APPOINTMENT BY THE MAYOR
APRIL 12, 2016
Conservation Commission
William S. Parker (New Appointment) Term to Expire: April 4, 2019
1 Rockland Street
Nashua, NH 03064
| respectfully request that this appointment be confirmed.
Jim Donchess
Mayor
Board of Aldermen 02-26-2019 Page 6
then they do the abatement on 100%, they give that property owner 100%, they don’t give the abatement
amount, the don’t give the equalization ratio and their refund is minimized. When | looked at these
properties, you know, one homeowner is shortchanged $860.00. Another homeowner is shortchanged
$1,994.00. Another homeowner is shortchanged $1,293.00. Another homeowner is shortchanged
$1,969.00. | don’t consider that token; | consider that significant. And if that’s what the ratio said it
should be then that is what we should be refunding.
| have started to reach out to more industry people around the State because I’ve had time. When |
started this some Alderwomen said to me — Have you looked at what other towns do. | don’t have time
for that, but now | do and | connected with an industry expert 27 years who served on the ASB up in
Concord. | had a good 30 minute talk with him and | shared my concerns about this. He was so
outraged he said — | don’t know why your lawyer hasn't filed a criminal lawsuit and | don’t know why
those people haven’t been stripped of their certifications. He said — It is outrageous to me. It is not even
an option.
Now here is what | am going to tell you. This ratio is a relatively unknown entity to the homeowner or
even a lot of small business people because it is not on the abatement form. The only thing you ask for
on the abatement form is the market value. So everyone of us out there, us lay people who aren’t
wrapped in the law of property are being told — Give me the sales the data, tell us what you think the
sales number is. That’s fine, we depend on the expertise of those in the office who are certified by the
State to apply the law the way the law is supposed to be applied. And when they are not doing it
because we are too stupid to catch it, it just burns me. It just seems so wrong and it just -— yeah. That’s
what | found in the last couple of days. | am going to go back in and look some more, but | don’t like
what | am seeing. | asked you the last time | came here to stop this practice and let these assessors
know that the ratio should be applied to everyone. Right now we just went through equalization; we don’t
have a ratio produced by the State yet, the number isn’t out. It is kind of late this year and | called them
and it may not be out until the end of April. They haven’t even started Nashua’s data; normally we would
have it in February.
Because we just did equalization and we just did a full City-Wide reassessment they can use one. And
that is going in as one, but in any other year, like last year, if the ratio wasn’t out, then the law says you
just apply the ratio from the year before. So you don’t not apply anything; there is always a ratio to apply
and until the new data comes out you use the old data. Right now we are allowed to use one because
we did equalize and we don’t know what the number is, we will know soon. But anyone who is putting in
an abatement they have the right to say — Don’t use my multipliers one, let’s see what the number comes
out as. If it comes out at 95% then they get on a $400,000.00 market value, they would be assessed at
$380,000.00 — 20% less, 5% off every $100,000.00. They have the right to have that because that is the
equalized number and | almost feel that some of the assessors feel like — | don’t want to give them that
number, | don’t want them to be that low, | don’t want to refund them that money. Last year it was
79.1%, you don’t have a choice. It’s not something you get to pick and choose that you don’t want
people to get that money. And Mr. Duhamel’s position with me when | pointed it out was — Hey I’m here
to save the City money, that’s my job. | beg to differ; I’ve read your mission many times and those
assessors aren't there to save the City money. They are there to create equity for all of those, horizontal
equity for all of us.
So that just really disappoints me that that is the case and we haven't fixed that — or that | had to go to
the State to even have these discussions. | am going to continue to reach out. | stopped at several small
towns around here, met with Chief Assessors and technicians today and | asked them — Do you use the
ratio for everyone. They were like blown away — of course it is not an option, everyone gets a ration. It is
not an option we do it. | talked about sales chasing, | talked about how they handle sales chasing, how
they protect against it, how do they correct data with MLS information. That is another issue | have
raised was the sales chasing issue, that is a complex issue. The State has been very helpful. KRT was
helpful too, and they wrote some interesting e-mails to John Griffin about this issue. Several of the e-
Board of Aldermen 02-26-2019 Page 7
mails they wrote to John was — You should reach out to Chuck Reese up at the DRA and get his input on
this issue.
