Finance Committee

REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 A meeting of the Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, September 17, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty, Vice Chair, presided. Members of the Committee present: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. Members not in Attendance: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Also in Attendance: Officer Adam Anderson, NPD Ms. Karen Smith, Business Manager, NPD PUBLIC COMMENT - None COMMUNICATIONS From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Emergency Purchase of a Replacement for the No. 2 Bar Rack Carriage MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane This was $107,463.57 expenditure. It seems like things are running amuck at our treatment plant for some reason. You need the bar screen to keep the debris out. MOTION CARRIED From: John L. Griffin, Chief Financial Officer Re: Contract Award for FY15 Ammunition Requested by Nashua Police Department (Value: $67,289) MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO RILEY’S SPORT SHOP IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,289. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN DEPARTMENT 150, POLICE DEPARTMENT, GENERAL OPERATING FUND; 61, SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse Are these all practice rounds or are they both? Finance – 09/17/14 Page 2 Officer Adam Anderson, Nashua Police Department This is our entire ammunition purchase for this fiscal year. Its duty rounds, riffle rounds, and hand gun rounds. It’s what the officer carries on him and our practice rounds. Alderman Deane I had a question on the cover letter to Mr. Berry. Is it usual and customary to have such an extended period of time for this and is the price locked in for that period as well? Ms. Karen Smith, Business Manager, NPD Yes, we have had the price extended in the past, it’s not unusual. Alderman Deane So the cost with what we are purchasing this evening as times goes on, we can continue to enjoy that level of expenditure without seeing any increases? Ms. Smith That’s correct. We would have to have another letter to extend it again and that most likely would not happen, it would be through probably the next state contract. Alderman Deane This says August 31, 2017. Is this the usual and customary amount of ammunition that the department buys on a yearly basis? Ms. Smith Yes. Alderman Deane So basically that $67,000 we will see for the next couple of years for this amount. Ms. Smith Yes but if I could add to that, it just depends on the pricing. If the ammunition goes up, certainly the price is going to go up. Or, it could depend on what programs they are having, whether they have a different unit that needs different ammunition so yes, $67,000 is right in the ballpark. Last year we ordered in that range and I think this year it is about a 15% increase. It just depends what’s going on in the economy and where the pricing is going to be at but certainly in that ballpark. Alderman Deane So these prices are not locked for a couple more years, they are subject to increase? Ms. Smith It depends on who has state bid. I would have to check to see when the Riley’s contract expires. Finance – 09/17/14 Page 3 Alderman Deane It states here that the effective date of this contract shall be effective present, which is August 13, 2014; which is the date of the letter through August 31, 2107. Ms. Smith Yes, so it definitely would be that period. Alderman Deane So they would have the contract but the prices aren’t locked with Riley’s because they have the contract, is that what you are saying? Ms. Smith The price is locked I just didn’t realize that this letter was the State of New Hampshire date. We have had Riley’s, who has extended the price even after the contract had expired but yes, to answer your question, the price goes to August 31, 2017; according to the State of New Hampshire contract currently awarded to Riley’s. Alderman Deane So we are locked at that price? Ms. Smith Yes. Alderman Chasse None of these are reloads right? Officer Anderson They are not. MOTION CARRIED From: John L. Griffin, Chief Financial Officer Re: Contract for Outside Counsel Related to Broad Street Parkway (Value: $51,750) MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO ATTORNEY MARK P. HODGDON, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $51,750. SOURCE OF FUNDING IS DEPARTMENT 160, PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION AND ENGINEERING; BOND – CAPITAL PROJECT FUND; BROAD STREET PARKWAY ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I had a question about who the principals of J.K.S. Realty, LLC are. Does anyone know that? Finance – 09/17/14 Page 4 Attorney Bennett I don’t know all of the principals but I believe one, however is Mr. Tamposi. Alderman Chasse It’s going to pain me but this will be the first time that I will have to vote in favor when the words read “Broad Street Parkway.” It’s just to try to recoup some of that money. Alderman Donchess Where is this property anyway? Attorney Bennett It’s going to be, I believe, where the bridge is going across down below. It’s not necessarily a great piece of property, there’s a lot of wetland and the topography is difficult to build in. That’s one of the reasons that we were somewhat surprised by the BTLA’s decision because we didn’t think the property could sustain the amount of development that J.K.S. felt it could; or their engineering at least felt it could. Alderman Donchess Is it on the north side of the river over by Fairmount Street? Attorney Bennett I believe that’s where the location is. I wasn’t involved in the case and I’m not that familiar with the property. Alderman Donchess BTLA is the Board of Land and Tax