Search

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS REPRESENTING THE
CITY OF NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL #365

APPENDIX E
SNOW COVERAGE

1. It will be a condition of employment for all new hires as of July 1, 2006 that he/she shall be
available for snow events. There will be no retroactive payments under this agreement to those
hired before July 1, 2006.

2.A. Management will utilize a bargaining unit volunteer sign-up list for snow events. This
list will cover one (1) week periods, from Monday 6:45 a.m. to Monday 6:45 a.m. Up to 80
bargaining unit members who agree to be on call will be compensated $100.00 or 4.5 hours of
overtime pay, whichever is greater, for the week. Employees will provide one phone number
and receive a call and text notifying them that they need to report to work. Bargaining unit
members on-call will be allowed to get someone else to cover for them as long as they provide
notification. | Four (4) maintenance positions shall be entitled to the aforementioned on-call
compensation. Bargaining unit members hired after the date that this contract is signed will
not be eligible for on call compensation for snow.

B. Bargaining unit members on-call who have worked at least sixteen (16) hours within a
twenty-four (24) hour period are eligible for up to an 8 hour rest period. At the employee’s
option he/she may respond without the minimum hours of rest. An employee shall give notice of
the duration of such rest period to the dispatcher, should the employee desire a rest period. An
employee using vacation and/or sick time during a rest period under Appendix E shall maintain
their eligibility for overtime.

C. Bargaining Unit employees who are unable to commit to the week block for on-call shall
be contacted and offered the opportunity to work during a call-in provided additional manpower
is needed above the bargaining unit on-call volunteers. All Bargaining Unit members shall be
offered any available work prior to offering such work outside the bargaining unit. Should a
bargaining unit employee not be available at the time of the call, receives a message, or has no
answering machine at their residence, such employee may contact the dispatcher and provided
work is continuing to be completed, advise when they will be available to respond. They will be
assigned the next available open slot in the order in which such calls are received.

Dd. Employees will be paid double time for hours worked in excess of 16 consecutive hours
ending during a snow event while performing snow event duties. However, employees who
work into their regularly scheduled shift contiguous with a snow event will be paid time and a
half for their regular shift. Notwithstanding the foregoing, double time will continue to be

paid to those qualifying employees uninterruptedly operating sidewalk plows until the work
related to the snow event is completed.

3. The Division of Public Works will be able to utilize non-bargaining unit employees
of the Division for snow events only after all bargaining unit members have been called and
offered the opportunity to work or left a message indicating such an opportunity. Such method of
contact would be conducted through a process that provides the number called and time of the
call and no additional AFSCME Bargaining Unit employees are available during a snow event.
Further, the use of non-bargaining unit employees of the Division will not diminish the right of a
bargaining unit members from coming in later to replace a non-bargaining unit employee of the
Division to complete the bargaining unit work that remains. Employees interested in coming in
after the initial call out shall call in and provide at least a 30 minute notice of their intent to
return provided bargaining unit work remains to be completed.

4. The start of an event shall commence once pretreatment or plowing occurs or a call-in
occurs, whichever is earlier. Should an employee respond in at a later time, the start of the event
shall be from his/her arrival to the worksite. All hours worked on an event during normal
working hours shall count towards the total hours for the event. Employees will be paid from
time badged in for a snow event,

5. Each Monday a volunteer sign-up sheet shall be posted for the week commencing 14
days later. The sign-up period closes Friday at 12:00 p.m. the week of the posting. A separate
list shall be established for employees to sign up for all weeks for the duration of the snow
season as defined in Section 11. A separate list will be established for employees hired prior to
July 1, 2006 to sign up if they do not want to be contacted about snow event(s) for a full week.

6. Solid Waste employees shall be eligible at all times to volunteer for overtime.

7 Sidewalk clearing shall be considered as part of any snow event. Overtime for sidewalk
clearing shall be in accordance with Article 9 Overtime.

8. Snow Removal operations (Hauling) shall be in accordance with Article 9 Overtime.
9, Volunteer lists will be posted in all Public Works Departments.
10. Snow event transgressions would be disciplined separately, according to the “Just Cause”

standard. Any volunteer who has been given advance notice and accepts overtime but does not
respond for said work without adequate justification may be subject to disciplinary action.

11. The Snow Season begins the 2nd Monday of November and ends twenty (20) weeks from
that date.

12. Management will not arbitrarily or capriciously declare a snow emergency.

13. The parties agree a Joint Labor/Management committee shall meet to discuss concerns
from either party and attempt to resolve the matter.

SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMEN
MARCH 1, 2021
7:00 PM

Join Zoom Meeting: https://usO2web.z00m.us//88227133992?pwd=WitWempRMWdLY 2FgNnNLWnN6NkZV UTO9
Meeting ID: 892 2713 3992 Passcode: 237958

Join by telephone: 1-929-205-6099
Meeting ID: 892 2713 3992 Passcode: 237958

If for some reason you cannot connect to Zoom, please contact us at (603) 821-2049 and they will help you
with connectivity. The public may also view the meeting via Channel 16.

PRESIDENT LORI WILSHIRE CALLS ASSEMBLY TO ORDER

PRAYER OFFERED BY CITY CLERK SUSAN K. LOVERING

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG LED BY ALDERMAN-AT-LARGE DAVID C. TENCZA
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARING
O-21-045
AMENDING THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ORDINANCES AND INCREASING THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT FEES

Testimony in Favor

Testimony in Opposition

Testimony in Favor

Testimony in Opposition

ADJOURNMENT

O-21-045

ORDINANCE

AMENDING THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ORDINANCES AND INCREASING
THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FEES

CITY OF NASHUA

In the Year Two Thousand and Twenty-One

The City of Nashua ordains that Part Il “General Legislation”, Chapter 105 “Building
Construction” of the Nashua Revised Ordinances, as amended, be hereby further amended by
deleting the struck-through language and adding the new underlined language as follows:

“ARTICLE I General Provisions

§ 105.6. Violations and penalties.

Any person who violates a provision of this chapter or the codes adopted thereby or fails
to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who erects, constructs, alters, or
repairs a building or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or
directive of the Building Official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions
of this chapter or the codes adopted thereby, shall be subject to the provisions of NRO
Chapter 74 and RSA 676:15-17-b, without limitation of any remedy available to the City
at law or in equity.

ARTICLE YU Building Code
§ 105-7. Short title.

This article shall be known as and may cited as the “Building Code of the City of Nashua,
New Hampshire.”

§ 105-8. Adoption of Commercial Building Code.

A certain document and referenced code on file in the effee-efthe-CityClerk
Department of Building Safety of the City of Nashua, New Hampshire, being marked
and designated as the “International Building Code,Fiest Editien, 2000," adopted as per
the New Hampshire State Building Code per RSA 155-A as published by the

ORDINANCE O-21-045

International Code Council, Inc., and any amendments adopted thereto is hereby adopted
as the Commercial Building Code of the City of Nashua, in the State of New Hampshire,
for the control of buildings and structures. The regulations, provisions, conditions and
terms of said code are hereby referred to, adopted and made part hereof as if fully set out
in this chapter, with any amendments prescribed in this article.

§ 105-9. Amendments.

A.

Insert in the space provided in Section 101.1 for the “name of jurisdiction”: the
City of Nashua.

Amend Section +963 107.3 by replacing-itwvith inserting the following
paragraph:

406.3-107.3. Examination of documents. The Building Official shall examine or
cause to be examined the accompanying construction documents and shall
ascertain by such exarninations whether the construction indicated and described
is in accordance with the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or
ordinances. The Building Official is authorized to require third party peer review
where applications for unusual designs or magnitude of construction are filed,
such as high-rise structures, elaborate framing systems, extensive retaining walls
and complicated foundation designs. It shall be the Building Official’s
responsibility to determine when a third party peer review shall be required, The
applicant shall pay all fees and costs related to the performance of a third party
peer review.

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 34

Alderman Dowd

Yes, | am sorry | am joining the meeting late, the Planning Board got delayed because of a technical
difficulty and we just went through the School Portion. So if | could have Ms. Lovering please read the
amendment that we are addressing now. | understand the comments but I’d like to know exactly what the
wording is of the amendment.

Susan Lovering, City Clerk

The amendment that passed earlier was to include a first offense as a warning and a second offense and
any subsequent offenses to be a $25.00 fine.

President Wilshire

And the current motion is to rescind that amendment that we already voted on.
Alderman Dowd

Ok thank you.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Alderman Klee.

