Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee

PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE JUNE 9, 2011 A meeting of the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee was held on Thursday, June 9, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Chairman Ben Clemons presided. Members of the Committee present: Alderman Kathy Vitale, Vice Chairman Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Members Not in Attendance: Alderman Richard P. Flynn Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. Also in Attendance: Alderman Brian McCarthy Alderman Diane Sheehan City Clerk Paul Bergeron Mayor Donnalee Lozeau PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Clemons Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak this evening? Seeing none, I will move onto a presentation about redistricting the ward boundaries. I’ll let the City Clerk lead us in that discussion. PRESENTATION Redistricting Presentation by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron Paul Bergeron Thank you Mr. Chairman. The presentation is in regards to the Ordinance that is proposing a change to our ward boundaries. My approach this evening in presenting this to the Committee and to the public through the television is to give some of the background of the process that we had to go through in order to redraw the lines, talk about some of the guidelines that have been issued to us either by the State or by the courts, and then walk you through some of the changes that are being proposed in 6 of the 9 wards. The City Charter outlines a process that we have to follow. First of all following the 10 year census, the City or the Board of Alderman are required to review the boundaries and make any adjustments that are necessary to ensure that all the wards have pretty much the same number of residents in each of those wards to get the populations as close a possible. The Charter also says that once the resolution has been schedule, the Board of Aldermen has to hold a public hearing on that resolution within 30 days prior to its adoption. The schedule that’s been prepared right now has the Board tentatively scheduled to vote on this resolution at its meeting of July 12th and the public hearing has been scheduled the week prior on July 7th. In addition to that, we have to publish notice at least 30 days in advance of the public hearing in the paper, and that has already been done on May 28th. The Charter also requires that we hold ward informational meetings in all the wards where boundaries are proposed to be changed. No boundary changes are proposed for Wards 1, 2 or 5. So there will be informational meetings in the remaining 6 wards. The schedule for those meetings is as follows: Ward 3 will be on June 15th; Ward 9 on the 20th’; the 7th will be June 21; Ward 8, June 22nd; Ward 4, June 23rd; and Ward 6, June 27th. On the last slide, I’ll list all those locations for those meetings too. I will make sure that all this information is on the public calendar on line so if people want to know where these meetings are being held and when, they’ll be able to get that information. I’d just add for the public too that it doesn’t matter which of these meetings you go to. If you have an interest in attending one of the sessions but you have a conflict on any given day or the day that the meeting is scheduled for your Ward, feel free to come to another ward. We’ll Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 2 be essentially going through this presentation I’m giving tonight and I’ll be available to answer any questions and show some of the maps on the proposed changes. A couple of points I did want to mention right up front because these were questions that were raised 10 years ago when we did our last redistricting. Changing ward boundaries has absolutely no impact whatsoever on which schools the students will be assigned to. That’s an entirely separate process. It’s handled by the Board of Education and how we change our ward boundaries does not impact how students are assigned to schools. The other point people often ask questions about is what is redistricting based on? Is it based on party affiliations? Registered voters? Number of eligible voters? It’s actually based on sheer population. It doesn’t matter if your population has a lot of under 12 years in it. Every resident counts in the population figures that are used for redistricting. There are some terms that we should become familiar with and some guidelines. State law requires that all ward boundaries follow physical boundaries. These can be utility lines, railroad tracks, surface waters, roads, and something that is clearly identifiable. You can’t for example look at a cul-de-sac and say all the houses 200 yards on either side of the yellow line will be in ward X. I just can’t be done. The dividing line has to actually be the road itself. The other term we’re going to be using is census block. A census block is the smallest unit of geography that the US Census used when it was counting up the population in the City. Census blocks are also are supposed to be defined by physical features such as roads, or creeks, or shorelines, or brooks. When I show you some of the maps of the census blocks a little later you’ll understand why sometimes this poses a problem. Finally in order to maintain the integrity of the statistical analysis, the ward lines should encompass the entire block. Here’s what a census block looks like. It gives you an idea too of some of the challenges we had in doing this. On the left picture, this is the area of Kinsley, West Hollis and Main Street. It encompasses Wards 4, 6 and 7. The older parts of the City are in grids and it is very easy to move 100 people from block 2,015 to another ward if we wanted to. If you look over at what happens in Ward 8 however, it gets a little more confusing. That circle that’s right in the middle of the screen that’s numbered 1012, that’s actually the Greenwood Apartments. Part of the problems we have in redistricting especially in Wards 8 and 9 is that there’s a lot of these little types of circles, and loops, and there aren’t a lot of north, south, east, west roads that make it easy to carve out a section of the ward to move into another one. Here’s a picture of how the census block looks against the GIS map. You’ll see again that Greenwood area has census blocks kind of plunked right in the middle of nowhere. If you look at the map, there’s actually a road that goes there. We could reach in and have selected Greenwood Apartments, for example, to move into Ward 7 but census block 1,011 circles the entire thing. That land area all around circle block 1,012 actually encompasses 1,100. Sometimes it’s not easy to decide which areas of a ward in the southern part especially can be moved into another ward. Here’s another example. Now again given that the census follows natural boundaries, this is the area that loop consists of Salmon Brood Drive and Indian Fern Drive. It’s currently in Ward 9. It’s not too far from the intersection of Searles Road and Lamb Road. The census only counted the people within that loop. So it counted the 28 people living in those 9 houses. All the houses on the outside of that loop, across the street essentially, are in census block 3,000. So if we want to include a portion let’s say of Salmon Brook Drive and Indian Fern Drive into a new ward, all we’re getting are the people to the inside of the loop in that new ward and all the people in the outside of the loop go to a different ward. So those are some of the challenges that we have. Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 3 In 2002, there were a number of filings with the Supreme Court because the State was having trouble deciding on how to do its redistricting. Some of the guidelines issued in that decision are guidelines which we tried to follow. First of all the overriding objective of any redistricting must be to have substantially the equal population in the various districts so that the vote of any citizen is equal to the vote of any other citizen. One of the other challenges that we have is figuring out how much of a difference there should be between the smallest ward’s population and the largest ward population. The courts use a term called “range of deviation”. I’ll talk a little bit about that. In its decision, the Supreme Court said that an overall range of deviation of only 4.96 percent was acceptable for its purposes. I wanted to make sure that the range of deviation that we had in our redistricting was less than that number. We didn’t want to have a variance any larger than 4.96 percent because I felt it might put us at risk for having our redistricting challenged. The last point in approaching redistricting, the Court said it’s preferable to keep the core of your districts maintained and just add or subject neighboring population blocks to bring the population of those various wards into alignment. Here’s what we’re faced with. Currently the City has 86,494 people. Our smallest ward under the census is Ward 7, which has 9,128 people and Ward 9, which has 10,478. So how do we change the range of deviation? In plain English, we look at what the average ward population is, which is 9,610. You subject the smallest wards number from 9,610, divide the difference by 9,610, and that’s your negative deviation. Then you take the largest population, subtract 9,610 from that, divide the difference by 9,610 and that’s your largest positive deviation, and then you add the two numbers. So if we looked at the range of deviation for the City’s current population, its 14 percent. Under the proposed redistricting plan, we get that down to 3.7 percent. The redistricting plan, as I mentioned, goes down to about 3.69 percent actually. Here’s the other challenge we faced. Wards 2, 1, and 5 to the western part of the City are not being changed at all. Wards 3, 4 6, and 7 in the northeastern corner all need more residents to get those wards closer to 9,610. Wards 9 and 8 down in the southern portion are the wards with all that extra excess populations. So we have to pull about 1,200 people out Wards 9 and 8 and move them north into Wards 3, 4, 6 and 7. It’s somewhat of a domino effect as we push them out of 9 into 8, we have to push more people out of 8 into 7, and from 7 into 4, and 3, and so on. Here’s the first change that’s proposed for Ward 9. This actually solves the population matter for Ward 6. We would be taking the northern tip of Ward 9, which is the area between the highway and Northeastern Boulevard and move that into Ward 6. There’s approximately 317 people there most of whom reside at Greenbriar. That number of people would be moved into Ward 6. The other portion out of Ward 9 that we would be looking to move is that triangle on the left. That area is East Dunstable Road on the right. It’s Salmon Brook on the left, and on the south part its Searles Road and Lamb Road. There are approximately 600 residents in that area. Those folks would be moved. As you can see, the Ward 9 polling place these folks currently live in Ward 9 up here at Searles School. The Ward 8 polling place is Bicentennial. There’s not a lot of difference in distance that those folks would have to travel for the new ward. We did choose Salmon Brook as the boundary instead of New Searles Road so that all the houses that are actually facing New Searles Road most of those people will be able to continue voting at New Searles School. We won’t have to relocate them. The only exception to that is right at the very tip where house numbers 2, 4 and 6 would be moved into Ward 8. Salmon Brook actually connects with New Searles Road and it’s the only way we could keep our natural boundaries by having those few houses go into Ward 8. The next piece that’s changed that would be occurring that’s proposed is getting part of Ward 8, which is now is right below the circumferential highway and moving that into Ward 7. So what we have here in the boot, we’ll all it the foot area I guess, that is Route 3 on the left and then we go the Merrimack and south of Spit Brook Road. So any of the complexes in that area would move to Ward 7. This would include Village Gate, Ternbury, Whitegate, Hampshire Heights, Mountain View Apartments, and Richilieu Apartments. All of those would move into Ward 7. In addition, Colliston Yard is up here near the circumferential highway that too would move into Ward 7. That moves 907 people into Ward 7. It gets our numbers for Ward 8 much closer to Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 4 9,610. That’s the ideal, the average of the wards. Ward 7, of course, has increased. That ward we’re going to have to take a piece of Ward 7 and move it into Ward 4, which also needs to gain some population. This is a change in the boundaries between Ward 3 and Ward 4. Ward 3 needed to pick a few hundred more people and the neighborhood that’s being suggested to be added to that actually extends from approximately Fairmount to Baldwin north of the railroad tracks. There’s about 350 people in that area. Those blocks face the Amherst Street School, so actually it will be relative easy for them to vote. We’re not making any other changes to Ward 3. There is one little portion here which you can see is being moved to Ward 4. It’s actually the area south of the railroad tracks and north of the river. There are 19 people according to the census living in that area. The reason for the change is the old ward line actually said that the boundary ended at a point south of Hillcrest to the Nashua River. It’s not a true geographic boundary. You can stand at the end of Hillcrest and look and you’ve got probably a quarter of a mile walk to get to the Nashua River from there. It seemed to make most sense to just simply follow the railroad tracks from the Main Street bridge right up to Baldwin Street and have a fairly clean line. Alderman Sheehan Did I lose any Streets there? Paul Bergeron That’s the cotton mill area – factory buildings. I’m not even sure where those 19 people live to tell you the truth. Alderman Sheehan Probably in the basement. Paul Bergeron The do head counts in parts of the