Appeals? Attorney Bennett Correct, they do all of the imminent domain. Alderman Donchess How much is the dispute at this point? Attorney Bennett Our estimate came in at $1.3 million for the taking and theirs came in at almost $2.9 million so there’s a difference of about $1.5 million. Alderman Donchess From what I am reading, this will be ultimately be a jury trial in the Superior Court, is that correct? Attorney Bennett Yes. Finance – 09/17/14 Page 5 Alderman Donchess Do you have any sense of when that will get decided? Attorney Bennett I believe it will be next spring at the Superior Court level. Chairman Moriarty Attorney Bennett, if you currently walk along the road, which we are not supposed to, you go past the section that they are building those cement pilings where the Nashua River comes in quite close and then there’s a gigantic sand kingdom, I was wondering if that were the part of the land. Attorney Bennett Well you have been at the Broad Street Parkway more than I have. I haven’t even been out there so I really don’t have a lot of information about where the property is. In its entirety it is about an 11-acre parcel. MOTION CARRIED From: John Griffin, Chief Financial Officer Bruce Codagnone, CIO IT Division Director William Mansfield, Radio Systems Manager Re: Citywide Communications – Fiber Optic Cabling MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane When I read the body of this, when I read the second sentence where it says purchasing order NRO 5-81 provides for the consideration of competitive proposals in a situation where competitive sealed bidding is not practical. It goes on to state that this particular project is relatively small in size and scope and consists of running fiber cable and does not require a detailed specification to be written. Even so, if that’s the case then whether an RFP was written or not, it still could have gone out to bid. It should have gone out to bid. If we use the rationale that the project was relatively small in size and scope, I still think it really doesn’t fall under 5-81. That’s just my opinion. Chairman Moriarty It’s worth noting that this is a two-part piece of legislation. We will accept and place on file just the communication and then you guys have to decide whether you want to take the item off the table that we tabled last time. Alderman Deane I believe this memo deals with the rational of the discussion that we had at our last meeting. Chairman Moriarty Yes. Finance – 09/17/14 Page 6 Alderman Deane It’s from when the issue was raised about the procurement process and this is the answer to the questions that were raised that was given to us. Chairman Moriarty Correct, so you can vote yes to accept it and still vote no to take it off the table if you want. Alderman Chasse Why don’t we just not accept this and table it and when we bring the other one back because I have no intentions the other one up to the table tonight because that’s for the Mayor. If there are any questions, she would be the one who would have a lot of the answers. Alderman Siegel I have to agree with the Chairman. There doesn’t seem to be much harm in accepting this memorandum. We may decide that it’s not sufficient for us to take the other item off the table because it probably could be fleshed out. Certainly, Alderman Deane seems to feel that way. We can accept it and then leave the other item on the table with the provision that what you gave us that we accepted wasn’t acceptable. I know that sounds unusual. Alderman Donchess So, the motion on the floor is simply to accept this and place it on file; is that correct? Not to take action on it? Chairman Moriarty Correct. MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS – None TABLED IN COMMITTEE From: John L. Griffin, Chief Financial Officer Re: Citywide Communication – Fiber Optic Cabling (Value: $28,800)  Tabled 9/3/14 DISCUSSION MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PREPARED Finance – 09/17/14 Page 7 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel The two items that I would like to have entered into the record are the memorandums that I have handed out to you in hard copy and that I have sent via e-mail, the first of which is the memorandum from Robert Mack, Welfare Officer, concerning Welfare Department Housing and Emergency Shelter Assistance and the second memorandum is from me, Ken Siegel, Alderman Ward 9; subject is the Examination of NFR and NPD Incident Calls and Costs to 23 Temple Street. Chairman Moriarty So, the compound motion very valid by Alderman Siegel is to suspend the rules to accept these two items and accept these two items and place them of file. MOTION CARRIED Chairman Moriarty Now would be a good time to discuss those two items if you so choose. Alderman Siegel The first item is in response to some questions that came up at the previous Finance Committee meeting regarding what our ability to select places for our less fortunate residents to allow…what discretion do we have in choosing or directing in some way these residents to places in the city that aren’t safe for them and potentially are not maintained very well and that the taxpayers of Nashua would probably be better to not be paying our tax dollars towards. As I read the memo from Mr. Mack, it appears as though we are free to recommend how we see it and so we have the option to not recommend a place like 23 Temple Street which, in the other memorandum I will be discussion, I clearly outline the various social costs of responding for the Nashua Fire Department, the ambulance services, and police. That’s the gist of Mr. Mack’s memorandum which I received prior to inquiring about the costs of service calls to the fire department and the police department. In the second memo which I sent out to the full