Search

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 55
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Klee

And may | speak to it for a moment?

President Wilshire

You may.

Alderman Klee

Thank you so much. The reason that this Ordinance that this came about was a number of phone calls
from constituents that had gone into the Shattuck Street Tot Lot and there was a lot of excrement to say the
least | guess. So it became quite an issue. And then | heard from constituents who had been to other tot
lots and experienced the same thing. When | originally had asked for this to be drafted, | had asked for all
tot lots. But in speaking with Public Works, Parks & Recreation, it was made very clear that would be
difficult to say all tot lots because there are some tot lots, for instance, the Salem Street tot lots where
people just kind of walk through it. It's almost a pass through so to say that someone could not bring their
dog just doesn’t make any sense.

So we decided that it would be fenced in tot lots. And at this point in time we have only four fenced in tot
lots in the City. So we have the Shattuck Street, the Belvedere Bridge Street, the Erion Field, Robinson
Road, Jeff Morin Playground at Roby Park and then we did add the item of any other tot lots that become
fenced in. So that’s really where this came about and | think it’s a good idea, as a person who has dogs, |
just don’t think that it is appropriate for them to go into any area where children are going to be playing on
the ground and so on. And even if they did pick up the excrement, there are other liquids that are
deposited by dogs as well. So that’s where this came from and it’s a long evening so hopefully we can just
go to a vote.

President Wilshire
The Motion is for final passage of Ordinance 20-031 as amended. Alderman Lopez.

Alderman Lopez

| just want to add support to this. | think it was a good idea to propose it. | think the Animal Park Advisory
Board did a good job of making recommendations and that Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee
also reviewed in in good conscious. | think it’s going to be a positive addition to our Legislation.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Seeing none, the motion is for final passage of Ordinance 20-031 as amended by roll call.
Would the Clerk please call the roll?

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

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,

Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 15

Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 56

Resolution O-20-031 declared duly adopted as amended.

O-20-032

Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brandon Laws
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu

REDUCING THE FINE FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING VIOLATIONS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAWS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-20-032, BY ROLL CALL
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Laws

If | could briefly speak to it?

President Wilshire

Alderman Laws.

Alderman Laws

Thank you. You’ve all heard the arguments for this. It absolutely will result in the City losing some of the
fine revenue. | spoke with Director Cummings today for awhile and we hashed it out and before the late
fees, the number we came up with was with the $10.00 parking fee the difference is going to be
somewhere in the ballpark of $112,000.00/$1 13,000.00 a year that the city isn’t making in parking fee
revenue. Now that is a substantial amount of money, he promised me that it doesn’t mean that anybody is
going to lose their jobs. Because of the way it’s structured right now, he basically is just giving people extra
hours. | am paraphrasing him and he can correct me if he finds anything | say to be misleading or wrong.
But he basically gives people hours to go out and do this so there’s not set schedule, and there’s no set
people doing it. It’s not someone’s particular job to go out and do overnight parking tickets. So no one is
going to lose their job because of this.

He says that it is going to be difficult to find other ways to find this $112,000.00 but there are going to be
ways to do it. And | would just like to make the simple argument that this is $112,000.00 that is
disproportionately shouldered by people who live in our lowest income neighborhoods; people who work in
the service industry, who go out to the car after work and get a parking ticket because they got out of work
late. And people who go to the restaurants and bars and future Performing Arts Center that we all pretend
that we care so much about and want to be responsible and not drive home afterwards after having a few
drinks.

So | mean | am OK with taxing people broadly, but | believe in equity in the tax and | don’t think that this is
fair to all of our residents when only a few of them are the ones that have to shoulder this burden. So that’s
where | am at. Thank you, Madam President.

President Wilshire

You're welcome. Discussion? Alderman O’Brien?

