Search

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 47
Alderman Jette

Thank you, Madam President. | was surprised that this was tabled in Committee for a long time. And |
don’t know if | missed something but | don’t think there was any notice at least to people who weren’t on the
Committee, | am not aware of any notice that this was going to be taken up at the last Committee meeting.
And | did watch that meeting and it seemed to come up at the end of the meeting and | know that Alderman
Dowd has worked hard on this. | know that he talked to the Legal Department at length about this. But | am
concerned hearing Attorney Bolton say that it was changed from the last time his office really looked at it
and he’s raised some issues.

If | had known it was going to be brought up at the last Committee Meeting, | would have attended. | don’t
think it has had a full hearing. You know the Committee didn’t really talk about it much, maybe they had a
chance to review it and were satisfied with it. But | think that especially in view of Attorney Bolton’s
comments and some of the questions other Aldermen have raised. | have some questions. | would, | am in
favor of what Alderman Kelly suggested and that is to refer it back to the Committee you know, rather than
trying to amend in on the fly here. You know things don’t go well when you do things in that way. So if it’s
appropriate | would like to move to refer it back to the Committee.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN JETTE TO REFER O-20-009 BACK TO COMMITTEE BY ROLL CALL
President Wilshire

OK so we have three motions right now. We have a motion to amend with the Golden Rod Copy, a motion
to amend to delete paragraph C10 on Page 2 and a motion to re-refer. Can you help me out Attorney
Bolton?

Attorney Bolton

The motion to amend and to amend the proposed amendment, adhere to the proposition and if the motion
to refer to Committee or re-refer to Committee is in order, and basically the whole kit and kaboodle goes
together to the Committee and the Board could expect back the recommendation of the Committee on the
proposed amendment to the proposed amendment and a recommendation on the motion as it may or may
not be recommended for amendment.

President Wilshire

| don’t think you clarified for me enough. OK we are going to take up the motion to re-refer. That’s in order,
right?

Attorney Bolton

Yes.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Alderman Dowd.

Alderman Dowd

| will just say that months ago this Legislation went through Personnel. There were some issues with it. At
the next Personnel Meeting | went and spoke to some of these changes and we agreed at that meeting to
have those changes reviewed by Legal and they were reviewed and wording suggested by Attorney
Leonard. The wording that is in this amendment is from Attorney Leonard. | have no problem with taking

out C10 but | don’t think we need to refer this back to Committee to hash out what should have been
available to be hashed out at several Committee Meetings. You know everybody has the opportunity to go

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 48

to a Committee Meeting. And as | have told many people on many occasions when something is tabled in
a Committee and it goes to that Committee, it can be brought up. And in this instance it was and it got a
unanimous approval at the Committee. So | think we should not refer it back to the Committee.

President Wilshire
Any further discussion on re-referring? Alderman Klee?
Alderman Klee

Thank you, Madam President. | am not being critical in any way of any of my colleagues but | can tell you
that | have often contacted Alderman Dowd when he’s been Chair of a Committee and in this particular
case, Alderwoman Caron relative to this. When | see there are tabled items | send an e-mail message, will
these tabled items be brought up? Alderman Dowd knows that I’ve done it to him many times. And in this
particular case | also did it with Alderwoman Caron and asked would these tabled items come up, will they
be voted on, will they be spoken to. In this particular case, that was one of the reasons why | attended that
meeting, is | did know that it was going to be brought up and it was going to be discussed.

President Wilshire

Further discussion on re-referring? Alderman Lopez.

Alderman Lopez

| don’t Know that the “he said, she said” is really serving us at this point. | think some issues were brought
up. | was at the meeting too and debated it at length and then the public comment mentioned my
contributions to it. But after hearing Attorney Bolton’s assessment of it | am a lot less clear on what my
opinions should be, so | would appreciate having it go back to Committee and being able to review it. | think
we are talking about moving something that has to do with free speech, with all due respect to the effort
that Alderman Dowd has put in, he’s a seasoned legislator, | Know he knows what he’s doing. And the fact
that Legal did give him advice that may or may not have been fully communicated internally. There’s still
questions here and | think it is better handled with the time that we actually need to give it. This is a pretty
big important question | think and we should just send it back to Committee and not rush it.