City which may not have permanent residences but the census tries to capture everybody. Alderman Sheehan It looks like there’s a couple of apartments in some of the factory buildings up top. So that could be. Paul Bergeron That could be where they came from. The changes that are occurring on Ward 7, that’s the triangle near the river and there’s a small block down on the south end of that section. On the southern section, the boundary would not be Otterson Street instead of Bowers Street. Its one block. Otterson Street runs parallel to the Main Street Plaza, Globe Plaza, Simmoneau Plaza, whatever name it’s going under currently. The triangle contains the Nashua Senior Center and some housing there. The boundary actually is over on the right becomes Harbor Avenue, to Spruce, to the foot bridge which brings us to the river. So those are the natural boundaries there. That brings down Ward 7 population to about close to 9,600 and it gets the Ward 4 population up over 9,400. As I had already mentioned, we’re not doing anything to Wards 1, 2, and 5. This is the schedule of the meetings and where they’re going to be held, the times they’re going to be held. I’ll post this PowerPoint presentation on the City Clerk’s web page and we’ll get all the information on the dates and times for those meetings on the City calendar as well. That’s the end of the presentation. If there’s any question from the Committee, I’d be happy to answer them. Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 5 Chair Clemons Thank you for your presentation and all of your hard work that went into this. I know that there was a lot of time spent on this. It’s not an easy task to do especially when you’re trying to keep neighborhoods intact. I actually did have a question that for all of the work and thought and everything even up to this, when folks are moved out of one ward and into another other than the public hearings if you’re register to vote in say Ward 3 and all of a sudden you’re being moved into Ward 4 or vice versa, do your names get switched over automatically to the check list so that when you go to vote at your new polling location your name is on the check list? Paul Bergeron Yes. We will change the street listings in the photo registration database. Those people will be moved into a new ward. They don’t need to re-register. We send out letters to those folks just prior to the next election notifying them that their ward has changed and where they should go to cast their ballots. We also provide a separate list to our ward workers so if any of those people show up at the polling place, they can look and say you’ve been moved to this ward and this is where you go to vote. We even have directions on how to get to one polling place to the other. We’ll give them some help that way. Alderman Sheehan I know this is a lot of work because I’ve seen a lot of different versions. My hats off to you. It looks like a very daunting job. With that said, this last change is one that makes me want to ask can I have Clocktower and Cottonmill back? For 19 people, I don’t think it makes that big of a deal but the work that I’m trying to accomplish in both the Historic District and Railroad Square and making that area cohesive, I have all the street leading up to it and then there’s going to be one building that Alderman Craffey or later successors would have to go all the way around the river to get to. Cross the bridge, go down my street, and then we’ll be new and better streets that are no longer industrial just driveways. I think it makes more sense to put it back. Paul Bergeron I’d be happy to look at some alternatives for that. We just have to find a natural boundary that allows us to pull that back into Ward 3. I think you’re right. Nineteen people isn’t going to have a big impact one way or the other on either ward’s numbers. It’s just a matter of finding the natural boundary. Once we find that natural boundary, we might suddenly find out whoops we’re picking up 200 people. Alderman Sheehan Right. It’s just where the river is there and the building is going to be on the river and right now it’s impossible to get to from the other side. Whoever is in Ward 4, it’s not going to be a focused area for them whereas with what I’m doing in trying to do some revitalization, and neighborhood cohesion, and building community I think it’s better to leave them together. So I would just ask for that. I’m tickled to death to get the people that I did get because some of them are related and a lot of them have been supporters in the past. I’m happy about that. Like I said, this looks like a lot of work. Nice job. Paul Bergeron Thank you. I’ll work up some scenarios and share them with you and the other aldermen and see if we can’t come up with some ideas. Alderman Sheehan Alderman Craffey might have some completely different ideas, but that’s just… Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 6 Alderman Craffey I just like the idea of not having to have the boundary be the river. Chair Clemons Is there any further questions or comments? Thank you very much for coming this evening and presenting. We’ll be taking this up at a special meeting in July. If there are any amendments, we can do them at that point. Alderman Sheehan I get attached to my constituents. INTERVIEWS Nashua Arts Commission Gillian Hinkle (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2013 Paul Laflamme (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2014 Chair Clemons Thank you for coming this evening Mayor. Mayor I’ll turn the floor over to you. Mayor Lozeau Thank you Mr. Chairman. Nice to see everybody today. I am here before you tonight with two appointments to the brand new Arts Commission. As I said the night that you interviewed all of the candidates that there would be more to come. With me to my left is Gillian Hinkle. As some of you may recall, Gillian was on the Steering Committee for the Arts Commission to begin with and is happy to serve. As you may know from her resume, she is the owner of the local community music school. Very involved and you probably recall meeting with her at your last meeting when she was appointed to the Hunt Legacy Board. I am very confident that what Gillian brings to that group will be of great value and a perspective that I think would be very important, especially as it relates to children in our community and their role in the performing arts. To her left, is Mr. Paul Laflamme. Paul is the President of the Spartans. I know you’re all familiar with the Spartans. The Spartans are an interesting group. They started under Paul’s grandfather and I remember when they played at Stellos Stadium there was some discussion about whether or not they were a youth athletic group. I remember the discussion about well I don’t know about you but if you haven’t marched in a marching band, I think it is an athletic group. Then one would ask well are they a music group too? So they are a little bit of everything and it’s really a different perspective to come to the Arts Commission than anybody else that we’ve appointed. Paul is a long-time Nashua resident. Very involved in the community in many ways but particularly what I’ve asked him to bring to the table for the Arts Commission is both his music hat and his experience there along with his business hat. As somebody who’s owned his own business for many years, I think that financial perspective and the role of business with the arts community will be very helpful. So I’m happy to present them both to you tonight for the Committee’s consideration. Chair Clemons Thank you very much Mayor. I will ask either one of the appointees if you’d like to say a few words. Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 7 Gillian Hinkle I’m just very happy to be part of this. I was part of the Steering Commission and I’m really happy with the way the Arts Commission is shaping up. It’s very diverse and I think that’s something that this City needs is an Arts Commission and it needs to be diverse by a variety of artists or businessmen. Paul Laflamme I’d just like to thank the Mayor for nominating me; thank the Committee for considering my nomination. Serving my community is something that I’ve always taken to heart and being able to put that mission along with my other passion, which is the performing arts and developing that within the community is something I’m really excited to help foster and grow. I’m very excited to serve if confirmed. Thank you very much. Chair Clemons I would open it up to the Committee or aldermen if they have any questions of either the appointees. Alderman Sheehan I’m not on the Committee but I’ll just speak that my experience with Mr. Laflamme has been one that is very active in civic activities and I think he would be a great addition. So I’m not familiar with Ms. Hinkle, although I’ve seen you at a few places. I’m a lot more familiar with Paul and his business as well as the work that he does in the community. I think he would be a great asset. I’d just add that. Alderman Craffey Trying to be a well-rounded committee, you’re getting all aspects from various phases of the arts from music, to sculpture, to all phases. It’s going to be a well-rounded commission. I think these two appointments are going to be very good additions to the commission. Chair Clemons I’d just like to say to Gillian, of course, for stepping up again and taking on yet another role with the City. Your service is much appreciated. Mr. Laflamme of course your plate I’m sure is full already but adding one more thing is always to be commended. I’m very happy that the Mayor reached out to you and I think you’ll be a great addition both of you to the board. Again, thank you both. Unless there’s any other questions, that will conclude those interviews. Mayor Lozeau Mr. Chairman you’re aware that Mrs. Crisp is at her son’s graduation tonight. Chair Clemons Yes. Thank you. With that being said, we’ll move to Communications. Hunt Building Board of Trustees Tammy L. Crisp (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: December 31, 2015 COMMUNICATIONS - None APPLICATION TO LICENSE HAWKER'S, PEDDLER'S, ITINERANT VENDOR'S LICENSE - None Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 8 APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR Nashua Arts Commission Gillian Hinkle (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2013 50 Catalina Lane Nashua, NH 03064 Paul Laflamme (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: April 1, 2014 28 Lutheran Drive Nashua, NH 03063 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY TO RECOMMEND THE CONFIRMATION OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO THE NASHUA ARTS COMMISSION: GILLIAN HINKLE FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2013 AND PAUL LAFLAMME FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2014 MOTION CARRIED Hunt Building Board of Trustees Tammy L. Crisp (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: December 31, 2015 7 Bartlett Avenue Nashua, NH 03064 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY TO TABLE THE APPOINTMENT OF TAMMY L. CRISP MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-11-111 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR DIRECTORS AND INTERIM OFFICERS SELECTED TO MANAGE PENNICHUCK CORPORATION MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY TO TABLE R-11-111 Chair Clemons Although we don’t usually allow discussion, I will note for the record that the major sponsor of this legislation, Alderman Cookson, could not be here this evening. So as a courtesy, he asked that we table the legislation. MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-11-73 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons RELATIVE TO THE REVISION OF WARD BOUNDARIES • Public Hearing scheduled for July 7, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Aldermanic Chambers Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 9 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY TO TABLE O-11-73 PENDING THE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 7, 2011, AT 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBERS MOTION CARRIED TABLED IN COMMITTEE MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY TO REMOVE FROM THE TABLE O-10-42 MOTION CARRIED O-10-42 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MERIT EMPLOYEE RULES AND REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2011 • Also assigned to Budget Review Committee • Amended & Tabled at Jt. Mtg. - 12/2/10 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF O-10-42 Mayor Lozeau Mr. Chairman I have an amended version to hand out to the Committee tonight. Alderman Vitale Do we need to accept and place on file? Mayor Lozeau This does replace it. Chair Clemons I think we can talk about what’s in here first. I think we’ll probably end up making a motion to amend it anyway. I’m going to turn the floor over to the Mayor to discuss the changes. Mayor Lozeau Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman the document that was just distributed replaces the one you had. What I’ll do is if it’s okay with you, just point out to you the changes that have occurred since one last we met. So we’ve gone over this legislation the last time. Those changes are still the same changes. The difference is what you see on the front. So you’ll note that for Fiscal 2012 the merit employees who did not receive a 1 step advancement within their job classification will receive one this year. For everyone else, in the second paragraph, they will follow the merit employees. They will receive a .5 percent increase. The last item there is as you know, the legislation that you’ve seen for instance on the Library contract and on the contracts introduced tonight is the provision of returning some of the dollars back into the budget. The choice that I have made for the Committee’s consideration for that money in this instance is for it to go into the City building repairs. Now although it says Capital Improvements, Building Maintenance – General Repairs, City Hall, it does apply to all of the buildings that we have been working on. One of the things