Search

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 7
President Wilshire

We need a simple majority to reconsider and we need 10 for an over-ride.

Alderman Jette

Thank you.

President Wilshire

You're welcome.

Alderman Lopez

I’d just like to comment that | understand why the Board might want to reconsider it but personally |
haven't actually heard anything new or enlightening with respect to reconsideration. All we have is
another reaction of another rollback with unionized employees being the example, and if my
understanding is correct of what is on our Agenda, another union, and this one is specific to unaffiliated
employees. So | think the speaker was correct that we are treating employees differently; we are treating
the unaffiliated employees as though anything can be done to them and they don’t really have any say.
Whereas now we are going to consider a unionized group because they are coming forward and they are
represented. | don’t like that message personally, | think we vetted this resolution pretty thoroughly and we
are doing it for the reasons we should.

| understand that it may be considered an unwise expenditure and | am glad that we are fiscally
responsible, but | also have several other examples this year alone where we have been much more risky
with investment or with tax payer money and haven’t really flinched away from that. Whereas in this kind
of situation we are not investing in unknown quantity, we are acknowledging existing employees who have
given time and deserve the recognition in my opinion. So | am going to vote against re-considering.

Attorney Bolton

Let me try and make it clear what you are doing. If there is any desire for this Board to further consider
this measure, following the fact that it has been vetoed by the Mayor, you must vote to reconsider. If the
motion to reconsider fails, it is finished and it does not become law. Of the Motion to Reconsider prevails,
then the matter is before the Board, at that point you can doing anything you want, you can amend it, you
can pass it with 10 votes over the Mayor’s veto, you can send it to Committee, you can table it, either of
the last two would allow further study but it appears that there is some confusion about what the Motion
before you is and what its effect is.

Alderman Lopez

There is and thank you for that clarification.

Attorney Bolton

So if you want to be able to further consider whether this measure or some amended version of it will
become part of the law of this City, you should vote to reconsider. If you are satisfied with the Mayor's
veto, you should vote against reconsideration.

Alderman Lopez

| understand, thank you.

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 8
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez,
Ald. Caron Ald. Kelly, Ald. Jette, Ald. Melizzi-Golja
Ald. Tenceza, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Wilshire 11

Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO OF R-18-066
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Jette

Yes | would move to, | don’t know if this in order, but in order to get re-referred back to the Committee so
the Committee can consider what the Mayor has said or input from other sources to reconsider this. Is a
Motion to table or is it a motion to refer?

Attorney Bolton

A Motion to re-refer is in order.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN JETTE TO RE-REFER R-18-066 TO PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Dowd

| think the City overall has dug itself into a hole because we have different groups getting different benefits
and | think the only solution is to come up with a policy that says that this is the way it is going to be across
the board. Because right now we have different people with different benefits and we are afraid that some
of the people that have the different benefits in a contract are going to come back on us and say — what
about us? Well at least in my opinion and perhaps the City Attorney can chime in, if they have a contract,
say a 4 year contract, they can’t do anything during that 4 year contract. It is what it is. So any of the
contracts that are in place are in place until the end of the contract. If we are going to refer it back to
Committee, we should establish a policy that says all contracts that come before us every one is going to
be treated the same. Because to treat different bargaining groups and different and especially non-
affiliated with unionized contracts differently is what is causing the problems. So | think we need a solution
that will resolve everything going forward.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

| would just agree with Alderman Dowd as it relates to union contracts and unaffiliated. Union contracts
don’t get to us unless a majority of the membership approves that and | think that is very different then
what happens with unaffiliated. And with us setting up what we think the steps are and setting up grades
and all of that for unaffiliated employees; that to me is a major difference. The teachers or members of the
Police Union or Fire Local, they make their decisions on — ok we are going to accept this or we are not
going to accept this and that is then what comes to us. But they, as a majority, approve whatever is in
there. So if they approve taking a cut in their return on sick time at retirement, that is what they agree to
as a majority and that is what we come into a mutual agreement about and move forward.