Board this afternoon and which I have made copies of here tonight, I got information from Nashua Fire & Rescue and the Nashua Police Department about the incident costs at 23 Temple Street. There was an e-mail sent from our colleague, Alderwoman Brown, offering us the opportunity to tour 23 Temple Street and apparently, Alderwoman Brown, while she had a prior commitment and could not make the last two Finance Committee meetings was able to attend a walk through at 23 Temple Street. Unfortunately, she is not here to share with us whatever wisdom she may have accumulated in walking through there but it lieu of that, I think you can that there is quite a dramatic difference between 23 Temple Street, which is the number one incident reported location in the City of Nashua and number two; almost by a factor of two to three depending on fire rescue or the police department. There’s a conservative estimate that I have here where I asked Chief Morrissey and Chief Seusing for the cost associated with sending out a fire department truck and ambulance as well as the cost of a police cruiser to come by. In here, starting with Nashua Fire Rescue, there were 82 incidents involving only Nashua Fire & Rescue at 23 Temple. Now, Assistant Chief Steve Gallipeau said that a minimum cost would $182.41 for each one of those incidents. If the ambulance comes he said its $547.84 plus $9.08 mile. Assuming a conservative round-trip estimate of 10 miles because of course, if they are not emergencies, they take the long route; we get a fairly substantial cost on the order of $45,000 in total just for fire rescue and $28,000 approximately for the police department if you look at the incidents there. The incidents there are figuring out 840 calls just to 23 Temple Street. These are calls that were dispatched automatically, computer aided dispatch. 840 calls to one single location in Nashua, assuming a minimum of 1 hours’ time and the chief said that every call was different – some were small and some calls were fairly substantial but that if you consider that it’s dispatching an officer and the reporting time, it is incredibly conservative to call it 840 hours. At the current contract cost that would be $26,014 or $27,795 just in hourly labor cost to send an officer there. What we are looking at is on the order Finance – 09/17/14 Page 8 of $73,000 just from those items alone to this one location and the secondary locations that we have to house our less fortunate people that are in need of assistance are Lillian’s, the Country Barn and you see that while there are incidents there, they pale in comparison. My point being is that I believe we can make better choices as a government for our taxpayers and for our less fortunate citizens and we can do so by not paying money to anybody to go to 23 Temple Street. It’s clear that the owners of this property don’t seem to be very responsive because this has historically been the worst property in Nashua. I know that Alderwoman Brown is trying to advocate after a long slumber of 8 ½ months on the Board of Aldermen. She has decided to advocate initially for the owner’s of 23 Temple Street rather than our own residents; I choose differently and I’m sorry Alderwoman Brown isn’t here for what might have been a spirited debate on the relative merits of 23 Temple Street. I would urge my colleagues as the Record of Expenditures comes up, that for now we certainly have to let these expenditures go through; they are on-going but in the future, after a few months I suppose, I am not going to sign a Record of Expenditures that pays money to 23 Temple Street. Alderman Chasse Alderman Siegel, I know what you are trying to do and I kind of feel the same way but I read Mr. Mack’s letter and there’s nowhere in here that says that we, as a Board of Aldermen, have the right to pick and choose which places that these individuals decide to locate. It does say that they go through a program under the Greater Nashua Continuum of Care toolkit and it does say in there that if the tenants that we gave the money to the landlord to, if the tenants have a problem then they should get in touch with the Welfare Department who gets in touch with the Code Enforcement Department and then the city can hold the check until that building is back up to code. I don’t see anywhere here where we can say we don’t want to send them. I understand the problem; that was a very good report you compiled here. I don’t know are we stepping over our bounds here? I understand your feelings of not wanting to give them the money but I do know that the Code Enforcement Department recently gave them a carte blanch saying they were up to code. I didn’t attend the walk through, I haven’t seen it. I don’t think I want to take a walk through, I’m not really interested. I have mixed feelings on this one. Alderman Siegel I appreciate your sentiment. I’m not saying that the Board of Aldermen gets to choose where we send people. All I am saying is that according to the memorandum from Mr. Mack, our city government has the option for who they recommend and I would expect that we might, given the circumstances, exercise an option; not “we” the Board of Aldermen, but “we” collectively as a city government exercise the option to not recommend inferior housing. I know that I don’t feel right about having people who are unfortunate put into a position where they may be at risk. Alderman Chasse Can you point out where it says that in this memo? I read it twice and I didn’t see that, am I missing something? Alderman Siegel I would point you to the last paragraph “Applicants are informed of local motel establishments that will accept Welfare Department vouchers.” We have the freedom of not informing them that 23 Temple accepts those vouchers. Alderman Chasse