that I’ve talked a lot about when I came in to talk about the buildings and the status of the state of their repair let’s say, one of the things I’ve talked a lot about was the back of City Hall, which in essence has really become the front entrance of City Hall. As we were doing the work in the building, one of the things I’ve been hoping we’ll have enough money for is to replace some of the 30 year old carpeting and the entry point in the back, and to change the City Clerk’s office. As some of you know, that’s a very busy office and people walk right by it every day and they end up in the rotunda and the first thing they say is, Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 10 “Where’s the City Clerk’s office”. People have to say well you walked by it when you came in the front door. It is not a very welcoming reflection of our community and to our citizens when they come to City Hall to do business. It does have issues with the doors and the draft, and it does have solid doors at the City Clerk’s office. It’s my intention to look at these funds for this purpose. We’re working on getting an architect to do some design work down there or how we could change the counter and how you enter the City Clerk’s area. I believe that there’s a nice nexus there. The majority of merit employees are here at City Hall. In addition, the public health building and even police and fire have work that can be done on their buildings. I thought that this was the best way. As you know, we don’t have any merit employees that were displaced due to budget cuts or terminated because of budget cuts. So this is an opportunity to add some quality to their work environment and to add something that our citizens can appreciate, and add value to our assets. So those are the 3 changes that are in this merit plan on the first page. Then we have the health care changes. So if you go to page 3, we talked about the performance evaluations. That’s just the exception to the staff in my office that came in January when I came in. If you go to page 7, those are the changes. Again, they really relate to the employees in my office and the dates for when performance evaluations are done. Benefit changes are on page 11. You see the change for the City contribution. The City contributes 80 percent. As you know in the Mayor’s office, my staff and myself have been at the 80/20 mark since we got here. So originally when I brought this in it picked up that piece to allow that to be different. She’s kept in the language that says, “The Mayor may reduce the city’s contribution for the direct administrative support in the mayor’s office.” So if I wanted to say that the staff would pick up a bigger share in my office, we could do that. In no instance would it be less than what the other employees are doing. It’s the same for the Point of Service. So it changes it to the 80 and the 70 percent respectively for the city’s share. Chair Clemons So the way that I read this is that you can’t change it for the whole merit employees, you’d still have to come back before the Board. Mayor Lozeau The genesis of that is when I came in and I changed it, I was too new to know that there was an Ordinance that said you actually have to come in and ask. That gives us a little bit of flexibility. I don’t anticipate changing it lower. When I came in, I just thought it was a right balance. In essence, that’s the changes. Everything else has really been talked about t the last meeting when we extensively went through it. I’d be happy to go through it again if you’d like. Chair Clemons I’m going to open it up to the Committee or other Aldermen for discussion. Alderman Sheehan On page 7 there’s a down line above medical examinations. Was there something there that’s been removed or is that something that’s new drawing attention for pre-employment physicals? Mayor Lozeau No. That’s not something new. I’m not certain why. All the changes were the introduction where the NROs are updated, performance evaluations bringing it in compliance with the NRO, the termination as it related to direct administrative support in my office, the merit pay program relative to anniversary dates as it related to some of my specific staff instead of the July date. The change to the worker’s comp section, which was a Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 11 conflict with the ordinance that we’ve brought in compliance. The section on vacation. The section on sick leave. The city contributions and the long-term disability. Those are the only changes in the entire document. Alderman Sheehan I was just wondering what this is. Mayor Lozeau I know I saw what you meant. Alderman Sheehan That’s usually a legal meaning that something used to be there and it’s a placeholder. Just asking. Thank you. Chair Clemons Are there any other questions? I guess I have a question on the first page at that the last paragraph is worded. This is going to be permanently into the Ordinances. The $93,474 is that just the health care savings that… Mayor Lozeau That’s the calculation based on health care savings. So there’s two components as we’ve been talking about in budget. Chair Clemons I understand the legislation and I understand that but I don’t think that this legislation just reading it fully describes what that $93,000 is unless I missed it. Mayor Lozeau No this legislation wouldn’t just like the contract wouldn’t. Chair Clemons So why is it in the amended language? Mayor Lozeau Because I need the authority of the Board to transfer those dollars this way. Chair Clemons Okay. I understand it now. Alderman Sheehan Just for ease of people understanding it, perhaps we add for Fiscal Year 2012 also to the first line of that paragraph just so that its clear to people. Alderman McCarthy Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 12 It’s unnecessary. This is not in the part of the ordinance that is codified in the book. This is like the language that says this ordinance shall be effective on June 1st. It’s a one shot transfer that’s allowed by the passage of the ordinance. Mayor Lozeau I understand your point. Alderman Sheehan I understand yours. I just think for clarity saying it’s a one time – that’s fine. Chair Clemons Any further discussion or questions on it. Mayor Lozeau Mr. Chairman I just wanted to thank you for taking it up tonight. I appreciate that. What I wanted to do is make sure that everybody is on the same path for a July 1st start date. It makes a difference in the budget going forward and it makes a difference to the staff to know what the expectation is. This does that. You’ll see the contracts that were introduced tonight all request a July 1st deadline in order to uphold the agreement. We’re on course for this July 1st work taking place and the merit employees I’d like them to be in the same place. Alderman Vitale I just wanted to go back to the capital improvements for the building where you’re talking about the back entry way of City Hall. I agree that it needs some attention and everything. Is what we’d be looking to do then is this specifically going to be