Again I spoke for an against. If it’s about Greeley Park, we need to tackle it right now. If it’s really about the ADA, and I hope it is, I really hope it is, then let’s do the study and abide by the study. Alderman Wilshire I am in support of the study. If Greeley Park is the right place for it then I’m going to support that. If it’s not, I’m going to support that. I think we need to do a study. There’s been so much divisiveness in the community. I signed onto the legislation saying I think Greeley Park is the right place, but then all these people came out and convinced me that we need to take another look. We need to take a look at all the options. I support replacing the equipment in Greeley Park, but do I support all the infrastructure things that happen there? Tip downs and paving? I’m not sure I would support all of that, and that comes to a cost to the taxpayer. So $2500 to put into a study, I can live with that. Alderman Siegel For clarification, a lot of people are throwing the term “ADA” around. We already have an ADA compliant park in Roby Park. This is a step up above that. This isn’t just ADA complaint. It’s an all accessed playground with significantly more infrastructure and space requirement. It’s a great thing, no doubt about it. I’ve been to the Westford park which is the model for this twice, and I have a significant number of photographs of that. I just want to be quite clear that it isn’t about making Greeley Park ADA compliant because we can certainly do something on that order without the type of magnitude of this type of equipment that we’re speaking about. That’s important to me to point that out. I also think it’s very, very important to note that having this study doesn’t slow anything down. As I said in a previous meeting, the study goes on in parallel and life can go on with whatever decisions we make. The infrastructure Committee meeting is next week. Again there’s going to be a lot of questions answered, and this stuff can go on in parallel. I don’t see that they are mutually exclusively. I definitely agree with Alderman Wilshire. If someone told me, an independent entity, we’ve looked at everything and it turns out that this is the best place to put it, it would be hard to argue with that because we funded that study and that’s what they said. We’re going to have more information based on the questions that were asked and we’re going to see what the infrastructure costs are going to be because I think they are nontrivial. Alderman Chasse When Mr. Brand spoke tonight he said he had a professional coming to the Infrastructure Committee. Finance – 04/16/14 Page 16 Mayor Lozeau I don’t believe he said he had a professional coming. I think what he said was he’s going to provide the plans and answers to questions that people have asked. Our engineering department has been working with Mr. Brand and others to put the equipment that they are interested in locating in the park on a footprint so you could see it and to look at are we answering the parking questions. Those type of things. Alderman Chasse Here’s where it stands right now. Alderman Schoneman, you have 7 days and 7 years for this particular legislation. It’s going to pass in this committee, there’s no problem about that but getting it up to the full Board, I am the tiebreaker. I prefer to see what happens next week when the plans come in. I would suggest you hold this in committee until the next meeting. Alderman Soucy Point of order. I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s 7 to 7 when I haven’t made a decision as of yet. My decision will be based on the study if it’s an ADA issue which I hope it is. If it’s just Greeley Park I stated I would state no. I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s 7 to 7. Alderman Chasse Okay, it looks like it’s a tie vote. Looks like it. Will you accept that? Alderman Soucy I’ll accept that. Alderman Chasse Alright. I apologize. I think maybe you should make a motion to hold it in committee for another two weeks and see what happens at Infrastructure which I would very much like to see before I make a decision. That’s up to you. I’d hate to see it go up to the full board and get shot down. Thank you. Alderman Schoneman I appreciate the comment. Thank you very much. I think we can do the two in parallel. I think it’s possible to start the study down the road. I think back to the fact that we had the six week delay between the two roundtables. We could have gotten a study done in that space of time. I appreciate the sediment, the idea that we still are headed towards a divisive vote. I believe having more information can eliminate that. If we can get away from strictly 7- 7 with one tie break or maybe get to 10 – 5 or even unanimous if that was at all possible ever, I think that’s a worthy goal. I do believe that the presentation they want to make next week in the Infrastructure Committee will be valuable to us. We’ll hear what they have to say. It will be the first time really that we’ve heard the specifics about cost, about infrastructure, and