Search

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 15

Paul Deschenes (Reappointment) Term to Expire: October 13, 2023
57 Tyler Street
Nashua, NH 03060

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared Paul Deschenes, 57 Tyler Street, Nashua,
duly appointed to the Nashua Housing Authority for a term to expire October 13, 2023

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.
Planning Board

Maggie Harper (New Appointment) Term to Expire: March 31, 2020
(Moving from Alternate to Full Member)

3 Taft Street

Nashua, NH 03060

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared Maggie Harper, 3 Taft Street, Nashua,
duly appointed to the Planning Board for a term to expire March 31, 2020

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.
Tax Increment Financing Advisory Board

Michael Cerato (New Appointment) Term to Expire: September 30, 2019
4 Water Street, Suite 201
Nashua, NH 03060

Chris Lewis (New Appointment) Term to Expire: September 30, 2019
670 North Commercial Street
Manchester, NH 03101

Tia Phillips (New Appointment) Term to Expire: September 30, 2019
2 Clocktower Place
Nashua, NH 03060

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared Michael Cerato, 4 Water Street, Nashua,
Chris Lewis, 670 North Commercial Street, Manchester, and Tia Phillips, 2 Clocktower Place,
Nashua, duly appointed to the Tax Increment Financing Advisory Board for terms to expire
September 30, 2019

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.

Zoning Board of Adjustment

A. John "Jay" Minkarah, Alternate (New Appointment) Term to Expire: September 11, 2020
13 Mount Pleasant Street

Nashua, NH 03064

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared A. John “Jay” Minkarah, 13 Mount
Pleasant Street, Nashua, duly appointed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a term to expire

September 11, 2020

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 16
CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS BY PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
Citizens Advisory Commission for Community Grants

Elizabeth G. Houde (New Appointment) Term to Expire: October 1, 2021
12 Oldfield Road
Nashua, NH 03060

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared Elizabeth G. Houde, 12 Oldfield Road,
Nashua, duly appointed to the Citizens Advisory Commission for Community Grants for a term
to expire October 1, 2021

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-18-066
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
RELATIVE TO ADDRESSING POSSIBLE INEQUITIES IN SICK LEAVE POLICY FOR
CERTAIN UNAFFILIATED EMPLOYEES
Given its third reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO AMEND R-18-066 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ON THE QUESTION
Alderwoman Caron

As former Alderman Chasse says, we need to have some information. Ok so what the committee did
the original was to allow those 11 employees to get their sick leave time back prior to 2001 if they were
hired between 1995. Members of the Committee felt that we should give these particular employees a
chance to either take that or to continue collecting unlimited sick leave and then when they retire they
get 20% of that total. That is basically what the amendment is.

Alderman Jette

This is pretty complicated, and | went to the Committee Meeting to try and learn what this was all about
and | have spent a lot of time researching it and trying to learn exactly what this is. To those who
already know forgive me, prior to 2001 the City had a policy for their unaffiliated employees, people who
are not represented by unions where they could accumulate sick leave at the rate of 13 days per year
up to a total of 90 days or 720 hours. When they retired, if they had not used, or whatever unused sick
time there was, they could cash that out as part of their retirement package at 100% of that unused sick
leave time. So they were entitled to accumulate up to 720 hours or 90 days and whatever was unused
at their retirement they could cash that out at 100%.

In 2001, the City, the Board of Aldermen, decided that the City could no longer afford that benefit, so
they changed it. They said from then on instead of accumulating leave up to a total of 720 and being
able to cash it out at 100%, the City was going to allow employees to accumulate an unlimited amount
of sick leave at the rate of 13 days per year, but they weren’t limited to the 720 hours or 90 days, it was

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 17

unlimited. But when they retired, they wouldn’t get 100% of their unused time, they would only get 20%
of their unused time; which the City was perfectly capable of doing. The employees at that time could
have, well they did, they accepted that change or they could have decided that they no longer wanted
to work for the City because they didn’t think that the 20% was fair, they could’ve left.

These employees stayed but there was an inequity that was created because when this was done
instead of in 2001 saying this is the policy now from 2001 forward, they went back and said if you
started working for the City before 1995 you could stay under the old policy, you could accumulate 720
hours and when you retired you cash it out at 100%. But if you were hired after 1995, then this new
policy applied to you. So the inequity or perceived inequity occurred when the City went back
retroactively for those 6 years and in some sense took away the earned sick leave time that these
employees had earned, thinking that they could cash it out at 100%.