for that area? I know it’s going into the capital improvements for the building. Is it something that we’re definitely going to proceed on or are there other areas that it might get… Mayor Lozeau It should be specifically used for that. Say for instance we do that walk and it cost $40,000. It would allow this money to be in this fund used towards any of the other buildings. So as you recall, we authorized $4.5 million in bonding and then $1.2 million for City Hall improvements, some of which was spent at the library for their roof and carpeting. The rest which is spent here in this building. As I’ve said all along for this building, one of the downsides was any money that I spend on carpeting and things like that in this building is less at the end when we get to the public health building. I’m really hoping not to have to be in a place to come in and ask the Board for more money for the new public health building. We are in negotiations right now with a builder and a site. We’re trying to get that number into a manageable number. Depending upon how some of that plays out but my first priority left here at City Hall is the back entrance, the carpeting, and a new front door. Those are the places that need what I would consider to be renovation changes, although we have budgeted for the front door based on the energy savings. We really haven’t been able to do that for the back of the building, which is as I said and as you know, most people really use it as the front of the building. That’s where our parking is. Alderman Craffey I did like the effort that you put forward separating out your staff from the merit staff where your staff is hired January 1st and the others fiscal year. I do like the idea of how you made the effort to separate them out so they’re not going along without getting a merit raise. I do like that. It was very good. I wanted to compliment that point. Thank you. Chair Clemons I just want to say that in general I think this is good and I think that when we last brought this up it was a while Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 13 ago you made the point, actually I brought up the question, well why aren’t’ we changing this then if we think that the merit employees should be contributing more. You made the point the larger bargaining unions have to step forward. After tonight, you can certainly see that the largest one of all is stepping up to the plate. I think that that is a good indication that it’s time to change this to reflect that. I think it reflects unfortunately the difficult times that we find ourselves in. I have no problem with supporting this evening and I think that you did a good job with this. Mayor Lozeau Thanks I appreciate that. The employees have been really remarkable accepting some of this. I had a meeting with the merit employees in May and we discussed what I was going to propose for health care concessions, plan design changes, and all of that. What I told them at the time was I wasn’t sure if some of the bargaining units would be coming along. I didn’t think it was fair to try to do all of the things that I requested which you’re all familiar with because we’ve talked about it a lot, but that I would really like to be able to at least change the level of contribution and that they may have to lead the way. I didn’t know for certain. At the meeting while they weren’t excited about the news, I think they were so pleased to have an opportunity to talk about it and have a forum. Many of them came to me after to say thank you that they appreciated it. I did the same thing with the union boards. I did the same thing with the employer boards. I think it’s made a difference for people to really understand what our financial circumstances are. It’s not just about we have and we’re not giving it. It’s about we’re all in this together and how do we best address it and still deliver service at the level that our citizens should be receiving. I’m very pleased with units that came in tonight, which is why I sponsored those contracts. I think it’s really a positive day in the City when people are willing to be part of the solution. MOTION BY BEN CLEMONS TO AMEND ORDINANCE O-10-42 IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED THIS EVENING BY THE MAYOR WHICH IS LABELED “AMENDED ORDINANCE 10-42 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY BEN CLEMONS TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF O-10-42 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Chair Clemons The only thing I will say is that this ordinance I was talking to Ms. Lovering. It certainly won’t be held up by this committee it appears but it will be ready to go on June 28th, which is our second meeting in June. I know it’s also in the Budget Review Committee and hopefully the Chairman will see fit to get that on the agenda and move it forward with the same recommendation that we made here tonight. MOTION CARRIED Chair Clemons Is there any other business that we wish to take from the table this evening? If not, I would move to public comment, but there’s nobody in the public. Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 14 Resolutions R-10-60 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman Richard P. Flynn Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Kathy Vitale PROVIDING FOR A REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE MERIT PLAN • Also assigned to the Budget Review Committee • Tabled at Jt. Mtg. - 12/2/10 Ordinances O-10-23 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly ESTABLISHING AN OMBUDSMAN FOR THE CITY OF NASHUA AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $60,000 FROM ACCOUNT 591-86005 “FY2011 GENERAL CONTINGENCY” INTO ACCOUNT 501-53 “MAYOR’S OFFICE – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES” • Also assigned to Budget Review Committee; Tabled 8/5/10 • Tabled 8/12/10 O-10-29 Endorser: Alderman Diane Sheehan PERMITTING AMPLIFIED SOUND IN GREELEY PARK WITH A DECIBEL LEVEL LIMITATION • Also assigned to Board of Public Works; Favorable Recommendation Issued 8/2/10 • Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee Recommended Indefinite Postponement 8/24/10 • Re-Referred to Committee - 9/15/10 • Tabled 10/14/10 O-11-57 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson PROVIDING FOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AND THE ASSESSORS DEPARTMENT • Tabled 3/10/11 DISCUSSION PUBLIC COMMENT - NONE REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN - NONE POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION - NONE Personnel – 6/9/11 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CRAFFEY TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 7:53 p.m. Alderman Arthur T. Craffey, Jr. Committee Clerk O-11-73, Relative to the Revision of Ward Boundaries City Clerk’s Presentation before Personnel & Administrative Affairs Committee – June 9, 2011 1 City Charter Sec. 3  “At least as often as each recurring federal census, the board of aldermen shall review the ward boundaries and, if necessary to comply with the Constitutional requirement to equalize populations, shall, by ordinance, re-divide the city into nine wards” 2 City Charter Sec. 3  “A public hearing on the proposed ward boundaries shall be held not more than 30 days before its adoption by the board of aldermen…”  Board vote scheduled for July 12  Public hearing scheduled for July 7  “…Notice of such public hearing shall be published at least 30 days in advance of the hearing by the city clerk.”  