Search

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 6
Alderman Cookson

| will save the rest of the questions for the discussion later. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

RECOGNITION PERIOD — None

READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETINGS

OF FEBRUARY 14, 2017, FEBRUARY 21, 2017, AND FEBRUARY 28, 2017, AND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONDUCTED BY THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 27, 2017, AND THE PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON MARCH 7, 2017, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE, AND
THE READINGS SUSPENDED

MOTION CARRIED

COMMUNICATIONS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY
MOTION CARRIED

From: Thomas J. Leonard, Chairman, Pennichuck Corporation Board of Directors
Re: Special Meeting of the Sole Shareholder — March 24, 2017
e Pennichuck Special Water Cmte Recommends: Election of John M. Murphy

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO ELECT JOHN M. MURPHY TO THE PENNICHUCK
CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2017, AND
UNTIL HIS SUCCESSOR IS ELECTED AND QUALIFIED; AND, AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO
TRANSMIT, BY PROXY CARD, THE VOTE OF THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF PENNICHUCK CORPORATION

MOTION CARRIED

From: Len Fournier, Superintendent, WWoodlawn/Pinewood Cemeteries
Re: Request for Joint Convention with the Woodlawn Cemetery Board of Trustees

President McCarthy

Before | recognize Alderman McGuinness for a motion, | want to make the Board aware of a situation | don’t
think has ever occurred before. Our next meeting is scheduled for a week from tonight, and we have
absolutely no new or old business for that meeting nor do we anticipate getting any by the end of the week.
We can either schedule a joint convention and all come here next Tuesday just for that purpose or we can
schedule the joint convention at the April 11 meeting and take next Tuesday night off.

Alderman Siegel

| would suggest that we wait a little bit to see how things play out to see if in fact we might have something that
we need to address. Although I’m sure my colleagues and | don’t want to come for no reason next Tuesday,
but we don’t know what’s going to come about with things that are before us this evening.

President McCarthy

We are past the deadline for new legislation and there is nothing this week that will produce an action that
would put something on the Board. My recommendation would be that we schedule the Joint Convention for
April 11. If there is no business for next week, that meeting will get cancelled at the end of the week instead of
scheduled. Is that acceptable to everyone?

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 7
Alderman LeBrun

Do you need a motion?

President McCarthy

Alderman McGuinness, do you have a motion?

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCGUINNESS TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND THAT THE BOARD OF
ALDERMEN MEET IN JOINT CONVENTION WIT THE WOODLAWN CEMETERY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
ON TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017, AT 7:30 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER

MOTION CARRIED

From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Re: Veterans’ Tax Credit State Legislation and Proposed Resolution O-17-035

MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE
MOTION CARRIED

From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Re: Notification of Extension of the Contract for Portable Toilet Rental and Service

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE THREE-YEAR
CONTRACT TO UNITED SITE SERVICES FOR AN ANNUAL SUM OF $17,225
MOTION CARRIED

PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING
Tracy Pappas, 12 Swart Terrace, Nashua.

| am here in regards to O-17-31. | am here tonight as a Board of Public Works Commissioner speaking for
myself in opposition of this ordinance. This ordinance takes the wastewater portion of the budget out of the
operating budget which is subject to the Cap. The legislation is switching money around by taking certain fees
out of the Cap. As a commissioner, | think this will permanently damage the wastewater budget and the
wastewater facility, itself. The reason | believe this cannot be properly executed or honestly executed is that
there is shared employees working for city departments which are subject to the Cap as well as will be taken
out from the Cap if this ordinance passes. | am going to refer to my budget, and | am going to go through the
shared employees: city engineer, construction inspection engineering assistant, deputy treasurer/tax collector,
deputy manager of engineering, director of public works, DPW building accountant, DPW collections specialist
I1l, DPW contract administrator, executive assistant, finance & admin manager, fleet manager of the street
department, public works administrator, senior manager of accounting and engineering, senior staff
engineering, which last year came in at .55, scheduled in 2018 at 1.10 and then staff engineer which last year
came in a .50; this year comes in at 1.10.

My concern is that these numbers could be easily manipulated in order to try to come in under the Cap. We've
seen very high increases in the wastewater. Last year it was 15 percent. Do we want to see 25? Do we want
to see 100? Do we want to 200 percent increases? VWe’ve got some real problems with the facilities over
there. | actually don’t think that it’s really an intellectually honest way to deal with our budget crisis. To point
out as a citizen, | do have children in the school system. I’m not trying to cut city services certainly, but as a
person who has been on the Board of Public Works, | have seen real concerns with the wastewater
department. | think we’ve had some real problems, and | am really afraid of what this would do to that
department.

