Search

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 8

amount to do this work. That’s basically it. There was absolutely no one at the public hearing, so there was no
testimony in favor or in opposition. The budget committee passed it unanimously.

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the oral report of the March 21, 2016 Budget
Review Committee public hearing and special meeting accepted and placed on file.

WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS — None
CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS
Cultural Connections Committee

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO THE CULTURAL CONNECTIONS COMMITTEE: RAFAEL CALDERON,
394 NOTRE DAME AVENUE, MANCHESTER, AND SYLVIA E. GALE, 4 CLERGY CIRCLE, NASHUA, FOR
TERMS TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2018; AND, DEEPA MANGALAT, 18 WILD ROSE DRIVE, NASHUA,
FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2019

MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Rafael Calderon, Sylvia Gale and Deepa Mangalat duly appointed to the Cultural
Connections Committee for the aforementioned terms.

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton to Sylvia Gale and Deepa Mangalat

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 9

Downtown Improvement Committee

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF SIMON
SARRIS, 23 AUBURN STREET, NASHUA, TO THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE FORA
TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 13, 2016

MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Simon Sarris duly appointed to the Downtown Improvement Committee for a
term to expire December 13, 2016.

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-16-007
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Tom Lopez
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $40,000 FROM THE STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC HEALTH
AND COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITY “FY2016 AND FY2017 CLIMATE AND HEALTH
ADAPTATION PLAN (CHAP)”
Given its fourth reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-007
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Wilshire

This was re-referred to the Human Affairs Committee and we invited Mr. Roche and folks from the Public
Health Department to address the committee. They did a really good job presenting what this grant was about.
In my opinion | think there is value to this. It’s not to cure climate change; it’s the effects that could happen as
a result of that. We talked about things like Lyme disease and heat stroke and if we can help anyone with this
grant | think it’s worth accepting. The Nashua Public Health Department was the only one eligible in the region
to apply for this grant and would be sub-contracted with the Nashua Regional Planning Commission to do that
work. | think it would benefit this city.

Alderman Siegel

| will note that the Board has an absent member and the last time we talked about this we had absentee
membership. However this turns out, | would ask that we all agree that we won't go through this
reconsideration. | do appreciate the effort that was made to explain this; however | have a slightly different
take from my colleague, Alderman Wilshire. | felt that while there were some justifications that were listed, in
fact, | viewed it somewhat as vote fishing in that we talked about Lyme disease, heat stroke; and remember
this is $20,000 per year and there wasn’t much focus on what actually it was, just hey, we think we could do
this or we think we could do that but the grant itself is defined as climate related issues. It’s a matter of
interpretation. | know they felt that they could spend the money however they felt like it and if that’s the way
we do things then okay. It wasn’t my understanding that was the right thing to do. With regard to us being the
representative, if | understand the mechanics by which we have to get the grant because we are the city but
interestingly enough the other towns in the Nashua region, there wasn’t a single one that ever came out to
advocate for this. Only Nashua is advocating for this and purportedly the rest of the region is supposed to

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 10

benefit but nobody came out at all. | presume they knew about it but they didn’t show up and | thought that
was a bit curious. The other thing is | am sure everyone saw the academic piece of work that | distributed and
| didn’t do that for a flip reason. The title of that was Glacier’s, Gender and Science — A Feminist Glaciology
Framework for Global and Environmental Change Research. | used that as an example and that was
something that was actually funded and somebody accepted money for that and that actually went through in
Oregon. We can all laugh at that but it’s us laughing and saying what a ridiculous waste of money, how could
“they” spend money that way. In some sense we are also a “they.” There is a continuum of responsibility such
that at a certain point it’s my belief; that legislation that comes through as grant money is ridiculous enough
that it's incumbent upon us to say maybe not. We have another crisis, an OPM crisis; other people’s money
and we use it a lot and we are addicted to it and we have to remember that whatever money comes in to fund
these things isn’t the magic oak tree and somehow it’s associated with taxpayer dollars, not necessarily as
direct as Nashua taxpayer dollars from property tax but nonetheless we should respect all sources of this. My
sense is that this does not warrant a yes vote and by voting no on this we are saying okay, we recognize that
there are limits to what is worth accepting or not.

