Search

clemons.html "Benjamin Clemons and his wife Jodi Sutherland " ** & For John
https://Awww.gwu.edu/~action/2004/kerrv/kerrvorenh.html Kerry, Democrat for President **
http://www.astromes.com/subsidiaries/aerosat/astronics-aerosat.asp " For more than a decade,
Astronics AeroSat has been developing aviation communications solutions for commercial
aircraft and business jets providing revolutionary global broadband and television services for
passengers and crew." Yeah, it's good and great that you be allowed to receive my talk of public
input/ comment and I do have these questions, but for to communicate back to me, of you do
have that Article 8 duty to be "responsive", so to please respond of what you plan to do about
this.?htto://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power
residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of
government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government,
therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right
of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

June 2, 1784

Li

"From: iosephshaas@hotmail.com

To: dowdr@nashuanh.gov: loverings@nashuanh.gov: lavoiea@@nashuapd.com:
lopezt@nashuanh.gov: citvclerkdept@nashuanh.gov: nashuamayor@nashuanh. gov:
iunecaronward7@vahoo.com: clemonsb@nashuanh.gov: cooksonm@nashuanh.gov:
deaned@nashuanh. gov: lebrund@nashuanh.gov: mecarthyb@nashuanh. gov:
mcguinnesss@nashuanh.gov: melizzigoliam@nashuanh.gov: moriartvd@nashuanh.gov:
obrienm@nashuanh.gov: schonemand@nashuanh. gov: siegelk@nashuanh. gov:

CC: armlaw@hotmail.com

Subject: (Nashua) Correspondence #____ for the Tue., June 28th Meeting: (please)

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:21:03 -0400

"PLEASE acknowledge and share with the others for to see this in The Correspondence section
for the Tue., June 28th Meeting or else! to see and hear from me AGAIN! (;-) "=

Nah! I don’t trust those (Lopez and Dowd) who re-present the interests of that McLaughlin
crook, of crooked of away from the law and his buddies of the I-R.S. over at that other part of the
city in their "nest" there! so this and the previous e-mails * to the others now too.
http://nashuanh. gov/5 14/Board-of-Aldermen

- - Joe Haas

P.S. The motion was GRANTED of to look into the corruption down there in your city! of
"federal funds" obtained illegally will NOT be taken as like "blood money" up here of we do not
put up with your shit! A written apology from you that your City Clerk does not contact the
Local Police for LAW ENFORECEMENT of even though the Feds did not do the RSA Ch.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 16

President McCarthy

There are a number of things in the ordinance that are simply technical corrections where the old ordinance
made reference to state rules that no longer exist and laws may have been changed. Primarily the wording in
this cleans that up.

Alderman Dowd

Also, Attorney Westgate represents several developers. They worked on compromising languages to get this
as clean as possible so it’s a win-win on the city and the developers. They can live with the ordinance as it is
before us this evening. | think working togheter with corporation counsel, they have come up with wording that
we should support.

Alderman Siegel

| do have respect for Attorney Westgate, having used himself. | am well aware of his capabilities. | do also
support the idea of limiting some density in neighborhoods. Now my concern is the definition that corporate
counsel gave us was notification via the planning board process. However, if somebody buys a piece of
property, the first thing they are going to do is they buy it with an assumption of what is possible, develop some
planning, some financing. They do something well before they get to the point where they are ready to have a
notice before the planning board. Again that represents a significant financial commitment. Is there some kind
of delay that we could put into this to allow for some sort of grandfathering in fairness or am | overthinking this?
Part of me also wants to understand if Alderman Deane has some valid objections, through you, Mr. President,
| would love to hear Alderman Deane’s objections if he would be willing to share them with us. I’m curious.

Alderman Deane

| look at legislation to be filed to address what we might see as issues, but the whole process of what went on,
and this is aimed directly at 122 Manchester Street, was just wrong. It was wrong. I’m sure down the road
we’re going to hear about it.