| called Chuck and he never had a reach out from John. Never had a conversation with him about this
issue and | wonder who is the City talking to about this? They seem to be hunkered in going — we don’t
do it. But it is an interesting discussion point, there is a lot there to look at. And the basis of that issue
for me was this whole EYB. | started looking at properties that for some reason the Assessing Office
corrects them very hard on sales data. They take a property, they view it as renovated or restored and
they drive the EYB up to 1995 or 2000. They pull all the depreciation out of the home or a vast amount
of it and they can move an assessment $100,000.00 or $150,000.00. On our house it moved it
$160,000.00, that’s a lot of money. So out went the depreciation, in went that new EYB and our
assessment went Poof — right through the roof.
But then | started, | pulled all those property cards and | found 27 homes, | pulled 100. | found 25 that
were corrected hard and graph out with EYB here and then a big gap in the EYB here after they sales
adjust. Then | found 27 that | pulled up all the MLS pictures and they weren’t corrected, but they were
very well done homes, meaning they got to stay at 1965, 1969 and not adjusted. One of the homes |
found, you will know Madam Chair, is 19 Monadnock. That was an interesting property because | pass it
every day going to and from Amherst Street. That was a property that sold for $260,000.00. At the time
it sold it was assessed for $147,000.00. The assessors look at the MLS data, they raise it $10K, they
bring it to $157,000.00 a year and a half, two years ago. They don’t touch the EYB, but the property was
very nice, had leaded doors, side lights, newer windows, granite posts, granite steps; inside nicely done.
It was not a 1965 or it might have even been 1959, it wasn’t that old a house, it wasn’t touched.
So KRT comes around and does the reassessment, this house sold for $260,000.00. In their model it
came out to $208,000.00 is the new value. It’s quite a bit lower than what it sold for because none of
that — all that interior work was grabbed by the assessors and raised in an EYB assessment. They got to
go without any adjustment at all. What | took is | looked at all those 27 homes that didn’t get adjusted,
well KRT ends up rating them like 7% lower on overall pricing because the City doesn’t use the data to
correct those properties. That is where | question — are some of us being chased? Really | have said to
you, don’t use that EYB anymore, make your MLS adjustments on the quantitative data number of
bathrooms, basement finished, the attic is finished; but when you go after the qualitative factors like
grade and EYB you are really messing with assessments. You have to make certain you are doing it to
everyone and they are not.
That is my issue. One of the assessors was asked to present to the Board of Assessors, they were very
smart about saying — Explain to us MLS. And | didn’t go to that meeting | was traveling but | read the
minutes after and | wrote a letter to the Board because | said — You were not given accurate information;
your assessor is telling you we are changing the number of bathrooms or basements that are finished.
They never mention that qualitative data and they are changing that too and that is what is driving a lot of
these disproportion assessments when it is not done fairly.
| have held steadfast that we should not do that and | am talking to other towns about that. And the
State has been very open in addressing the fact that that is an issue. | don’t know what to tell you except
|, you know, regrettably there is no one here to talk to in the City. There is absolutely no one for a person
like me to engage in a conversation with in this City; 5 months and | have never been invited into a
meeting to sit with anyone to really come forward. | remember Brendan when Rob Tosier came in and
some of you Aldermen got to sit in on that and you said to me — | really wished you had been there, |
think you could have asked a lot of good questions and gotten answers. That option wasn’t available to
me. No one invited me there; it's never been an option. And that is a very big regret of mine and | hope
someday the City figures out how to handle people like me and find a place for us to bring our questions
so that we can get some answers. | think | deserve that; | think anyone with the kind of questions I’ve
had deserves that kind of information.
Board of Aldermen 02-26-2019 Page 8
| want to end this by talking about property card at 4 Rockland Street and | want to bring it up again
because | really think — you came out with the papers and said there’s no merit to favoritism and you
know it is all unfounded. | didn’t even know how you could make that statement and maybe the papers
misquoted you, they don’t do a — they don’t always get it right. Because my issues of favoritism | wrote a
pretty extensive letter to the Board of Assessors. They have not reviewed the letter. | didn’t really take it
anywhere else, | sent it to the Board. I’m sure it has made its way around City Hall. The Board of
Assessors has not addressed it so when | went to the meeting on Thursday | was surprised in the paper
earlier in the week that the Mayor had come out with the comments that Mrs. Ortolano’s findings are
unfounded or don’t have merit. Because then | sit there and say — 1) Did my Board of Assessors meet in
a non-public session to address this issue? Did they conclude it was unfounded and go to the Mayor
and say — She’s all wet none of this makes sense? Where are the conversations taking place and no
one said anything to me.