Alderman Lopez

| also attended the meeting and as the liaison to the Board of Health | should have been more prepared the
first time it was introduced to explain to my colleagues what was being attempted by the Department of Health.
| was satisfied by their explanation that they want to focus on the impact on Nashua citizens that changes in
our climate have; Lyme disease and heat stroke. These are things that we should know and we should allow
the Public Health Department to plan for so there isn’t a corresponding impact on the health department
because of things that we didn’t try to find out in the midst of another health crisis like the opioid crisis. | think it
makes sense to allow the resources and | am in support of the bill. | think we should give our own departments
the credibility that they deserve. If they decided that they needed the resources to pursue specific objectives
and the filled out the grant for it, | think we should be satisfied with their judgement unless there is an obvious
red herring. My think my colleague, Alderman Siegel raised good points about making sure that we don’t just
accept money but | think they have valid reasons for doing this.

Alderman Schoneman

| too attended that meeting. | don’t think that we can equate climate change planning to the opioid crisis. The
opioid crisis is an emergency. One of the questions discussed was are we going to discover anything new.
Emergencies are new discoveries, there was nothing new. There is an understanding that if there is a change
in the climate it could result in an increased incidence of Lyme disease and perhaps sun stroke for the elderly.
We know those things exist now and can cope with. The opioid crisis is different and it seemed to appear out
of nowhere. The primary product of the $40,000 is going to be literature, pamphlets and signs perhaps that
warn people about how to avoid getting Lyme disease and how to avoid sun stroke. Those are things that we
already know about. While knowing about how these things might affect folks in Nashua is important, | think
that we already know and to further study it for the purpose of producing pamphlets and signs seems to me to
be not a wise way to spend the money.

Alderman Wilshire

This wasn’t just about pamphlets and signs; this was about creating a strategic plan to react to certain
catastrophes.

Alderman Lopez

| respectfully disagree that the opioid crisis came out of nowhere. A lot of people who were working in the non-
profit field were fully aware that this was happening and were advocating for this effect. The awareness in the
public eye only emerged after it started to impact, in an undeniable way, people all over the city. | think that
was the result of not having a coordinated plan as it unfolded. It wasn’t a surprise for many of us and we’ve
been doing as much as we can to try to keep it from getting to this point. We just didn’t have the resources or
the public education or the awareness.

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 11
Alderman Schoneman

| don’t want to create the impression that | am speaking flippantly about that but my point is that we do know
about Lyme disease and heat stroke. When | asked the question is it likely that we are going to get signs and
brochures out of this program; that was the likely outcome.

Alderman Dowd

Over the years this Board and the Board of Education have approved a number of grants from different
sources and the Board of Education just recently voted against a grant and then changed their mind when they
found out that there is a lot of work that goes into asking for a grant. The people who do the work want to get
that grant for a specific reason. If we start turning grants down after all of that work people are going to be very
reluctant to apply for a grant. The grants over the years have brought a great deal of money and have done a
great number of good things for the city. Someone here in Nashua has gone through all of the time and effort
to develop a grant and when they win it | think we should be supportive.

Alderman Clemons

If we do still have employees that continue to write grants and we reject them we are going to set ourselves up
for not even getting the awards for those grants anymore. | think that would be unfortunate.

Alderman Siegel

| want to address this domino effect implication. | don’t believe we have ever rejected a grant and it’s not clear
to me that any Board going forward would do that in the normal course of business. Most of the grants are
very straight forward and clear cut. This one was more speculative.

Alderman Clemons

| respectfully disagree with Alderman Siegel. | don’t think that the effect that climate change is on our citizens
is something that is not important to address. Climate is changing whether we like it or not and we should be
looking into that.

Alderman Siegel

Just to clarify, my statement had nothing to do with the grant itself. It's whether or not mechanically we will
reject grants in the future which we typically wouldn't. I’m not putting a value judgement on climate change
research. It was never about that and I’ve already said that publicly four or five times.

Alderman Schoneman

Some of the benefits that come from this are not a surprise so | don’t think we are gaining anything by
research; all we are doing is producing literature. It’s not a study or solution for climate change, Lyme disease
or heat stroke.

Alderman O’Brien

| consider $40,000 short money for something that may have the potential to identify a potential problem that
affects this city. In 1936 a climate change situation very much affected this city and that was the Great Flood.
What do we do with the elderly if we had a good week of a heat wave in this city? VVhere would we put them?
We have an Emergency Preparedness Director and I’m sure he is on top of it but if we can look at it better with
this particular grant then aren’t we better off for it? Let’s let the NRPC be our think tank.