This inequity was brought forth and a proposal, people appeared before the committee and brought this
out and the committee came up with a solution which was the original resolution that was sponsored by
you Madam Chairman and the Chairman of the Committee, June Caron which said that ok for those
employees who were hired prior to 2001, after 1995 and prior to 2001, they could keep their whatever
sick leave that they had earned they could keep that and when they retired, they could 100% of that.
But then from 2001 forward, whatever sick leave time they could then accumulate an unlimited amount
of sick leave time, but when they retired they could only get 20% of that sick leave time, unused sick
leave time that they had earned since 2001 which seemed to me to be a fair resolution. It cures the
inequity, it gives back these people what they had earned up until 2001 and that’s a fair resolution that |
could support.

But this amendment that you are considering tonight, says that in addition that those people who were
hired prior to 2001, between 1995 and 2001, we are now giving them the choice that they could stay
under that old policy, that 720 day policy, so that they could accumulate 720 hours of sick leave and
then cash that out at 100% when they retire. So we are, | think, creating a new inequity because they
are being treated differently than the rest of the City employees who were hired after 2001. Sol am
going to vote against this amendment and if that succeeds and the original resolution, then when we
consider the original resolution, | would vote for that, because | think that’s a fair resolution of this
inequity that occurred 17 years ago.

Alderman Klee

Thank you Alderman Jette for the lengthy explanation and | don’t mean that in a negative way, it was
very detailed and thank you. | am a sponsor of the original bill and when the amendment came out |
was very much against it, mostly because | felt that the first one did exactly what we wanted to do. |
don’t know if | necessarily agree with you that it now creates another inequity, because these people
were hired in 1995 under certain terms. They felt that they would get the 720 at 100%. | look at it as it
is $170,000.00. | received a lot of phone calls and e-mails and so on telling me, don’t vote for it.

My plan was to vote for the original bill. | am having a difficult time with this new portion of the bill but
I’ve also learned in going through the Performing Arts, that sometimes we make a mistake and
sometimes we have to fix our mistakes. If this going to fix that mistake, | think we should own it and |
think we should step up and do it. | think | probably will be voting for either amendment whichever way
it goes through.

Alderman O’Brien

Thank you Madam President. First | would like to say that | really truly appreciate the work the
Committee did, the Chair and Vice Chair, but | am having some trouble with this and part of it is my
experience being up at the State Legislature. Part of the problem with the pension plan up there was
400 State Legislators, they came in and adjusted and changed it and everything else and now to the
tune of $2 million dollars that the City of Nashua has to pay annually to make up on the budget.

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 18

This here, | think, is a good step forward but | think there is a little bit more to do. The thing | am not
100% sure of, is there were people that worked under that time frame that have retired and | am not
100% sure that we are not going to hear from them at a later date and say wait a second, | was
employed during that time, why can | not receive that particular benefit. This was done at the State
Level when people tried to challenge the change to the pension system. So nobody can really stop
anybody from suing or bringing in litigation and with that in mind, caution is why | am really looking at
this. | wouldn’t mind if it got taken back to the Committee and maybe a little bit more polished and to get
some of the things | think it has a lot to do. | know some of the things were brought up like the
inequities with the Fire Department. But the Fire Department is a different animal. Those people work
shift and the compression between the Captain on the Fire Department and the Deputy Chief were
getting closer and closer to the point that nobody would want to become a Deputy Chief, which means
that the City of Nashua would have had to go out and hire non-residents, outside sourcing to take the
Deputy Chief and the Chief’s position, because the common sense would be to stay there.

| understand that is happening in other divisions too, but | am not going to vote for it but | do want to say
that | do appreciate the work that the Chair has done and the Vice Chair has done on this. It is just the
pending litigation that | anticipate or could happen, I’m not comfortable with in supporting this. Thank
you.

Alderman Lopez

There is a systemic difference between the unaffiliated employees and the Fire Department as well:
they have someone to negotiate for them whereas apparently we have to do it here. The original
amendment just basically closes the perceived inequity by saying well you have this benefit that you
had before. The amendment allows them to decide not to accept that and continue with what they are
doing. That was brought up because some of the employees don’t want to go back to the 100% of 720
because they have accumulated large amounts of sick leave which could be used as part-time disability
or long-term disability. So if the opt out of it, then they are only going to get 20% of their unlimited
instead of 100% of their 720. That means we are not necessarily going to have to pay them out if they
choose to opt out, we don’t have to give them the one size fits all option that we decided not to do back
in 2000 whatever.