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 57
Alderman O’Brien

Thank you, Madam President. | hate to do this but | would like to come up with another motion and that is
to re-refer this to Committee.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN TO RE-REFER O-20-032 TO PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

ON THE QUESTION

And the reason and may | speak to that? Thank you Madam President. We did hear in the beginning,
particularly from the Mayor and the loss of revenue with this. And | have always been of the opinion that
parking and parking regulations is not really for a City to really generate revenue. But however it is to keep
order. The reason we do have parking meters is to keep a flush of the traffic so people aren’t taking too
long or using that to all day parking, it’s for the betterment of the merchants so that they get a flush of
people that come in and come out and everything else. But why are we having a problem with all night
parking?

A lot of this comes down to right now of the things that have happened in the City where it was traditionally
a two-family, 2 % story wood framed home was reconverted into four apartments. Now when it was a 2
family home, maybe you know the old days, probably dad was the only one in the house that had the car.
It was a case like in point like with my mother’s situation. She didn’t get her license until a much later date.
But those families have moved on and they don’t live in those types of buildings anymore. Yet what was
the second floor was a whole family it’s now been turned into 2 apartments. You have the original person
that may be on the lease and then you may also have an overnight guest that may come in. And there’s
only so much linear feet in front of a house that people could park at.

So the thing is, wouldn’t it be great if the landlord’s took some of their backyards or whatever it could be
and pave them and to make it better for off-street type of parking? Some have, some have not. And it
seems like something that has gotten away from us a bit. Now if it’s somebody that’s in the service
industry, if this came before the Infrastructure Committee, | think in order to help out people in the service, |
would have been quite content to delay it an hour so that those people could have got out and still got to
their car and perhaps not got a ticket as one of the solutions. And maybe if it goes back to Committee that
could quite easily be done.

But the thing is, if somebody wants to make the choice of not driving home when they are drunk, well you
know, leaving your car out on the street is one of the penalties for not the wise choice of taking your vehicle
out to begin with. I’m glad that they sought out an alternative means of getting home but one of the things
is that they left the car there. I’m sure we are all grateful that they are paying their fine and the ticket for
leaving their vehicle there as to making the choice of driving home. But it’s a small price to pay compared
to a DWI charge.

So therefore this problem is really bigger than what it is led to believe. My committee in Infrastructure have
heard this, we’ve heard a lot of cases very much similar to this and it is why we want to have the parking
study. And | want the other Aldermen in supporting me with this, referring it back to a Committee. Parking
is such a tenet that once we let go of it, the control feature that us as a municipality have it, will never get it
back again. So any type of inroads or changes that we make in it, it will be awful hard if we allowed
overnight parking let’s say in general, you'll never get that back. And that independent study that is
supposed to come out, whatever they come out as part of the solution, we may be talking about
readdressing the landlord type of situations and looking for adequate parking. We may be talking about
permitted stickered areas where you need a pass or something like that, similar to that they do and | see
Director Cummings here.

The thing is the company that is doing this has had experience in cities that are quite similar to Nashua. So
| think anything needs to wait as not an emergency with this. So | hope that you do support me because

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 58
you have done this if this goes through as proposed, you are never going to get it back. You know, it’s
going to be extremely difficult to do that. So it doesn’t seem to be the house on fire with the issue and |
think it could be referred back to Committee. If we are going to do it, let’s do it right. Let’s do it correctly
because ramifications could be quite difficult. So thank you.

President Wilshire

| am going to recognize Director Cummings who is with us. Director Cummings do you want to weigh in on
this?

Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development

Yes, thank you, Madam President. And I'll keep my comments brief. For the record, Tim Cummings,
Director of Economic Development. And | just wanted to clarify a couple statements; Alderman Laws was
correct in a lot of what he said. But there’s just a couple elements that may have been missed that | think
are very important to make sure that this body is aware of. | think it’s fair to say that we will do everything
that we can to minimize any type of layoffs, that’s definitely something that is true. It’s something that |
know the Parking Department would work hard to make sure doesn’t happen obviously with a significant
loss of revenue | would be misrepresenting it to say that we wouldn’t be laying anyone off or we wouldn’t be
reducing hours of any such, | think that would just be a safe thing that folks should realize would occur, at
least in the short-term until we got a handle on the financial situations and then we could look to potentially
increasing those hours.

