Planning & Economic Development Committee

PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE APRIL 21, 2015 A meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee was held on Tuesday, April 21, 2015, at 7:17 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman Daniel T. Moriarty, Chair, presided. Members of Committee present: Alderwoman Mary Anne Melizzi-Golja, Vice Chair Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown (Arrived at 7:45 p.m.) Members not in Attendance: Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Also in Attendance: Mr. Michael T. Gallagher, Chairman, Conservation Commission Mr. Bruce Codagnone, Director of IT, City of Nashua Mr. Brian Geraghty, Member, Cable Television Advisory Board PUBLIC COMMENT - None PRESENTATIONS Overview of Conservation Commission with Chairman Gallagher Chairman Moriarty I invited you in because you were here once before talking about a couple of pieces of legislation and you offered some information that was really interesting and then you came in and were talking about that path that crossed the railroad bridge that the city was going to build. We started learning that there are a lot of trails out there and I thought why not do an overview of that the city has. Mr. Gallagher put together a presentation which I have. Mr. Gallagher What I have this evening is that we have a tremendous amount of conservation land in the City of Nashua and most of that is known to folks that want to access it or are using it today and some of it is unknown. I wanted to spend most of the time tonight is to talk about the Southwest Trail Project. We have the LCHIP property which is conservation land that we have that is up where Massasoit is there’s a small parking area that you can gain access; you can gain access from Farley Road or behind the airport. This land is being used actively today by hunters, hikers, people walking dogs, and there is a little bit of extra-curricular activity that’s happening there as well but it’s a beautiful piece of land. It’s very easy and has very leveled pathways. A lot of the conservation land that we have in the city kind of lays smack dab in between other properties. We may hold an easement but you’ve got to walk through somebody’s yard so we are not going to as city say okay well we are going to go ahead and develop this into some passive recreation area. Where we have been most active is in the southwest quadrant of the city in Ward 5 and along where Main Dunstable Road turns into Groton Road. You have Lovewell’s Pond which has been part of the conservation land for years, you have Yudicky Park which was donated to the city and right now there is the dog park that’s there; Nashua Dog. There are a couple of softball fields there currently that are actively used by different groups and directly to its west is the Terrell Family Homestead that was acquired in I believe 2011 and that provided us with a massive piece of land and really the interconnectivity in that region so now you can gain access from Groton Road all the way up to PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 2 Gilson Road and you can be on city property and be safe and you will be able to follow trails that exist. Some of the trails are already there; there are farm roads that were on that property. That property was in the Terrell family since 1777 and was actively farmed. Across the street at well’s Pond; it’s always been a beautiful place but for the last ten years there have been these beautiful jersey barriers that sit out there and so now those will be removed and a parking lot will be put in as trailhead parking. The first map; anything that you see in red was the initial proposal for the southwest trail connection and so on the left hand side where you see the tangled web at the top, that’s working its way down from Gilson Road down to its southern most point which is Groton Road. These were the proposed trails when this project first started. We know that there is the old Ridge Road that’s now closed off but it’s a paved road and so we will gain access there and continue to use that and we will carry it all the way over to Buck Meadow on the east side. What might be difficult for all of you to see is at the very top, east of Tanglewood; if you follow Gilson Road all the way up there is the Musket and Pioneer neighborhood and there’s a little bit of red there that you probably can’t see and that was to simply connect that neighborhood with the existing trails on Gilson Road making it one giant loop that could be made for folks in a passive recreation manner. The rest of this particular attachment goes into the specifics of the project in of itself. It talks about the width of the trails and the work that is going to be done for some of the water crossings. This particular slide here talks about the signage that we were interested in at the time. Part of this is that we want it to be educational for folks as well. On that piece there is a vernal pool and it will be protected by a split rail fence so it will still allow for the traffic of wildlife to come in and out. Vernal pools are areas where toads and salamanders and those types of things are born so it’s very important from an ecological standpoint. This was part of the RFP process that went out, just to let folks know that this was what we were looking for. The next attachment is a more of an applicable look as to what the project will be and there still have been some changes. This has come through not only this committee but others but also to you all at the full Board level; we received authorization to expend the funds out of conservation to do the project. We were in front of the Infrastructure