The reason why we added the second amendment was to allow that choice so that employees who it
didn’t work for could say no, don’t change it back, there was no inequity, I’m fine over here. Or people
who felt like no | signed on, | got hired at this certain rate, I’ve been loyal, | wasn’t fully aware that my
benefits had been changed from literally under my feet. | feel like this is a better solution for me. It is
recognizing that those people were entitled to what they signed on for. So | think the amendment gives
us the flexibility to let the person make a decision based on their own situation in a way that may even
turn out to be more cost effective.

Alderman Caron

| don’t know where to begin. Could we ask Corporation Counsel concerning those employees that have
retired that were part of that unfortunately were not grandfathered at that time, if they could come back,
obviously anybody can sue.

Attorney Bolton

That was where | was going to start. Many suits are not successful, some are not even apparently
meritorious on the surface. My sense is that when people were actually burdened by the change is
when they retired. So their right to sue if they have a right to sue, would have accumulated as of the
date of retirement and extend for three years. | think we are talking about another 2 or 3 people,
perhaps.

On the other hand what they might be owed would be reasonably significant, the difference between
20% and 100% of whatever number of accumulated sick time they had. If you are doing it for 11, | don’t

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 19

know if doing it for 13 or 14 would make a huge difference to you but | think that is the nature of the
exposure.

Alderman Caron

So | understand what Alderman Jette was talking about; people could leave if they didn’t like the
change in benefits. The problem was when that first came about, they were going to include
everybody. That included people who had been working there not just 5 years, but 10 years, 15, 20
and for me it was almost 40 years. We fought that with HR we felt that it was not right because these
employees were hired with these certain benefits. Yes benefits can change, usually they are changed
at a date certain it doesn’t grab everybody that is already hired and on work time.

We got that from the Personnel Advisory Board which is an independent group. Someone from the
Police Commission made a presentation and they asked them about this. They felt that this was not
fair to those employees. Maybe at the time with those people who have retired maybe it was 20 people
| don’t know, but it’s only about 11. So we talked about that and we felt like we were trying to do the
right. Yes, we tried to do a compromise. The President of the Board and myself sat down and we tried
to figure out how we could do this to make it right, the best way we could.

So when we got that information the Committee felt like ok let’s go back and give them all of this and go
from there and then the amendment was added to give those employees a chance to say yes or no.
Because there are some employees that probably have about 2,000 hours. If they revert back to the no
more than 720 they are going to lose all of that, they have to start at 720, they can’t get any more than
that. I’m sorry but there is an employee in another department that was given this benefit back 5
months ago. So we give it to one and don’t give it to the rest? And that $180,000.00 is over a 20-year
period. It is not like we are giving that to them today. Most people retire and do not collect 720 hours,
because as they get older, they get ill, they have issues.

It is just that this group of people were put in a basket and just given this, you have no choice because
they are unaffiliated and that’s why a lot of these unions came about because they had no choice, they
had to accept whatever they were given and they had no chance to fight. This came up, we are trying
to make it right and as Alderman Klee, sometimes we make a mistake and we have to rectify it. | don’t
think, to send this back to Committee to do what | don’t know. All we wanted to do is accept the
amendment that gives those 11 people a chance to choose, do you want to continue with the way it has
been since 2001 or do you want to go back to what you were given as a benefit prior to 2001. That's it.
It doesn’t change anything else. It doesn’t give them anything more or less and it is a long time span.
But you can’t give it to one department and not say everyone needs to be recognized and given that
offer.

Alderman Lopez

| just want to add because it just occurred to me what the next item on the agenda is, if we shoot this
down or send it back to committee over $185,000.00 right before making a decision about $1 million
dollars to invest in a Performing Arts Center that needs to reach its next stage of completion, are we
going to be sending the message to our employees that the way we pay for these projects is through
them, cost saving on their expenses and their compensation. Because this really was done in an
awkward manner and that’s the only word | can come up when it was originally done. We have the
opportunity to make this right and reaffirm that commitment that when we hire somebody under certain
circumstances that we are acknowledging that. | think we need to take it.

Alderman Dowd

Just a procedural question on the amendment or on the whole motion actually, did we specify how long
they have to make the decision, and can they only make the decision once and not revert.

ORDINANCE Proposed Amendment 4/22/2016
(Proposed Amendment 3/7/2016 incorporated)
O-16-003

C. Second and subsequent offenses are offenses that occur within twelve months of the first
offense.

§ 74-5. Penalty.