And then similarly the other key element that | think is really important is at least for the time being there
would be no more active enforcement of overnight parking. So | just want folks to understand that. That’s
a very key element that would be happening. Of course, we would strive to do it again and we would once
we felt like we could take it on and not have it financially burden the Department. But we would make every
effort to try to reincorporate it back in. But it wouldn’t be like the way we have done it in the past, in terms of
actively enforcing overnight. It would be something ad hoc or when complaints came in or you know when
we could do it because we had the financial wherewithal to be able to cover the costs. | guess the last thing
| would say is the parking department has worked really hard over the last 2 years to turn that account
around.

When the Parking Department took it over it was in the red by something like $25,000.00/$50,000.00 year
over year and you know last year or the year before was the first year that we saw a surplus in that account
by | think $30,000.00 or $50,000.00. And we were starting to put that revenue towards parking related
expenses. With the reduction in revenue that we are talking about now | think the other byproduct that this
body just needs to be aware of is that we would most likely have to see some of those parking related
expenses borne back on to the residential property tax base. So these are just some of the elements that |
just want everyone to be aware of, that as you are voting on this this evening that you fully know and
understand. So anyway | just want to make sure | got those comments out. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Alderman Dowd?

Alderman Dowd

Yes, | am going to support Alderman O’Brien’s motion. | said in the committee meeting that unless we
come up with an alternative source for the funding, because we are in the middle of a Budget Year and this
is coming out of 2020 funds. And it’s not a lot of money but it has got to come from somewhere. Is it going
to come from layoffs? You know, that’s going to be up to administration. But you know there’s an issue,

there’s other places it could come from. So | am concerned about that.

The other thing is we are making a reduction of fine across the City when the maker of the motion is talking

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 59

about particular restaurants or bars that have an occasional customer that doesn’t want to drive. | think an
alternative that we could talk about it committee is maybe we gave each one of these bars a parking space
where they won't get ticketed. And if they have more than one person getting drunk in there that needs to
leave a car, we have got a bigger problem. So | think there’s a lot of issues with this that have not been
resolved and it ought to go back to committee. And I’m not one for usually sending things back to
Committee as you may have seen.

President Wilshire
Alderman Clemons.
Alderman Clemons

Thank you, Madam Chair. | have a question for you to Director Cummings if | could. | believe | heard and
please jump in | am wrong Alderman, but | believe | heard Alderman Laws say that the revenue loss was
going to be more to the $112,000.00 range and he said that he spoke to you about that. Can you expand
on that a little bit? Is that $112,000.00 a year because the Fiscal Note said $250,000.00, well $225,000.00
to $250,000.00 would be the potential loss. So | am curious how that other number came into your
conversation?

Director Cummings

Yes thank you so a couple points on that. We know on average, and | shouldn’t say on average, but
somewhere between 40 and 60% say 60% because that’s what is has been the last couple of years of the
revenue have been from overnight parking. And so | think last year we got something just under
$400,000.00 in revenue actual monies in. Of that, I’m sure some of it was not solely overnight but other
fines but when you take 60% of that we came into the range of $230,000.00 | think is what it is;
$230,000.00... So that is basically if we were not doing overnight parking just using last year as an example
there would be a loss of $230,000.00 or something to that effect. That is because we wouldn’t be doing
and | think where Alderman Laws’ analysis is slightly different than mine, he’s actually adding in the $10.00
back. But we are not going to be able to cover costs by actually doing the shifts and so it is going to just be
lost money. So unless we can do more and no wants to ticket. But if we can make up the revenue by
ticketing in some other manner during the days or something like that, then maybe we could do a couple
shifts at night to actually you know make up the loss of revenue that we would be seeing.