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 12
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Dowd, 9
Alderman Caron, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty,
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Siegel, 5
Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness

MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-16-007 declared duly adopted.

R-16-010

Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard A. Dowd

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO INCREASE THE BOND AUTHORIZATION
FOR ROAD AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ON AMHERST STREET BETWEEN CHARRON AVENUE
AND DIESEL ROAD AND ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION FOUR
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,004,000)

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-010 BY ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Dowd

One thing | failed to mention is there are no roundabouts. It’s going to be a signalized traffic intersection.
Several questions were asked last night including the priority of the fire department which is part of the project.
It’s going to make this intersection safer. It’s going to improve the traffic flow on Amherst Street. It’s going to

be very beneficial to the citizens of Ward 1 and 2, who, by the way at the town meetings were in heavy support
of this. In fact, the main thing they asked is: Can we do this sooner?

Alderman Moriarty

| first would like to complement Alderman Dowd on what has to be one of the best oral reports of a committee
meeting I’ve ever heard. | apologize for not keeping up with this. | assume the answer is yes that the plan for
the traffic flow was arrived at after professional traffic analysis.

Alderman Dowd

Absolutely and the cost for the planning for the entire project and the traffic flow was paid for by the businesses
in the area.

Alderman Siegel

Just a clarification, | may have heard Clerk Piecuch incorrectly but | believe the amount is $1,004,000 not
$1,400,000. | wanted to make that clear for all those that are watching.

President McCarthy

This requires ten votes for passage.

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 13
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Dowd, 12
Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman,
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty,
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson 2
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-16-010 declared duly adopted.

R-16-011
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Don LeBrun
Alderman Sean M. McGuinness
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF UP TO AN ADDITIONAL $62,000
FROM THREE PROPERTY OWNERS AS CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD THE ROAD AND TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS ON AMHERST STREET BETWEEN CHARRON AVENUE AND DIESEL ROAD
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCGUINNESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-011
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane, 14
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron,
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness,
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-16-011 declared duly adopted.

R-16-016
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF NASHUA TO ENTER INTO A FIRST AMENDMENT TO
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MAKEIT LABS FOR A PORTION OF 25 CROWN STREET
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-016
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-016 declared duly adopted.

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 14

R-16-017
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Tom Lopez
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $70,000 FROM THE STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITIES “FY17 AND FY18 TUBERCULOSIS PROGRAM OF
GREATER NASHUA”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-017
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-017 declared duly adopted.

R-16-018
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman Don LeBrun
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Tom Lopez
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $120,000 FROM THE STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITIES “FY17 AND FY18 IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM OF
GREATER NASHUA”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-018
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-018 declared duly adopted.

R-16-019
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Don LeBrun
Alderman Tom Lopez
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $170,000 FROM THE STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITIES “FY17 AND FY18 STD & HIV DISEASE CONTROL”
Given its second reading;

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 15

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LEBRUN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-019
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-019 declared duly adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS — ORDINANCES

O-16-003
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman Don LeBrun
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCES
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO AMEND O-16-003 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE
GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Siegel

In the tradition of ex-alderman Chasse, | will describe the brief changes. There were just a couple things in the
Table 4-1. The first NRO should be 170-2 instead of 170-3. The next line should be He-P 2303.01 + .02 (a)-
(0) instead of He-P 2303.01 + .02 (a)-(m). It’s a mouthful but that’s the changes. They are just referencing the
enabling ordinances.