Are you saying that where the Welfare Department works? Finance – 09/17/14 Page 9 Alderman Siegel That’s correct. Alderman Chasse It’s not the Board of Aldermen, it’s the Welfare Department so I guess the Board of Aldermen would have to sit down with the Welfare Department and strongly suggest that the Welfare Department doesn’t use 23 Temple Street. That would probably be the right way to go. Alderman Siegel I believe that message has been communicated however; I think that on principle, what we do is we approve or disapprove the Record of Expenditures. That would be a question I have because as a Finance Committee, I believe that we can reject expenses where there are other alternatives that are equivalent or better. I believe that 23 Temple Street could possibly be worse than other alternatives considering the health and safety of our less fortunate residents. I completely understand that it would be very easy to say that I’m overstepping my bounds than to say that I am within my rights but this is more of a conscience decision on my part and a pure economic decision. Why are we rewarding problematic properties? Alderman Chasse I don’t think you are overstepping your bounds because I have the same feelings as you do. The only alternative though is that if you don’t use them and I think they are the biggest one, if there are no rooms, they allow them to go to a motel for a night and I don’t know what they would get from the Welfare Department. Motel 6 is probably around $60.00 - $70.00. I think the Welfare Department should come in front of the Board of Aldermen and let the Board of Aldermen say hey, see if you cannot use that place or use it as a last resort. You would need all of the numbers. Attorney Bennett When Alderman Siegel made his request about information regarding the welfare’s practices for providing shelter to people, I just worked with Mr. Mack in response so I am quite familiar with at least the information provided by Mr. Mack. I don’t disagree with Alderman Siegel that when we are providing shelter for people, we do want to make sure that it is a shelter that is as safe as we can ensure for people. We have many different standards of housing throughout the city. There are areas where the housing is not in as good of shape as we would like it be and there are areas that are not as safe as we would like them to be. We have more calls in certain areas of the city than we do in other areas. The properties that were focused on in Alderman Siegel’s report, I agree have had a number of visits from both fire and police but I would point out that doesn’t necessarily reflect the owners. I don’t believe that the police calls were as a result of the owners doing anything wrong. The owners have responsibility for the condition of the buildings and that’s another issue and I think you have to separate the two. The Code Department has been working with 23 Temple Street recently. There was an inspection done and I don’t think it was quite as successful as Alderman Chasse suggested. There are still some violations however, the life safety code violations which are the top concern, had been addressed. I haven’t seen the final report yet but that’s my understanding. When we have provided shelter through the Welfare Department we do not “recommend,” I think the word “recommend” is incorrect. There are a certain number of establishments which will accept city vouchers. Other methods of payment have been less successful. We can’t give somebody a credit card or cash so in order to better manage our funds, they had the voucher system but not establishments will accept vouchers. There are other available resources. We do have some shelters in the city. They are not necessarily good for certain people. Certain people seem not to fit in well at shelters and they can’t go there; families in particular. We do need other places for immediate, temporary shelters. It is my understanding that number is very limited as to who accept a city voucher and work with the city along those lines. We do, of course, give vouchers to a number of other people who have an apartment but still need assistance, at least temporarily, to afford where they are living. The Welfare Finance – 09/17/14 Page 10 Department tries not to be part of the selection process. Maintaining people’s dignity also includes allowing them to make those choices that we all try to make and that includes where we are going to live. We try to have people to have that choice when it’s available. I think while these properties surely have any number of issues, not just with the property but with the area, and sometimes the people, the system that we use is one that allows people to have a freedom of choice and we do not tell them that they have to go someplace. We do require in some cases that people go to shelters initially but a lot of times those shelters are filled. I want to point out that this is not necessarily a selection process in which we have selected these places for any reason. They self-select by accepting city vouchers. If we start crossing off properties based on police calls or non- threatening code violations, we might find that we don’t have enough housing or temporary shelters for people that need it. That’s what I have learned and in the memo it does point out that code does work with welfare to point out where there are code issues that they feel are safety issues. Either people are told they can’t go there or when issues come up the people are allowed to hold on their rent and place it in an escrow account until the problems are taken care of. That’s mostly in the long-term apartments where people are actually renting. Chairman Moriarty You bring up the important issue that we distinguish between the owners taking care of the