Search

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 11

Francisco Kitchen. There’s a narrowing of the roadway back here to accommodate this new condition.
Continuing along, you have the blue here does not represent outdoor dining, what is represents trying to
maintain a consistent outdoor dining experience. Vehicular traffic, you have the traffic to continue through
the roadway here by being confused by having an extra turn lane or additional capacity which may cause
congestion later on down in the intersection. Continuing along, again you would have curbside outdoor
dining, am just going to back it up here a little bit, show that this is High Street. High Street, as of today, you
cannot make a left to go north on Main, you can only go right, going south. This would be outdoor dining
here, curbside here. We provided outdoor dining here, but it may not be used as outdoor dining as the plan
continues to happen. This still will be maintained for vehicular reasons. It may be more like the blue
condition over here where we are just maintaining an outdoor space which you have to do to maintain this
type of floor for vehicular movement and public safety reasons.

On East Pearl Street here, you are going to have the curbside pickup back in through here and then the
outdoor dining right in through here. That would service these restaurants, including Fratello’s. Fratello’s
would have an opportunity to have outdoor dining right in through here; curbside parking would be here,
this would be MT Local’s right here. This is Surf, this is again could be Surf right here as well, curbside
parking. We also have, | believe, Joanne Kitchen and Main Street Gyro in through here. The narrowing of
Main Street for going north does not happen back here at Kinsley, it actually happens closer to St. Patrick’s
and the condition would begin right in through here. So you’d have all this capacity and you would not
interfere with the volume back here.

This plan has been reviewed both internally and externally. It has received public comment. An
informational briefing was given to the Board of Public Works. I’ve had individual conversations with many
of the restaurants and shops on Main Street to make sure we were accommodating their needs. | am
pleased to report it has been well-received by many, many people. So with that being said, Madam
President, | think | very quickly went through this for you and addressed, | believe, the concerns.

President Wilshire
Thank you very much Director Cummings. Alderman Jette, did you have any other questions?
Alderman Jette

No, thank you very much Mr. Cummings for going through that. | do want to say that, you know, this
Ordinance was proposed, or this plan, in the Ordinance to enact it, it was in response to the Governor's
starting to open up the economy and allowing various businesses to reopen. One of them being
restaurants, but the Governor’s Order does not allow indoor dining, only outdoor dining. Most of our
restaurants rely upon indoor dining for their business and don’t have the capacity to accommodate outdoor
dining. So this plan gives them outdoors, an area outdoors where they can serve their patrons. So | think it
is a good idea. A side benefit of this, there has been talk for a number of years about the possibility of
narrowing Main Street on a permanent basis, similar to what Concord did in order to kind of re-design Main
Street in the downtown area, to make Main Street more of a destination and less of a thoroughfare.

So as a side benefit, | think it is a great opportunity for us to experiment with that and see how that works
out. So | appreciate all the work Director Cummings and a lot of other people have done on this and | am
going to support it. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Thank you Alderman Jette. Anyone else?

Alderman Clemons

Yes, Madam President.

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 12

President Wilshire
Alderman Clemons.
Alderman Clemons

Thank you. And | hope that you can afford me a little bit of leeway here because the question that | am
going to ask is actually geared to Director Cummings or Corporation Counsel and it may not seem
germane, but | will get to that. So my question is, is there currently an Ordinance or rule that prohibits
umbrellas with advertising downtown?

President Wilshire
Director Cummings?
Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development

Yeah, | can answer that, Madam President. What there is, there is a regulation in the current outdoor
dining process that was approved by the Board of Public Works that prohibits logos or something of that
nature “advertising” on umbrellas in the right of way.

Alderman Clemons

OK. My question next would be definitely to Corporation Counsel and | am doing this because Alderman
Laws was unable to attend this evening and he wanted to perhaps entertain an amendment to see if we
could potentially have an exception to that rule via an amendment to this to allow for that. The reason being
is that on the east side of Main Street, the sun gets extremely bright in the afternoon. A lot of the
restaurants that are downtown are able to get through their various liquor vendors or other vendors, you
know, umbrellas or things like that, that they can get for free. If they were able to put them up on their
tables, this would definitely be there for the customer experience, plus it wouldn’t cost them anything.

The issue is that on some of these, you know, to get a non-branded one, the really nice umbrellas that you
would want that won’t blow away in the wind, you know, somewhere cost anywhere between $150.00 to
$250.00. So my question to Corporation Counsel is because it is a Board of Public Work’s rule, would it be
possible for the Board of Aldermen to pass an amendment to this Legislation that would temporarily allow
umbrellas with advertising and Logos?

President Wilshire

Attorney Bolton?