Committee as well as Planning and Economic Development as part of that process. We had to go through the process of having an easement granted by the Hart family on Groton Road so that we can continue through there. The project was then ultimately awarded to Morin’s Landscaping so it’s a local company that came in at the most competitive bid and that went through the Finance Committee. Most recently, Mr. Lynch and Lynch Landscaping donated service to the city. If you look on the left hand side, the west side, you see there is a switchback and the switchback is the “S” looking trail. That particular portion of the trail is a fairly steep area and the logic there was that we would put a switchback in and make it more traversable for people. This project started off by something that was going to be managed by the city. We had staff at that time that was going to be able to spend the time on it and so efforts were made at that point in time to say that we needed a contractor to do the work but the city will purchase the materials for a cost savings and there was a fairly significant cost savings in doing that. That person is no longer with the city and therefore that capability no longer existed. That added significant cost to the project but we are still below our budget. Certain things like that switchback needed to be removed because it just wasn’t feasible from a cost standpoint. It doesn’t mean that trail goes away, it simply means that for that particular section it’s going to be more of a challenging hike and that’s not necessarily a bad thing because some folks will like that. The piece that I mentioned earlier coming from Pioneer and Musket to Gilson Road, ultimately we were able to identify some sidewalk funds that we would be able to use to connect that piece however, when this went through the Finance Committee that portion of the project was not on it. The reason that it was not on it was that Streets wanted to go out there and look at it and at that time there was still too much snow on the ground. That’s not to say that a change order could not be added on and again, the funding is not coming from conservation funds so there would not be that Aldermanic process, it would come from the rural sidewalk fund that they have designated for that. The signs that you see there, again noting costs; we didn’t want to put a sign every 10 feet that said “Be Careful” or “Stay on the Trail” but ultimately we did pare down. There are some signs that are required; there are some flashing yellow lights that are being put in sections so we need to have those warning signs that are on the streets notifying folks that there is a light coming. I ask you to focus on this portion is because you can see that the trail from the southwest comes over from Old Ridge Road along Lovewell’s Pond and comes out this way. If you were to refer to the original map that trail actually went a little bit further northwest and branched out in a different manner in the original plan. Mr. Lynch’s work was to change it from going northwest to what you see here so the time, money and effort that he has donated to the city for this particular project was so that the trail could have the route that you see on the map. PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 3 Chairman Moriarty What we see here, what currently exists today? Mr. Gallagher What you see here, so Old Ridge Road is a paved road and that is there. As it reaches Ridge Road, anything to the east of that does not exist today in its final state. There are walking paths and you could traverse it fairly easily. Going across the street you have Yudicky Farm there and the city owns Yudicky Farm and Yudicky Park so that easement is there. There you would really be walking along the road and today that’s not something that is overly advisable. It is a rural road that’s not very well lit and there are some blind corners as well as the rate of speed tends to be pretty high and that’s the importance of the easement that we were able to get on the Hart property; to maintain that trail off of the road at a safe distance so folks could walk without a problem. If you go all the way to the left and you look up you see that trail there, that trail that runs straight north to south, that’s already there. If you were to walk into the woods there will be a trail head there once the project is done but right now you would come upon a farm road that’s already there and you could walk that straight up all the way to Gilson Road. A lot of the stuff that you see there are just improvements of little loops, bringing it out and giving it different directions in which you could go. Chairman Moriarty What’s the scale here if I were to go from Groton Road up through that north part and then over to Gilson? Mr. Gallagher To be honest with you I don’t know. Chairman Moriarty I remember a couple of years ago there was that unveiling of the sign which is on this side of the pond. Alderman McCarthy It’s probably half a mile to one mile. Chairman Moriarty So currently if you went out there, am I correct to assume that we own the right-of-way of all of this land so if you knew where you were going you could walk from Captain’s Corner all the way up to the parking lot off of Gilson? Mr. Gallagher Correct. The benefit of this project is that there will be signage and a trail head on the southwest portion of that as that trail starts to go from north to west. There will be a similar sign that was done during the dedication out off of the Gilson Road section so there will be another formal sign. We are going to have kiosks set up with educational information talking about the land and the history as well as the