Alderman Klee

Thank you so much, Madam President. | wanted to make two comments. One is | wholeheartedly agree
with what Alderman Lopez said about if we start making Legislation based on threats or fear that someone
is going to protest what we do, then we might as well just put everything on the ballot or just not even be
here. It renders us impotent in so many ways. The other thing | wanted to mention is that the United Way
and | have been working with them since Monday. Right in front of City Hall, they have been giving away
hundreds and hundreds of masks. The first day, | know we gave 750 masks. We have been giving them to
anybody who comes, three per person to the family; they have now expanded that. Starting on Tuesday,
they are going to be at Railroad Square and City Hall giving away masks. The businesses do have masks
and | am sure that many of them want to do it. | don’t think if someone showed up without a mask they
would be turned away; | am sure the business would have something. | am telling you we are flanking both
ends of Main Street to make sure that people have masks. The United Way has completely stepped up
incredible in helping in this way. So | don’t think the fact that someone doesn’t have a mask is going to
become an issue. But | want to say very strongly that we can’t give in to the possibility of threats. And |
mean no disrespect to Alderman Clemons, but | do have two comments and one is that just passing this
Ordinance alone with or without a fine, with or without a warning, in my opinion is still going to bring those
same people out. To be honest with you, in some respects this was instigated by a Facebook post that
said that this was ridiculous and so on. So again, | mean no disrespect, | am just being very honest. Thank
you.

Alderwoman Kelly
Alderman Wilshire.
President Wilshire

Alderwoman Kelly.

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 35

Alderwoman Kelly

Yes thank you. | wanted to address something that was said a couple of comments ago about giving
people the benefit of the doubt, | trust our Police. | trust them to have that wherewithal when they are
interfacing with people, that’s what they do all the time, they are a great force. So | think that’s sort of a
moot point. And then the last thing | would say is | think the intent of this from the Board of Health and in
general, | think the Board here understands is that we want to make it easy to wear a mask and not so easy
not to wear a mask and that is it. We want to make it easy for you to help support people like myself, I’ve
got a baby, | have asthma, people on the Board are like that; your neighbor, your friend who is over 55. It
is not a hard thing to put a mask on and we are making it very easy to get them. You can come to City Hall
and get them. There is a whole group that is distributing cloth masks if you need them. That is all.

President Wilshire

Anybody else? The motion is to reconsider the amendment by removing the warning and the $25.00 fine.
Ok so that’s the motion, would the Clerk call the roll?

A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Lopez, Alderwoman Lu,
Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Wilshire 9

Nay: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Tencza,
Alderman Harriott-Gathright 4

MOTION CARRIED

President Wilshire

And that Motion carries. We are back to the original Ordinance, for final passage. Alderman O’Brien?
Alderman O’Brien

Thank you, | would like to thank everybody for their discussion on this and the various different motions that
were presented. But in my communication with people down on Main Street in particular, what is our
responsibility of Aldermen? Really not to punish but to educate and the thing is now we are right back to
square zero and we are talking a $1,000.00 fine. If you really want to get the quills up of the porcupine, you
poke him with a stick. And | think in this case, we have. The $1,000.00 fine granted | agree with Attorney
Bolton in his assessment and many of course it won’t probably really get that far. But | think it would our
duty to be practical with it so therefore that is why | supported Alderman Clemons’ point of view.

However, the ends to justify the means. We are talking about a virus that has debilitating effects and
coming from my Fire Department background, if you lived in a single family home and you chose not to
have a smoke detector, well you were foolish, but your home was your castle that was your choice. But in
the situation of a duplex, your actions could definitely affect somebody else. So weighing the balance of
this particular Ordinance, although | am very disappointed to see that there was some lightening that was
not voted for on this and we are back to the $1,000.00 fine and its potential, | am going to support this
Ordinance because | feel that we need to protect the weakest among us, people away from this terrible
virus. Again disappointed, but | am going to support the motion.

President Wilshire

Alderman Dowd?

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 36

Alderman Dowd

Yes. | would have been more in the favor of the motion or the amendment if there was no warning because
who is going to track the warnings? And | don’t think that’s practical. First of all, | don’t think the Police are
going to be walking around trying to fine somebody because they don’t have a mask. | think | heard when |
first came on that the issue is going to be we are backing up the businesses who the Board of Health has
said, if you want to be in business, you have to require masks. If we back up the Board of Health and
somebody pushes their way into a restaurant or a store refusing to wear a mask. They are not going to be
fined for not wearing a mask. They are going to be fined for trespassing or disorderly conduct which has a
different type of fine structure, and maybe even an arrest. So if people want to stay six feet from people
and they are not in a restaurant or a store and they don’t want to wear a mask, fine. Let them. But if they
get within six feet or people or if they are downtown and they want to go in a restaurant or a store, at least
for the time being, they need to wear a mask. That’s my opinion. | would support something that reduced
the fine structure because $1,000.00 is a pretty steep fine, but | really don’t see the Police going around
and fining people because they don’t have a mask on.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

| just want to reiterate that the — my understanding and Attorney Bolton please correct me if | am wrong, the
Ordinance stipulates up to $1,000.00, it doesn’t stipulate $1,000.00 so a lot of room for discussion there?