President Wilshire
Further discussion on re-referring? Seeing one, would the Clerk call the roll please?
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Caron, Alderman Lopez, Alderwoman Lu,
Alderman Jette, Alderman Laws 6

Nay: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Clemons,

Alderman Tencza, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Cleaver,

Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 9
MOTION FAILED
President Wilshire

The motion before us for final passage of Resolution 20-009 as amended.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 49
Alderman Dowd

No, we haven’t amended it yet and we’ve got to amend the amendment.

President Wilshire

Ok. So we have two amendments at this point. We have the amendment with the goldenrod copy and we
have the amendment to remove Section C10 on Page 2.

Alderman Dowd
If we address the C10 first then we can approve the goldenrod copy with that change.
President Wilshire

We will do that. That sounds good. Ok so the motion is to amend O-20-009 by taking out paragraph C on
Page 2. Discussion? Alderwoman Kelly?

Alderwoman Kelly

If | could ask a question to Attorney Bolton through you. Given our previous discussion are you
comfortable with removing that as a change that will put us in a better spot with this Legislation. | am trying
to work this correctly.

Attorney Bolton

It addresses many, if not all, of the concerns | raised.
Alderman Clemons

So we are eliminating all of Section C is that this amendment?
Alderman Dowd

No, no, no. C10 - just that one paragraph.

Alderman Clemons

Which says what?

Alderman Dowd

| can read it.

Alderman Clemons

| am not sure if | have the right copy in front of me, that’s why | am asking.
Alderman Dowd

C10 says “Remarks shall be civil. Rude or profane remarks are prohibited”. We are removing that
because of the concerns that Attorney Bolton had.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 50
Alderman Clemons
Thank you. What about the line that says excessive repetition and irrelevant remarks are discouraged?
President Wilshire
That’s in there now.
Alderman Dowd
Yeah, that’s in there now.
Alderman Clemons
Ok. So we are just .... So it’s just that one, OK | understand thank you.
President Wilshire
Further discussion on the motion to amend? Seeing none would the Clerk please call the roll?
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,
Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 15
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
President Wilshire
That motion carries. We are back to ....
Alderman Dowd
Approving the goldenrod copy with that change.
President Wilshire
Ok | was getting there, thank you. Discussion on the motion. Alderman Jette?

Alderman Jette

| have an inquiry, somebody just said, | think you just said Madam President that Alderman Clemons asked
you, he said what about something....

President Wilshire

Repetition.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 51
Alderman Jette

Repetition being discouraged and you said it’s already in there. | am looking at the current Ordinance. |
don’t see it in there.

President Wilshire

OK | was mistaken.

Alderman Jette

| mean is it there?

President Wilshire

| don’t have it in front of me Alderman Jette.

Alderman Dowd

| can tell you that’s a non-descript statement. | mean it’s discouraged, it’s not prohibited. If somebody
keeps repeating themselves it allows the Chairperson to say please clarify, you’ve been repeating yourself.
So it does not prohibit it, it's not a prohibitive statement.

Alderman Jette

I’m sorry Alderman Dowd | think | have the floor. My question was that Alderman Clemons said, what
about that? And he was told it is already in there and so | am just trying to clarify that it isn’t already in
there. You are adding it. Now you are arguing as to why it should be added, that’s fine. But | would just like
to remind my colleagues that we are passing what | think is a very important Ordinance. And as others
have pointed out, we are talking about free speech. We are talking about the public’s right. Attorney
Bolton has told us that this is a very dangerous area. And | don’t understand the reluctance to send it back
to Committee and allow Attorney Bolton to meet with the Committee and other Aldermen who are
interested to make sure that what we pass is something that is going to be solid. | also noted that Remarks
by Aldermen at Committee Meetings has been struck out. What does that mean? Aldermen aren’t going to
be able to make remarks at Committee Meetings at the end of Committee Meetings? Is that intentional?
Did you mean to strike that out?