about what they really want to do about parking and all those kinds of things. I think that’s valuable. I would prefer if we’re able to go forward with the study to move in that direction. I would be glad to hear other comments on that, but I don’t see that the two are mutually exclusive right at the moment. I am anxious as well to hear what they have to say in Infrastructure next week, but I don’t see that one has to occur before the other. Alderman Donchess On the issue that somebody raised about the list of sites include the meadow but not the current playground, the current choice, the way that arose was that when the committee made this recommendation the meadow was the choice. Then that was switched. It seems to me we should amend that particular Finance – 04/16/14 Page 17 designation to move from the meadow to the current LGN preference, but it wasn’t like we were trying to ignore their preference. At the time the recommendation was issued, that was their preference. Mayor Lozeau I think Alderman Donchess you could just amend it to say Greeley Park if you’re going to have this study. Let the professional decide where at Greeley Park instead of saying here or here or here or here. Can it work at Greeley Park or not, might be something you consider. Alderman Siegel Regarding Alderman Chasse’s suggestion, I am empathetic to that. I don’t know what the vote is going to be in this committee, and I’m not going to try to predict the full Board vote either. In the event that we want to table, we can always table at the full Board level if we want to do that depending on what events transpire between now and the full Board meeting. I’d like to get this out of the committee, one way or another. That’s my feeling. I do have some empathy for what you’re saying. I just don’t want to have it held here because if it is held here it just makes it yet longer in the cycle. Alderman Chasse Is the Infrastructure Committee meeting going to be before the next Board of Aldermen meeting? No, right? Mayor Lozeau The day after. Alderman Chasse The day after Thank you. Alderman Donchess I move that we amend the legislation to delete the language “west side behind stone bathhouse” and add “existing playground” and that we delete after the words “east side” the words “between horseshoe pits and tennis courts.” MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO AMEND BY DELETING THE LANGUAGE “WEST SIDE BEHIND STONE BATHHOUSE” AND ADD “EXISTING PLAYGROUND” AND FURTHER BY DELETING AFTER THE WORDS “EAST SIDE” THE WORDS “BETWEEN HORSESHOE PITS AND TENNIS COURTS” ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess The purpose of the first amendment would simply be to switch from the previous preference of LGN to the current. The purpose of the second amendment would be to provide a little more latitude regarding the east side of Greeley Park. Mayor Lozeau I would just add to that frankly I’m not going to support this legislation which I’ll speak to in a moment whether it’s amended or not, but I think that the LGN’s preference was an attempt to compromise because they thought the people that were not happy with it being at Greeley Park would prefer to just replace the Finance – 04/16/14 Page 18 existing playground. Personally when I look at one side versus the other, the existing playground area versus what I call the family picnic area because that’s where all the families are and all the Hibachi's are, I think it’s an easier infrastructure correction on that side. If you’re going to have a professional look at it, I think that would be worth looking at as well. I would support the amendment if it included the addition of the existing playground without the deletion of the west side but I don’t think it matters much to you one way or the other. In the final analysis I’m going to vote against it. Alderman Donchess If we just said west side does that mean you would support the legislation? Mayor Lozeau No, no but I would support the amendment. You always want to make it the best it can be before you finish up. Alderman Soucy I just want to put it for the record there’s no way I would support the meadow study or no study period. It doesn’t belong there. I would support it in the current playground area, but I am not in support of the meadow area because it would dramatically change the characteristic of the park and the stone house area with that playground there. I would support the compromise put on the table by LGN but not the meadow. Alderman Siegel I am in support of the amendment as described by Alderman Donchess without the meadow which you would vote against anyway because I think that train already left the station. There’s no way it’s going to be in the meadow. I think everybody realizes that so let’s not presented that that’s open for debate. I’m in support of Alderman Donchess’ modifications to the legislation. MOTION CARRIED Alderman Donchess I don’t have the legislation with me and my little computer thing doesn’t work right, but is Sergeants’ Avenue listed in there? Mayor Lozeau