Search

Graham, Donna

To: johncaw@myfairpoint.net
Subject: RE: New Mask mandate

From: johncaw@myftairpoint.net [mailto:johncaw @myfairpoint.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:46 AM

' To: Mayor's Office Email; Board of Aldermen

Subject: New Mask mandate

CAUTION: This email came from outside of the organization. Do not click links/open attachments if source is unknown.
To whom it may concern:

There is no science behind your mask mandates.

Forcing anyone to wear a mask DOES nothing to safe guard anyone against a virus, but it does infringe upon the rights of
all Nashuan's and anyone else visiting the city.

Wearing a mask is like trying to catch mosquitoes with a chain link fence. The virus is too small to be captured by any
mask available to the general public.

My feeling is you all know this and that some of you have a need to be part of the media driven, not fact driven, frenzy
concerning masks.

Your latest attempt to force polices that make absolutely no sense on the peaple you serve prove that it's time for many
of you to leave office.

You were given power by the people who elected you. Anyone amongst you, who voted for the original measure and
anyone who votes for this measure is abusing that power.

“No business and no employee of any business shall provide goods or services to any person not complying with face
covering requirements,” says the proposal introduced to the Board of Aldermen on Tuesday. “No business and no
employee of any business shall permit a person to remain on its premises in violation of these requirements.”

Mast people are on edge already do the ongoing and extended over reach of local government and the abuse of the
power.

This ordinance, if passed, will force store clerks into a law enforcement role that they should not be responsible for, turn
people against each other and will mere than likely lead to viclence.

If you vote in favor of this measure, that will be on your shoulders.

You are keeping the schcols closed as well to the detriment of all children in Nashua and stepping on the rights of the
people you are supposed to represent.

This makes no sense what so ever.

| would ask you to what end do these senseless ordinances take us??

Setting the way for more local gov't abuse of power and the stripping of more citizens rights?

Your time would be better spent figuring out how Nashua will pay for all the public pensions that will be bankrupting the
city in the years to come, not how to become more of a police state.

| urge you ail to not give into the current media hysteria concerning masks and to vote NO on the amendment to the
existing mask ordinance.

Respectfully,

John Cawthron
8 Troon Circle
Nashua, NH 03062

Graham, Donna

Ee EES ERIE TT
To: Kerry Litka
Subject: RE: Proposed Amendment to Mask Ordinance

From: Kerry Litka [mailto:kerrylitka@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:25 PM

To: Caron, June; Clemons, Benjamin; Dowd, Richard; Lu, Elizabeth; Gathright, Linda; Jette, Ernest; Kelly, Shashanna;
Kiee, Patricia; Laws, Brandon; Lopez, Thomas; Graham, Donna; Cleaver, Skip; O’Brien, Michael (Alderman); Schmidt, Jan;
Tencza, David; Wilshire, Lori; Mayor's Office Email; Board of Aldermen

Subject: Proposed Amendment to Mask Ordinance

CAUTION: This email came from outside of the organization. Da not click links/open attachments if source is
unknown.

8/17/2020
To the Nashua City Board of Aldermen,

| am writing to express my concern and opposition over the recent proposed revisions made to the mask
ordinance. When the ordinance was first proposed, you cited the number of cases in the neighboring state of
Massachusetts as a reason to require the ordinance. However, the MA towns that border Nashua - Dunstable
and Tyngsboro - have significantly fewer cases than the city of Nashua.

Count of Confirmed COVID-19 Cases and Tests Performed in MA by City/Town, January 1, 2020 — August 5,
2020
source: https:/Awww.mass.gov/doc/weekily-covid-19-public-health-report-august-5-2020/do…
Dunstable, MA

Total Cases - 10

Case Count Last 14 Days: 0

Total Positive Tests (Last 14 days): 0

Percent Positivity (Last 14 days): 0
Tynsgboro, MA

Total Case Count - 103

Case Count Last 14 Days: <5

Total Positive Tests (Last 14 days): 4

Percent Positivity (Last 14 days): 1.2%

As of August 10th, 2020, the city of Nashua has to date accumulated a total case count of 777 cases,
currently has 34 active cases.
Source: httos:/Awww.nh.gov/covid1 9/dashboard/cumulative-cases.htm

This clearly indicates that the need to issue a mask ordinance to protect us from residents of neighboring MA
towns is not supported by any data.

It is now mid August and we have been under a mask ordinance since May. Since then, the number of cases
in the city has dropped, as well as the number of fatalities. According to a recent article in the Union Leader,
Nashua is no longer dealing with even a moderate level of cases.

1

Flavia Martin, a public health nurse with the city’s Division of Public Health, said Wednesday there is now an
average of about four new cases per day in Nashua compared to the 10 or 12 new cases a day the city was
experiencing previously.

“Ninety-six percent of our citizens in Nashua are recovered at this time, which is amazing,” said Martin, adding
there are currently 34 active cases in the city. Overall, 38 of the 41 deaths in Nashua associated with COVID-
79 occurred at effher Greenbriar Healthcare or The Huntington at Nashua where previous outbreaks took
place, according to Martin.