Whenever any person fails to pay any penalty imposed pursuant to a citation issued under the
authority granted by this chapter, § 1-12, or § 1-13, such person shall be guilty of a violation and
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed the maximum allowed by RSA 47:17
or other applicable law for each offense. Each citation penalty, which is not paid, shall constitute
a separate offense. If the administrative enforcement system established in the Code is
unsuccessful at resolving alleged violations, a summons may be issued as otherwise provided by
law, including use of the procedure for plea by mail set forth in RSA 31:39-d.”

All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

It is further ordained that the Nashua Revised Ordinances as amended, is hereby further
amended as follows:

1. In Part II “General Legislation”, Chapter 182 “Housing Standards”, Article IV
“Enforcement”, “Section 24 “Warnings and citations,” by deleting the struck-through
language as follows:

A. Generally. The head of the Code Enforcement Department and his designee may
issue warnings or citations to any person, natural or otherwise, including but not
limited to any owner, landlord, agent, tenant, lessee or sublessee, who shall violate a
provision of this chapter or permit, allow or suffer any violation of this chapter, or
who fails to comply with an order or orders issued in accordance with the provisions
of this chapter. Such warnings or citations may be employed as either substitution for
or preliminary to and without limitation to other remedies available to the City. Such
warnings and citations shall be in accordance with the procedures established by the
head of the Code Enforcement Department.

B. Action on warnings. Warnings shall be written upon standard forms authorized by the
head of the Code Enforcement Department. Warnings shall specify the reason for the
warning and shall direct abatement of such condition which caused the issuance of
such warnings within a reasonable and certain period of time. Where warnings elicit
compliance as directed, the Code Official may cause such warnings to be filed
without further action.

C. Action on citations. Citations shall be written upon standard forms authorized by the
head of the Code Enforcement Department. Citations shall specify the reason for the
citation and shall direct abatement of such conditions which cause the issuance of
such citations within a reasonable and certain period of time. Where citations elicit
compliance as directed, the Code Official may cause such citations to be filed without
further action after applicable fees, as provided by this chapter, have been paid.

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 20
Alderman Caron

Right they have 20 days from the time this approved to make that decision, it is a one-time only.
Alderman Dowd

| Knew it was there, | just wanted to get it out to the public.

Alderman Tencza

Can | just ask Alderman Caron, you referenced one employee in another department who received this
retroactive benefit. Was that in the Fire Department.

Alderman Caron

It was the Fire Department and it was part of the policy, it was written in to the policy. We had this
discussion at the Personnel Committee Meeting concerning that and we thought it was more, because
we did ask because we were under the impression it was 6 people and the Mayor came forward and
told us that it was one person and this is how much it was so we accepted that. But it had already been
put into place while we were dealing with this particular resolution.

Alderman O’Brien

Thank you and to assist Alderman Caron if | may, the employee that she is talking about | think is
Article 40 within the Fire Department which has been approved by a duly elected board of the citizens
of Nashua, which is the Board of Fire Commissioners, which has approved it. Although they don’t have
any fiscal autonomy, they have the right to set policy. And what they did is they set that policy and
again the reason that they set the policy was Captains which is a lower rank to Deputy Chiefs, were
almost exceeding pay grades and benefits more than the Deputy Chiefs that they were subordinate to.
It is a very unique problem that was happening.

Now Deputy Chiefs work shifts, just like the Captains and Lieutenants and the Fire Fighters do. |
guarantee you right now, go home right now any citizens, 594-3636 ask to speak to a Chief Officer Fire
Alarm will put you through, if they don’t put you through the guy is busy at a fire. He is there 24/7, he
works the same amount of hours. So that’s why the apples and oranges theory that | present, it is a
little bit different than a secretary or somebody else and not to ingrain who is better or who is not better
in the City. It is the uniqueness that every employee of the City does for the City is what really makes a
difference and therefore why this thing is such a mosh posh.

Again, | wouldn’t mind taking a step back to try to correct some of that and recognize the differences in
some of these agencies and what needs to be done. But to say to look over the fence, for another
division to look over the fence, this seems to work well at that particular division and | am talking about
the Fire Department which has the economic need to have gone to that. Because, again, we were
going to suffer from having quality people ascending through the ranks to take the positions. It would
have been a mess so taking that in mind that’s why again | have the position that | do.

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you | just want to respond to a couple of things that have been said. | appreciate Alderman
O’Brien’s comments about the departments being different. What | have been concerned with is an
additional inequity because all of the affiliated employees who were affected by this have had this
restored and the unaffiliated have not so | think that in and of itself shows a real lack of their ability to
fight for themselves, like Alderman Caron said.