Notice of Public Hearing published on May 28 3 City Charter Sec. 3  “…Informational meetings shall be held in all wards proposed for boundary changes not more than 30 days before the vote.”  No boundary changes are proposed for Wards 1, 2 or 5  Informational meetings scheduled in the 30 days prior to Board’s July 12th vote:  Ward 3: June 15 Ward 9: June 20  Ward 7: June 21 Ward 8: June 22  Ward 4: June 23 Ward 6: June 27 4 Starting Points:  Ward boundaries do not have any impact on which schools students will attend. The Board of Education makes the final decision on school assignments.  Redistricting is based on population, not on numbers of eligible voters, registered voters, or party affiliations. 5  Boundaries and Census Blocks:  NH RSA 44:4-a: "All boundaries of wards, other than those boundaries which are coterminous with the boundaries of municipalities, shall follow easily identifiable physical features. For the purposes of this section, physical features include public and private ways, public utility lines, railroad tracks, and surface waters.”  Census Block: The smallest unit of census geography for which population data are counted and reported. Census blocks are delineated by the Census Bureau and are generally bounded by physical features such as roads, creeks, or shorelines.  Ward lines must encompass an entire census block in order to maintain the integrity of the statistical analysis. Ward lines need to follow natural features (rivers) or man-made features (roads, railroad tracks, bridges, etc.) We cannot, for example, state that a ward line extends 200 feet from the center line of a particular street (thereby "capturing" houses on both sides of a street or cul-de-sac in a single ward), though the centerline of that street can serve as a ward line. Census blocks mostly, but not always, conform to the streets around a neighborhood block, but we cannot use a road, railroad tracks, stream, or utility lines that cross through a census block as a ward boundary because we do not know how many residents lived within that census block on either side of that proposed ward boundary…and we can’t go out and count those residents today to make that determination; redistricting is based on the 2010 census. Reference Notes: RSA 662-A:5, relative to establishing state representative districts in towns, “the secretary of state shall review the redistricting proposal to insure that it is consistent with the principle of one-person, one-vote using the most recent decennial census figures for the town.” Title 13, US Code, Sec. 141: “…in the administration of any program established by or under Federal law which provides benefits to State or local governments or to other recipients, eligibility for or the amount of such benefits would (without regard to this paragraph) be determined by taking into account data obtained in the most recent decennial census…” 6 Working with Census Blocks Older Neighborhoods are on grids Newer developments use loops and cul-de-sacs Limited number of E – W, N – S dividing roads in southern wards Ward 4, 6, 7 Ward 8 Kinsley, West Hollis, Main 169 – 199 DW Highway 7 Census Block vs. Actual Geography Example: Greenwood Condominium Complex 1011 Greenwood (Census Blocks 1012, 1013 and 1015) = 249 residents Block 1011 (population: 1,184) wraps around Greenwood and includes Louisburg Sq, parts of Royal Crest, and a number of commercial properties. 8  Census Block vs. Actual Geography Example: Salmon Brook Dr. – Indian Fern Dr. loop off Searles Road Population of block 3009 = 28 (9 houses) Population of block 3000 = 239 (captures houses on exterior of loop, Chinook Road, and other houses in block) 9  Considerations: NH Supreme Court, 2002: Senator Clifton Below & a. v. William M. Gardner, Secretary of State  “The overriding objective of redistricting must be substantial equality of population among the various…districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State”  although “there is no fixed percentage deviation demarcating the de minimis from the unconstitutional…” the Court’s decision on the redistricting of state legislative districts did note that “the court’s plan has an overall range of deviation of only 4.96% and, thus, satisfies the one person/one vote standard.”  “…to remedy the population deviations in existing districts, it is preferable that the core of those districts be maintained, while contiguous populations are added or subtracted as necessary to correct the population deviations” A 2002 decision by the NH Supreme Court (Senator Clifton Below & a. v. William M. Gardner, Secretary of State) provided some guidance on issues that need to be considered when redistricting: Bullet 2: Will define “range of deviation” in upcoming slide. Bullet 3: “core” of wards not changed; will show slides of the neighborhoods that do need to be moved to get the ward populations close to the 9610-resident ideal. 10  City census = 86,494 Average population per ward = 9,610  “The overriding objective of redistricting must be substantial equality of population among the various…districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State”  2010 Census for the City’s wards:  Ward 1 = 9773 Ward 4 = 9319 Ward 7 = 9128  Ward 2 = 9552 Ward 5 = 9605 Ward 8 = 9969  Ward 3 = 9373 Ward 6 = 9297 Ward 9 = 10478 Expansion of “Considerations” slide, bullet #1. 11  Range of Deviation: Proposed  NH Supreme Court: "Adding the largest positive deviation and the largest negative deviation, without regard to algebraic sign (absolute value), yields the overall range of deviation."  In plain English:  Start with the Nashua’s average ward population of 9610 (the ideal).  Subtract the smallest ward’s population from 9610. Divide the difference by 9610, that is the largest negative deviation.  Take the largest ward’s population. Subtract 9610 from that number. Divide the difference by 9610, that is the largest positive deviation.  Add the largest negative deviation percentage and the largest positive deviation percentage (without regard to the positive or negative percentage value), and that is your range of deviation. Expansion of “Considerations” slide, bullet #2. 12  Range of Deviation  Census:  Smallest ward (7): 9,128 (-5%)  Largest ward (9): 10,478 (+9%)  Range of deviation = 14%  Proposed:  Smallest ward (4): 9,419 (-2.0%)  Largest ward (1): 9,773 (+1.7%)  Range of deviation = 3.7% 9610 – 9128 = 482. 482/9610 = 5.02% 10478 – 9610 = 868. 868/9610 = 9.03% 5.02% + 9.03% = 14.05% 9610 – 9419 = 191. 191/9610 = 1.99% 9773 – 9610 = 163. 