Search

ie aie aa ee ee UESTED are er = "TOTAL FUNDING
a FY 2022 — FY 2024. __ REQUESTED SOURCE
SUMMARY/CITY SHARE
Airport Authority $210,556.00 $194,444.00 $222,500.00 $27,778.00 $200,000.00 $16,667.00 $17,500.00 $678,889.00
Community Development Division $300,000.00) $1,910,358.00 $0.00 $1,910,358.00
Fire Rescue Department $40,000.00 $757,000.00 $470,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,227,000.00
Nashua Library $0.00) — $1,640,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,640,000.00
Police Department $0.00) $13,137,159.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00} — $13,137,159.00
Financial Services/Risk Management| $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Comunications $0.00) — $3,500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,500,000.00
Parks and Recreation Department $45,000.00) $2,395,000.00 $958,000.00 $128,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,490,000.00
Engineering Department $75,000.00) _ $8,833,000.00| — $9,329,925.00 $9,667,361.00| — $8,371,790.00 $8,059,477.00 $8,165,904.00| — $52,427,457.00
Street Department $155,000.00) —$5.414,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $7,914,000.00
School Department $0.00) $1,010,000.00) — $8,915,000.00} — $14,031,316.00] —$12,182,982.00] $20,841,066.00/ — $15,085,000.00| $72,065,364.00
Information Technology $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Economic Development $183,050.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $183,050.00:
CITY SHARE SUB-TOTAL _ $1,825,556.00 _$38,974,011.00 | $20,395,425.00 24,354,455.00 — $21,257,772.00 $29,420,210.00 $23,771 404.00 — $158,173,277.00
SUMMARY / ENTERPRISE :
FUND
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Projects $0.00 $950,000.00; —$4,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,950,000.00
| Wastewater Enterprise Fund Projects $0.00 $12,138,039.00) — $8,310,989.00; — $8,625,053.00' $9,006,001.00 $9,404,640.00 $9,821,809.00) $57,306,531.00
ENTERPRISE FUND SUB-
TOTAL $13,088,039.00 $12,310,989.00 $8,625,053.00 _ $9,006,001.00 $9,404,640.00 8. ae =a 00 $62, 256, 531.00
: GRAND TOTAL ary ie: : PTT es ra set Tea areielian |S as 7 =. =
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ;. oe i he ss f Bn leoe ; ail ‘ “i Pet fe ot) Pair) rate i - oe ples = 3 ee i om i zg : i a sf :
/ PROJECTS $1,825,556.00 $52,062,050.00' _32,706,414.00 $32,979,508.00 _ $30,263,773.00 $38,824,850.00 33, 503, 213. 00 $220, 429,808.00)

Board of Aldermen

City of Nashua
229 Main Street Lori Wilshire
Nashua, NH 03061-2019 President, Board of Aldermen

(603) 589-3030

August 17, 2021

Susan K. Lovering, City Clerk

City of Nashua

229 Main Street

Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2019

Dear Ms. Lovering:

Please be advised i am hereby calling a Special Meeting of the Board of Aldermen to have a discussion
with members of the New Hampshire Retirement System on Tuesday,
September 21, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber.

Thank you.

Sincerely, .
T)\0Ar Wehohie
Lori Wilshire

President

cc: Mayor Jim Donchess
Steven A. Balton, Corporation Counsel

Board of Aldermen

City of Nashua
229 Main Street Lori Wilshire
Nashua, NH 03061-2019 President, Board of Aldermen

(603) 589-3030

September 9, 2021

Susan K. Lovering, City Clerk

City of Nashua

229 Main Street

Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2019

Dear Ms. Lovering:

Please be advised | am hereby calling a Special Meeting of the Board of Aldermen relative to updates on
wastewater rates and the paving program on Thursday, October 14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Aldermanic Chamber.

Thank you.

oriW. . .
Lori Wilshire

President

cc: Mayor Jim Donchess
Steven A. Bolton, Corporation Counsel
Lisa Fauteux, Public Works Division Director

Board of Aldermen

City of Nashua
229 Main Street
Nashua, NH 03061-2019

(603) 589-3030

MEMORANDUM

TO: Board of Aldermen

FROM: Donna Graham, Legislative Affairs Manager
DATE: September 10, 2021

SUBJ: Communications Received from the Public

Attached please find communications received from the public as follows:

From: Laurie Ortolano
Re: The Nashua Legal Office - Case Study for the Abuse of the Attorney Client Privilege Exemption

From: Fred S. Teeboom
Re: Unacceptable restriction and aldermanic participation during Public Hearings