Attorney Bolton

| have not looked at this recently but it seems to me that this question came up two or three years ago and
while there is in the Board of Public Works Set of Rules about outdoor dining and placement of tables and
so forth wording about advertising signage, which encompasses that located on an umbrella. | think the
real impediments are the regulations of the State Liquor Commission. And they have on four inch
maximum for advertising, four-inch maximum size for Logos and Advertising of alcohol products. So beer,
wine, what have you. That seems to be the biggest impediment. So it may be that you want to address
that in amendment to this Legislation; it may be better to let us take a longer look at this and bring it up as a
separate piece later. | am not 100% sure that you can achieve your objective, because you cannot
overrule the State Liquor Commission.

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 13

Alderman Clemons
Ok so yes and then, you know, with all due respect to Alderman Laws | am glad | asked the question. What
| will ask you if you can look into that for us a little bit further, so that we can propose Legislation to get that

done. It could be that some of these liquor distributors know that that’s a rule and they manufacture these
things that way; | don’t know. But yeah if you could look into that, that would be great. Thank you.

Unidentified Speaker
| hate to interrupt, but we have lost the bridge. So we are getting it back right now.
President Wilshire
Ok, we are going to hold.
Unidentified Speaker
I'll get right back to you on it.
President Wilshire
Thank you.
Alderwoman Lu
| was eager to drive through and just see what it looked like to have restaurants open and people on the
sidewalks chatting and eating. | think that with this opening it will probably attract a lot of people who feel
that way even if their towns aren’t open up or if they don’t live in a town. It is going to attract a lot of people
in the beautiful weather, even just to watch. And as we do every year, | think we may have a lot of
motorcycles coming through and my concern is the loud exhausts. And | think to make this a great
experience, we should, | am hoping that we can have the Police Department have dedicated patrols to stop
those loud exhausts before they can enter the Downtown area because | think that will just make it a much
better place for the people that are downtown. Thank you.
President Wilshire
Thank you, Alderwoman Lu. Anyone else? 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 Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman Tencza, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette,
Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 12
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance O-20-015 declared duly adopted.
President Wilshire

And that Motion carries. Ordinance 20-015 is duly adopted.

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 14

O-20-018
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman June M. Caron
RELATIVE TO FACE COVERINGS
Given its first reading:

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR A SECOND READING OF O-20-018
BY ROLL CALL

A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly,

Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez,

Alderman Tencza, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette,

Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 12
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

Alderman Klee

Madam President? | think they’ve asked us to take down the presentation because no one can see us on
the television screen.

President Wilshire

Director Cummings, can you take down the presentation at this point?
Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development
Yes, I'll be happy to. | am going to do that right now.
President Wilshire

Thank you.

Alderman Caron

Alderman Wilshire, can you hear me again?
President Wilshire

Yes, we can, Alderman Caron.

Alderman Caron

OK, | don’t know if you got my vote.

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 15

President Wilshire
We did.

Alderman Caron
OK thank you.

O-20-018
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman June M. Caron
RELATIVE TO FACE COVERINGS
Given its second reading

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-20-018 BY ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Lopez
And I'd like to speak to it.

President Wilshire

Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

So | proposed something similar to this or at least | asked the question as to whether there were any legal
reasons we wouldn't be able to augment our Public Health expectations that we, for example, wear shirts
and shoes in restaurants prior to the Governor’s Orders to open within phases. | had briefly suggested that
maybe we should wait and see what he did thinking that he would likely include some sort of plan for
wearing protective equipment with his phasing and then that didn’t turn out to be the case at all. So my
concerns originally were that we were just hearing more and more reports that business owners were being
blamed for trying to take precautions to protect their patients. People were wiping their noses on
employee’s shirts and generally abusing them. And | felt like this was a role where the City needs to take a
leadership role in Public Health Protections because that is where we are elected and we have the access
to planning and staff to implement it in a reasonable way. So | wanted to make sure that the City was an
active participant in this strong public health standpoint.

More recently with the phased opening and steps that we have been taking, it has become evident that we
are not going to go right back to the way things were. We are going to have to start making changes and
kind of recognize that there is the risk of the COVID-19 Epidemic but there is also the necessity of
maintaining an economy and helping small businesses achieve the success that they need. So | think that
this is a crucial step in all of that because businesses can’t afford to lose employees due to an outbreak.
We can’t afford to have manufacturing plants or stores closed because multiple employees were suddenly
caught with COVID-19, whether or not its fatal, they are still are out sick. So there is that element of risk
and then additionally the danger to our senior residents. Nashua has a large senior population and while

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 16

we have seen in New Hampshire most of the fatalities taking place in Assisted Living Facilities, that is
because those are facilities where individuals have no choice but to share air and a common HVAC
system, work with common denominators like staff and share food and all that kind of stuff. So they are by
far the most at risk but we have a large number of senior housing programs too.