Alderman Clemons

| am sympathetic to the reason why this came up in the first place. But think there are other ways we can
do this. | think that we have to prioritize our residents and | think that if that means that we have to expand
where we allow the overnight parking into areas like where | live on Ash Street, we don’t have it. We have
a lot of apartments and things like that in my neighborhood, down this end of Ash Street. And | am sure
that there are other areas of the City that also are affected. And if we can come up with a way that we can
make up for some of that and help our residents out in that way by giving them basically permission to park,
then the occasional person that maybe can’t drive home can call the Parking Department and have their
car put on a list for that night because that’s in the Ordinance right now. | am going to support Alderman
O’Brien’s motion to send it back to Committee, because | don’t want to kill this Legislation. | think it’s a
worthwhile discussion, | think that we need better facts and figures and ideas of what we can do. | think we
need to hear more from residents. | think we need to look at and hear from the City Clerk of how many of
those parking passes in French Hill and the Tree Streets are actually sold, do we need to expand that or
are we sold out, is that the reason we are having a problem. So there’s more questions that | have than
answers so | am going to support Alderman O’Brien’s motion. Thank you.

Alderman Klee

Thank you, Madam President. I’ve gone round and round with overnight parking. And while | would love to

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 60

say OK everybody should park and | do agree with exactly what Alderman Lopez and Alderman Laws has
pointed out. It’s that the people that are harmed the most are the ones who can afford it the least. But at
the same time, as a City we’ve kind of a disservice to certain locations. So for instance, I’m going to bring
up two examples of things. The first one is a home that was transferred into a multi-unit. Zoning gave
permission for that and a recommendation of 1.5 parking spaces for every apartment or something of that
nature. The problem is, one of their apartments has five bedrooms, it’s being rented out by people who
work at BAE and there are five people living in there; five vehicles. They do not have enough parking for
that so they wanted on-street parking. In this particular area it really wasn’t conducive to overnight on-street
parking. | talked to Jill Stansfield and so on and there was really kind of an issue with what the location of
that is. The problem is is that we have approved too many apartments that need a lot of parking. So what
do we do? | have no idea. | had hoped that the parking study this summer was going to help it; now
because of COVID it’s being pushed off to the spring. | hate to see this continue to get pushed off, but | do
think that we do need to do it. Reducing this down to $10.00 seems really great on the surface, but if | hear
Director Cummings properly, we basically for all intents and purposes are going to abandon the overnight
parking. If we are not giving out fines and we are not doing it and we are not actually taking, unless
someone calls, it's gone. So | think then we don’t $112,000.00 we lose $240,000.00 which | do believe, |
like that Director Cummings said that they would work really hard so that nobody loses their job. But
whether they lose hours or not something is going to happen.

The other story | want to tell is about a tractor trailer park and | will say it was right on Mt. Pleasant, it took
two parking spaces. He was getting a $25.00 every night. What would happen is as long as he didn’t have
three outstanding parking there was nothing we could do. It was cheaper for them to pay the $25.00 (audio
cuts out) night for the violation of the overnight parking than it was for them to pay for parking somewhere
else. So bringing it down to $10.00 is only going to encourage that kind of behavior and | don’t want to see
that. What was happening there at Mt. Pleasant was the tractor trailer was not leaving on time and the
teachers who would normally have parked there or the parents who normally would have parked there,
could not park there. | had so many calls from residents within that area. | don’t want to see something like
that happen. So while | do think that it is really good to keep all of our fines together, | also remember from
the Committee meeting that | believe and please correct me if I’m wrong Director Cummings, but he stated
that fines are not to penalize someone but it is to help, it’s to turn them from doing something we don’t want
them to do. So we are not trying to hurt anybody in general; what we are trying to is we are trying to look at
it as that it is a deterrent. A $25.00 fee was not a deterrent for a tractor trailer who probably would have had
to pay $50.00 a night to park his vehicle somewhere and he took up two parking spaces but we could only
give him one ticket even though there were two parking spaces. So it is a frustrating thing, there’s no right
answer to this. But! do agree that it should go back to Committee in this particular case. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

Thank you. So my understanding is that this meant to change the behaviors and this is supposed to not be
a revenue generator but supposed to be something that manages how parking is available and how streets
are available and how they are safe. | think one of the difficulties here is how we are addressing that. If a
raised voice doesn’t work with a child you don’t slap them, you don’t just keep doing what you are doing
more. You have to look at why they are misbehaving and why they are not behaving the way that you
want. We don’t that as a City, all we do is fine people and increase revenue. So we have created a system
here that is self-feeding. Now at the moment, as Director Cummings has pointed out, he has turned a red
funded program which was not generating revenue because it cost more to run that it did to produce
revenue into a green one that produces revenue. That does not show that the behavior decreased at alll, it
shows that the behavior has increased.