family that donated it that made this project possible. Morin’s Landscaping is in the process of getting started now. We had a little bit of a late start with the snow and we needed to wait for the contract to be formally awarded to them. We expect this project to be completed in calendar year 2015. Once that is done part of the Conservation Commission’s goal is to also provide education about this particular site so it’s working with any and all entities to get the word out to have maps done from a GIS standpoint. NRPC does a great job with that for the stuff that they handle but something similar to that where you will be able to gain some bearing as to where you are going. PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 4 Chairman Moriarty Compared to what else is in the city, is there anything of this scale anywhere else in the city, excluding Mine Falls? Mr. Gallagher As you know, Mine Falls is a park so it’s a different classification. I believe that this is the largest connected conservation piece in the city. The next or closest to it would be the Northwest Sanctuary which might be a little bit larger but I don’t have the numbers in front of me. As far as usable land this piece is significantly more usable because the Northwest Sanctuary is very wet. Chairman Moriarty Where is the Northwest Sanctuary? Mr. Gallagher You can gain access at Massasoit or at the Westwood Industrial Park. There are multiple points of entrance. Alderman McCarthy There isn’t a particularly good trail network through there. There are basically the remnants of Deerwood Drive and Blood’s Crossing Roads. Once you get off of those it rapidly becomes very wet. Mr. Gallagher If you are out on the Northwest you are going to walk along the paved access road for the airport. It’s very level and flat but you are going to a point and turn around and walk back, there really isn’t a loop. You can go off on some trails but there’s no inner connectivity. Chairman Moriarty Just to make sure I have this right you can get there from Amherst Street on the north or Pine Hill from the south? Mr. Gallagher Correct. Alderman McCarthy I don’t know that you can get in it from Amherst Street, there’s a gate at the end of Deerwood Drive. Mr. Gallagher I wouldn’t say that there is a formal entrance off of Amherst Street. The fence that Alderman McCarthy is referring to does exist from the airport up but does stop at some point. There are commercial businesses that have parking lots that abut that property that you can simply walk into it. Chairman Moriarty Recently we talked about the fee that was crossing this railroad so that must mean that if you follow that road to the end could you walk across this and end up… PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 5 Mr. Gallagher If you go over to the airport and you can see to the southwest of that there is a road and you follow that right up. That’s going to go all the way up to Two C Pack where there is a fence; you can’t gain access to that particular property. You would take a left and follow it up and Two C Pack is there. Alderman McCarthy So those lighter areas, the areas where you can see trees are generally sort of dry. The areas with less texture to them are basically impassable, it’s marsh. The piece off to the left is essentially an island. Mr. Gallagher Part of what Mayor Lozeau has tasked the Conservation Commission with was can you identify conservation land in the City of Nashua that can be used for passive recreation. Passive recreation could be hiking, walking, biking, bird watching and those types of things. We have over the last couple of years looked at the inventory we have. A lot of them of just nestled in between two residential properties and there’s no value to it so you wouldn’t put any money into it. Obviously with the Terrell piece and with Lovewell being so close and connecting to Yudicky as well as acquiring the property at 9 Groton Road so it’s more trail systems which is fantastic. Alderman McCarthy The section of sidewalk from Musket down to the entrance to the park, are they actually actively looking at that? Mr. Gallagher I was told originally that a funding source had been found for it and it was a no brainer. Then again, prior to it coming to Finance I was advised by Mr. Houston that engineering wanted to go out and look at it and so therefore it was removed from the work order to Morin’s with the understanding that once Streets went out and took a look at it the funding source was already there and it would simply be a change order to have that added. It’s my understanding that now that we don’t have snow that’s impeding our ability to look at it that somebody should be looking at it soon. Alderman McCarthy Well I’ll see to it that somebody is. A question about the northwest area, have we ever looked at trying to get a commitment to get the last piece of that at some point? There is a house in the middle of the island that is privately owned which at some point in the future when the family no longer uses it, it would be good if we could acquire that or get a right of first refusal on it. Mr. Gallagher There are a number of properties that the city has identified for various reasons. I don’t know that there are any active conversations about that. I don’t know that it’s on any priority list. It is your drinking water so at some point it would be within the best interest to at least know who, what, where, why or when that property is being used. Chairman Moriarty Thank you very much for that excellent review. PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 6 Alderman McCarthy I do have one more thing. At some point in discussions that we had years ago with