President Wilshire

Are you asking Alderman Dowd?

Alderman Jette

Yes, through you.

President Wilshire

Alderman Dowd, do you care to answer that?

Alderman Dowd

| think that struck out because the wording was changed slightly. But | don’t think the intent was changed.
There’s no intent to not allow Alderman to comment.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 52
Alderman Jette

May | respond?

President Wilshire

Alderman Jette, yes.

Alderman Jette

The goldenrod copy on B (3) has struck out “Remarks by Aldermen’, is struck through. There’s no
language replacing it. It’s completely struck through.

Alderman Dowd

Not on my copy.

Alderman Jette

Well this is the goldenrod copy that was provided with the Agenda.
Alderman Dowd

Which one are you talking about?

Alderman Jette

| am looking at the goldenrod copy that was provided with the agenda and its paragraph B and the third
paragraph (3).

Alderman Dowd

That’s because it was repetitive, it’s in the original Ordinance. It didn’t need to be there because it’s in the
original Ordinance. | just want to point out that we’ve had months to do the homework on this. This Golden
Rod Copy has been around for a long time. And all the motions that were made to it were made months
ago.

President Wilshire
Are you OK with that answer Alderman Jette?
Alderman Jette

Well no | am not. | think it is fine to say that you know | should have been at all of these Committee
Meetings and ready to be aware of when this was going to be brought up when it was going to be untabled
or removed from the table. It was removed from the table and the Committee voted on it and | think what
we have in front of us has got a lot of questions. And | think we are on dangerous ground. | think passing
this without reviewing it one more time by the Committee with Attorney Bolton | think is a mistake and | am
going to vote against it.

President Wilshire

Well we have already voted on the re-referring. So the motion is to amend to the goldenrod copy. Further
discussion? Would the Clerk please call the roll?

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 53
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Cleaver,
Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 10

Nay: Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette,
Alderman Laws 5

MOTION CARRIED
MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-20-009 AS AMENDED, BY ROLL CALL
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Schmidt,
Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 9

Nay: Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Lopez Alderman Tencza,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Laws 6

MOTION CARRIED

Resolution O-20-009 declared duly adopted as amended.

O-20-030
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT UNDER RSA 162-K
AND NRO 295-11, THE “SCHOOL STREET TIF” AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND FINANCING PLAN FOR THE NEW TIF

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-20-030, BY ROLL CALL
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,
Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws, Alderman Cleaver,
Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 14
Nay: Alderwoman Lu 1

MOTION CARRIED

Ordinance O-20-030 declared duly adopted.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 54

O-20-031, Amended
Endorsers: Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu
PROHIBITING DOGS IN FENCED-IN TOT LOTS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN KLEE TO AMEND O-20-031 BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDENROD
COPY OF AMENDMENTS MADE AT THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, BY
ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Klee

And if | may speak to that?

President Wilshire

Alderman Klee.

Alderman Klee

Thank you so much. The animal, | am blanking on the name... the Committee that we put together, thank
you very much Alderman Lopez. They made three very, very good recommendations to the original
Ordinance. And that was to change the prohibiting dogs in fenced in tot lots, just prohibiting pets in fenced
in tot lots. At their Committee they had discussed that we live in a City of multi kind of pets from lizard type
things to chickens to everything. And they just felt that it was more encompassing to change it from “dogs”
to “pets”. | would hope that someone is not going to bring their pet chicken to run around there but you
never know. It was just a better way to go. The second thing that they changed was to add in that so for
instance it says “bring in a pet into the following fenced in tot lot except for service animals”. | had not
addressed that perhaps service animals should be able to go in there and they picked that up right away
and asked for that to be added and the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee did make that.

And the other thing that they asked was that we reference “future” fenced in tot lots. So those are the three
amendments to that. Once we vote on that | can address the Ordinance itself.