Alderman Schoneman

| was unable to attend some of the meetings where these things were discussed. | appreciate the insights that
folks are sharing tonight. | received a call from a constituent who had some concerns about this in an earlier
version and now believes their needs are addressed by it. Nevertheless, | share Alderman Deane’s deep
concern for this type of thing. We're going to talk about process a lot tonight. | think we need to be very, very
careful and not draft legislation that targets a particular activity or place. Whenever you do it is going to
perhaps interrupt someone’s development. | think occurrences is a little different than a specific driver, a
particular project that was a particular driver. So although | know there was work on this and can live with it
and | would prefer to give it my support on that basis, | feel | can’t base on the process. Thank you.

President McCarthy

Again, | want to point out that this legislation was not applied and does not apply to the development at 122
Manchester Street.

Alderman Lopez

The initial legislation was proposed months ago. There was no quick pass going on. There was some
concerns raised and that was one of the first things we discussed at committee. Is anybody in process right
now who is going to be held up by this. My interest was protecting the residential neighborhoods and keeping
the character of them, but also encouraging density in areas where density is a good thing. The process did
serve us. There must have been at least 8 editions that were proposed, if not more. It was a very much a
back and forth process, which can be confusing, but that was mostly because it was an open dialogue where

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 17

we were pretty transparent in what we were doing and what our reasoning was. Every line that was changed
had discussion and dialogue associated with it. Particularly, | was focused on making sure we clarified any
language that was referencing state laws that were no longer in effect. There’s one tiny application that | am
vaguely concerned where someone could take a larger building and decide in a unique circumstance they
could profit by offering less unit. That was described as very rare so it’s not really an objection that | have. |
can’t speak to what the intentions were when it was created, but | do know that the process ensured that it was
something that was in Nashua’s best interest.

Alderman Clemons

| was not going to support this right up to the very end for a lot of the same reasons that were discussed here
this evening. There was a paragraph, Paragraph B,3, which would have restricted these kind of developments
to non-residential areas which | thought would have been overly restricted. We went back to the original
language that was in the ordinance and is the reason why | am going to now support it because essentially it is
no more restrictive or less restrictive than it was before. It does update the language and gets it in line with the
current state law. For that reason, | will support it.

Alderman Cookson

| want to understand how this came to us. It is my understanding, and correct me if | am wrong, through you to
Attorney Bolton, my understanding is that Attorney Westgate forwarded to Corporation Counsel some
suggested verbiage or language with regard to this legislation.

Attorney Bolton

There was a lot of discussion between myself and Attorney Westgate. But! think he brought his suggestions
to the Planning & Economic Development Committee. | would say that would be more accurate than to say he
brought them to me.

Alderman Cookson

I’m sorry, | didn’t hear that last...

Attorney Bolton

| think it would be more accurate to say that Attorney Westgate brought his suggestions to the Planning &
Economic Development Committee initially. Thereafter, they may have been some discussions between he
and | about making sure that the amendments that the committee intended to make were carried out correctly
and no wording got changed or missed, etc.

Alderman Cookson
| think it was Mayor Donchess who indicated maybe it was in his opening comments that Attorney Westgate,

I’m not sure who said it, | don’t want to attribute, but what | heard was Attorney Westgate represents many of
the developers for these developments.

Attorney Bolton

He has represented some of the developers who have done this sort of project. | think it’s probably true that
there are some developers out there interested in doing other similar types of projects that he either does
represent or may represent in the future.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 18
Alderman Cookson

How does this legislation benefit Attorney Westgate and his client over and beyond what the current legislation
would?

Attorney Bolton

Are you talking about the existing ordinance compared to what is before us tonight?
Alderman Cookson

Correct.

Attorney Bolton

| think what’s before us tonight probably makes it clear that they don’t have to build one of six or seven
designated types of facilities. Now it is basically any facility that is restricted to 55 and older or 62 and older
will qualify if there’s a certain level of facilities and services appropriate to the needs and desires of older
persons. Currently the existing ordinance provides some ambiguity as to whether the list is supposed to be all
inclusive or merely examples of the types of developments that would qualify. This clears up that ambiguity
and | would say it clears it up in favor of the developers. | think the current ordinance somewhat expands
where these types of developments can be located. Under every version that | know of, there was no
exclusion from the existing residential zones where it is allowed. If anyone was under some impression that it
was exclusively in business or industrial zones that was, to my knowledge, never in any version. That slight
expansion exists. Otherwise, | think it’s approximately the same. If you pass it tonight it is approximately the
same except as | have mentioned.