the Hermanson’s who own the old place on the shore of Lovewell Pond; they had told us that they would will willing to give us a conservation easement when we had conservation easements around the rest of the property. That was before we bought the Greg Conservation area; I believe that all of those pieces are now in place and we probably ought to follow-up with them. Mr. Gallagher It’s not ringing a bell but it would certainly make sense. Obviously with the donations from the Tamposi family to have that section and then acquiring the Greg piece; anything that we can continue to secure around there would make sense. Alderman McCarthy In your defense that was a conversation that Mrs. Hersch and I had with the Hermanson’s back prior to the acquisition of the piece around Tanglewood and the piece behind Lovewell’s Pond. Mr. Gallagher There are known properties within the city and when we go into non-public it is to discuss those and prioritize some of those pieces if they were to become available and we do that fairly regularly. I will speak with Mr. Houston and ask to have another conversation to see what else is out there. We have run into a couple of issues when it comes to conservation land so it’s great to get but once you have it, what are you going to do with it? We need to make sure that we are diligent with our stewardship of this property. It’s great to have an easement and know that there will not be any development on it but again, how do we do it so it betters the use of it for the folks in the city. We had a use of the conservation fund to pay for something that in my opinion was not necessary. If those types of things continue in future administrations and Boards; that money…I mean Nashua is approximately 97% - 98% built out so there’s no funding mechanism for future monies into the conservation fund. We are looking at a little bit less than $2 million now. $400,000 was put into this particular project and there is more work that we will need to do as far as educating and doing maps that was not part of that original legislation that came before you so we will be back. We have recently had some folks say we have this and we want to give it to you and although that sounds great when you start to think about the cost associated to the city in simply accepting property because now you need to do something with it. Somebody needs to clean it and if there is a complaint from a neighbor someone has to go out and do something with it and most people who are doing that are looking to put an easement on something or looking for a reduced tax rate or to get rid of that piece of land that is unusable to them. I will ask that we have a more updated conversation of prioritization of land that may or may not be available to us. Chairman Moriarty You are always welcome to return and present that material. Mr. Gallagher As you know, that stuff would be non-public. I know that the Conservation Commission has met in non-public with the Board of Aldermen in the past and we would certainly be happy to do so again in the future. CTAB update on Cable Franchise Renewal Process Chairman Moriarty I am currently the Aldermanic liaison on the Cable Television Advisory Board. PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 7 Mr. Bruce Codagnone, Director of IT, City of Nashua The purpose of this is to give a little bit of background on what the cable franchise is and what it is not; what we have been doing, who is on the team and what the next steps are. The cable franchise is to provide services from cable companies. We get a franchise fee from them to be able to use the right-of-way to run their cables throughout the city. It’s a formal agreement between the city and the cable company that is under the franchise agreement. We have certain obligations against the cable company; they have certain commitments that they provide us by the contract. In the previous contract, I believe it was some things like free cable for city buildings as far as basic cable. They did provide funding for the studio and things of that nature. Comcast is the current franchisee and is the largest cable television provider. We’ve been under a franchise agreement with them since October 1, 2005. The current contract that we have with them is a 10-year agreement and the franchise agreement expires on September 30th of this year. The actual franchise agreement is governed by the Cable Act which is a federal law. Within that law it defines how the structure is and how the negotiations take place for the franchise agreement. In the last three years of the agreement; within that three year period there are certain things that the city has time to do. We can evaluate whether the cable company has complied with its legal and franchise obligations, we can determine whether there is any sort of future needs and we can negotiate on conditions renewed whether there are any benefits identified during the ascertainment process; things that we need for the city itself. What the city negotiators can do is somewhat limited. We can conduct an ascertainment process and determine the community needs and interests. Under the current franchise agreement we secured free cable services to city buildings and schools. We can identify where the cable operator has not lived up to its expectations as to the legal rights of the contract and we can deny the renewal to the current contract holder but only after a lengthy formal process. There are two ways to approach the negotiation of a franchise agreement. One is the formal process and one is the not so formal process. We are taking the not formal process. A formal process would be like going out to RFP again. That’s very difficult