163/9610 = 1.70% 1.99% + 1.70% = 3.69% 13  Range of Deviation  Although “there is no fixed percentage deviation demarcating the de minimis from the unconstitutional …” the Court’s decision on the redistricting of state legislative districts did note that “the court’s plan has an overall range of deviation of only 4.96% and, thus, satisfies the one person/one vote standard.”  Proposed redistricting plan has an overall range of deviation of 3.69% In 1983, (Brown v. Thomson) the US Supreme Court found that “an apportionment plan with a maximum deviation under 10% falls within the category of minor deviations. A plan with larger disparities in population, however, creates a (prIma faysha) prima facie case of discrimination…” 10% is the standard the Legislative Redistricting Committee is using. When I asked the Secretary of State’s Office if there was a guideline we should follow locally, the Deputy Secretary of State’s response was that “10% is the guideline the state uses.” However, in a 1982 case (Sutton V. Dunne, the 7th Circuit Court found a deviation of 4.22% to violate the one-person-one-vote rule. That case was unusual, however, in that it involved only two voting districts for the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, IL. (Final deviation was 1.8%.) Objective was to propose a range of deviation that was under 4% -- and thus come in at least a percentage point lower than the range of deviation found acceptable to the NH Supreme Court during the Legislature’s last redistricting effort almost 10 years ago. And – at the same time – rework ward boundaries so that they are minimally disruptive to the voters in our current wards. 14 15  Considerations:  “…to remedy the population deviations in existing districts, it is preferable that the core of those districts be maintained, while contiguous populations are added or subtracted as necessary to correct the population deviations.” Re-statement of “Considerations” slide, bullet #3. 16  Ward 6: Census = 9297 Proposed = 9614 Ward 9: Census = 10478 Proposed = 9561 We had looked at moving approximately 800 residents out of the northern part of Ward 9 into Ward 6, then moving 500 residents out of Ward 6 into Wards 4 and 7 in order to raise their populations closer to the 9610 ideal. This would have meant moving a number of the neighborhoods west of Harris Road into Ward 6 and requiring that those voters cross the highway to vote in Ward 6. Instead, we are proposing that Northeastern Boulevard and a portion of Harris Road be used as Ward 6’s southern boundary and Ward 9’s northern boundary. 303 of the 317 residents in this area live at Greenbriar. No other changes are proposed for Ward 6. 17  Ward 9: Census = 10478 Proposed = 9561 Ward 8: Census = 9969 Proposed = 9661 With 300 of the 800 residents we need to move out of Ward 9 now in Ward 6, we still needed to move approximately 570 residents out of Ward 9 and east into Ward 8. (Thereafter, these residents plus another 350 – 400 residents would need to be moved out of Ward 8 into Ward 7.) The highlighted triangle on the left contains 600 residents and is the area that is proposed to be moved from Ward 9 into Ward 8. The top point of the triangle is the intersection of New Searles Road and East Dunstable Road. The right side of the triangle is East Dunstable Road and the boundary travels south to the intersection of East Dunstable and Lamb Road. The left side of the triangle begins at the point where Salmon Brook intersects with New Searles Road and then travels south along Salmon Brook to its intersection with Searles Road. (Note: house lots 2, 4, and 6 New Searles Road will move into Ward 8, but all other properties along New Searles Road will stay in Ward 9.) The southern line of the triangle is Searles Road to Lamb Road to the intersection of East Dunstable Road. We has also looked at moving the area that is adjacent to Ward 8, south of East Dunstable and east of Middle Dunstable Roads, but that area had 1183 residents, which is too many to move out of Ward 9. 18  Ward 8: Census = 9969 Proposed = 9661 Ward 7: Census = 9128 Proposed = 9589 An area south of the Circumferential Highway is would be moved from Ward 8 into Ward 7. This includes the property between US Route 3 and the Daniel Webster Highway, south of Spit Brook Road, and the property between the Daniel Webster Highway and the Merrimack River, south of the Circumferential Highway. Although this is primarily commercial, it does include Village Gate, Ternbury, Whitegate, Hampshire Heights, Mountain View Apartments and Richilieu Apartments south of Spit Brook Road and Colliston Yard just south of the Circumferential highway for a total of 907 residents. You can see that there are some portions of Ward 7 which will be moved into Ward 4. I will address those census blocks in the next slide. 19  Ward 3: Census = 9373 Proposed = 9720 Ward 4: Census = 9319 Proposed = 9419 Ward 7: Census = 9128 Proposed = 9589 Having moved 907 residents into Ward 7, we now have the 480 residents we need to bring that ward’s population close to the ideal number of 9610 and to provide the numbers we need to get wards 4, then 3 closer to that ideal number as well. The change proposed for Ward 3’s boundary is to add the area south of Amherst Street and north of the railroad tracks between Baldwin Street and Fairmount Street. The area south of the railroad tracks and north of the river contains 19 residents and is being moved into Ward 4. There is no defined geographical boundary that connects the river to the railroad tracks in the Fairmount Street area. With this change, Ward 4 loses a net of 347 residents. To get that ward’s population closer to the 9610 population ideal, 447 residents need to be brought into Ward 4 from Ward 7. The proposed boundary extends Ward 4 into the areas east of Main Street and “squares off” the eastern boundary of the ward. The southern line would be Otterson Street which runs alongside the Main Street Market Place (a.k.a. Simoneau Plaza, Globe Plaza). The boundary then travels north along Harbor Avenue to Spruce Street and across Temple to the railroad tracks and pedestrian walkway that takes the boundary to the Nashua River. This boundary adjustment, and the change made to the Ward 8 and Ward 7 boundary, provides of Ward 7 with a net gain of 460 residents. 20 No changes proposed for boundaries of western Wards 1, 2 or 5  Census: Ward 1: 9773 Ward 2: 9552 Ward 5: 9605 21 Upcoming Schedule of Meetings  Wednesday, June 15, 7 pm Ward 3 Informational Meeting Amherst St. Elem. School, Media Center  Monday, June 20, 7 pm Ward 9 Informational Meeting Robert Frost Room, Holiday Inn 9 Northeastern Boulevard  Tuesday, June 21, 7 pm Ward 7 Informational Meeting Nashua Public Library Theatre  Wednesday, June 22, 7 pm Ward 8 Informational Meeting The Center building, Rooms 5 and 6 Immaculate Conception Parish 216 East Dunstable Road  Thursday, June 23, 7 pm Ward 4 Informational Meeting Aldermanic Chambers  Monday, June 27, 7 pm Ward 6 Informational Meeting Lake Street Fire Station Meeting Room 177 Lake Street  Thursday, July 7, 7 pm Board of Aldermen Public Hearing Personnel & Admin. Affairs Follows  Tuesday, July 12, 7:30 pm Aldermen, Consideration of O-11-73 22