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-16-003 AS AMENDED

Alderman Siegel

| appreciate everybody coming out, both tonight for the public hearing that was held and for other meetings in
committee. I’d like to just go through a brief history. | don’t know how brief this can be; this is the thing
everybody has been concerned about. The thought behind this legislation came out of meetings that were held
over the course of several months of the Substandard Housing Committee. The thing | want to echo
immediately is that this legislation is not about substandard housing per se. It would have been nice if the
legislation had gone to that committee only because we had discussed it in there. | think that committee was
the natural vetting point. However, it went to Personnel/Administrative Affairs which is fairly traditional so that
is not an unusual decision. It’s just there might have been some confusion there. | just want to address some
of the comments that were made about being blindsided and confusion. That was the change that | believe
Ms. Marchant was referring to. It wasn’t a change of committee per se. It was where one thing was discussed
and where the legislation ended up. That’s what was going on there. One key takeaway here, if | had to sum
this up for everyone, and I’m going to go through what | believe are some of the concerns — | have taken note
of them and I’m going to try to address them as best as possible. The one thing that this involves is it is a
change to the enforcement of violations. The only thing that this affects is willful violators. Everything that is
listed in this ordinance, there’s a huge table, and | believe if you are not familiar with the blue book or other
things, the health code, the fire code, you could look at this legislation and say: “what the heck are they doing?”
We've got this brand new piece of legislation and there are four pages of tables with a bunch of fines
associated with that. In fact, this legislation changes absolutely nothing about the ordinances that govern what
code enforcement looks at, what the health department looks at, or what the fire department looks at. None of
that has changed. The only thing that is going on here is in the case of a willful violation, instead of going to
court to resolve the willful violation; the next step is equivalent to a parking ticket or some form of fine which is
an administrative fine. It is a step before going to court. Right now if you are a willful violator and you have
gotten to that point, we take you to court to enforce what’s defined already in the books. This is just a step

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 16
before that. It makes things easier on code. It doesn’t take as much of our legal resources.

The one thing that is comforting, | think, is that nobody has either expressed either publicly or privately to me or
my colleague’s discontent with the way code enforcement conducts their business. To address the present
moment and where we are now, | think everybody understands that they act professionally and reasonably.
We have to say, is there a fear going forward that may change? Of course there’s always a danger that a
government could be turned on its head, but there’s very specific training put in place so that reasonableness
is part of the training. Should the code enforcement ever get to the point where they become sort of the whip-
arm of government instead of something which is trying to do which | think most everybody out here does
normally that’s when we would come in and make a change necessary to rein them in. As I’ve said publicly,
our goal here is not to do something negative to landlords. In fact, | believe my colleagues can bear this out in
my committee, we’ve actively solicited input from city landlords and we’ve been unsuccessful in getting
anybody to talk to us.

I’m addressing the specific issues that people may have difference of opinion with, but let me go through the
various elements. Again, nothing has changed in the existing procedure. | actually would understand more of
the consternation should the legislation change what exists now. Some remarks were made about restaurants
owners aren’t here because they don’t know. In fact, | used to own seven restaurants and just sold them last
year. | am very familiar with conforming to health codes. If somebody had changed the administrative
procedure for fines for my restaurants, it wouldn’t have matter because I’m not a willful violated. | believe
almost everybody here, if not everybody in this audience, are now willful violators. | think you are all good
people trying to do the right thing. In fact, | think most people have said that they don’t have a problem with
code. Code’s first step is to say a complaint was made. A call is typically made to the landlord to get that
resolved. If they don’t hear back from either the tenant or the landlord within 15 days then they will go out and
investigate it at which point if it looks like progress is being made, and again good faith attempts are being
made to solve problems, everybody knows that fixing a roof is not the same thing as fixing a toilet. | believe
that code has acted that way. If they are going out there and seeing a good faith attempt to change thing, then
they are not going to even issue a warning. It is if they show up there and there’s clearly no good faith attempt
to do anything. At that point a warning is issued. Now the clock starts to click for a timeline to begin the good
faith resolution of the problem. It’s only at that point that we get to the differentiation between what exists now
and what we’re trying to achieve. If beyond that there is still a landlord that does not wish to resolve the
problem which was legitimately pointed out by code, now we go to court. What we want to do is not to go to
court. We want to issue a fine on a simple schedule. That’s what is going on here, plain and simple.

| understand that the legislation looks lengthy and it may be difficult to that kernel of things, and | apologize.
Legislation sometimes has to be written that way. | know there was a meeting that was help a few Thursdays
ago. | believe at the library by a bunch of landlords. | wish that either myself or some of my other colleagues
had been notified of that so we could have gone and probably helped you better understand that prior to even
the last public hearing. It’s not our intention to do things under the rug. We have a certain way that we
publicize the way legislation is introduced. This is really no different than any. In fact this got quite a bit of
front page coverage and most legislation doesn’t. If you actually look at what this is doing, the actually nugget
of what is going on here, there’s really not a change. Again, | don’t believe that anybody in this audience is
conducting their business as a willful offender because that is the only reason by which it would affect your
income stream. It’s not going to change anything. The responsibilities for tenants, if they tenants destroy
things, code already is aware of that. In fact, | had discussions with code. You can look on the city’s GIS
system and see violations. You can see certain properties, and it looks like they have a lot of violations. If you
ask code, they are aware of which ones are due to tenant issues and are not landlords. They will tell you that.
They are quite aware of that. They have a pretty long history of being reasonable. There’s no expectation that
will change.