building versus the residents causing problems. We would need an RSA in either case to allow us to do any of this but on the one hand, we would like to discourage owners from misbehaving by withholding payment but on the other hand, how do you discourage people from misbehaving by withholding payment. We have disorderly, domestic, drug offense, and theft which brought service but it had nothing to do with the owners but everything to do with the people living there. Alderman Donchess Attorney Bennett, I read in the newspaper about the city doing an inspection with various city people and documenting a number of different violations, some of which were incredibly disgusting. What is the process by which…if the city finds a violation of the building or health code, what happens? Does the city issue an order that they correct that violation? Attorney Bennett I assume the process is relatively the same regardless of what department you are talking about. We have health, fire, building and the way they generally approach it is first it’s on the premise that we want compliance in the end. Looking for fines don’t necessarily take care of the problem so the first that is done, assuming that it is not a life threatening violation, they are given a notice of first violation and a reasonable amount of time to take care of the violation and then there’s a re-inspection done. If it is an immediate life/safety issue they have the authority to essentially close the structure and prevent people from entering the structure and that has occurred on occasion for reasons including infestations of animals or insects. The typical violation is not a life/safety code violation where there is an immediate threat to health. They are given a notice of violation, time to correct it, and then there’s an inspection. If people are making an effort to correct the problem, we will work with them. Sometimes it comes down to a money issue because it might be a major repair. We find that if we work with them, eventually the problem does get corrected. We are trying to get compliance using the carrot and not the stick all of the time. Alderman Donchess Based upon what I have read and heard here in the Aldermanic Chamber, there is a long history of violations at 23 Temple Street and assuming that is correct, there doesn’t seem to be a financial inability to take care of the building in the sense that there are 100+ plus units there and the rental for a room is around $100 a week which means if they are fully occupied they are bringing in $10,000 per week or $40,000 per month; and $5 million per year and I don’t even think the building is worth $5 million. There’s a lot of money coming out of this building for whoever owns it, at least based upon that analysis and there seem to be constant violations over Finance – 09/17/14 Page 11 there. In a case where you have a building where you know the owner can or it seems apparent that the owner can afford to fix the building up and correct violations without the city having to send 10 inspectors over there and we know that there are multiple violations over and over and over again, why in that situation do we not take a more aggressive approach and seek fines and the like in order to try to bring about overall compliance with building, health, &and safety codes. Attorney Bennett I believe they have taken that approach. I’ve been involved in several meetings over the last few months with code enforcement, fire, and police where we have met to discuss the problems and to set up this regular inspection schedule to stay on top of these problems and require them to have the problems fixed. We have shut down specific rooms in the building on occasion when required and that has a financial impact. A number of the life/safety code violations and I’m not sure how many of them but there’s a fair amount of damage caused to the sprinkler system by the people who live there. My understanding is that they go and they find the sprinklers damaged, the fire alarms damaged; it’s not necessarily due to a failure to maintain, it’s due to outright damage. A lot of the conditions that you alluded to, the nasty conditions there are not necessarily because the building isn’t being maintained as much as it is some of the residents causing the mess and damage in there. That is ultimately going to be the responsibility of the owner to clean it up and that’s what code, fire, and the police have been working at. They have gone through every room in that building at the last inspection. That’s not the typical inspection of a building. The Mayor requested code to target that building to make sure that these on-going problems were addressed. Alderman Donchess I am not suggesting that Code Enforcement didn’t do a good job, it appeared that they did. They went in and found all kinds of stuff. I’m just saying if we continue to inspect and there continues to be violations, should the city pursue a more aggressive, legal stance and seek fines against the owner which maybe will create greater motivation to keep things in line. If the residents are causing some of these problems which undoubtedly they are, maybe the owner should kick the people out who are causing the problems. I’m advocating for a more aggressive approach. I applaud the code people for finding all of the violations they did but I think our patience should not be infinite. Chairman Moriarty It’s certainly a complicated issue. We might want to consider having a dedicated meeting on this. I mean, what can we do as a Finance Committee? Alderman Siegel First of all, and it’s very important to address this, it’s about helping the people that are there or they are looking for assistance. We are focusing on the condition of the building and the landlord but the fact that