Alderman Cookson
There’s another development that | am aware of. As you take Chestnut south to its terminus. Between
Chestnut and Ash, Southern New Hampshire Services has built a facility there. Under this new proposed

ordinance, nothing would that change? That facility would still have every right and availability to build at that
location and provide the services that it provides?

Attorney Bolton

Any existing facility, any facility that has already obtained its approvals...

Alderman Cookson

If it were new, and it was just going before that process upstairs in the auditorium and it hadn’t been developed

yet. If Southern New Hampshire Services came in and said | want to build at this property between Chestnut
and Ash at the south end, nothing would change?

Attorney Bolton

Without having studied the full plan and that project was underway and going through planning board before |
occupied this chair,

Alderman Cookson

Understood.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 19

Attorney Bolton

| don’t think this ordinance as being proposed to you this evening would alter their approval process at all.
Alderman Cookson

Thank you.

MOTION CARRIED

Ordinance O-16-020 declared duly adopted as amended.

O-17-029
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
REGARDING SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR A LOT WITH MULTIPLE PRINCIPAL
BUILDINGS
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF O-17-029
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Cookson

How does the city planning board provide a favorable recommendation and the committee sees indefinite
postponement as the solution to this piece of legislation?

Alderman Clemons
| would have not have supported it. | felt it was too restricted. It was also pointed out by some people in the
public comment that it might make for some existing lots to be non-conforming and would present problems for

future development of those lots. In my opinion, it’s too restrictive. There could have been a lot of unintended
consequences so for that reason | will be supporting indefinite postponement.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
It came back from planning board with a favorable recommendation, but based on some input we received at
our next meeting during public comment and discussing it, as Alderman Clemons said, some of the items that

were brought before us were discussed and reconsidered. If seemed if something was going to be done we
should probably think it through again.

Alderman Moriarty

| voted against the indefinite postponement, and | am going to vote against indefinite postponement tonight
because | don’t mind the additional restrictions. | kind of want them.

MOTION CARRIED

Ordinance O-17-029 declared indefinitely postponed.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 20

O-17-031
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Ben Clemons
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
RELATIVE TO THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM FUND AS A SEWER FUND
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-17-031
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Schoneman

| distributed this evening a copy of a proposed amendment which actually was distributed by email yesterday.
The text of that proposed amendment is at the bottom of page two, and we'll get to that in just a moment. | want
to start with commenting on some of the public comment we heard tonight. Based on what we heard | think
there are a lot of issues with this proposed ordinance. The Spending Cap piece that | was most concerned with
is only a piece of it.

Public Works Commissioner Pappas spoke about shared employees. Apparently there are a number; she had
a long list of people who are shared, some portion of their salary is in one department, another portion is in this
fund that would be moved out. The percentages vary from % to full or whatever it was. There wasn't just a
couple of employees. It sounded like there was a lot. To me, | don’t see how we can have half an employee
outside the budget and half inside. What Mrs. Pappas pointed out, as | think as a possibility for future abuse, it
could happen, or future use, would be to start moving those percentages around in and out of the budget to
accomplish a savings in the budget to allow more spending and then transfer this outside. | don’t’ know that we
have a way to really account for the hours that are spent. My understanding is that there are some folks whose
time is not specifically shared in the budget but they perform duties inside. For instance, a wastewater
employee might possibly drive a plow truck for the city and plow city streets. | think that poses a problem. |
don’t’ want to see that potential abuse. Also, if we were to use that in the future, to move employees out or
move whatever else out into that other department because it’s still just a department as part of public works,
are we saving money in the budget and then forcing the sewer rate up higher and higher? It seems to me that
there’s that possibility. A possibility could exist. I’m very concerned about that. | think that’s a problem that we
have to take a very close look at.

Secondly, Mr. Teeboom talked about the AAA rating. | think that’s great that we got that AAA rating. One of the
things that he said, he quoted, he said spending is discipline, and the Spending Cap is strongly adhered to. A
strong discipline, strongly adhered to. Those are my notes, maybe that wasn’t his exact quote but we got our
AAA rating because we have a procedure in place for handling budget problems and we follow it. That’s what
they are saying. If we start playing with that, do we jeopardize our AAA rating? Maybe, maybe not. But if it
were known that we were doing things like this, and someone says we have a Spending Cap process that is
strictly adhered to and that our spending is disciplined. I’m not sure they would draw that conclusion.