It may show that our capacity for in our seeking has increased somewhat, but more likely than not we
haven't actually solved the problem of overnight parking, all we have managed to do is make people a little

agree to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of any federal or state court sitting in Colorado for any
action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any other Loan Document. The
Company hereby waives any objection that it may have to any such action or proceeding on the basis of
forum non-conveniens.

SECTION 10.04. Notices. All notices hereunder shal! be in writing and shall be deemed to
have been duly given upon delivery if personally delivered or sent by overnight mail or by facsimile or
similar transmission, or three (3) days after mailing if sent by express, certified or registered mail, to the
parties at the following addresses (or such other address as either party may specify by like notice):

If to CoBank, as follows: If to the Company, as follows:
CoBank, ACB Pennichuck East Utility, Inc.

5500 South Quebec Street 25 Manchester Street

Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 Merrimack, New Hampshire 03054
Facsimile: (303) 740-4002 Facsimile: (603) 913-2305
Attention: Energy & Water Group Attention: President

SECTION 10.05. Costs, Expenses, and Taxes. To the extent allowed by Law, the Company
agrees to pay all reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses (including the fees and expenses of counsel
retained by CoBank) incurred by CoBank in connection with the origination, administration,
interpretation, collection, and enforcement of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents, including,
without limitation, all costs and expenses incurred in perfecting, maintaining, determining the priority of,
and releasing any security for the Company’s obligations to CoBank, all title insurance premiums and
other charges, and any stamp, intangible, transfer or like tax incurred in connection with this Agreement
or any other Loan Document or the recording hereof or thereof.

SECTION 10.06. Effectiveness and Severability. This Agreement shall continue in effect
until: (A) all indebtedness and obligations of the Company under this Agreement and the other Loan
Documents shall have been paid or satisfied; (B) CoBank has no commitment to extend credit to or for
the account of the Company under any Promissory Note and Supplement; (C) all Promissory Notes and
Supplements shall have been terminated; and (D) either party sends written notice to the other party
terminating this Agreement. Any provision of this Agreement or any other Loan Document which is
prohibited or unenforceable shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability
without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof or thereof.

SECTION 10.07. Other Types of Credit. From time to time, CoBank may issue letters of
credit or extend other types of credit to or for the account of the Company. In the event the parties desire
to do so under the terms of this Agreement, then the agreement of the parties with respect thereto may be
set forth in a Promissory Note and Supplement to this Agreement and this Agreement shall be applicable
thereto as if such letters of credit or other types of credit were loans.

SECTION 10.08. Indemnification. The Company agrecs to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless CoBank, its participants, and its and their respective officers, directors, shareholders,
employees, and agents (collectively, the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, obligations,
liabilities, losses, damages, injuries (to persons or property), penalties, actions, suits, judgments, costs
and expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) of whatever kind or nature, whether or not well
founded, meritorious or unmeritorious, which are demanded, asserted or claimed against any such
Indemnitee in any way relating to, or arising out of, or in connection with this Agreement or the other
Loan Documents, including: (A) all claims arising in connection with the release, presence, removal, and

15

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 61

more creative about how they try to solve their parking problems. So there are other solutions that we can
do to address it as a behavior and we are not committed to doing it as a City at all. There have been
multiple pieces of Legislation brought before the Infrastructure Committee over the past two years that have
addressed different issues that were specific and local; every single one of them was tabled. Every single
one of them was put towards the parking study which expanded in scope. And | know it was just stated
that it’s unfortunate that it was supposed to take place this summer; we were really looking forward to it. But
COVID-19 came along, it was actually supposed to take place last summer and it was completely kicked
down the road every single meeting that happened. So as the City, we have no incentive for changing our
approach. All we are doing is collecting revenue, using that revenue for other projects, other slush funds —
you know let’s build a whole new parking garage and all that kind of stuff. These are issues that we’ve
kicked around in the past, but we haven’t changed the approach.