there is a lot of crime there is entirely germane to the thrust of my issue which is that we have unfortunate people and we are housing them in a place where they are not safe in my estimation based on hard data which I have taken the time to get in front of us. The fact that the residents that are there are or are not engaged in crime or some activity that is negative is directly impactful on our decision about whether it not it makes sense to place people there. Alderman Deane The one thing when Attorney Bennett was talking about the code and the health department working with these folks and giving them warnings, it states here under A400-8; Disbursements under B-1 “can be issued payment the vendor, which is the landlord, must be on the city’s vendor file and the property must be in compliance with the current land/use controls statutes and ordinances.” If multiple violations are being found then is there another section in this book that describes a process by which the health department… Finance – 09/17/14 Page 12 Attorney Bennett If you look at our code, the reference there is to be in compliance with our land/use code. Alderman Deane It says land/use control statutes and ordinances. Does that cover just land/use ordinances or ordinances in general because the word “and” is front of it? I understand the rationale behind what code enforcement and the health department does. I know this much, our fire department rules with an iron fist. You can have everything else signed off on but if there are life/safety issues, there is no wiggle room; the fire department will just shut the place down. I understand that the issues over there are not all about building depreciation; it’s about vandalism and things of that nature. I’m just wondering how they came up with the process of working with these landlords when the ordinances specifically state how things are supposed to be. Is there anything within here that gives them the authority to carry their process out or is it just a policy that they have put together to work with the landlords? How does that work? Attorney Bennett Are you speaking about the Welfare Department now? Who do you mean by “they?” Alderman Deane The code enforcement and the health department. If they go over there and they find the facility riddled with violations, the way I read this is “no payment is to be issued to the vendor if they are not in compliance with the land/use control statutes and ordinances.” If they are not in compliance, how and why are they being paid? Why is the Welfare Department offering vouchers for people to go live there in they are not up to snuff. Alderman Chasse I’d like to make a recommendation. I think this should go to the Human Affairs Committee where they can handle this because it falls under their jurisdiction and not the Finance Committee. Mr. Mack should attend and Mr. Nelson from the Code Enforcement Department could also attend to answer questions. Alderman Deane That’s a brilliant idea. MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO REFER THE TWO COMMUNICATIONS TO THE HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REGARDING ALL FACILITIES THAT ACCEPT HOUSING AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I think it would also be helpful to send copies of these two memos to the Human Affairs Committee as well for their review. Alderman Donchess Of course. MOTION CARRIED Finance – 09/17/14 Page 13 Alderman Donchess I wanted to say that I understand that the Mayor vetoed the open government reform that the Board of Aldermen passed at the last meeting; the one that requires that the Finance Committee be informed when a police or fire department purchase request comes in. I’m disappointed in the veto. I as well as the City Charter consider the Board of Aldermen to be an equal partner with the Mayor and city government and we cannot exercise our responsibilities under the City Charter and our responsibilities as the Finance Committee unless we are informed about what’s going on. I consider all of the members of the Finance Committee to be responsible adults and Aldermen who can exercise sound discretion on behalf of the taxpayers of the City of Nashua so it does no harm to inform us about what’s going on and I hope that the Board will consider that and override the veto. 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 AUGUST 29, 2014 TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I had asked about transfer sheets being put on the financial services link on the city’s website. I will talk to Mr. Griffin after the meeting but I was wondering if that will take place because I can’t seem to find them. MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC COMMENT - None POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The Finance Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m. Alderman Ken Siegel Committee Clerk Board of Aldermen City of Nashua 229 Main Street Ken Siegel Nashua, NH 03061-2019 Alderman, Ward 9 (603) 589-3030 TO: Board of Aldermen FROM: Ken Siegel, Alderman, Ward 9 DATE: September 17, 2014 SUBJ: Examination of NFR and NPD Incident Calls and Costs to 23 Temple Street Colleagues, This memorandum is for distribution at the Finance Committee meeting of September 17, 2014. It is a rollup of some research work that was done by the Nashua Police and Fire and Rescue Departments. I would like to thank both Chief Seusing and Chief Morrissey and their staff for the very helpful and timely responses to my requests for information. Included is a breakdown of incident reports for 23 Temple Street and some other properties in Nashua that we may use for temporary housing assistance. I have also included some incident cost estimates provided by NPD and NFR. It is my contention that this property has