From: Laurie Ortolano
Re: Corporation Counsel

ESTIMATED STAFF EFFORT (HOURS) AND COSTS
City of Nashua, NH
Wash Press Chute Modifications

TASK DESCRIPTIONS oy./Lead
Principal In Project Project Project Architectural | Structural Structural Mechanical | Mechanical | Instrument. | Instrument. Bectrical Admin. QA/QC SUBS M ark-
Charge Manager Engineer Engineer Process CAD Architect CAD Engineer CAD Engineer CAD Engineer CAD Engineer Hectrical CAD| Assistant Manager |TOTALHOURS| NON-LABOR | SUBSOOST Up LABOR TOTAL
Hourly Billing Rate] $201.94 $187.83 $138.28 $105.49 $96.45 $150.70 $87.41 $158.24 $99.46 $138.64 $0.00 $161.25 $99.46 $195.91 $99.46 $60.28 $204.95
A Preliminary Design WPC
1 Kick off Meeting 2 4 4 10 $200 $0 $1,351 $1,551
2 Wash Press Chute Tech Memo 4 12 12 24 16 8 2 2 80 $0 $9,539 $9,539
3 Meet with Oty 2 2 2 6 $0 $863} $863
4 — NHDESCoordination 2 2 2 6 $0 $608 $608
0 $0 $0 $Q
Subtotals 0 8 20 20 24 16 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 102 $200) $0 $0 $12,361 $12,561
B Final Design WPC
1 60% Design Documents & Cost Estimate 2 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 54 $200 $0 $6,511 $6,711
2 95% Design Documents & Cost Estimate 2 4 8 4 6 6 6 6 42 $0 $5,139) $5,139
3 Final Plans, Tech Specs & Cost 2 2 8 4 4 4 4 4 32 $200 $0 $3,865] $4,065
0 $0 $0 $q
0 $0 $0 $q
Subtotals 0 6 10 24 16 18 18 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 $400) $0 $0 $15,509 $15,909
3. Bidding WPC
Allowance 1 1 1 1 4 $0 $553 $553
0 $0 $0 $Q
Subtotals| 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 $0 $0 $0 $553 $553)
TOTAL PROJECT HOURE 0 14 31 45 40 35 26 24 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 234 $600 $0 $0 $28,423 $29,023}
Total Labor $28,423
Non-Labor $600
Subcontractor $0
Sub Markup $0
Total Fee $29,000
TOTAL ALL PRO.ECTS $78,300

Page 2 of 2

Graham, Donna

From: Laurie Ortolano <laurieortolano@gmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 6:07 PM

To: Board of Aldermen

Ce: Board of Assessors; Kleiner, Kimberly; Griffin, John; McKinney, William; Jim Tollner;

Cummings, Tim; Vincent, Richard; Fauteux, Lisa; Mayor's Office Email; Fredette, David;
Marchant, Sarah; Miseirvitch, Nick; Matt Plante; Nick Dahl; Graham, Donna; CD-
Planning Dept; Trask, Nancy; Deshaies, Jennifer

Subject: Letter for the Board of Aldermen Packet

Attachments: RTK response TEMPLATE.docx; RTK tracker template.xlsx; Redaction Blurbs.docx;
Pertinent Sections of 91-A.pdf; RTK response TEMPLATE with comments.docx; Excel
Tracker Tutorials.pdf

CAUTION: This email came from outside of the organization. Do not click links/open attachments if source is
unknown.

Donna, Can you make this letter part of the Next Board of Aldermen Packet.

The Nashua Legal Office - Case Study for the Abuse of the Attorney Client Privilege Exemption.

In June, | learned that the City legai office conducted Right-to-Know training for interested City
employees. Learning about this during a deposition for my Right-to-Know lawsuit, my Attorney
asked City Attorney Bolton to provide the training material. Attorney Bolton, provided no
explanation and never provided the city training material.

On June 30, 2021, a citizen filed a RTK to request for this training material. On July 7, 2021, City
Attorney Neumann denied the request under exemption RSA-91A:5,IV — confidential attorney-
client communications and work product.

The legal office considered materials to train employees on the law of open public records a
secret. So much for transparency. The RSA 91-A has been a hotly contested and a costly issue in
Nashua; public interest is high. One would think the Mayor would want to showcase that the City
is training employees to understand the law and respond in a lawful manner. After all, the City
had lost some recent RTK court cases.

| spoke with Aldermen June Carron in July and asked her to look into this matter and to please
consider activating the City Municipal Records Committee. She provided no follow-up.