We haven't looked at - OK it was proposed in the past that we look at daytime parking passes in maybe
certain levels of the garage. That never happened because of the study and we never looked at other
mechanisms for collecting revenue other than just the parking meters themselves. All we do is the same
thing over and over again; we just charge people over and over again. And doing that with overnight
people, a couple of the Board members here have been a little bit selective in their hearing as to what the
genesis of this is. You can add the stigma to people who might have had a little too much to drink, you can
say, Oh we can’t put that on the property owner’s tax rolls because people had too much to drink, that
would be ridiculous. None of the Aldermen here ever have too much to drink or stay out. That’s an easy
argument to make, but that’s not the argument that was being made here. And that’s pretty disingenuous
to the public commenter that made pretty eloquent comments at the beginning of the meeting with regards
to how he as a resident was affected and impacted. This is not just an issue of people who are drinking too
much needing to have a little bit of break on their fines, because you can call the Police and tell them
you’ve had too much to drink and they won’t do anything with your tickets; they will waive them.

What you can do, however, is ticket people who have a fixed location and don’t have a parking solution for
them and you know where they are going to be every month, every week and you can repeatedly ticket
them over and over again. And that’s what we have seen, that’s what we have been hearing about, those
are the e-mails that we have been receiving over the summer have been about and earlier. | think when
they first started it was more directed at me and if everybody recalls, last year in the summer, | hada
constituent come up with a parking ticket that he paid for like 8 cars on his street that were all ticketed
because his street didn’t have on-street overnight parking. And | wanted to add that so that we could have
a legal way of paying for access to get parking and that was tabled. So there are areas that need on-street,
overnight parking that we as Aldermen and frankly when | say “we” | mean you, because you are the ones
who are overriding me. | have chosen not to add to the overnight parking program, we have made that
choice not to give them anything other than fines. And we can talk about how there’s a bigger problem
here and there’s bigger plans that need to be done. But if you roll the problem up large enough than you
never have to solve it. And that’s what we have been doing here for at least two years if not longer.

So | appreciate Alderman Laws actually taking an initiative and making a step, any step in the direction that
actually represents constituents’ needs. And | think everyone should consider carefully whether they are
going to continue doing the same behavior over and over again or whether they are going to claim that they
are going to change their behaviors and do things the same as they always have. Because as much as we
are trying to change the behavior of the people who are parking overnight in places where they have no
other alternative to do it and are just getting tickets. We should probably change our own behavior too and
actually take a serious look at parking and not look at is a form of revenue generating, which is small
compared to some of the other Departments and the other forms of revenue. And it doesn’t really measure
up to any of the other expenses that we have spent even tonight. We have spent much larger amounts just
on debt service than we are talking about here. And we are not looking at solutions we are not looking at
what our residents need or what people who are parking need. We are just thinking it’s late, I’m going to
send it back to Committee, I’m going to take the easy way out on this. And that’s unfortunate. | don’t think
we are representing people well at all.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 62
President Wilshire

Director Cummings?

Director Cummings

Yes thank you Madam President. | just want to quickly clarify a few things that were just stated and want to
make an offer again. So this summer, in August | had a meeting with the Infrastructure Committee. | had
Desmond our hired consultant for the parking study give me a quote and | offered that we pull out the
overnight parking issue and treat it as a stand alone item and | got a quote for that and asked the
Infrastructure of there was a desire to pursue that as a stand alone item and the feedback and the
consensus at the time was there really wasn’t much of an appetite to do that. Maybe folks’ opinions have
changed, if folks want to do that. | am more than happy to engage our professional consultant that could
help guide us in best crafting a solution to this problem. They’ve already given me the quote on what it
would cost us if we had an interest in doing that and | am sure we could reactivate that proposal if there
was such an ambition by this body.