| approached the Board after the meeting, | said - Have you reviewed this? No. Have you spoken to the
Mayor about this? No. They were adamant that they had had no conversations. I’m not certain if your
role is really to not be involved in these assessing issues or to be involved, you certainly seemed very
involved in ours publicly. And when you make statements to the paper that these issues | raise are
baseless, | am trying to use a chain of command to take these issues to Board of Assessors because
they are the group that, the State says they are the ones who are supposed to address it. | am trying to
work through that avenue and you know it just seems like you are not making the right statements to the
press that maybe - Hey we’ve got an internal report that is going to be released soon, Mrs. Ortolano is
working through the proper channels with the Board of Assessors and they will make a determination on
her issues; whatever. But it seems like it comes from you and as a citizen or a resident | never get the
courtesy of somebody coming to me and telling me. | guess the newspaper has been a great avenue for
me because | seem to get my questions answered through the newspaper when you speak. But! don’t
think that’s the one we should count on.
So regarding your property card and | know it brought a nice big smirk on your face but here is an issue
when | look at that when it comes to favoritism, it is not about you personally, let it be known | don’t think
Jim Donchess had anything to do with the assessment of his property. This is all on the assessors and
how they are looking at any individual; not on the property owner. Jim, Vicky, they weren’t responsible
for this. It is all on the assessors, they are certified, they are trained and they are supposed to be fair.
But when | looked at your card, | went today and | printed two of them because the notes on the card
said the EYB was 1970 but the card, when | printed it out, the EYB said 1979. And | didn’t have time to
research it weeks ago and | said — What did they type 0 and they meant a 9 | don’t even understand this.
But | noticed your depreciation just didn’t change much, you didn’t pay much for the change in the house
because the depreciation didn’t change, hardly at all.
And so | went today and | said — Well print me the 2012 and the 2014 cards. Those were the cards, 2012
was when the file was officially closed, the EYB was done. And when | printed those cards, the EYB was
1970. And in 2014 it was 1970. Somehow in 2018 when | raised the question somebody changed it to
1979. And | am really curious who manipulated that data. And | am telling you that because there is no
note in the comment section that an EYB change as made. How did that happen? There should be
documentation. That file should have a marked up card that says their rules are their rules, pencil
marked up EYB was changed in 1979, the old card and the new card stapled and it is in the file. It’s not
there. There is nothing in the file. Who manipulated that card to change the EYB to 1979? And why
was that done? It is so curious to me. And really why | believe there is favoritism is because I’ve
compiled all this data and when | look at properties like yours, that went through a heavy demolition and
renno, Jim up in the north end | can’t find one that they kept at EYB at 1970 that was all done, where the
walls were opened up and plaster was taken out and sheetrock was put up. | mean | can think of Hall
Street went to 2000; Webster Street went to 1995 or 2000; Courtland went to 1999; Chester went to
1995; | went to 1994; neighbor went to 1994. You went to 1970.
Board of Aldermen 02-26-2019 Page 9
That’s where it stands out. | think it is reasonable to point it out. It’s not you, it’s them. So think about
that. Thank you.
REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
Alderman Jette
The ordinance that | proposed raising the age to which people can buy tobacco related products, raising
it from 18 to 21, is going to be heard by the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee on Monday
night. Anyone who wants to be heard on that issue, they are welcome to come Monday night. As a
matter of information, there was a Senate Bill in the New Hampshire State Senate to raise the age from
18 to 21 statewide. That was before the Commerce Committee. The Commerce Committee voted to
hold it in committee. | haven’t been able to find out what the discussion was or why they did that. | just
know that Senator Waters, who sponsored it, said that the effect of that is is it is still alive but will not be
acted on until next January. As far as raising it statewide for the time being and for the foreseeable
future that’s not going to happen. We in Nashua, if we want to, we can do it here in Nashua. It will be
before that committee Monday night, at 7 p.m., here in the Aldermanic Chamber.