Any of the bargaining units could come to us and say — we want to change it now. But this group is
unaffiliated and to me that is very different and | look at that different. Because whoever is bargaining with

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 9

the unions they can just say — no we are not going to do that. And | think a number of us here have sat
and done bargaining with unions around contracts and you have to talk about the reality of what the City
can and cannot afford. With the unaffiliated | just see that as a very different piece in terms of deciding
what goes on. So! am with Alderman Dowd on that, thank you.

Alderman Lopez

| think a lot of ways with the amendment that we’ve added we do allow some Self-determination to be
returned to the employees that are unaffiliated. Because with the amendment we allow them to opt out of
the changes that were initially supported by the Mayor if they have a different configuration which they feel
is of benefit. And that is a configuration that may actually cost us less. So we’ve been talking about the
most extreme possible expense model while that is not necessarily the one that we are going to see.

| also, as you know from my previous comments, | consider the Board of Aldermen to have made the
decision. | understand that the Mayor is standing his ground and that he believes very much in this. | kind
of hoped this wouldn’t have come to a head, maybe 3 ghosts would have visited him on Monday but that
obviously didn’t happen. Maybe he got wore out got tired in Washington but here we are. And as much as
the new information in terms of history has come forward, it is the same argument that we have been
discussing in committee that if we do anything to help amend this, we are opening the door to everything
going wrong from that point onwards.

| think there are two parts of what the Mayor was presenting, part of it is the concern that this may go
further and that is our responsibility as a Board. It was brought up last year and the year before with
regards to the spending cap, we are Aldermen, we were elected to represent people and we can’t just let
things pass right through. So when we have contracts coming forward or we start to see trends, we need
to vet it, we need to do our jobs. | think we did our job with this, | think we did discuss it in Committee
pretty deeply we reached an agreement and we voted on it. Like | said, personally | haven’t heard
anything new or paradigm shaking.

Alderman Caron

Thank you. When this started this was to, what | considered, to set the record straight concerning a group
of people that never should have been left out of the change. They should have been grandfathered along
with everyone else that was non-affiliated. And | understand Alderman Dowd’s comments, but we as a
Board have no control over contracts, other than money. So those governing bodies, the Police
Commission, Fire and School Board, they are in charge of the contracts, they make the decision whether
they are going to make those changes, we don’t. And then we wonder why we have so many unions,
because some of these things are done arbitrarily across the board and they have no recourse.

We didn’t have unions for secretaries and things like that before, but those came about because they were
always getting what they considered the short end of the stick. | have to agree with Alderman Lopez, we
passed this 12 to 2 a couple of weeks ago and | thought that we were going to move forward. And as
Alderman Lopez said, not everyone is going to take that, they are going to look at what they have for sick
leave and think maybe their 20% is better than the maximum of 720, if you took the time to look at some of
those employees, some had very little accumulated sick leave. So either they are very sick or they take
their time and that’s fine too so you are not looking at $300,000.00. You are looking a long-time, 10 to 15
year time.

When | think about some of the expenses we’ve had and one in particular that is moving forward, | think it
is going to end up costing up more money than we thought. But that is something we have to look at
moving forward. So we can beat this to death or we can move forward and vote one way or the other and
put this to rest. Thank you.

President Wilshire

This is on the Motion to re-refer.

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 10

Alderman Dowd

Just to make a clarification when | was talking about the union contracts | was thinking if we develop a
policy it is from this point forward, except for the unaffiliated which aren’t on the union contract. If they
union voted to come back to us with their contact, it opens up every bit of the contract to renegotiation and
they could lose more than they gain. As far as the sick leave, that is a cost item, so we have control of
that, we can’t make changes to the policy but if it comes through and it is not what we like or it is not in
accordance with what the Committee comes up with going forward, for the next iteration of the contract,
we turn the contract down. It goes back to the bargaining unit and they know why it got turned down and
they either get in line or they don’t.

If the referral vote goes around | will vote for re-referral so we can try to get a path going forward, if the
referral is turned down | will vote to overturn the Mayor's veto.

Alderman Tencza

Madam President, just a question for either Madam President or Alderman Dowd. These budget line
items for the payout upon retirement, the sick leave payout, those are part of the School, Fire and Police
Budget, it doesn’t come out of the general City fund?