President Wilshire

The Motion is to amend with the Golden Rod Copy. Further discussion on that motion. Seeing none would
the Clerk please call the roll?

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

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,

Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 15

Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN KLEE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-20-031 AS AMENDED, BY ROLL CALL

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 55
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Klee

And may | speak to it for a moment?

President Wilshire

You may.

Alderman Klee

Thank you so much. The reason that this Ordinance that this came about was a number of phone calls
from constituents that had gone into the Shattuck Street Tot Lot and there was a lot of excrement to say the
least | guess. So it became quite an issue. And then | heard from constituents who had been to other tot
lots and experienced the same thing. When | originally had asked for this to be drafted, | had asked for all
tot lots. But in speaking with Public Works, Parks & Recreation, it was made very clear that would be
difficult to say all tot lots because there are some tot lots, for instance, the Salem Street tot lots where
people just kind of walk through it. It's almost a pass through so to say that someone could not bring their
dog just doesn’t make any sense.

So we decided that it would be fenced in tot lots. And at this point in time we have only four fenced in tot
lots in the City. So we have the Shattuck Street, the Belvedere Bridge Street, the Erion Field, Robinson
Road, Jeff Morin Playground at Roby Park and then we did add the item of any other tot lots that become
fenced in. So that’s really where this came about and | think it’s a good idea, as a person who has dogs, |
just don’t think that it is appropriate for them to go into any area where children are going to be playing on
the ground and so on. And even if they did pick up the excrement, there are other liquids that are
deposited by dogs as well. So that’s where this came from and it’s a long evening so hopefully we can just
go to a vote.

President Wilshire
The Motion is for final passage of Ordinance 20-031 as amended. Alderman Lopez.

Alderman Lopez

| just want to add support to this. | think it was a good idea to propose it. | think the Animal Park Advisory
Board did a good job of making recommendations and that Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee
also reviewed in in good conscious. | think it’s going to be a positive addition to our Legislation.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Seeing none, the motion is for final passage of Ordinance 20-031 as amended by roll call.
Would the Clerk please call the roll?

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

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,

Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 15

Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 56

Resolution O-20-031 declared duly adopted as amended.

O-20-032

Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brandon Laws
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu

REDUCING THE FINE FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING VIOLATIONS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAWS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-20-032, BY ROLL CALL
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Laws

If | could briefly speak to it?

President Wilshire

Alderman Laws.

Alderman Laws

Thank you. You’ve all heard the arguments for this. It absolutely will result in the City losing some of the
fine revenue. | spoke with Director Cummings today for awhile and we hashed it out and before the late
fees, the number we came up with was with the $10.00 parking fee the difference is going to be
somewhere in the ballpark of $112,000.00/$1 13,000.00 a year that the city isn’t making in parking fee
revenue. Now that is a substantial amount of money, he promised me that it doesn’t mean that anybody is
going to lose their jobs. Because of the way it’s structured right now, he basically is just giving people extra
hours. | am paraphrasing him and he can correct me if he finds anything | say to be misleading or wrong.
But he basically gives people hours to go out and do this so there’s not set schedule, and there’s no set
people doing it. It’s not someone’s particular job to go out and do overnight parking tickets. So no one is
going to lose their job because of this.

He says that it is going to be difficult to find other ways to find this $112,000.00 but there are going to be
ways to do it. And | would just like to make the simple argument that this is $112,000.00 that is
disproportionately shouldered by people who live in our lowest income neighborhoods; people who work in
the service industry, who go out to the car after work and get a parking ticket because they got out of work
late. And people who go to the restaurants and bars and future Performing Arts Center that we all pretend
that we care so much about and want to be responsible and not drive home afterwards after having a few
drinks.

So | mean | am OK with taxing people broadly, but | believe in equity in the tax and | don’t think that this is
fair to all of our residents when only a few of them are the ones that have to shoulder this burden. So that’s
where | am at. Thank you, Madam President.

President Wilshire

You're welcome. Discussion? Alderman O’Brien?