Also, this was our draft budget. Since that budget last month, three positions have been ordered, three
wastewater assistant positions have been added to the budget. Obviously we haven’t approved the budget.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 8

You guys haven’t started approving the budget. | fully understand the pinch that we’re in as far as the city
goes. But | think subsidizing the city budget with the user fee fund is really not fair. Again, | am very
concerned over the amount of increases we will see. | did take notes of the Mayor’s comments that we have
had user fee funds that we do have outside the budget. To my knowledge, none are these shared city
employees like the wastewater does. The other thing is that really stuck in my craw during a hiring freeze we
approved a public relations person for the division and actually 20 percent of that person’s salary is going to
come from wastewater. What’s going to happen next year? Is it going to be 50 percent of that person’s salary
that comes from that? As far as the veteran’s tax credit, | understand it costs the city money but if | were a
veteran sitting here, | would say why don’t | matter? If certain items really needed to be added to the budget
and we’ve added a public relations person to the Division of Public Works, why aren’t you considering my tax
credit? | understand why not. | understand we’re in a very tight budget situation. | have a feeling this is
something that we’re going to look back at and say we were being pennywise and pound foolish. | think it
might get us out of a sticky situation this year, maybe next year. What are we going to do the years after that?
Like | said, | really am very concerned that this is going to do permanent damage to that department and to
that facility at wastewater. Thank you.

Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne Drive, Nashua

I'd first like to congratulate the city on achieving a AAA bond rating with Standard and Poor’s, which now
means you’ve got both Fitch and Standard and Poor’s giving you AAA. It’s outstanding. And, | should note
that the ratings agencies consistently mentions in their ratings documents that Nashua’s Spending Cap
contributes to Nashua’s high bond ratings by imposing a discipline on spending. For if spending is controlled,
the need for taxes and debt are reduced and reserves build up. To quote on this point from the ratings report
from S&P, and this is a direct quote, it appears in numbers of the reports: “From a spending perspective, we
believe the city has traditionally been disciplined as it strongly adheres to a budget control charter amendment
passed by voters limiting year-over-year budget increases.” That’s a direct quote from the ratings report.

Now concerning O-17-31, which | am here to speak about, sewer fund by any name continues to operate the
same as the current wastewater fund, which is supported by user fees and debt repaid with user fees. The
real purpose for O-17-31 is not change the name. The real purpose of 0-17-31 is to exempt a limit on
spending without the required 10 votes.

Let me review and remind you of the structure of the Spending Cap. The Spending Cap, as described in
Paragraph 56-c of the Nashua Charter is a limit on spending. It is not a limit on tax. It is not a limit on tax
rates. Itis a limit on spending. It is very clear in the Charter. The Nashua Spending Cap does not differentiate
between taxes and fees. The Nashua Charter prescribes that all budget proposals for the annual budget
prepared by city departments and adopted by the Board of Aldermen come under the Cap. Mandated
spending come under the Cap, and take priority over discretionary spending. Budget proposals not prepared
by city departments for the annual budget fall outside the Cap, such as grants and trusts and county taxes.
Those are not prepared to city departments.

When comparing two annual budgets for the purpose of calculating a cap, both budgets must contain the same
accounts and the same funds. You cannot compare one budget to one set of accounts and another budget
with a different set of accounts. The Charter does not allow that.

There are no, and | emphasis no, exceptions stated in Paragraph 56-c. None. There is an exception to the
Cap. It clearly stated in Paragraph 56-d, and that is ten votes. It used to be two-thirds votes and that was
another Charter amendment brought before citizens through a referendum. It is now ten votes. That’s how
you override the Cap to get an exemption. This budget crisis, | always hear. There’s always a budget crisis.
I’ve been tracking this for 23 years. There’s always a budget crisis. But if there’s truly a budget crisis, they
take ten votes. It’s not impossible to get. It has happened about three or four times in the past. But only ten
votes can exempt the Cap.

Now there’s a city ordinance, 5-145, that’s quoted on page two of this ordinance O-17-31, that was drafted
originally, and | helped draft it. | worked with city accounting, Cindy Bielawski at that time. Rose Evans’

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 9

predecessor. That was with account numbers clearly identified and consistent with the Charter what’s in the
Cap and what’s not in the Cap. Somewhere along the line, the account numbers were removed creating great
distortion exactly what now is under the Cap because all you have is language, no identification by account
numbers. I’m not going to go into details about these account numbers, but clearly there’s now confusion.
There’s been other changes made causing further distortion.