to do when you already have somebody that has the infrastructure in place; someone would have to buy that infrastructure from the current provider. We are trying to work with the current providers; kind of like mediation. What city negotiators cannot do is that we cannot control the prices that Comcast charges for its cable modems or cable T.V. We cannot control what channels they make available but we can require them to provide certain categories of programming. We cannot make demands about cable modem or internet connections. That’s technically not part of the franchise agreement. This franchise agreement was written back in 1986 and it dealt with cable T.V. so the franchise fees that we deal with are only T.V. related components, not the internet. We also can’t resolve specific customer service issues. That is outside the purview of this agreement. The Mayor has appointed a working team made up of Brian Garrity, Tom Galligani, myself, Andrew Cenata who is the Chairman of the CTAB Committee, Celia Leonard, Assistant Corporate Counsel, and Dan Moriarty who is an Alderman-at-Large. We have also held a public hearing where citizens could voice their opinions. We had a few people come in and speak on behalf of Cable and we got some letters of recommendations from various people how public access T.V. and education access T.V. has been good for the community. We also conducted a survey that we started back in November and it finalized on March 30th of this year. We had 365 total respondents and it gave us some good information but it also gave us some information that doesn’t really apply, its information dealing with internet connections or internet speed; things that are outside the franchise agreement. One of the things we have been talking about in the meetings that we have been having is when you look at the trends in cable T.V., between 2012 and 2014 viewers between the ages of 50 through 64 watched one hour and twelve minutes less of traditional T.V. each week and increased their viewing of videos over the internet by 22 minutes. Viewers between the ages of 35 through 49 watched two hours and five minutes less of traditional T.V. each week and increased viewing of on- line videos by 35 minutes. This was an article that was in the Washington Post on March 11th of this year. As you see, more and more people are getting just strictly internet and streaming T.V. from other sources. There are a lot of people still maintaining traditional cable T.V. but there are people who are learning that there are other ways of getting the media that they want to watch. As we can see by the Nielsen ratings, it hasn’t been drastically dropping but the trend will be in future years for it to drop. About 2.6 million households now have broadband only; they don’t subscribe to cable or pick up any broadcast signal according to Nielsen’s total audience report that they released in December of last year. That’s about 2.8% of total households but its’ double of the 1.8% households that were broadband only the previous year. The average person watches 141 PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 8 hours of live television per month in the 3rd quarter of last year as opposed to 147 hours in the 3rd quarter of the previous year. It’s a slow decline but I think we may see a rapid decline as more options become available. Chairman Moriarty I am just stunned by that number, 141 hours per month per person. That’s 4.7 hours per day, that’s unbelievable. Mr. Codagnone Yeah, I guess some people watch a lot of T.V. So as part of the survey we had 365 total responses and a lot of the questions were around competition; are asking the city to bring in competition to Comcast. Currently, FIOS, who is one of the biggest, is not available in New Hampshire. Any other cable company who comes into the City of Nashua would have to buy Comcast infrastructure and it would be a huge expense or they would have to put up their own which is also a huge expense. They would have to work with the owners of the poles and do a pole survey and then you have two people competing for a small pie or a declining piece of pie. Alderman McCarthy It’s not declining if you look at internet connections, right? Mr. Codagnone Right, internet connections are going up; Broadband is going up. Alderman McCarthy The total revenue available from fiber in Nashua is probably increasing? Mr. Codagnone Right but the traditional cable T.V. usage is the part that is going down. More and more people are getting internet only and then they are using Netflix or other devices to watch streaming media over that internet connection. With that in mind, we can’t get a franchise fee for the internet connection or what they are watching on that. We can get a franchise fee component for a traditional T.V. which is roughly $1 million per year. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja How long was this survey out there? Mr. Codagnone From November of last year until March 30th of this year. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja Okay so about 5 months. How was the public made aware of this survey? Mr. Codagnone We announced it at CTAB meetings and at a few other meetings. In addition to that it was on the front page of the website for that whole period of time with a link going to the franchise renewal page. PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 9 Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I didn’t know if there had been any other outreach in terms of posting it at the bus stations or any other way. I just think that’s a really small number. Where do you think you got most of your responses from? Mr. Codagnone There were people that went to the web page and there were others that heard about it and then went to the web page. I guess these things are not very well attended anyway as far as surveys go. When I had a conversation with our representative from Comcast; the public meeting we had, we had about a dozen people attend the meeting or less. According to our Comcast representative, that was a very well attended meeting and that usually there was only one or two people that will show up for a public hearing like that, which is to me surprising. A majority of the people from the survey were complaining internet speed or customer service. There were very few that were talking about cable T.V. Some of the things that they do talk about that I think we may be able to request of Comcast is that people want a little more of a selection; to be able to pick and choose and not have to get these packages with a lot of things that they don’t watch or need. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja I believe one of their competitors is in the process of doing that but unfortunately they are not up here now. Thank you, I was just wondering how this was advertised. Mr. Codagnone There was a great deal of complaints around internet service which is outside of our purview. The survey results are actually posted on the city’s website right now. I didn’t put the individual comments out there as some of them were derogatory. Our recommendations so far are due to the shift in traditional T.V. viewing, the city’s revenue from the franchise agreement can be negatively impacted. We don’t know what kind of legal federal legislation is going to take place that is going to change this. The current agreement has been out there for a long time and it’s antiquated when you look at the technology of today. We are looking at probably doing a 5-year contract and not a 10 so we can revisit this sooner if there are major changes in place. Based upon the survey results we can ask Comcast for regular reporting of what they are doing to improve customer service. They opened up a new store in south Nashua and they also opened up a huge call center in Hudson. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja What were the specific complaints other than different bundles of programming? Mr. Codagnone Most of them were along the lines of long wait times when they did make a phone call or they didn’t fix the problem the first time around. There were specific questions in the survey that dealt with those kinds of things but it was a small sampling and it may be one of those things where you are only getting the people complaining. One of the things we do not recommend doing is raising the franchise fee. A decline in money from the franchise agreement if there is declining T.V. revenue would mean that we would be getting less revenue from Comcast but we don’t recommend raising the franchise fee to compensate for that because that’s a direct pass through from Comcast to the citizens. They couldn’t provide me with the demographics but the people who can actually afford it are the ones that are using some of the other services. It’s the seniors or people that can’t afford it that are watching strictly cable T.V.; they are the ones that will be impacted if we try to raise the franchise fees and I don’t think that’s a good idea. The next steps are to review the recommendations with the Mayor and then draft a franchise agreement to be brought before the Board of Aldermen and get approval from the Board of Aldermen. PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 10 Chairman Moriarty It might be useful for us, over the next month or so, to come up with a list of specific questions. For instance, knowing that the federal legislation allows us to charge 5% and we are only charging 4%, we believe that to be the right number but that would be a specific question “do you the public think we should raise or lower it or leave it the same?” I thought that the money came from Comcast as one payment and then the city then split it into the special revenue fund for public and educational and then the rest went into general. Does that require a Comcast franchise change? Right now there are three channels and two of them get paid one way and the other one gets paid another way. Is that just a city decision or is that written into the franchise agreement. Alderman McCarthy, do you know the answer to that? Alderman McCarthy It’s probably just the city’s’ although I am not entirely sure. There was some history about the other 3% but you are right, we pay for the education and government channels out of the city budget and pay for the public access channel out of the 1%. No, I’m sorry; it’s the other way around. That’s in the franchise agreement; that it is to be used for that purpose I believe. Mr. Codagnone I had a conversation with the Mayor about it and I believe that the 1% is in the franchise agreement for the education and government channels and the public access comes out of the 3% which is in the general fund. That is something that the city itself can determine to put into a separate special revenue fund just for that purpose but it doesn’t have to be part of the agreement. Alderman McCarthy If you do that and you spend more than we are spending now on it, taxes are going to go up because there will not be as much revenue to offset other expenditures. The question I would ask is what did we hear about the public access channel in the survey? Mr. Codagnone We didn’t touch a lot on the public access channel or the government or education. We talked more about Comcast itself as an organization. We were querying more about customer service and what they offer; more of the needs of