As far as the timing goes, ten days or less, | believe Ms. Marchant was very explicit in not putting that in the
legislation because different situations requires different timeframes. A roof, for example, clearly is going to
take some time. If you have a boiler situation where parts are on order, it’s unreasonable to expect that
somebody making a good faith attempt is going to get fined because a part is not available. Code has never
acted that way, nor would we, as aldermen, ever wish to have legislation that would allow that to occur. If that

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 17

was occurring on any kind of a basis, this legislation, | am quite sure, would be modified by my colleagues or
myself and it would be voted to be modified. So that is not an issue. Life safety issues are very different. If
somebody stops and there’s a gas leak or there’s a problem that’s not something we’re going to give you ten
days to rectify. | think everybody in this audience would recognize that.

One of the things that was interesting to note was the initial hearing. Quite a number of people were not aware
of Nashua’s blue book which is the code book. | think that, again, feeds into this sense that the legislation was
adopting all sorts of new things. If you didn’t know there was a blue book, you wouldn’t realize that the stuff
that’s in there is right out of it. | think if anything there’s a side benefit. Now more people are aware of what
exists right now. But if you go through all of these things, there’s nothing here also that doesn’t represent good
practice under any circumstance. | believe that most of the people in the audience already do that. |
remember half the people that were polled at the hearing had no contact with code at all. They didn’t even
know who they were, which is fantastic. That means that this is a complete non-issue for you. They are not
showing up because you are running your properties well. They are not going to be proactively going after
you. That’s not at all what we want to achieve. This is to deal with willful violators. There aren’t that many of
them so it’s a very narrowly scoped piece of legislation although again if you are not aware of the way things
work now it wouldn’t necessarily appear to be that way. | don’t want to belabor this too much, but | actually
would urge that my colleagues not table this. The reason is because this was worked on over a lengthy period
of time by city staff. There was a lot of thought put into this. | think it is eminently reasonable, again, given that
it is addressing willful violators and only willful violators.

Alderman Clemons

| support the concept of this legislation. | think it's something that is going to be very useful for the code
enforcement department. | support them in their efforts for wanting something like this. However, I’ve listened
to you folks at the Personnel Committee meeting. Some of you were there and then a lot more of you are here
tonight which is good to see. I’ve listened to some of your complaints about the legislation. It is in the
legislation that if penalties aren’t paid within ten days there is going to be a subsequent fine. That is a problem,
| think, with the legislation. In addition to that although the state law that governs this legislation says that there
has to be a warning issued prior to any of these citations being sent out, | think it would be helpful if the
legislation stated that just for everyone’s peace of mind. | don’t think it would hurt if we were to add something
like that. There are a couple of other things that | can see that were brought up as being issues with this. |
also think it wouldn’t hurt to have more input on it. As it stands, | cannot support it. | will not support final
passage. However, | would support sending it back either to Personnel or to the Substandard Living
Committee so it can be worked on to address the issues that were brought up tonight by you folks.

Alderwoman McGuinness

Where does it say in the text of the ordinance, where does it talk about willful violators and where does it say
someone making a good faith attempt won't be fined? | just don’t see the language in here.

Alderman Siegel

The enabling statute is the wait period. That’s been the policy of code, and there’s no reason to believe that it
wouldn’t continue to be the policy of code. Again let's remember where we are right now there’s a policy in
place. This is dealing with violations. The things that lead up to that, issues, and | can address the tenant-
landlord issues. As was addressed at the public hearing, tenants that willfully destroy property inside their
living space, the code have very explicitly not gone after landlords for that. It’s not the job of the city. The city
has no standing in a civil action. But again this doesn’t change a situation that exists right now. If there’s a
conflict between a landlord and a destructive tenant and there’s an issue that’s created such that code gets
involved, they get involved and this has nothing to do with it. This has to do with the willful violation where
there’s an issue and the tenant or the landlord doesn’t correct it. The tenant also according to code
enforcement is on the hook for some of these things. It isn’t just that the burden falls on the landlords. We talk
about landlords, landlords, landlords but there’s more to this because it’s administrative enforcement of other
issues such as health department fines. Again, | would urge my colleagues to look at what the intent is and