O-17-031 represents a further distortion, a deviation from the Charter and that must stop. Section, Page Two,
Section 2, it’s on page two of the ordinance which exempts the entire sewer fund from the Cap simply violates
the Charter. On the question of why is part of it in and part of it out is irrational, and | said during the public
hearing, that | agree with the Mayor that’s irrational. The question of should it be in the Cap, all under the Cap
or not under the Cap, there’s only one answer. It has to all be under the Cap. There’s nothing in the Charter
that allows you to take it outside the Cap. The ordinance as the Mayor, himself, pointed out last year trying to
get mandates exempted, an ordinance cannot supersede the Charter.

| strongly recommend when this vote comes up that you vote to amend to strike all of Section 2. | have no
problem with Section 1. You strike all of Section 2 which deals exclusively with the question about the
Spending Cap. The analysis deals almost exclusively with the exception of the Spending Cap. | have no
problem with the sewer fund, the wastewater fund, whether you call it is a special revenue fund or not. It
doesn’t matter. But that’s not the real purpose for this ordinance. If this amendment to exempt take all of
Section 2 out. If it fails, you will have created a $9.1 million gap because you will compare FY17 budget with
the FY 18 budget. Effectively you have created a $9.1 million gap that you can spend, and that’s what the
Mayor's intent is, and he explained it. We talked about it without needing 10 votes to exempt. What's the
point? Get the vote. If you look at the budget and there’s really a crisis in this budget that’s different from any
other budget in recent memory under Mayor Lozeau, and you really have to exempt it, take the ten votes.
They can exempt millions, certainly a lot more than $9.1 million if you really wanted to.

In the circumstance that you choose and the amendment fails to strike line number 2, | recommend that you
further amend or substitute the amendment, and | think that recommendation is brought before you by
Alderman Schoneman, and you will address it, | presume, and that is that you compare apples and apples. So
you have a budget in 2017 and take out all of the sewer fund and compare it with the budget in 2018 without
the sewer fund. At least you have apples to apples which, itself, is consistent with the Charter.

| further recommend that you ask for a roll call vote for either of these two amendments so we can clearly see
who is with or without the true intent of the Spending Cap in the Charter. | should caution that if O-17-31
passes as introduced without any amendment, the way it is written that passed the Budget Committee that if,
as a consequence, legal action is brought with the proposition that the Charter is being violation and if that
legal action prevails, all exemptions will be removed. All of 5-145 will be removed. You'll have no exemptions.
Then you will have a smaller, you will have another serious, serious problem. Thank you.

Ken Dufour, 52 Conant Road, Nashua.

It’s hard to follow former Alderman Teeboom on the same issue, but nevertheless, | am here to speak against
O-17-031. | am disappointed that the Mayor and some aldermen devised a scheme to redefine the general
fund with the intended result of artificially lowering next year’s budget, giving the ability as the Mayor explained
tonight to spend more money. As a taxpayer we vote to send responsible people to city hall to make tough
decisions, and these are tough times. I'll grant you that. By passing this, you are skirting your responsibility.
This is simply a magic show meant to misrepresent reality. An earlier speaker called it intellectually dishonest.
| read Alderman Moriarty’s article in the Telegraph which likened this proposed scheme to people on a diet that
go into get weighed every week and then one week, for one reason or another, they want a different result so
they take off their shoes. That results in short term gratification without any long term success. That will be
the result to the taxpayer if this legislation is enacted.

What seems to be lost in all of this, and nobody has brought up, the Mayor referred to it a little bit earlier in his
conversation, is the tax rate. In my business, | am very tuned in to local tax rates. Nashua is now over $25 a
$1,000. Look at the communities around us. | heard the Mayor tonight refer to the forecasted tax breaks as

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 10

manageable or reasonable. What is it going to be this year? $26.75/$1,000; next year $28? $35? Does it go
over $30 a $1,000. | think you’ve lost focus on that. You're going to turn people away from this city. Yes,
we’ve got a lot to offer but at these tax rates, look around. It’s obvious that there are ways to overcome your
problems. That’s by following the Cap and overriding it if it needs to be overridden. That’s why we sent you
here to make those tough decisions. This legislation is disappointing and an abandonment of what taxpayers
expect from you. | urge you to reject this scheme, and | thank everyone who does not support it. Thank you.