The city has an estimated population of 89,246 people. The simple and basic math indicates that the current
case positivity rate in the state based on our population is 0.036%. Additionally, 92.6% of our fatalities
occurred in two long term care facilities. None of these fatalities can be linked to community transmission.

- None of these fatalities could have been prevented if customers in stores or restaurants or businesses were

~~ subjected toa mandatory mask ordinance. = eee

The proposed new ordinance is not only unnecessary, but it is iikely to create confusion for citizens and
businesses who are trying to interpret the rules, as well as law enforcement. The State of New Hampshire has
already created the Governor's Economic Re-Opening Task Force to address reopening guidelines. The Task
Force has met over fifty times since April, and has issued approximately sixty different specific reopening
regulations for businesses, as well as tourism and recreation. Over the last few months, the Task Force has
updated its Universal Guidelines and industry-specific guidelines on several occasions in order to ensure that
they are based on the latest science and medical recommendations, including input from the Division of Public
Health. Most recently, on August 13, 2020, the Governor issued Emergency Order 65 which provides the
Attorney General’s Office and the Division of Public Health the ability to issue large penalties to businesses
and individuals for non-compliance with the guidelines. These penalties include fines of up to $2,000 per day.

Nashua’s revised ordinance is likely to create confusion because it is overiy-simplistic and it conflicts with a
number of the State’s re-opening regulations. For example, the Governor’s Task Force and Division of Public
Health have adopted specific rules for Gyms and Health and Fitness Facilities. Those rules apply to health
and fitness centers such as gyms, personal and group fitness classes and studios (e.g., aerobics, yoga,
gymnastics, dance, martial arts, etc.), and indoor playgrounds. These rules specify that “All staff and members
must wear a reusable/washable cloth face coverings over their nose and mouth when in the facility and not
actively engaged in workout where a face covering may make it difficult to breathe.” The rules also provide
other exceptions as outlined in the CDC recommendations.

in contrast, Nashua's revised ordinance only allows the removal of masks when “engaged in utilizing cardio,
strength training, and other gymnasium equipment” so long as a distance of six feet can be maintained. The
Nashua ordinance is not only duplicative, but it creates confusion for staff and members of gyms and fitness
facilities because there are no exceptions for fitness classes that do not involve gymnasium equipment, even
when a six foot distance can be maintained. The Nashua ordinance also does not provide any exceptions for
situations in which less than six feet can be maintained, for example, members who are actively receiving
fitness coaching or are involved in indoor/outdoor sports at the facility. It should also be noted that the CDC
recommends that individuals engaged in high-intensity activities should not wear a mask. Unlike the specific
requirements for face coverings set forth in the Task Force’s rules for gyms, fitness facilities, camps, youth and
amateur sports, golf courses, pools and other businesses and recreational facilities, Nashua’s proposed
revised ordinance fails to address a variety of situations in which face coverings are not feasible or
recommended to be worn due to the aihletics involved.

Nashua’s revised ordinance is also problematic because It states that “Persons receiving personal care
services including hair cutting and other hair treatment, facials, tattooing, piercing, and similar services, may
remove face covering during any limited period during which the face covering actually interferes with the
performing of the service.” Oddly, this is actually less strict than the Governor's Reopening Guidelines for
Body Art, which does not allow face coverings to be removed for those types of services. This exception is not
only confusing, but it creates the potential for tattoo parlors to receive fines from the Division of Public Health if
they are unaware of the conflicting rules and choose to comply with Nashua’s ordinance.

2

Most concerning is Nashua’s proposal to require face coverings in any commercial or residential complex that
has two or more units. The proposed ordinance requires a sign at the public entrance that says “FACE
COVERINGS REQUIRED.” There is no exception for commercial and residential complexes that are not open
to the public. This requirement states that face coverings must be worn at all times in those commercial and
residential buildings (even duplexes), even when an individual is inside a private area.

It is obvious that more time and thought needs to be given to Nashua’s face covering requirements. The

revised ordinance fails to address many situations that are likely to be encountered by citizens and businesses

in Nashua. The State of NH has puta lot of work into reopening and at no point did the Governor or any

higher level legislating body mandate masks to be worn throughout a city with only the limited exceptions

proposed by Nashua. The revised ordinance is over-simplistic when compared to the regulations set forth by

the Governor's Economic Re-Opening Taskforce and New Hampshire Public Health. Those organizations

have spent a considerable amount of time over the last several months reviewing the various typesof =
industries impacted in New Hampshire and receiving input from stakeholders and public health agencies.

Nashua has not spent nearly the same amount of time as those organizations considering face covering

requirements.

The proposed ordinance is not only unnecessary, but it is making it harder to simply live and work in this city.
The miscommunication of information and the manner in which these rules and policies are made to create
confusion, and fail to address the many businesses and industries impacted. | ask that you reconsider the
passage of the revised face covering ordinance, and furthermore, to rescind the current ordinance and utilize
the requirements set forth in the Governor's Emergency Orders.