The list is: Playground: Greeley Park, east side; Greeley Park at Manchester Street; Sergeants’ Avenue at the site of existing playground; Lincoln Park; Atherton Park; Southwest Park, Yudicky Farm; Mine Falls, city land behind Boys and Girls Club near canal and walking trails; Shady Lane and Kirkpatrick” Alderman Deane First I’d like to thank the legal department for putting an “s” on the end of Sergeant’s because there is an “s” and the street sign doesn’t depict that but I know the legal documents of everybody’s home up there do. I think that area is called north common but legally I believe it’s Artillery Park because of the circumference around. That park goes down Artillery Lane and then is it Greeley Street, that little road where that intersection is down by the bottom, that’s where Artillery Lane changes to Greeley Street that runs up by the back of Holman Stadium. That whole footprint of that property there is asbestos. We found that out when the retention ponds got put in behind Holman Stadium. We found that out when we put the batting cage in there, just in that lower area. The baseball field that’s down on the corner down there used to be Artillery Pond where all the drainage from the north end used to go years and years ago that they filled in with rocks. Finance – 04/16/14 Page 19 It still retains water. Ducks still land there because they’ve been landing there for years in the springs. I think that should be amended to reflect north common. MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO FURTHER AMEND BY ADDING ARTILLERY PARK ON THE QUESTION Alderman Soucy I was referring to Four Corners, Manchester Street at Sergeants’, that flat rectangular area where the skating park goes. Alderman Deane That’s part of the property. What happens with that property I can tell you is the children from St. Christopher Elementary School use that as a playground. They have field day there and then the kids play ice hockey there. There’s a flood shack there and things like that. When I looked at the Sergeants’ Avenue playground that’s kind of raised up. It’s like they built a little knoll there. The money that we approved in the operating budget and we escrowed for improvements to the Sergeants’ Ave playground, I spoke with the Director of Public Works when all this stuff started going on and they had put stuff out. I had repeatedly asked the Mayor when are we going to get the playground equipment for over there. It’s been 6 months, 8 months, 12 months. Then all of this stuff started happening. Then I sent the Public Works Director an e- mail and I stated don’t do anything to Sergeants’ Avenue for improvement with this money. Fix whatever is broken but don’t go replacing things because then it will be perceived that the city is going over there putting in new playground equipment to take Sergeants’ Avenue out of the mix a potential site. That’s why that money hadn’t been spent. Once this fiasco is dealt with, I want to do something over there immediately if not sooner because it needs to be addressed. Mayor Lozeau That’s why we went out with an RFP so we were ready once a decision was made. Labine is the same. We have not spent money to do any work at Labine because from our perspective at the Board of Public Works there were three parks in the nix for consideration for this. Alderman Deane And I believe that section of north common as Alderman Soucy calls it four corners I believe is part of that artillery parcel. When north common was there back when Murray Field was a football field down by the houses. Archie Hill used to tell me all this stuff. Before they put the addition on Amherst Street Elementary School, there was a whole huge football field there, the baseball diamond, the backstop was over by the road. The whole thing has been swung all the way around. Mayor Lozeau So your amendment is to add that piece. I’ll get the official name, but we all know what you mean. Alderman Deane I think it’s Artillery Park. Finance – 04/16/14 Page 20 Mayor Lozeau Diagonally across from Jeannottee’s that corner lot where we put the ice field. If it’s north common that’s the language we’ll put in here. If it’s Artillery Park that’s what we will put in here. We all understand the piece we’re talking about. I’ll get the official name should the amendment pass. Alderman Donchess That would be an addition to the list? Alderman Deane Right. Mayor Lozeau That’s my understanding. MOTION CARRIED TO FURTHER AMEND Alderman Deane Does that sweeten the pot a little more for you, Mayor? Mayor Lozeau No, but I actually like that location. It was one of the ones I asked about early on and then I was told Alderman Deane will go crazy. That’s the ice rink. Alderman Deane I could just as soon listen to the kids playing at a playground as kids hitting hockey pucks off of trash barrels. It doesn’t matter to me. The nice thing about that site is it’s flat. There’s water there and there’s sewer there. It’s got shaded trees that are mature and don’t have infragnails like the other big ones down the street. Alderman