Alderman Dowd

Right, it is when they do their budgeting and they have to allocate the funds that they will have to pay out,
it is part of their budgeting. Because they have to have the money to cover the contract that was
approved.

Alderman Lopez

| just wanted to comment that with regards to the unaffiliated employees who are the ones we are actually
voting on, this might actually move us forward because it says in the legislation they have 20 days to make
their decision, then we will have made the decision for all of the outlying. So with regards to unaffiliated
we will have set a policy and a line in the sand — ok we did this, we did that, you got this, and you got that.
And then, again, it comes back to us as Aldermen that we can’t just let contracts go by and thumbs up
them all; we have to consider the ramifications and this is a pretty good case in point that if certain
conditions are put in there that we think are going to open the door to a whole bunch of other issues, then
we need to be aware of that.

President Wilshire
The Motion before us is to re-refer.
Alderman Jette

| would just like to say that when this came before us the last time, | made a plea to go back to the original
legislation which was to give the people who were hired prior to 2001what they had earned up until that
time. The argument was that this was unfair to them because it went back retroactively 6 years and took
away from them what they had earned up until 2001. So | was in favor of correcting that inequity, that
unfairness by giving them what they had earned up until 2001, but then from 2001 forward they would be
subject to the new policy. That failed, and what was adopted was not only to provide these people with
what they had earned up to 2001 but to allow them from 2001 forward to accumulate up to 720 days of
sick leave and cash that out at 100%. | understand that the argument was that when they were hired, they
were offered this benefit, but | think the City had the right in 2001 to change that policy, they shouldn’t
have gone back retroactively but from then on, but they should have given those people what they had
earned up until that point in time but now this legislation gives them the ability to earn 720 hours and cash
that out at 100% after 2001.

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 11

Some of the people that are included in this group had a balance of zero of accumulated unused sick time;
so they are getting with this new legislation they are getting a lot more than what they had earned up until
that point in time. They are getting the benefit of this new, the ability to accumulate another 720 hours and
get that cashed out. So | think that it would be beneficial for us to re-refer this back to the Committee and
these arguments can be made and | want to point out to the people who want to over-ride the veto, you
need 10 votes and there are a few absences here tonight. So you may not get the 10 votes, but if you re-
refer it back to the Committee, you get a chance to fight another day sort to speak and we reconsider all
these arguments.

President Wilshire

| don’t think there are any new arguments in my opinion Alderman Jette. Is there further discussion on the
Motion to Re-Refer.

Alderman Caron

| just want to clarify Alderman Jette’s comments about the sick leave. The amendment was, we brought
the amendment in to the Personnel Committee but we got a letter from the Personnel Advisory Board
saying that amount, those people should have never been denied their continuation of their 720 hours.
But if you could look at an employee’s sick time now, if there is an employee there that has 2,000 hours,
and they agree that they want to go back to what it was prior to 2001, they don’t get any more than 720
hours. They don’t get anything from prior to 2001 whatever they had, they can only get 720 hours.

Anyone who has no sick time, they have nothing; we are not giving them anything that they haven’t
earned. It is those people with the hours that they have accumulated now, but they can’t carry any more
than 720 hours. Now whether they retire with 720 hours, that is a whole other issue because they can’t
keep accumulating, they have to use it or they lose it constantly, it is a constant. So | just want you to
understand that, because if you look at someone’s sick time at this point in time, if they have over 720
hours they are not going to get any more than 720 hours period. And then they have to take some time off
in order to get to that max, that is the max you can hold at any given time. It’s not like vacation where you
can carry X amount before you lose it, but you will lose it if it is not being used because you are ill or what
have you. So just so that we understand that.