such a substantial number of incidents that it is not appropriate for temporary housing for our less fortunate citizens. It is also completely inappropriate for the taxpayers of Nashua to be rewarding the owners of this property with our tax dollars. I believe we have better options for temporary housing. Since our colleague, Alderwoman Brown, has sent an email to the Telegraph as well as the Board of Aldermen regarding a potential visit to this location on behalf of the owners of 23 Temple I am including that here as well at the end of this memorandum. Nashua Police Statistics: Year Comparison (September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014) Country Barn Motel (507 Lillian’s Motel Laton House (28 23 TEMPLE BROAD (188 CONCORD RAILROAD ST Grand Reason Text ST) ST) ST) Total 911 HANGUP 1 2 7 10 911 HANGUP-OPEN LINE 1 1 ABANDONED MV 2 2 ACCIDENT 1 2 2 1 6 ACCIDENT HIT & RUN 1 1 2 Activated Alarm 1 1 AMBULANCE CALL 13 9 62 57 141 ANIMAL CALL 2 1 1 4 ARREST 1 1 2 ASSAULT 4 11 10 25 ATTEMPT TO LOCATE 18 5 7 26 56 Box Alarm 2 12 14 BURGLARY 1 7 8 CHECK CONDITIONS 16 5 23 52 96 CHECK WELL BEING 3 1 3 20 27 COMMUNITY POLICING 4 22 55 81 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 1 1 3 4 9 CRIMINAL THREATENING 1 1 2 CRIMINAL TRESPASS 1 1 4 11 17 CUSTOMER DISPUTE 2 2 DEBRIS IN ROADWAY 1 1 DELIVER MESSAGE 6 1 3 10 DISABLED VEHICLE 2 2 DISORDERLY 2 12 23 37 DISORDERLY - MALE 1 1 DISORDERLY - PERSON 1 1 DISORDERLY - PERSONS 1 1 2 DISORDERLY FEMALE 1 1 DISORDERLY GROUP 1 3 1 5 DISORDERLY JUVENILES 1 1 2 DISORDERLY JUV'S 1 1 DISORDERLY MALE 1 4 5 DISORDERLY MALES 1 3 4 DISORDERLY MOTOR VEHICLE 1 1 2 DISORDERLY PERSON 1 1 2 DISTURBANCE 1 7 8 16 DOMESTIC 25 2 5 36 68 DOMESTIC/VERBAL 1 1 DRUG OFFENSE 1 5 6 FAMILY NEIGHBOR DISPUTE 1 1 FIRE CALL 1 4 5 FIREWORKS 1 1 FOLLOW UP 21 3 29 98 151 FOUND PROPERTY 2 2 FRAUD 2 2 GIVE ADVICE 4 2 8 19 33 GIVE ASSISTANCE 4 2 4 21 31 HARASSMENT 2 5 11 18 INVESTIGATION 2 3 5 KEEP THE PEACE 10 3 9 22 LANDLORD TENANT DISPUTE 1 2 3 6 LEWD INDECENT EXPOSURE 1 1 2 LOST PROPERTY 1 1 LOUD GROUP 1 1 LOUD MUSIC 1 1 2 LOUD NOISE 3 2 9 14 LOUD NOISE MUSIC 7 2 13 39 61 MISSING JUVENILE 1 1 MOTOR VEHICLE STOP 5 15 2 38 60 NEIGHBOR DISPUTE 1 7 10 18 OVERDOSE 2 10 12 PAPERWORK 8 5 9 16 38 PARKING COMPLAINT 6 1 7 POLICE INFORMATION 3 3 2 3 11 POSSIBLE ASSAULT 1 1 POSSIBLE WITNESS TAMPERING 1 1 ROOMMATE DISPUTE 1 1 SEARCH WARRANT 1 1 SEX OFFENDER CHECK 4 7 11 Sex Offender Registration 2 2 SEX OFFENSES 1 1 SUBJECT STOP 2 25 90 117 SUICIDAL 1 3 4 SUICIDAL ATTEMPT 1 1 SUICIDAL MALE 1 1 2 4 SUICIDAL SUBJECT 1 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 8 8 SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 2 2 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 2 2 SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE 1 1 THEFT 6 1 4 28 39 THEFT FROM M/V 1 1 THEFT-OF SERVICES 2 2 TRANSPORT 3 3 TRESPASS 1 2 3 UNCONTROLLABLE CHILD 1 1 2 UNDESIRABLE 4 9 16 31 60 VERIFY VIN 1 1 2 VICTIM NOTIFICATION DV RELATED 1 1 VIOLATION OF BAIL CONDITIONS 1 1 VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER 1 1 2 WARRANT 1 1 Grand Total 211 79 323 840 1,453 Chief Seusing has said that some of these calls require a lot of effort and some much less but a very conservative estimate would be an hour of an officers time for each call including writing up any necessary reports. I asked about 23 Temple Street in particular. From Chief Seusing via email: A VERY conservative look at a cost associated with responding to 23 Temple St. would be based on 1 hour of our time per call. 23 Temple St. had 840 CAD (computer aided dispatch) calls listed to that location. The straight hourly rate of a Master Patrolman (7 year officer) is $30.97 840 hours X $30.97 = $26,014 Again, a very rough/conservative cost associated with 23 Temple St. On a side note that hourly rate is based on the expired contract. The new rate, once in effect for the current fiscal year would be $33.09 X 840 =$27,795.60. Note that the above estimate does not include anything but straight salary costs. It is also interesting to note that, according to the Chief in a follow up phone call, the 840 CAD calls were almost 3 times higher than the next highest location in the city (The Laton House Hotel). Via email from Chief Morrissey of Nashua Fire and Rescue Department: Alderman Siegel, I checked the NFR call volume to some specific addresses for the past year. The information has two numbers one showing responses that involved NFR units (NFIRS) and the other number adds incidents that involved AMR without NFR support. Call Analysis Period: 09-01-2013 to 09-01-2014: Temple St Hotel 23 Temple St – NFIRS: 82 All Calls: 128 Temple St Hotel 29 Temple St – NFIRS: 18 All Calls: 27 Laton House 28 Railroad Square – NFIRS: 32 All Calls: 62 Lillians 188 Concord St – NFIRS: 7 All Calls: 14 Country Barn 507 Broad St – NFIRS: 13 All Calls: 33 Motel 6 2 Progress Ave – NFIRS: 19 All Calls 29 Data is from Fire Dispatch call logs. Chief M. I asked about the cost of these calls and received the following information from Assistant Chief Steve Galipeau Alderman Siegel, Here is the breakdown of the cost for a single unit (pumper) response. The base for this response would be $182.41 and the base cost for AMR appears to be $547.84 plus mileage ($9.08 per). If you have any questions please call me. Assistant Chief Steven Galipeau For 23 Temple Street we had 82 calls just involving NFR. We had 46 involving just the AMR service. The costs associated with this in the most conservative case using the supplied figures would be 82*182.41= $14958.44. For the AMR service the cost is 46*$638.64=$29377.44 assuming 10 mile round trip which is, again, conservative. So the NFR and AMR costs are conservatively, on the order of $45,000 per year. Again, note the relative call volumes. 