Donchess Was that evaluated as part of the public works process or whatever or was that left off early on? Mayor Lozeau I think it got taken off early on because the superintendent thought the use that’s already being used there couldn’t be replicated somewhere else. It is a very, very, very popular ice skating location. Alderman Donchess There are really two kind of segments to that location. There’s where the ice rink is. There’s kind of the east end so to speak where the ice rink is and that’s a pretty big corner. There’s kind of a section of lawn between where the ice rink and where the driveway is, right? Alderman Deane There is. Finance – 04/16/14 Page 21 Alderman Donchess So there’s really two locations. Mayor Lozeau If you want to put the playground in, you couldn’t do the playground and the ice. Alderman Donchess You think it’s not big enough for that? Mayor Lozeau That’s my understanding. Alderman Deane I would agree. Alderman Soucy As I was reminding everybody, we have a beautiful flat area, football field, insight less than 100 yards from that. We can move the skaters down there. We’re talking two months basically that people skate. It’s not like we’re eliminating something. People that skate or play hockey, they can play in the football field because we’re not doing anything with that in the wintertime. Alderman Siegel Part of this is to have a study and that would be incorporated, what the trade-offs would be. Alderwoman Brown Alderman Schoneman, do we have any idea how long this would take, the study? Looks like there’s about 10 parks. Have you spoken with the Human Center of Design to get an idea of how long it would take from approval start date and final report? Alderman Schoneman We do have a proposal from them and that was circulated by e-mail. Alderman Sheehan sent that out. I have a copy here. I’d be glad to show it to you afterwards. It does say from the time they get the go-ahead until they are complete, short of the presentation, would take three heads. When they get a go-ahead that’s what they think it would take. Part of what I would think we would want them to do is come in and do a presentation as well. That would be outside of the three weeks, but to complete the study they have said it would take three weeks. Mayor Lozeau I can understand everybody’s position on this. I think it boils down to something very simple for me and that is the Legacy Group has asked to put it in Greeley Park. I think they should have a vote yes or no. I don’t think it’s up to us whether it goes somewhere else. I think it’s up to them. T he first question they asked was can we put it in Greeley Park. If we say yes and they put it in Greeley Park that’s what it is and we have professionals work with us on how to accommodate it. If we say no to Greeley Park but you can put it here, that decision is theirs on whether they agree to put it there or not. I don’t want to lose sight of that. This Finance – 04/16/14 Page 22 idea came from a middle schooler who came to me and asked about whether or not we could do a playground like this, not just for kids but for parents, grandparents and others. When she came to me with that idea I asked the Director of the Plus Company to lead an initiative to start looking at how we could do that. Not long after that I got a call from Leadership Greater Nashua asking if there was any project they could play a role in because they were interested in doing something for the city. I said as a matter of fact we have this playground idea that we started talking about in 2011. They took on that project and they came to the Board of Public Works because they didn’t know where they were going to go with the playground. If you want to give the city a playground, where are you going to go? You’re going to go to the Board of Public Works who manages the playgrounds. They came there. It wasn’t’ long before Greeley Park was identified as the site that they would like. Based on people coming in and trying to have the same type of discussions that Alderman Donchess is now replicating of people being invited to speak. We spent hours at public works meetings with people going through the different parks, putting them on the board, talking about the pros and cons. Not everybody agreed clearly, but we did that for a long time. We weren’t holding it up. We didn’t have anything before us other than a group of people talking to us. There was no legislation. I made it clear at the time that I wouldn’t bring in the legislation unless the ward alderman wanted to bring it in. When the ward alderman decided that she wanted to bring it in, I think the discussion was held in November and it was agreed that they would wait until the new board was seated. I just want to make it clear that multiple times those discussions took place. In my State-of-the-City in 2013 I mentioned that there were people interested in Greeley Park because we knew at that time that that’s where they were interested in. I think they deserve a yes or no vote. I think it’s just that simple. Yes or no. Once