President Wilshire
Ok, Alderman Schmidt.
Alderman Schmidt

Thank you. | just wanted to make it clear that nobody is going to force people to go into shops. If you need
something from a shop, you can pick it up curbside, you can have it delivered. This isn’t like we are trying
to force these on to people. It will be their choice and it is for safety of the other person, that’s why you wear
the mask, not for yourself, but for the other person. And | really only wanted to say one more thing, there
were 9 more deaths in New Hampshire yesterday. Thank you.

President Wilshire
Thank you. Alderman Jette?
Alderman Jette

Thank you, Madam Chairman. If | could through you again call upon Attorney Bolton, you know | — and |
am sure we all have received many e-malls from people on this issue, pretty much evenly divided on one
side or the other. But the people against this Ordinance and very passionately against and | want
everybody to know that | read all of your e-mails and | have received some phone calls. | must say | don’t
think I’ve received as much communication about a proposed Ordinance until back when the Tobacco 21
was an issue.

But some of the people who are against this Ordinance seem to basically have two major objections in
different degrees but they fall into two categories. One if that they don’t think masks are effective and that
they are not going to do any good. And | must say that | rely upon our medical professionals on the Board
of Health to guide us in that regard. They are the people with the expertise, they have determined that this

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 37

rule that they are — this is not something that the Board of Aldermen came up with. This is the Board of
Health who is asking and who wants to implement this rule and they are asking the Board of Aldermen to
approve it. So | bow to their expertise. If they say this would be an effective way of reducing the amount of
exposure to this virus, then | believe them and | support them in that.

The other category of objections to this are that they are questioning whether or not the Board of Health
and the Board of Aldermen in Nashua have the authority to impose this Ordinance to begin with — that is it
unconstitutional, that is a violation of people’s rights. | would ask Attorney Bolton if he could comment on
the authority of the Board of Health and the Board of Aldermen to enact this Ordinance and whether or not
that violates people’s constitutional rights.

Attorney Bolton

New Hampshire is what is known as a Dillon’s Rule State, which essentially means that the localities, the
cities, and towns, have only such power as the State Legislature has granted them. In this case, the State
Legislature has granted cities the authority to enact health-related, Ordinances, rules regulations and by-
laws. That’s RSA 47:17. Now in Nashua pursuant to the City Charter, which was also originally adopted
by the State Legislature, in Section 79 of that Charter, provides that the Board of Health shall have control
of and attend to all matters and perform all duties relating to Public Health and shall perform such special
duties as may be imposed upon them by Ordinance or by the General Statute of the State. Now as part of
that duty, the Board of Health is granted the authority to make such rules and regulations relating to the
Public Health as int their judgement the Public Health and Safety may require.

All such rules and regulations shall be subject to the action of the Board of Aldermen approving the same.
And that extends into Charter Section 81. So that is what you are doing here tonight, considering whether
you are going to approve a Regulation already enacted by the Board of Health. So | don’t believe there’s
any question that there’s been a proper delegation by the State Legislature of the authority to make rules,
regulations that the Board of Aldermen then adopt by Ordnance for the betterment of the Public Health.
Now we have loads and loads of Public Health related laws all over this country. There are laws requiring
shoes and shirts in restaurants and in stores selling food; those are laws. If this was unconstitutional, that
would be. There are laws concerning the safety of food, there are laws concerning the wearing of head
coverings by people who work in kitchens of restaurants. There are laws concerning requiring screens to
separate the condition of the kitchen from infestation by insects. There are laws requiring cleanliness in
restaurant kitchens. There are laws concerning alcohol consumption in restaurants. There are laws
concerning the disposal of rubbish and waste and leftover food from restaurants.

It is inconceivable to me that all of these other laws can be held to be constitutional and a face covering
requirement in the face of a pandemic which has now killed nearly twice as many people as we lost in all
the years of the Vietnam War. All we have to do to pass constitutional muster is to have a reasonable goal,
it's reasonably achievable by the measures we are undertaking. Reasonable goal is to try to reduce the
spread of the Coronavirus. I’m not a doctor, I’m not an epidemiologist. The people on the Board of Health
who are doctors and in their discussion of this last week talked about the medical literature that they had
read and they believe that this would be effective to reduce the spread of this virus. | don’t think there is a
serious constitutional question at all.

Alderman Jette
Thank you.
Alderman Dowd

You are on mute.