23 Temple generates about twice the number of calls as the next worse location. The combination of NFR/AMR and NPD then is on the order of $73,000 per year just for those service calls. Email from Alderwoman Brown: Colleagues, This past week I met with two of the three property owners and the office manager of the "Temple Street Hotel" located at 23-25 Temple Street. Mr. Pleatsikas, Mr. Jeff Noury and the office manager known by the residents as "Coach," gave me a tour of the facility. Mr. Pleatsikas called me earlier in the week to express concerns that two Aldermen had made negative comments at a recent meeting and since I represent Ward 4 he asked for my assistance. Today's Telegraph article "City's Temple Street Hotel remains under scrutiny" refers to those negative comments and includes information about various violations that city officials found during an inspection this summer. Mr. Pleatsikas would like to extend an invitation to tour the building and can be reached at 603-493-1623 or via email at TSR_LLC@yahoo.com. Knowing that unexpected life circumstances contribute to the poverty and homelessness that exists in Nashua, weekly rent of $99 - $125 for a private room is a choice that some individuals make and it may be the only other choice instead of homelessness. Instead of relying on rumor, I invite you to meet the staff and see for yourself so that you can make a well informed opinion. Thank you. Sincerely, Pam Alderwoman Pamela Brown Nashua Ward 4 BrownP@NashuaNH.gov 603-930-6999 ************************************************************************** * To laugh often and love much; to win the respect of intelligent persons and the affection of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics; to appreciate beauty; to give of one's self; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--that is to have succeeded. --Ralph Waldo Emerson  City of Nashua Division of Public Health & Community Services 18 Mulberry Street - Nashua, NH 03060 Memorandum To: Honorable Donnalee Lozeau, Mayor Board of Aldermen Finance Committee CC: John Griffin, Chief Financial Officer Kerran Vigroux, Director of Public Health & Community Services From: Robert Mack, Welfare Officer Date: September 9, 2014 RE: Welfare Department housing and emergency shelter assistance During the Finance Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, September 3, 2014, there were some questions regarding the City of Nashua Welfare Department practices related to housing assistance. The Welfare Department operates under RSA 165, which requires municipalities to provide General Assistance relief to those who are poor and unable to sustain themselves. In Nashua, this is accomplished through providing payment for basic needs such as housing, food and personal care items, utility assistance, prescription assistance and burial / cremation assistance to those determined eligible under the City of Nashua General Assistance Guidelines and Financial Standards. Many applicants present to the City of Nashua Welfare Department with housing/shelter needs. Some present to the Department already having housing but needing assistance with rental payments. Others are homeless and have no housing/shelter. The Welfare Department staff does not place applicants in housing. Staff works with applicants to explore available temporary and permanent housing resources such as emergency shelter placement, temporary motel stays, subsidized and supportive housing programs, both permanent and transitional, and general mainstream housing. Many of these types of resources and support services can be found in the Greater Nashua Continuum of Care Toolkit, which is given to applicants for their reference. Applicants are given a Rental Information Form to have completed by a landlord or motel staff. Once that form is completed and returned to the Welfare Department by the applicant, along with any other required documentation from the applicant, an eligibility determination is made and assistance is provided accordingly. If applicants report issues with their current housing unit, Welfare staff refers applicants to the Environmental Health and Code Enforcement Departments to address housing issues involving environmental hazards and code violations in accordance with applicable housing laws and standards. The Welfare Department is notified by the Code Enforcement Department of housing units with issued violations in the City of Nashua and at risk of closure/condemnation in the near future. If a building or unit has been found to be uninhabitable due to life/safety violations, the city will not pay for someone to live in the building/unit until the necessary repairs are made. If there are other specific, documented issues with a rental Page 1 of 2 unit not related to life safety, but which result in breaches of the land/tenant lease, the Welfare Department can withhold rental payment on behalf of a tenant in accordance with RSA 540:13. The Welfare Department works with local shelter providers to meet the needs of homeless individuals and family households. When no emergency shelter is available, applicants are given a Rental Information Form and instructed to locate room in a motel for temporary emergency motel placement until emergency shelter accommodations become available. Applicants are informed of local motel establishments that will accept Welfare Department vouchers. Once that Rental Information Form is completed by a motel and returned to the Welfare Department by the applicant, along with any other required documentation, an eligibility determination is made and assistance is provided accordingly. I hope this information addresses the questions that came up during the Finance Committee Meeting. Page 2 of 2