the people. Chairman Moriarty Many people are interested in knowing what is the viewership of the three channels compared to the regular; that would be helpful. How do we get that? Mr. Codagnone They can’t really tell us. They get their viewership from the Nielsen ratings for specific shows and that’s a national organization that does that. We can get metrics; I provided those metrics for the public, government and education channels; what the viewership is – how many people watch it live versus how many people re- watch it from the website. Alderman McCarthy But we don’t have those numbers for the public access channel. PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 11 Mr. Codagnone A lot of those are You Tube videos. Alderman McCarthy If they are being watched from You Tube why are we paying to put the first run on the public access channel? Mr. Codagnone Yeah. Chairman Moriarty It’s a valid question. The answer may be that we still want to. Mr. Codagnone I think a lot of it is just the replay. Alderwoman Brown During your presentation you mentioned that we can negotiate better packages so wouldn’t this be the ideal time and how would we go about doing that? Mr. Codagnone Not necessarily better packages but we can request that of them but there are certain things that we are restricted on. We have to work through the legalities of the franchise agreement. Alderwoman Brown Will you bring some of that discussion before the committee again? Mr. Codagnone It will come before the full Board of Aldermen, yes. Alderwoman Brown Yes, but I am talking about specifically the changes with any packages or some of the requests on our behalf. Mr. Codagnone That would be part of the franchise agreement. Like I said, we can’t change their programming. We can request certain things to be added to a certain type of channel but we can’t change how they bundle. Alderwoman Brown I wanted to add CNN. PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 12 Chairman Moriarty You can’t demand a name brand change but you could probably say we want news. At the same time, they can’t sensor what we put on the P, E, or G channels. Alderwoman Brown Will that presentation be available on the website? Mr. Codagnone Yes, it will be posted the same as the survey results. COMMUNICATIONS From: Dorothy Clarke, Deputy Corporation Counsel Re: Proposed Amendments to R-15-117 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE ON THE QUESTION Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja Can you please summarize why it’s being changed? Alderman McCarthy The amendment has to do with changing the delineation of the properties from tax maps to the census tracks which is what the revitalization zones are based on. MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-15-117 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF A “DOWNTOWN – SIMON STREET ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION ZONE  Also assigned to NCPB; Favorable Recommendation on Proposed Amendments submitted by Deputy Corporation Counsel – 4/9/15 MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO AMEND R-15-117 BY REPLACING IT WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ATTACHED TO ATTORNEY CLARKE’S MEMO ACCEPTED EARLIER THIS EVENING MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-117 AS AMENDED PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 13 ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy The economic revitalization zones allow us to designate census tracks with certain characteristics, below median income, etc. which allows for some deferment of the BPT and the BET for businesses that are located within them. We have done that for the Main Street Market Place and for the Millyard as well as a couple of other recycled industrial areas that are having those issues and this proposes to do it with one more of those. It doesn’t incur anything for the city it’s the state Business Enterprise Tax and Business Profits tax that are credited and the business has to apply for the tax credits once they are within a revitalization zone. I think we have had a few people do it in some of the other zones. I can tell you that there have been more of them in places like Manchester. Surprisingly, the area around the Mall of New Hampshire is designated as an economic revitalization zone so some of the businesses up there are receiving credits against those taxes. It doesn’t cost the city anything to do it; it’s just that we have to enable it so that they can apply for the credits from the state. Chairman Moriarty I appreciate that clear explanation and I am all for this if it can make Nashua competitive with other cities in the state and bring businesses here, I am for it. Alderman McCarthy Before we vote on this I wanted to make it clear that the Mayor had indicated that she couldn’t be here tonight because she is at the Ward 1 meeting and Mr. Galligani is on vacation and that is why there is no one here from the administration. Chairman Moriarty Yes, she did contact me earlier and asked if everything was under control and I said that I was sure Alderman McCarthy could explain it as one of the prime sponsors. MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES- None TABLED IN COMMITTEE R-14-045 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A PERFORMING ARTS VENUE AND A MOVIE THEATRE ATOP THE ELM STREET AND HIGH STREET GARAGES  Tabled – 7/1/14 GENERAL DISCUSSION - None PEDC – 4/21/15 Page 14 PUBLIC COMMENT - None REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN - None POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 8:28 p.m. Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty Committee Clerk, Pro Tem