We heard from a couple of other people. The third gentleman, | forgot his name, and from Mr. Sullivan. Both
spoke about the tax rate and about the effect that this can have. | think reasonable tax rates are usually seen
as reasonable by those who maybe aren’t paying them or aren’t’ paying the tax, aren’t paying the cost. We all
pay our tax rate. But if we are going to be doing spending, in my mind going outside of a process that rightly as
| said before has a higher threshold of ten votes, and as was pointed out by the speakers, are we really ending
up with a reasonable tax rate? | think the reasonable thing to do is to follow the process, have faith in the
process. | said before that although spending is very, very important, | think it is very important to Ward 3 tax

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 21

payers. There is a method, there’s a process for overriding the Cap. If we say that not adopting this is
tantamount to draconian cuts, | think that’s simply not true.

There are now significant issues with this. Apparently the city could be opening itself up for a serious loss and a
suit. It looks like, as another example, in the past we had numbered accounts for all these things that were
inside and outside and the numbers have been lost with time. We'll get to my amendment. | want to hear what
other folks have to say. This is very, very important. In the end, we may want to consider not making a motion
at this time. We may want to consider sending this back to committee to be a little more carefully vetted. We
spent one session on it. | think there are some very serious issues here that we need to address. Thank you.

Alderman Siegel

| Know we could have a very lengthy debate here. There was a lot of public comment. I'd love to address
some of it, but | really think that Alderman Schoneman has presented a possibility of an amendment before us
and has done it in a fairly time constraint fashion. | didn’t see this until yesterday. | think in order for us to vet
that properly, | don’t think this would be the correct forum to do that. | strongly would suggest that we send this
back to committee to have our colleague’s suggestions properly vetted in committee, not before the full Board
and that we don’t spend a lot of time here debating something only to send it back to committee where the
debate should actually happen.

President McCarthy

Is that a motion, Alderman Siegel?

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RE-REFER TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Dowd

| could be wrong, but | believe the same motion was made at the Budget Committee meeting and was rejected.

President McCarthy

| have seen these amendments for the first time in the last day, so | don’t believe we have taken them up at
budget.

Alderman Dowd

It was at least similar if not exact wording.

Alderman Siegel

There was some suggestion that this might be something to consider, but this is something that has actually
gone through the legal department which the other stuff had not. | think that’s a very important distinction. We
would be vetting something that’s already gone through the process of being properly vetted legally so we
could have a discussion about the merits rather than having to craft the legal definition.

Alderman Cookson

| was just going to lend my support and agree with Alderman Siegel. If we all read the minutes that we
accepted and approved this evening and placed on file, each one of us would know that the motion was
brought up. Attorney Bolton indicated that he was going to go back and work on the language. Apparently we
just received that language yesterday. So! wholeheartedly agree that we should send this back to committee
and have that discussion where it should be.

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 22

Alderman Moriarty

Just in case anybody who is paying attention gets the wrong idea and thinks that Alderman Schoneman was
late in submitting this request for this amendment, | can vouch for him that he made the request on the Monday
prior to the last meeting that was cancelled due to snow.

Alderman Cookson

The minutes are from February 27.

Alderman Moriarty

What I’m saying is I’m going to go ahead and support the motion but I’ve known about this amendment for a
long time because | was watching the exchanges and was part of the discussion like three weeks.

You guys only got it yesterday. The fact that it took three weeks to get here is not Alderman Schoneman’ s fault
is what | am trying to say. Okay? He made a request a long time ago to get this through. It just took an
unusual amount of time to get through legal.

MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance O-17-031 referred to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE
Alderman Schoneman

| just want to say that | did receive this from Attorney Clarke, and | want to thank the Legal Department for the
work that they did. | really appreciate it, and | think that having a formal process to work through is good.
Whatever the timing was, I’m glad we will have a chance to vet it further. Thank you very much.