On July 5, 2021, | wrote to Attorney Bolton and asked if the training materials could be placed in
the clerk’s office so | could inspect the records in City Hall. | filed a pro se RTK lawsuit and wanted
to see this training material. Attorney Bolton fired back to my attorney claiming my attorney had
the material (he did not) and that “if Ms. Ortolano appears at my office on Wednesday or any day

she risks arrest.” Since his stroke in December 2021, Attorney Bolton has taken an even more
hostile and aggressive tone. The material was not left in the clerk’s office for my review.

On July 6, 2021, | submitted a RTK request for the training material and on July 13, 2021, the City
denied the material under exemption RSA 91-A:5, IV confidential attorney client communications

and work product.

On July 8, 2021 | wrote to the Vice President of the NHRTK (New Hampshire Right-to-Know)
Coalition to get feedback on the City’s response. | decided to file another pro se lawsuit on this
denial and wanted to know if it was reasonable to request the court review the material to verify
confidentiality. (This is called an in camera review).The NHRTK Vice President believed that the
material was very likely not privileged and an in camera review was reasonable. | wrote up the
lawsuit but did not submit it.

In one more effort to save court and citizen time and tax dollars, | contacted Alderwoman
Elizabeth Lu and asked, in her elected capacity, if she would request the training material, and
provide her opinion on the confidentiality of the materials based on the legal office exemption
cited. She requested and received the materials and did not understand the reason for the City
exemption.

Ms. Lu was unable to ask the legal office to explain the basis for the exemption as she has been
shut out of the legal office; Attorney Bolton refuses to provide legal advice to her.

In August, | contacted DPW Commissioner Tracy Pappas and asked if she would be willing to
request the information as an elected official. She too received the confidential information and
did not understand the city’s denial. | asked Commissioner Pappas if she would inquire with the
legal office on this matter. She agreed and on August 18th emailed City Attorney Dory Clark.

Neither elected official disclosed the material to me.

On August 20, 2021, the City finally capitulated and provided the RTK training materials. It is now
public information. See attached records. On an interesting note, Attorney Neumann provided
template response letters that employees could use to respond to citizen requests. Both template
letters were for denials. This speaks volumes to the City position on open records. The Nashua
Legal office trains employees under “Right-to-NO”.

It is absolutely ridiculous that the City would deny this material as attorney client privileged
information. This exemption is being abused by legal offices around the state and Nashua is the
biggest offender. Hopefully, this case can be used in Concord this year to help change the law on
the attorney-client privilege exemption.

Commissioner Pappas and Alderwoman Lu are two exceptional elected officials who were willing

to represent the citizens who elected them. | know of no other Aldermen who would assist me.
2

The efforts of these two elected officials (they are both up for re-election) who understand what
service means, coupled with a few determined citizens caused the legal office to reverse the
denial. Time and money saved; no costly, delayed, uncivil lawsuit necessary.

Laurie Ortolano
41 Berkeley Street
Nashua, NH 03064

[USE DEPT OR OFFICE LETTERHEAD]

January 20, 2021

Requester Contact
And Address info
If known

Via email only to address@email.com

RE: RTK request received March 11, 2021

Dear XX,

The City is in receipt of your request dated March 11, 2021, under NH RSA 91-A, the “Right-to-
Know” law.

Your request stated in part:
Insert request language here

Response to A (orl etc.): In responding to a request for governmental records, RSA 91-A
does not require the City to compile, cross-reference, or assemble information into a form in
which it is not already kept or reported. (RSA 91-A:4, VII). The information you have requested
is not present in an existing governmental record. However, you are free to amend your request.
OR However, in the spirit of cooperation, the City provides the following information

Lise only if appropriate

However, in the spirit of cooperation, the City provides the following information:

Your request does not reasonably describe governmental records sufficient to enable a
knowledgeable employee to locate the records with a reasonable amount of effort. For example:
XX. However, you are free to amend your request. OR However. in the spirit of cooperation, the
City provides the following information:

The XX Department (or division, or specific person, etc.) will conduct a reasonable search
(based upon your request) (based upon the City’s reasonable interpretation of your request) (for
records matching your request). Once assembled, the pertinent records will need to be reviewed
for redaction of any statutorily protected information. Due to prior Right-to-Know requests, as
well as XX Department and general City obligations and deadlines, this request will take some
time. Please expect a response or update no later than March 12, 2021.

Ifa final response or delivery of documents just put this in the past tense (e.g.: The XX
department conducted a reasonable search for the pertinent records. They are attached in
satisfaction of your request. }

ce: File #2021-XXX

ee | : pd 4 —
+ —_ — . OMvmWwuOM} TS - = oo OE
=a | 3
— | = eh po
" t
eatiny Yanda Wyads soon vonstiee cpstusos d, padi payee)
fMalad | sanbas Aep sg

paea

Aue
32

daysanbay

a bay