Robert Sullivan, 12 Stoneybrook Road

I’m going to talk about the wastewater fund legislation. Here’s why | am against this legislation. One of the
main reasons for the legislation, as stated, is the wastewater fund cannot be comingled with city tax revenues,
etc., etc., etc. These funds are not being comingled. The legislation, if approved and implemented, will create
a $9.1 million Spending Cap space or gap that was reported as $5 million in the Telegraph. Based on the
budget hearing and two citizens’ analysis, we indicated to the Budget Committee that it was $9.1 million and
not $5 million. That is the amount that in the next oncoming budget season that the aldermen can increase the
budget by over and above the Spending Cap of approximately 1.33 percent. The Board of Aldermen, if they
needed money above and beyond what the Spending Cap allows for the upcoming budget yet, could override
the Spending Cap and add more money if they wanted to. The ability to do that exists each and every year.

As reported in the Telegraph, if this legislation is not enacted then drastic budget cuts would occur to our
services. | want to after | finish my notes here, | want to address some of the things that Mayor Donchess
stated during his comments. Drastic budget cuts. This is due mainly to the rising city pension costs of $2
million this year. These $2 million is less than 1 percent of the city’s total budget. So the city politicians cannot
find less than 1 percent to cut from the budget so that critical services cannot be cut? At the budget public
hearing, it was discussed that the necessary changes to the budget can be made without creating a $9.1
million gap or shell game. This was discussed at the budget public hearing by Alderman Schoneman. This
should be further evaluated before you proceed with any other steps.

When | read the legislation, and I’ve been noticing this with other pieces of legislation over the past three
years, the fiscal notes there’s never anything mentioned. | want to talk to the property tax owners what this is
going to cost, give them a rank. Someone should be doing this. The cost of this legislation to the taxpayers is
somewhere between $2 million and $9.1 million. This equates to approximately $70 to $280 increase to your
tax bill above and beyond the normal increases that will take place in the next fiscal year. So for your
information, your tax bills, and this is my estimate, and | think I’m pretty right, will increase between $250 and
$460 assuming that you have a present day property tax bill of $6,000.

Now Mayor Donchess, | want to address a couple of things you stated during discussion point. Reasonable
tax rate. We used to hear this. We hear this each and every year. What does that mean? Reasonable tax
rate? Manage expenditures reasonably. The Board of Aldermen over the past several years, the last five or
six, have been approving contracts, cost of living raises that are well beyond the rate of inflation, anywhere
between 3 — 3.5 percent. This went on year after year. Each and every year, Mayor Lozeau would say to the
Board of Aldermen, this pension thing is growing and growing. You are going to have to address it. And each
year the Aldermen would say we have to draw the line in the sand. We cannot keep giving out these
increases. Then the next year would come and another one approved well above and beyond the rate of
inflation. We need to draw the line in the sand. We need to cut back but oh, the previous, another contract
approved a year ago, we gave this so we’ve got to do this. Another year, the same thing. If the Board of
Aldermen demonstrated that they took the initiative to cut costs on the major cost drivers that are hurting the
city, and I’m not saying eliminate raises but for crying out loud a cost of living raise at 3 percent when the rate
of inflation is 1.75? A lot of this the Board of Aldermen has been kicking the can down the road for several
years now. And, by the way, even if you did cut the budget in previous years, you’d still have this same issue
today but at least the people who are watching would say maybe they have put forth a good effort. They
should override the Spending Cap. Some of the aldermen who tend not to override the Spending Cap say ya,
we did the best we could. We really cut this thing as far; there’s no more. But you can’t say that.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 11

Mayor, you had mentioned that there were going to be police, fire and teachers laid off. Then you mentioned
that 20 police would get laid off. So | did a calculation. 20 police at $120,000 loaded rate is $2.4 million. Then
you mentioned fire and teachers. | really don’t think you’ve done your numbers because if you are going to lay
off 20 policemen, here’s the extra $2.4 million that you need. Then you mentioned, well that’s what they told
me. | really believe that you need to do your numbers before you say anything especially with the press here;
that anyone that says we’re going to lay off “x” amount of people, make sure they know what they are talking
about and they have their numbers down pat because | don’t think you’re going to need to lay off 20
policemen. They call this the politics affair. | never thought I’d see it in these Chambers.