When this was reviewed by the Board of Health, all three medical doctors on the Board unanimously
supported this. Their questions weren’t about whether or not this was a good move, it was whether this
would be adequate to fully protect us or not. There’s a lot of discussion about the changes that COVID-19
has taken. Being a recently discovered and a newly emerging disease, we had no idea even 3 months ago
that infants and toddlers would be showing Inflammation Syndromes where they could potentially lose
limbs and have life-long impairments. We didn’t know that younger people, who we thought were just
asymptomatic and not at risk, were starting to present a higher occurrence of heart, stroke and arrythmia
and risks like that.

We had been proceeding along the assumption that only a small percentage of elderly people would be
impact by this permanently, when the Public Health reality is that a huge number of people will be impacted
either directly or indirectly, either fatally or in a manner that impairs them. So there’s a tremendous amount
of risk in reopening in the phased manner that we are doing, particularly here in Nashua. As Alderman Lu
pointed out, as we start to have people eating outside and the weather turning nicer, you are going to see
people coming from right over the border, which is one of the hot spots in the country, coming to check out
what’s going on, coming to experience their own return to “normal” and that puts our business people at
risk. That puts our local residents at risk. We already know in Mine Falls and other outdoor recreational
facility, there’s a huge uptick in the number of Massachusetts plates that are coming over to use those
facilities. If we aren’t careful in Nashua, we are going to open ourselves up to unintended consequences.
When we start to phase the reopening up at the same pace as the rest of the State, then what is happening
north of Concord isn’t going to be the same as what’s happening in Nashua. We are going to see more
and more people coming and using these facilities. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle; we need to
make sure that businesses have a large enough population that they can serve to even pay for the
expenses of reopening. We need to guarantee their success and we also need to protect them and
assume our own role of governors of Nashua.

So | think it’s important that we consider this. | think this is a situation where we have a clear signal from
the Board of Public Health that this is something that’s important. Their opinion is qualified and in the
meeting the question was asked to enable this, “Does the Board of Alderman have to take action”. And to
enable this, and Attorney Bolton can correct me if | misspeak, both the Board of Public Health and the
Board of Alderman need to agree to enact it. Only one of those Boards needs to decide to remove it. So if
the Board of Public Health decides that the coast is clear, ICU capacity is at a safe space and we have
something approaching herd immunity or if miracle vaccine is — | mean I’m not going to put any faith in that,
but if it happened, then we would be able to take corrective action and there wouldn’t be a huge amount of
Legislative Process with which to do it.

So | think it’s important that we set this in place now in order to protect ourselves from the risk that we
cannot reverse course on. | think it’s important that we keep in mind that our businesses need us to do this.
They need us to protect their ability to do business and they need us to do our roles that we have been
elected to do.

President Wilshire

All set Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

Yes.

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 17

President Wilshire

The motion before us is for final passage. Is there further discussion on the motion?
Alderman Clemons

Yes President Wilshire?

President Wilshire

Alderman Clemons.

Alderman Clemons

Thank you. | have a question through you to Corporation Counsel. Can you clarify what the penalty is for
this Ordinance if it was to pass the way it is written tonight?

Attorney Bolton

A court could impose a maximum of a $1,000.00 fine. That is true for any violation of our Code of
Ordinances, unless some other lesser fine is particularly established.

Alderman Clemons

So to be clear, no one could be arrested for this?

Attorney Bolton

A violation subjects someone to arrest it does not subject them to a jail sentence. Presumably, if they were
arrested, they wouldn’t have to be arrested, they could be summonsed, but if arrested, presumably they
would get reasonable bail and be ordered to appear in Court. My expectation is if there is a violation for
mere failure to have a proper face covering, no one is going to be arrested for that. It would be where
some further offense took place, failure to leave the premises when directed to do so, could constitute a
criminal trespass. If the Police attempted to remove someone from a place where they weren’t authorized
to be because they weren’t wearing a mask, you get an additional to criminal trespass, you very often see
where the person resists arrest, perhaps assaults an officer, perhaps gets loud and belligerent to the
disturbance of others and you get a breach of the peace complaint at the same time.

It would shock me entirely if someone was arrested merely for the face covering violation and it would
shock me entirely, if someone on a first offense and only offense were fined $1,000.00. As | said a jail
sentence is not available for an Ordinance Violation.

Alderman Clemons

OK thank you. Madam President if | could continue?

President Wilshire

Alderman Clemons?