I’m sorry, | think we have taken this 3 times, we have taken it back to the boards, we have listened to the
professional group from the Personnel Advisory Board, and | think at this point and | understand we are
short a couple of people Alderman Jette, but we have to make a decision one way or another. We can’t
keep holding this group of people, 11 people, up any longer. So as much as | am disappointed that we
are missing people, we just, we need to move on.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

| would just, to comment on Alderman Jette’s comment about someone having zero sick hours in 2001. |
don’t think we can say — oh they had zero and now they are going to have this option because they may
have had zero because they had a serious illness or their child was sick or for whatever other health-
related need they had. So | don’t think we can say — well we are giving someone who had nothing the
opportunity to have something because we don’t know the history behind that and | don’t really think that
is for us to deal with. That is their personal information and | don’t think you can just say — oh they abused
their sick time and they were using it to go away 2 days early before Christmas or take a long weekend or
whatever. That individual may have personally or had someone in their family who had a health issue. So
| don’t think we can start looking and making those assumptions based on the numbers that were there.
Thank you.

President Wilshire

The Motion is to re-refer.

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 12

Alderman Jette

| just want to respond, | never said any of those things. Those assumptions are assumptions that you
apparently are making, not.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

And if | may but you pointed out one person had zero hours and now they could accumulate, so | think
people can, and | didn’t say you said that, | think people listening tonight could say — oh someone had
zero hours and now we are giving them something. And | just don’t want people going down the path that
we may be giving someone something. They may have zero hours because there is a legitimate reason
for them to have used their health time. So | am not saying that you said that, I’m saying other people
may make that assumption, so | think we need to be careful.

Alderman Jette

So if | could just clarify, what | said and what | meant was that | think it is unfair to have gone back 6 years
and taken away from people what they had earned up until 2001. But! do think it is fair going forward,
after 2001, to in exchange for giving them an unlimited amount of sick leave which they have to earn at a
rate of | think it is 13 days a year but going forward, they can accumulate an unlimited amount of sick time,
but when they retire, they are limited to a cash payout of only 20% of that. And | was just pointing out that
there were some people in this group who as of 2001 had no unused sick time and so going forward, so
they didn’t lose anything when the policy was changed. They have the right after 2001 to accumulate and
most of them have accumulated sick leave time which they can use, it is unlimited, but when they retire
they can only cash it out at 20%.

Alderman Lopez

| just want to observe that if the Mayor’s veto stands, that is the only way nobody gets anything, it would
eliminate both the ordinance and the amendment. With the amendment that we added the difference is
that the employees who were affected can choose whether they want the current benefit reimbursement or
the previous one. Because some of them actually don’t want 100% of 720, they are using their sick leave
as a potential back up against longer term illness. So we are still talking about whether or not we are
going to re-refer that, but | just wanted to clarify that the only way if we don’t re-refer it, that all of the
employees continue to live in unjust situation is if the Mayor’s veto stands.

President Wilshire

The Motion before us is to re-refer, further discussion on that Motion? Seeing none, would the Clerk
please call the roll.

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

Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Laws,
Ald. Jette, Ald. Tencza, 05

Nay: Ald. Lopez, Ald. Caron, Ald. Kelly
Ald. Melizzi-Golja, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Wilshire 06

MOTION FAILED

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 13
President Wilshire

So the Motion before us is to override. Any further discussion? Seeing none, would the Clerk please call
the roll?

Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Dowd, Ald. Laws
Ald. Lopez, Ald. Caron, Alderwoman Kelly,
Ald. Melizzi-Golja, Ald. Tencza, Ald. Schmidt, 10
Alderman Wilshire

Nay: Ald. Jette 1

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — ORDINANCES — None

NEW BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-18-100
Endorser: Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
CHANGING THE PURPOSE OF UP TO FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) OF
UNEXPENDED BOND PROCEEDS FROM THE LED STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
TO THE DISTRICT-WIDE MIDDLE SCHOOLS RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT FOR FUNDING ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Given its first reading;

There being no objection, President Wilshire accepted the first reading of R-18-100, assigned it to
the Budget Review Committee and scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, January 17, 2019, at
7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber.