PETITIONS — None
NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS — None

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

Budget Review Committee... ee ceceeeeeecteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenees 02/27/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the February 27, 2017, Budget
Review Committee accepted and placed on file.

Finance Committee. ...... 00... ccccc cece ceccceccecccecceucecseeccceceseesusereeeteneteress 02/15/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the February 15, 2017, Finance
Committee accepted and placed on file.

Committee on Infrastructure............0. cece cccceccceccccccecececsetececececereceaceress 03/08/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 8, 2017, Committee
on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file.

Human Affairs Committee. .....0.. 00. .c ccc ccec ccc eccceccececeecseceueeeeeeseneeeneneess 03/02/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 2, 2017, Human Affairs
Committee accepted and placed on file.

Pennichuck Water Special... cece eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 03/01/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 1, 2017, Pennichuck
Water Special Committee accepted and placed on file.

Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee ........0..0..0cccceccceeeeeeeeeeees 03/06/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 6, 2017, Personnel/
Administrative Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file.

Planning & Economic Development Committee..............000 ee 03/07/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 7, 2017, Planning &
Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file.

WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS — None

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 12
CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS
Cultural Connections Committee

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF MOHAMMAD
MUSTAK ARIF, 12 EAST PEARL STREET, NASHUA, TO THE CULTURAL CONNECTIONS COMMITTEE
FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2020

MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Mohammad Mustak Arif duly appointed to the Cultural Connections Committee
for a term to expire February 28, 2020.

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.
Environment and Energy Committee

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF DORIA
BROWN, 34 CELLU DRIVE, NASHUA, TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY COMMITTEE FOR A TERM
TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2020

MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Doria Brown duly appointed to the Environment and Energy Committee for a
term to expire February 28, 2020.

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.
Zoning Board of Adjustment

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF STEVEN
LIONEL, 19 CABOT DRIVE, NASHUA, TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A TERM TO
EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Steven Lionel duly appointed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a term to
expire September 11, 2019.

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.
CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
Auditorium Commission

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF JOHN C.
FRANZINI, 13 LUTHERAN DRIVE, NASHUA, TO THE AUDITORIUM COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO
EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2017

MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared John C. Franzini duly appointed to the Auditorium Commission for a term to
expire December 31, 2017.

Hunt Legacy Trustees

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LEBRUN TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF MARY
GREENE, 38 CONCORD STREET, NASHUA, TO THE HUNT LEGACY BOARD OF TRUSTEES FORA
TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2018

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 13
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Mary Greene duly appointed to the Hunt Legacy Board of Trustees for a term to
expire December 31, 2018.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-17-086
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty
AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF A CERTAIN SEWER EASEMENT RESERVED ON FORMER HILTON
AVENUE (OFF DANE STREET)

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-086
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-086 declared duly adopted.

R-17-090
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty
AUTHORIZING PENNICHUCK CORPORATION AND PENNICHUCK EAST UTILITY, INC. TO
BORROW FUNDS FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING
LOAN FUND

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-090
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-090 declared duly adopted.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - ORDINANCES

O-16-020, Amended
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
CLARIFYING AND UPDATING THE ELDERLY HOUSING SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS
AND RELATED PROVISIONS

Given its third reading;

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA TO AMEND O-16-020 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT
WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA

ON THE QUESTION

In terms of changes, the first change in the title referring to housing for older persons and not elderly housing.
The categories and definitions have all been removed. If you go to Section B,2, you will see that there is a list
of facilities and services that may be included but are not limited to and that has been added.

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-16-020 AS AMENDED

ON THE QUESTION

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 14
Alderman Deane

| won’t be supporting this piece of legislation. This is a perfect example of you know, the premise behind the
beginning of it, cases before the planning board. Amendments or not, | can’t support that kind of activity and |
won't.

Alderman Siegel

| tried to kind of follow what’s been going on. This thing has been ping-ponging around for quite some time.
Normally | am pretty good about following what’s going on. I’d like to understand what motivated this and how
we arrived where we are at today. | don’t understand what’s going on with this or what motivated it. There
wasn't anything associated with the legislation that drove me to feel one way or the other about it, so where did
it come from and why?