Alderman Siegel

Now you understand why | said previously there might be something before the Board next week. The reason |
said that is we have a Budget Committee meeting on Monday.

President McCarthy

We have a budget meeting on Monday that is a hearing and at least two members of the Budget Committee will
not be here for that. | would actually prefer to hold this until the Chair and Vice Chair of the committee, at least
one of them, is present.

Alderman Dowd

As Chair of Budget, | will call a meeting of the Budget Committee two weeks from now.

Alderman Lopez

| observed that the legal department was probably really busy working on the amendments to the Planning &
Economic Development Committee legislation. Our process was to send it back and forth repeatedly. | feel this
is a discussion better had at the committee level.

O-17-034

Endorser: Alderman Ben Clemons

ADDING BADGER STREET TO THE OVERNIGHT ON-STREET PARKING PROGRAM
Given its second reading;

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 23

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO AMEND O-17-034 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH
THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Clemons

The original intent of the ordinance was to add Badger Street as a street where residents could overnight park.
After review from the fire department, they said they would have a difficult time getting their trucks down the
street if there was overnight parking. What this amendment does is instead of allowing the on-street parking on
Badger Street, it allows the residents of Badger Street to purchase the on-street parking permits. Then they can
park somewhere else in the neighborhood, similar to what we have done up in French Hill. | want to thank
Alderman Schoneman for suggesting this amendment.

Alderman Lopez

Part of the reason the fire department didn’t endorse putting it on Badger Street is because the road is only 18
feet wide. They also pointed out that it is the same condition one street over on Pierce Street. | started talking
to the residents about overnight parking spaces there. So far, nobody really uses it but overnight parking
program, in general, is something we should be looking carefully at each step of the way that we add to it. A lot
of the reasoning behind adding Badger Street was every street except for that one was added. It turns out there
was a reason why that was not added and maybe one street to many was added.

Alderman Moriarty

If the fire department says it is too narrow then | will take their word for it.
MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-17-034 AS AMENDED
MOTION CARRIED

Ordinance O-17-034 declared duly adopted as amended.

O-17-035
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson
Alderman David Schoneman
Alderman Sean M. McGuinness
Alderman Don LeBrun
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
ADOPTING THE ALL VETERANS’ TAX CREDIT
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-17-035

ON THE QUESTION

Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 24
Alderman Cookson

It has a lot of support, and | appreciate everybody signing up for this. | think it’s a worthy piece of legislation and |
believe it should be passed. | know that Mayor Donchess has requested that we table it this evening. I’m not

going to make that motion right now, but | wanted to be cognizant of Mayor Donchess’ request and at least allow
us discussion before we decide to table if that’s what the aldermen motion.

Alderman Siegel

I’m not making the motion either because | don’t want to shut down discussion, but | absolutely support it, and |
think it is the right thing to do.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO HOLD
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Deane

That’s debatable.

Alderman Clemons

From what | understand this has passed the Senate. When would it pass the House and then when would it
take effect if it passed, the amendment that would allow us to do this in increments?

Attorney Bolton

| don’t know when the House is going to vote on it. | don’t know anyone who does know. But as it is written
currently if it does pass the House, and if the Governor signs it, it takes effect immediately.

President McCarthy

When does this legislation in its current form, what tax year does it affect first?

Attorney Bolton

If it were to be passed tonight it would affect the tax year beginning April 1, 2017. If itis passed after April 1, it
would affect the tax year beginning April 1, 2018. That’s in the state law. It’s nothing that can be amended at
this level to change it. The other thing worth pointing out is what you are allowed to do if the version that has
currently passed the Senate and will eventually be before the House allows is for a 3-year phase in. It doesn’t
tell you how to do a three-year phase in. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in equal amounts, but it does not
provide for any longer term. Presumably you could do it on a shorter term, but it basically says a three-year
phase in.

Alderman Clemons
Under the way that the state law is written, would this be allowed to be retroactive? If we were to table this and

it passes the legislature, are we able to retroactively say that veterans for this upcoming tax year would be able
to take advantage of the 1/3 say that we were going to give them as a tax advantage?

Attorney Bolton

You could make it retroactive to that effect because the applicable provision says it shall take effect within the
town or city on the date set by the governing body or in the tax year beginning April 1*' following its adoption,