Alderman Clemons

My problem with the way that this is written right now is that there is no warning mechanism, there’s no, it is
basically up to the discretion of the Court, you know, up to what they are going to put the fine at. So my,

alight

Recommended Strategy

Standard Fees

Benefit Delivery Platform & Website
e Initial and ongoing configuration of all benefit plans, rates, rules, etc. &
testing
¢ 1Custom Payroll Fite & up to 8 Custom Carrier/Vendor Files
o Additional Files or Custom Reports = $1,000 per File
e Intelligent Virtual Assistant (IVA), Lisa
e $0.30 PEPM per language for ongoing site translation
¢ Total Compensation Statements
e Advanced Decision Support

Integrated Mobile Experience

e Personalized Mobile App & Dashboard

e Upto 11 informational tiles

e Standard Refresh Schedule for Data Imports by Category Type:
o ~=©Retirement and FSA - Monthly or Bi-weekly Updates
o Paid Time Off and Pay Amount - Per Pay Period Updates
o Health Plan ID - Quarterly Updates

e $150 per additional data import date

* Personalized alerts and messages

e¢ Optional SSO integration to 3" party sites priced separately

Alight Digital Navigation
e Embedded Digital Navigation to find high-quality, cost-effective care

ACA Compliance Tool

¢ Ongoing hours and eligibility monitoring -$0.50 PEPM for non-eligible
employees

* Custom portal with location-level reporting

e Notice of Coverage Options & Annual 1095-C Reporting (Optional Print
and Fulfillment)

e Client Data Corrections & Acquisition Integration

e Historical Data Upload: $0.50 per employee for each month of data

° Delivery of notices & 1095-C: $2.00 per mailing + postage

e Manual update of corrected data: $150 per hour (client must sign off
on Statement of Work)

Year-Round Call Center Support
e System technical support
e Answers to general benefit questions
e —_ Enrotlment assistance for annual, new hire & life events
e Assumes < 25% enrollment utilization during AE

Year-Round Employer Assistance
e QLE Management
e EOI Management
e Ongoing Dependent Verification

Implementation Fee:
$15,2823.20

+

$5.70 PEPM
Assumes a 3- year agreement

Spending Accounts

Flexible Spending Account Administration

Standard Fees
# of
Accounts nigel
0-500 $3.25
501 - 1,500 $2.95

12

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 18

you know, | don’t deny the fact that masks are important. | know some people have questioned the science
behind it; | don’t question the science behind it or anything like that. | would like to a motion to amend and |
would amend the Ordinance by saying that first offense you give a warning and on second offense you give
a $25.00 fine.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY ADDING TO HAVE THE FIRST
OFFENSE RESULTING IN A WARNING; SECOND OFFENCE RESULTS IN A $25.00 FINE

President Wilshire

I'm sorry did you say $25.00 fine Alderman Clemons?
Alderman Clemons

Yes.

President Wilshire

The motion is to amend by adding — the first offense would be a warning; second offense would be a
$25.00 fine. Discussion on the amendment? Anyone? Ok, would the Clerk call the roll?

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

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Tencza,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Harriott-Gathright, 7

Nay: Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Caron, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Wilshire 5

AMENDMENT MOTION CARRIED
President Wilshire

So the motion before us now is for final passage of Ordinance O-20-018 as amended. Further discussion
on that motion?

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Tencza

Madam Chairman if | may?

President Wilshire

Alderman Tencza?

Alderman Tencza

Thank you. If | could make a subsequent follow up Motion. There was something that was sent around to
all of us to look at what the Ordinance is or what the Executive Order down in Massachusetts. One of the
things that stuck out at me is that as this Ordinance is written in Nashua, if you had some kind of medical

issue where you couldn’t wear a mask, you would have to provide proof of that medical issue, presumably
now after the first or second time that you are stopped and questioned about why you didn’t have a mask

Board of Aldermen 5-21-2020 Page 19
on. | would just like to make an amendment to the Ordinance so that you are not required if you have a
medical condition, not required to show proof of that medical condition for not wearing a mask.
President Wilshire

OK did you get that Madam Clerk?

Susan Lovering, City Clerk

| believe it was to further amend that if you have a medical condition that you are NOT required to show
proof?

Alderman Tencza
Correct.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN TENCZA TO FURTHER AMEND O-20-018 TO NOT BE REQUIRED TO SHOW
MEDICAL PROOF TO NOT WEAR A MASK

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Schmidt

Madam President. Jan.

President Wilshire

Alderman Schmidt.

Alderman Schmidt

Item #7 says that “a face covering is not required to be worn by any person if said person can show a
medical professional has advised that wearing a face covering may pose a risk to said person for health
reasons”. Is that what you wanted to change Alderman Tencza?

Alderman Tencza

Yes just the language that they have to have some documentation on them in order to justify not wearing a
mask. | think that may be difficult and onerous for some people. Again, this was consistent with what the
Massachusetts Executive Order says that was a good idea and so | am making the suggestion.
President Wilshire

OK, you have heard the amendment.

Attorney Bolton

President Wilshire, Steve Bolton. May | say something?

President Wilshire

Attorney Bolton.