In addition to that, | just want to clarify a couple things. One, the Parking Department doesn’t go out and
“target” certain neighborhoods or certain areas that is by no means what they do. And then in addition to
that, the ticketing has pretty much stayed consistent over the years in terms of the amount of volume of
tickets that have been written. So | understand the frustration, I’ve heard some of it. | think the comment
that was made about there’s been “more ticketing happening and it hasn’t been changing the behavior and
now all of a sudden the account is in the positive and not the negative”. What happened is actually the
behavior was occurring and infractions were out there it is just that they weren't getting cited. So they did
start getting cited and so that’s why everyone is starting to hear and talk about this issue, which | agree is
very important.

But depending on where you are in Nashua, there is a different solution for each area. So | think in
downtown there may be one solution. And | think when you are outside of the downtown it may be a
different solution. So one size fits all approach may not be the best way to handle it. So at any rate, I’ve
probably carried on a little too long for this evening on this. But | would just leave everyone with the fact that
if you want to have a conversation about allowing for overnight parking to occur, there’s ways to do it that
will be safer and more sophisticated that will allow for snow removal to occur without any problems, that will
allow for public safety issues to be addressed so there wouldn’t be as many problems as opposed to just
allowing for there to be overnight parking with no controls in place. So thank you.

President Wilshire
Thank you Director Cummings. Alderman Clemons?
Alderman Clemons

Thank you. | agree with most of what Alderman Lopez said, in particular the fact that we, that regardless of
a study we are elected as Aldermen to know what is going on in our constituent’s lives and they come to us
with issues and it is our responsibility to see if we can come up with a solution. So in the sense of if you
wanted to add, regardless of whatever parking study said, if you know that there is a street that the
overnight parking program should be added, then we should be addressing that and not waiting for a
parking study because it is just common sense. And so in that regard | agree with Alderman Lopez in that
we need to look at different approaches and we can’t keep holding things up in Committee and that kind of
stuff.

On the other hand though | disagree in the sense that this is exactly why this legislation should go back to
committee so that we can have a better conversation. So while | agree with most of what was said, | do not
agree with this moving forward. | think that would be a mistake. | think that there are too many issues here
and we should move this back to committee. Thank you.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 63
President Wilshire

The motion is to re-refer. Further discussion? Alderman Lu?

Alderwoman Lu

Thank you, Madam President. It’s really late and | can’t think straight so | will keep this brief. After the
committee meeting, | sent a question about this $250,000.00 because it didn’t make sense to me
considering that was about 60% of the total, current revenue. And my point that | made was this would
assume that all of the revenue that we receive currently comes from overnight parking. And | got an
explanation that didn’t make much sense to me but it continued to assert that it was $225,000.00 to
$250,000.00 that would be reduced. That the revenue would be reduced by. So | guess my biggest
concern is waiting until this meeting to find out that it’s $112,000.00 not $225,000.00. Because I’ve been
trying — you know scratch my head on that like for a week now. | have the detailed revenue and expense
report for the special revenue revolving funds for the traffic violation fund ending June 30" of 2020. And
the revenue was $389,000.00 and the expenses were $226,000.00. So | believe that was $155,000.00 in
the green.

So now you tell, you have included that it’s $112,000.00 because it’s 60% of 60% correct? Well and so my
question, you know, it’s frustrating to me not to be able to get simple questions like how do you come up
with this number answered until the day of. | did send that question. The answer | got was from the
Parking Enforcement Department. So my understanding is this equates to about 9.000 overnight parking
tickets a year. Is that correct?

President Wilshire

Who are you addressing your question to, Alderman Lu?

Alderwoman Lu

Director Cummings.

Director Cummings

| would say 9,000 high but it is in the ballpark, 7,000/8,000.

Alderwoman Lu

So just a follow up it would have been helpful to understand the loss in revenue accurately. Because | was
skeptical for the last week because it just didn’t add up it didn’t make any sense. Thank you.

Alderman Clemons
Just for the record, | do believe Director Cummings that you did answer the question and you said earlier

this evening that the amount of loss is going to be $230,000.00 because we are not going to enforce
overnight parking, is that correct.

Director Cummings
If | may Madam President. You are absolutely correct Alderman Clemons.
Alderman Clemons

Thank you.