Mayor Donchess

Many amendments have been made by the committee. | think they did a good job at looking at the issue,
negotiating and talking with Mr. Brad Westgate, who is the lawyer for many of the so-called elderly housing
developments and have come out with a compromise that everybody can live with. What motivated me was
just the fact that this type of development can result in a serious increase in density. Often times that makes
sense where it is proposed. For example, Hayden Green where there is not a lot of neighborhoods surrounding
it. But in certain locations, a very significant increase in density over what otherwise would be allowed, can
have a very negative impact on a neighborhood. For example at 122 Manchester Street where the Planning
Board had previously rejected four or five units in a small single family lot as being too dense. Then they come
forward with something under the elderly housing ordinance making it 18 units where 5 or 6, whatever the
number was before, was too dense. Nowit’s 18. | thought we needed to take a look at those issues and try to
balance our desire to provide housing options for people that are over 55 with the need to preserve
neighborhoods.

Although it kind of says that this provides a more reasonable, lower price unit for people over 55, it really
doesn’t. If you look at Hayden Green, those units are nice but they are same or maybe more expensive than
other condominiums around the city. So again, just to try to take a look at these issues, come up with
something that worked better for neighborhoods as well as for the proponents of the increased density. | think
the committee worked on it a long time and came up with a reasonable compromise.

Alderman Siegel

Since I’m not familiar with all the events, you pointed out the example of 122 Manchester, which | can infer was
a motivator for this perhaps. May | ask you, Mr. Mayor, was the revised plan which was rejected by the
planning board under the proposal to have elderly housing, was that plan approved under the ordinance as
they existed at the time? Was the developer given the opportunity to do that with the change of plan?

Mayor Donchess

122 Manchester Street was examined. It went to the ZBA for various technical reasons. It was examined
under the current ordinance and was not affected in the end by the proposed changes. They were applying
the laws that exist today not as is proposed in this new ordinance. | think that was your question.

President McCarthy

I’d like to ask Attorney Bolton to comment. My recollection after the amendments is there was no change in
the density that’s allowed in any of the zones. Is that correct?

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 15

Attorney Bolton

| think there may have been but not so that it would affect 122 Manchester Street. 122 Manchester Street will
only be affected by this new ordinance if that developer chooses to have this ordinance apply to it. Maybe he
or they would, but if they want to present their plan under the ordinance that exists as we speak, they have a
right to do that. They have started their process before this got introduced. | think it’s more correct to say that
that illustrated some of the potential problems that the original proposal was designed to clarify. Whether the
amended version makes things better or worse depends on your point of view | suppose.

Alderman Siegel

| do appreciate the idea of not having density blow up in the middle of our neighborhoods, but what concerns
me, and I’m just not clear on this which is why | am asking these questions, is whether or not a fundamental
right which was granted to a property owner to develop as they chose would be modified or taken away after
the commitment of potentially significant financial resources to realize that the development based on the laws
or the ordinances as they existed at the time. That! couldn’t? support because | don’t think that would be fair.
Again this has had so many twists and turns, I’m not sure where we are at if that has happened. | would
support this if we didn’t take away somebody’s rights.

President McCarthy

My understanding is that the Planning Department determined that because of the timing of the application that
site was not held to the provisions of the new ordinance.

Alderman Siegel

So everything is effectively grandfathered in until such point as something comes before after this is passed?

President McCarthy

Yes.

Attorney Bolton

Any application that’s been noticed of the Planning Board hearing has been published for is as you say
grandfathered. Anything the Planning Department doesn’t know about or the public doesn’t know about
because of that posting, is not grandfathered. If someone goes out and buys three acres in the middle of a
residential neighborhood and the city is not a party to that transaction, the expectation of that purchaser may
be frustrated or may not be frustrated by passage of some ordinance change. That would not be
grandfathered. You have to have a proposal, notice of which has been published.

Alderman Moriarty

I’m going to vote for this, but | support Alderman Deane’s decision to vote against it and he has a good reason
for it. His reasons make sense. One could say it was created to stop a certain development and that would be
a justifiable reason to vote against this. In the end what we have is no more restrictive than what was originally
there. There was a section that would have made things a little more restriction. That was eliminated. For
those of you who weren’t there to see Attorney Westgate, he did a great job of tutoring us all on land use
codes. If you vote for this, you’re not making the code significantly more restrictive one way or the other. Ina
bigger picture, in Concord they passed laws encouraging senior housing and making it easier to put higher
density units to take advantage of elderly housing which for politically correct reasons we changed it to housing
for older person. State law allows a developed landowner to put in high density units in a residential area that
normally wouldn’t support high density units, so | personally don’t like that idea at all. If you’re going to put ina
house, it should look like a house in the neighborhood. But I’m not in Concord and there’s nothing | can do
about it.