they know that, where we go from there, I don’t disagree that it’s a great thing to see if we can get everybody on board. But I think even if a professional group came in and said Greeley Park is the place, I think you would still have people that didn’t want it there. I’m not going to support this. I understand why people are. I wanted an opportunity to mention why I felt the way that I felt. I did want to clarify the record about what I asked for because I certainly don’t want to get any credit for something I may not have done. What I asked for was a request for a professional opinion relative to autism as it relates to the Greeley Park location and the Sergeants’ Ave location. That’s what I asked for so we would know that. Then I said in addition we are witting on some rendition drawings from our staff that would show us the footprint of what it would look like at Greeley Park. Two separate things. But I would consider our Superintendent of Park-Recreation a professional. He does a great job of taking care of the parks in the city. Alderman Siegel I just want to say one thing, Madam Chair. Your statement is inconsistent with what Legacy, themselves, have said. They said they came into this looking at 52 sites and eventually by some serendipity arrived at Greeley Park. Your statement said they came in asking to put a park at Greeley Park. Mayor Lozeau Actually that‘s not what I said, Alderman Siegel. Alderman Siegel Then I must have not heard you correctly. Mayor Lozeau I said they wanted to donate a playground so they came to the Board of Public Works. At that time, we were talking about different playgrounds and they went off and looked. At their first meeting with the Board f Public Works it wasn’t decided or anticipated that it would be Greeley Park. We identified 8 or 10 sites we narrowed it down. Then each time it got narrowed a little bit more and a little bit more and a little bit more. I want to say even in January a final decision hadn’t been made. In January of 2013, a final decision hadn’t been made. That’s when I was asking for a response about autism for those two locations. We ended up narrowing it down to three locations: the Labine Park, Sergeants’ Ave., and Greeley Park. I put together a Finance – 04/16/14 Page 23 whole list because I was looking through that to figure out the timeline and when that happened. What I’m saying is they’ve come into this board, as they should, for that decision and are asking us to put it in Greeley Park. They are asking this board and that’s what I am referring to. Alderman Siegel They wouldn’t be before this board unless they were asking for Greeley Park. Mayor Lozeau I agree. Alderman Siegel I understand now. Thank you. Alderman Wilshire No one disputes that hi is going to be a great project when it goes into the right site. We all feel that way. I know we do. What does concern me a little bit is if the people that are funding this project think this is a really good idea and this process can’t play out like a lot of us think it should, why would they back out financially? If it’s really that good an idea, I think they are all in. I’m not sure why they would back out. Mayor Lozeau I’m not saying that they would. I’m just saying that’s their decision. Alderman Wilshire I agree, but if it’s a good project and it’s a viable option for the city, and I think it is, just letting it play out, I don’t think they should back out if they really bought in and think it’s a good project. Mayor Lozeau I don’t disagree. I think we all think it’s a great project. I’m just saying in order to know whether it’s at Greeley Park or not they have to ask this Board. I just think the yes or no vote is what we owe them. MOTION CARRIED TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE AS AMENDED Division Taken – 4-3 NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES – None HELD IN COMMITTEE O-14-011 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Michael Soucy REGARDING FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENTS  Held in Cmte – 3/19/14 Finance – 04/16/14 Page 24 Alderman Donchess We have discussed this in the past and I have expressed the idea that when certain contract amendments take place, I was proposing to try to bring about public disclosure. It does say that these changes cannot by the Mayor with the Finance Committee approval. You have suggested that the Mayor should have as much flexibility as is in the ordinance and that under the circumstances expressed in the ordinance, the Mayor should be able to make this and we should not change the rules. I would ask you to consider – what if it said instead of “changing the rules regarding the Mayor’s authority to make changes in amounts, etc.” that instead, the ordinance read “if a contract has been approved by the Finance Committee previously, meaning that it’s at least $10,000, that if a change is made in the terms or conditions, the Mayor simply has to inform the Finance Committee that the change has been made.” That way, we would know that changes had been made