Alderman Caron
| would just like to say thank you to the Citizens Advisory Committee for working very diligently last
Thursday to put together the numbers for the agency requests that came in this year. The Mayor was
working on a timeline, and we promised that we would get all the numbers to his office by Friday. They
worked very diligently to do this. Without the help of the community, the citizens, these agencies, they
would not know how hard these agencies work, so | really want to say thank you to all of them for the
time during the last three months that they have put in for this project. Thank you.
Alderman Lopez
| had a lot of constituent feedback regarding the proposed resolution that Alderman Jette referenced. |
do plan to ask the committee to hold it until April because there are more people that want to participate
that aren’t able to make the March meeting. | just wanted to make it clear that we weren’t forgetting
them.
Additionally, | wanted to remind everyone of the Special Election on March 5. JajaBelle’s is hosting both
of the candidates. Tomorrow Fred Teeboom will be there from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Ben Clemons will
be there the day after.
Alderman Klee
Ordinance 19-039, | know is going to Infrastructure. Do we have a schedule on that?
President Wilshire
It’s in Infrastructure. | don’t know when the next meeting is.
Alderman O’Brien
Tomorrow night.
Alderman Klee
Will it be before you tomorrow night? The reason I’m asking is | have a lot of constituents that want to
know.
Board of Aldermen 02-26-2019 Page 10
Alderman O’Brien
You just filed this, so it needs to go through the administrative process. It will probably be next month.
President Wilshire
| just wanted to congratulate the Nashua Housing and Redevelopment Authority. We received a school
of 100 percent for their Section 8 management. They don’t get a lot of kudos in this city so when they do
something well, | like to bring it up and give them kudos. One hundred percent for excellence in Section
8 management is really good.
Committee announcements:
Alderman O’Brien
Tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. is Infrastructure, here in the Chamber, all are welcome.
Alderman Caron
Personnel is Monday, the 4" at 7:00 p.m.
Alderman Jette
Can | just clarify that the ordinance regarding tobacco is going to be heard by the committee Monday
night and again in April?
Alderman Caron
It’s scheduled to be heard next Monday, whether it is heard will depend on whether the committee
decides to move forward or table it until April. That’s not my decision, but it is on the agenda for Monday.
Alderman Lopez
People can comment on it Monday, but if the committee decides to table to April, they will also be able to
comment on it on April.
Alderman Caron
Yes, they can comment prior to.
Alderman Jette
| just wanted to clarify that people who are planning on coming this coming Monday will have a chance to
say something, for or against.
Alderman Caron
Yes, they can speak.
Alderman Jette
And it is possible that it would be tabled and heard again in April.
Board of Aldermen 02-26-2019 Page 11
Alderman Caron
Right.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN THAT THE FEBRUARY 26, 2019, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Attest: Patricia D. Piecuch City Clerk
Ot
eee = sy
hia ia
NAY A PERFORN
FEBRUARY 13, 2018 irs
ne
NG ARTS.CENTER
ICO N DESIGN DRIVEN ¢ PEOPLE FOCUSED
ARCHITECTURE
OTJ
ARCHITECTS
AGENDA
1. MEETING PURPOSE / DECISIONS NEEDED
2. REVIEW STEERING COMMITTEE & SPECTACLE COMMENTS
3. UPDATED BLOCKING DIAGRAMS
4. SITE - LOADING
5. STUDY OF THE HOUSE & STAGE
- SEATING
- PARTERRE / BALCONY
6. EXTERIOR MASSING STUDY
7. NEXT STEPS / SCHEDULE
NASHUA PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
OTJ | E-ICON HING ARTS CENTER
ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE
PROGRAM COMMENTS
1. Trap Room - cost?; unnecessary, or of value given this venue?
Piano lift - beneficial if tt can be stored in the basement?
Orchestra Shell — not necessary given we have an acoustician?
Thrust - if it can be broken-down (not permanent)
“Gallery” / Event space at Basement level
Two Loading Bays - would be nice if possible
Storage next to Stage - Star Dressing Room 2 up to the next floor?
Egress / Access from BOH to West Pear! Street
Conference Room and Administrative Office - together on the 4th floor
. Catering support/kitchen - centrally located
= S98 MNA A AwWRH
— om
. Mechanical/Electrical spaces - sizes and locations
NASHUA PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
E-ICON FEBRUARY 13. 2019
ARCHITECTURE
OTJ
ARCHITECTS.