R-18-101
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien
AMENDING THE FY2019 HUD ANNUAL ACTION PLAN BY REPROGRAMMING EXISTING
FUNDS TO “E FOR ALL”
Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Wilshire

R-18-102
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Jan Schmidt
APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND UFPO LOCAL 645 PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES OF THE NASHUA POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM JULY 1, 2018 THROUGH JUNE 30,
2022, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS
Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Wilshire

13. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS
14. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS
Conservation Commission

William S. Parker (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: December 31, 2018
1 Rockland Street

Nashua, NH 03064

e Tabled until 6/14/16

Business & Industrial Development Authority

Kim Reagan (New Appointment) For a Term to Expire: May 1, 2019
30 Temple Street, Suite 400
Nashua, NH 03060

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-16-030
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess

Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy

CREATING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR SCHOOL CAREER AND TECHNICAL

EDUCATIONS (CTE) TUITION FEES

e Budget Review Committee Recommends: Final Passage

R-16-033
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO
EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($2,200,000) FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A CITYWIDE TELECOM
SYSTEM
e Budget Review Committee Recommends: Final Passage

R-16-035
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty
RELATIVE TO THE RESCINDING OF AUTHORIZED UNISSUED DEBT
e Budget Review Committee Recommends: Final Passage

R-16-036

Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja

UPDATING THE FINANCIAL STANDARDS FOR THE CITY’S WELFARE GUIDELINES
e Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee Recommends: Final Passage

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 14

NEW BUSINESS — ORDINANCES

O-18-031
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
INCREASING THE PURCHASING THRESHOLD FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL FROM
$10,000 TO $25,000
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by
President Wilshire

O-18-032
Endorser: Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
AUTHORIZING STOP SIGNS AND RIGHT AND LEFT TURN ONLY LANES AT THE
INTERSECTION OF PINE HILL ROAD AND CHARRON AVENUE
Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Wilshire

O-18-033
Endorser: Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Tom Lopez
AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE USE MATRIX REGARDING SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES
AND SANITARY LANDFILLS
Given its first reading;

There being no objection, President Wilshire accepted the first reading of O-18-033, assigned it to
the Planning and Economic Development Committee and the Nashua City Planning Board and
scheduled a public hearing for Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber.

O-18-034
Endorser: Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael O’Brien
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
DESIGNATING PARKING ON CHESTNUT STREET FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Wilshire

PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - None

REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN

Alderman O’Brien

| just would like to wish the citizens Happy New Year and the best to the City as we start off next time we
will see you is a year from now | guess. So there you go. And | also would like to express my condolences

Board of Aldermen 12-26-2018 Page 15

to the Stansfield family. | have worked with Jill, a great employee, being on Infrastructure. So it is a tough
time to lose a parent. So my thoughts are with the family.

Alderman Dowd

| would want to wish everyone a Happy and Safe New Year as we go through the Holiday Season.

Alderman Lopez

| wanted to express my condolences to the Stansfield Family as well. As Alderman O’Brien said it is very
difficult to go through the Holidays with that kind of a personal loss. So my best wishes are with them.
And then | also wanted to remind everybody about basic fire safety as it gets colder, we have had a
number of fires popping up and I’m sure Alderman O’Brien would agree. Just make sure that you are
keeping your exits clear, your hallways uncluttered and you are being mindful of your heat sources. If
anybody out there thinks that heating their house with an open oven is a good idea; it is not.

Alderman Caron
Thank you | too would like to send my condolences out to Jill’s family and also to wish everyone a Happy
and Safe New Year. And | thank you for finally putting the Ordinance, piece of legislation to rest and we

can move forward. We don’t always disagree, but sometimes we have to and we have to make a stand
and do what we feel is right and move forward from there. And it is never anything personal, thank you.

Alderwoman Kelly

I'll Keep it short, | just wanted to say Happy New Year to everyone, | hope you had a Happy Holiday before
and we will see you in 2019.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Yes | would also like to give my condolences to the Stansfield Family. And also the family of Lou Phaneuf,
Lou was an employee at Lockheed Martin and then BAE and he was also a member of our local Elks.
And he died recently.

And to the new Board Members your first year is up, so congratulations. And we will see you in the New
Year and best wishes to everyone for a Happy New Year.

President Wilshire
I'd like to also to send my condolences to the Stansfield family on their loss.
Committee announcements:

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Strategic Planning will be January 3, 7:00 p.m. and we are in Room 208. Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN THAT THE DECEMBER 26, 2018 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF

ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Attest: Patricia D. Piecuch City Clerk