which is my primary objective and the other hand, the Mayor would still retain the flexibility to be able to make those changes subject to the obligation to tell the Finance Committee that that had occurred within some reasonable of time. Mayor Lozeau Are you asking me to consider that? Alderman Donchess Yes, and you don’t have to answer it now because I don’t intend on trying to act on that tonight. Maybe you can consider it and we can discuss it in two weeks. DISCUSSION Mayor Lozeau I did want to point out that tonight I had scheduled a meeting on the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. Other than Alderwoman Brown, Commissioner Pappas, and Commissioner Bergeron, nobody else was in attendance for that tonight so I’ll look for another date to that. I would appreciate it if folks could let me know if they don’t plan to attend because then I won’t have somebody waiting for that. Alderman Deane I couldn’t make it but I would appreciate another meeting being scheduled. Mayor Lozeau I think what I may do, Alderman Deane, in the interest of time, is before the next Board of Alderman meeting, I’ve scheduled a 6:30 p.m. bonding and surf discussion so I could potentially start that at 6:00 p.m. and we could start with the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. If you would prefer another time, I will do that. Let me know before then. Alderman Deane Do it at another time. I don’t want to try to cram too much stuff into a small period of time. Mayor Lozeau I am trying to do that so that you will have that information before the Budget Meeting because of the same reason, trying to fit everything in. I’ll be happy to look for another date. Finance – 04/16/14 Page 25 RECORD OF EXPENDITURES MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CITY CHARTER AND ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE RECORD OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 29, 2014 TO APRIL 10, 2014 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I’d like to thank Mr. Griffin for responding to the questions that I had. Mayor Lozeau I’ll make sure he knows. MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC COMMENT Dick Ianacone – Swart Terrace, Nashua Thank you Alderman Chasse for being the only person to act in a businesslike manner and present a plan which should have been done in the beginning. It’s too late, but it should have been. Two of the aldermen, Moriarty and Soucy, thank you for really addressing the real issue. No one has really addressed Greeley Park. I was here for that five hour meeting but I didn’t speak because it was 11:30 p.m. All these people were paraded before us that were supposedly professionals. This is the problem. The issue is about what? All about ADA. They were all professionals ADA. I am confused because the first part of all the meetings I attended all I heard was the crack of the bat and that you can’t have it in these areas because of the noise. The last meeting, all the professionals said that the noise was okay. The real issue is there should be more trail in this park. You had it back in 1999 and nothing was done. This is the jewel. Has anyone thought about why they call it the jewel? Tonight we heard these words “they want the park in Greeley, for what reason?” “They want to walk through a park like setting to get to the playground. We are losing Greeley Park. We already have so many areas in Greeley Park that are being destroyed and the next generation won’t know what it’s like to walk through this park. I was in Londonderry for many years and we had issues over there. It was interesting that a few of us fought to keep some land and we couldn’t get the vote. Two business people went to the bank and signed to buy the land. Then there was a committee formed and the land was developed. That’s the airport. Half of that land was in Londonderry. A few people went out on a limb to preserve something. Here we have a gift in the 1800’s given to us. This is a jewel because it is an open park. There’s no place for that playground in Greeley Park and there’s no place for a lot of the things that have already happened in Greeley Park. The building that was put up in there never came before the Board of Alderman. This thing about accepting something with no dollars. I have to question when I go back and look at the meeting of March 14, 2013. The vote then was 4-1 to recommend to put it at Greeley Park. It talked about paths, roads but Mr. Caggiano said that “the rough concept has an anticipated cost between $250,000 - $350,000. It’s going to cost anyplace you put it in that park. I would love to see the aldermen come up and make a motion about the moratorium. Think about it when you are voting, when you come to that next meeting and at the Board of Alderman meeting, what it’s really about. POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION - None Finance – 04/16/14 Page 26 ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The Finance Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Alderman Ken Siegel Committee Clerk