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 21

Alderman Lopez

| just want to point out that these are employees who have been with the City for a long time, they are
not entry level, they are pretty senior employees for the most part. So these are people who have put
their time, they have earned the benefit that they were promised when they were hired and the
amendment is not taking that away from them, it is not removing what was originally proposed it is
giving them the choice to choose to give that up for a situation that might uniquely fit their own situation
better.

Alderman Gidge

Attorney Bolton you said there are how many people could come back on this approximately?

Attorney Bolton

| don’t Know exactly, it seems to me | asked someone this question a while back and people who retired
in the last 3 years | believe it would be fewer than 5 | think the number | was told 2 or 3, what |
remember being told.

Alderman Gidge

One other question, | am listening to my friend and colleague sitting here, can what is taking place here
happen with the Fire Department.

Attorney Bolton

Similar things could happen with the merit positions or the unaffiliated position as we are now terming
them at the Fire Department which would be the four Deputy Chiefs, one Assistant Chief and One
Chief. There may be a few secretarial or administrative positions that are unaffiliated as well. Now the
Fire Commission as | understand it has this policy that any additional benefits that are provided under
the union contract will also be provided to the Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief and the Chief in order that
you don’t end up in the situation that Vice President O’Brien was speaking about where a Captain did
not want to move into the unaffiliated rank because he is in the union and under their union contract
they do get that 100% pay out.

That could be termed fairly significant in the extra few thousand dollars you get as additional base
salary at the Deputy Chief level would not be enough to make up for that difference. And there are
other stipends, it is not just the sick leave pay upon retirement, but it is stipends for certain other
certifications and extra training and a variety of other things.

Alderman Gidge
Thank you could | have one more question. | probably will agree with my friend right here simply
because | would like to see just one more thing added to it or taken away. And | think the gentleman

knows what it is. Now | will vote for it but | would prefer that we come to some sort of an agreement just
to go back for just a little and then bring it back.

Alderman Jette

Is Alderman O’Brien or Alderman Gidge are you making a motion to table this and refer it back to the
Committee?

Alderman O’Brien

| would prefer if from the conversation that was tonight, | spoke my piece on it and | have high regards
of the Chair of that Committee and I'll let that decision come from the Chair of the Committee seeing

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 22

that the Chair does the work on this. If she brought a product forward or any Chairman brought a
product forward that thought it was adequate, that is up to that Chair. So | respect the Chair's
discretion on that, I'll let the Chair make that decision.

Alderman Gidge

And for myself, | basically feel the same way, that | will leave it to the Chair.
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-18-066 AS AMENDED

Yea: Ald. Gidge, Ald. Harriott-Gathright
Ald. Dowd, Ald. Klee, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez
Ald. Caron, Ald. Kelly, Ald. Jette, Ald. Melizzi-Golja
Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Wilshire 12

Nay: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Tencza 2
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-18-066 declared duly adopted as amended.

R-18-073
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER RELATIVE TO FILLING
VACANCIES ON ELECTED BOARDS BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REMAINING
MEMBERS OF THAT BOARD
Given its fourth reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN TO AMEND R-18-073 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT
WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ON THE QUESTION
President Wilshire

Alderman Caron would you care to tell the Committee what the amendments are? Alderman Chasse is
watching.

Alderman Caron

| don’t know if | even have it in front of me. Let me see. So it says here “vacancies occurring in the
office of Aldermen for any cause shall be filled until the next municipal election by the election of some
qualified person by the recorded votes of at least a majority of all members of the Board of Aldermen at
the next regular meeting or at a special meeting called for the express purpose of filling the vacancy
within 60 days following the creation of the vacancy”.

Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 23
President Wilshire

Attorney Bolton, did you have something to add to that?

Attorney Bolton

The result of the amendment doesn’t change what you are proposing to go to the voters. The
amendment changes language that is actually to be stricken. And the reason for that is a unique
situation for whatever reason the copy of the charter that was used to prepare the resolution to begin
with had not been updated with the last change to this section, the various sections. So some of the
language that is proposed to be stricken was not in the original version of the resolution that you got.
So this amendment adds that language in to what you are reading as being stricken. If that is clear,
good luck.

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN TO TABLE R-18-073, AS AMENDED, PENDING THE
SCHEDULING OF A PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION CARRIED

Amended Resolution R-18-073 tabled at the full Board level.

R-18-087
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman-at-Large David C. Tencza
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE GREELEY PARK
BOAT RAMP
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-18-087
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-18-087 declared duly adopted.

R-18-092
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Ken Gidge
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large David C. Tencza
AMENDING R-18-001 “AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE
BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FIFTEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($15,500,000) FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER LOCATED AT 201 MAIN
STREET”