Kerry Litka
24 Forsythia Dr, Nashua, NH 03062
(603) 568-8445

Graham, Donna .

To: JEFF LOCKE
Subject: RE: Common Sense Please

From: JEFF LOCKE [mailto:jlocke0?@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 3:53 PM

To: Graham, Donna

Cc: Jeffrey Locke

Subject: Common Sense Please

CAUTION: This email came from outside of the organization. Do not click links/open attachments if source is
unknown.

Please forward to the alderman and mayor my request for some common sense.

Nashua has a mask policy for all business' to require patrons to wear a mask while inside their
establishment. This is extremely difficult to do while exercising in gyms. | am sure you can appreciate
the idea of wearing a mask, while running/ riding/ rowing on cardio equipment and trying to get my
heart rate up to 150, all while re-breathing my own exhaled carbon monoxide does not make a lot of
sense. All of the gyms have " socially distanced” their equipment and it is constantly being wiped
down. | have spoken with Planet Fitness about their policy and they have informed me that it is only
Nashua that requires the masks be worn ail the times. Merrimack and others do NOT require this.

Hopefully you can see the need to change your policy so that people who want ( and need) to
exercise and who are paying their monthly fees, can go back to their routines for a healthy lifestyle.

Thanks for your consideration and | look forward to hearing about this much needed adjustment.

Jeff Locke, CFP

120 Coliseum Ave #202
Nashua, NH
603-860-2080

City of Nashua

Office of TheTreasurer

229 Main Street - Nashua, NH 03060 (603) 589-3193
Fax (603)589-3228

To: Board of Aldermen August 6, 2020
From: David G. Fredette, Treasurer/Tax Collector

Re: Purchase replacement for one (1) 2019 Ford Police Interceptor Utility
from FY 2021 Capital Equipment Reserve Fund (CERF)

The purpose of this communication is to give additional information related needed to replace one (1)
2019 Ford Police Interceptor Utility that was not listed on the FY2021 vehicle replacement schedule.
Unfortunately this vehicle was totaled in an accident on July 12, 2020. The cost to CERF will be
$49,516.50. Funds are available in CERF due to several cost savings on several items in FY 2020. It is
also anticipated additional escrows or supplemental appropriations will be used to transfer additional
funds into CERF during the first quarter of FY 2021.

Pursuant to NRO 5-127.1 D Capital Equipment Reserve Fund, which states: “During that fiscal year,
the city may purchase that equipment, or equipment that will serve the same stated purpose as the listed
equipment as long as the price does not vary by more than ten percent of the estimated replacement
value. All purchases from the Capital Equipment Reserve Fund must comply with the city’s purchasing
approval process. Any other requests to use funds from the Capital Equipment Reserve Fund must be
approved by the board of aldermen.”

I respectfully request the approval from the Board of Aldermen for the purchase of a 2020 Ford Police
Interceptor Utility from Municipal Vehicles, Marlborough MA. for the Police department as
requested, This vehicle will replace the 2019 Ford Police Interceptor Utility, which was totaled in a
recent accident.

Cc: Mayor James W. Donchess

John Griffin, CFO/Comptroller

Karen Smith, Business Manager Police Department
Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Department Manager
Legal Department

al
oe

4
vs
a
wnt
Ps

Administrative Services
Purchasing Department

August 4, 2020
Memo #21-021

TO: Mayor Donchess
Finance Committee
SUBJECT: Police Interceptor Utility Vehicle
Please see attached communications from Karen Smith, Business Manager dated August 10, 2020 for

project specific details related to this purchase. Below please find a summary of the purchase approval
request:

{tem: 2020 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicle (Marked)
Value: $49,516.55
Vendor: M-H-Q Municipal Vehicles — State of MA Greater Boston Police Council Vehicle

Procurement Contract #G6BPC2019/20
Department: 150 Nashua Police Department
Source Fund: CERF

Ordinance: Pursuant to § 5-84 Special purchase procedures A. (3) Purchases which can be
procured through cooperative intergovernmental purchase agreements with
other governmental jurisdictions.

The Nashua Police Department and the Purchasing Department respectfully request your approval of this
contract.

Regards,
Kelly Parkinson

Purchasing Manager

Ce: K Smith
M. Carignan

229 Main Street « Nashua, New Hampshire 03061 « Phone (603) 589-3330 e Fax (603) 589-3233

NASHUA POLICE

DEPARTMENT Date: 10 August 2020

intradepartmental Communication

Ta:

o

Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manger

From: Karen A. Smith, Business Manager

The Nashua Police Department is requesting to replace one (1} 20719 Ford Police Interceptor Utility with
the 2020 Ford Police Interceptor utility vehicle due to the vehicle being totaled in an accident. The vehicie
will replace the following vehicle which was originally on the FY2022CERF replacement schedule for the
amount of $44,539. The cost to CERF will be $49,516.50. Funds are available in CERF due to several
cost savings on several items in FY 2020. It is also anticipated additional escrows or supplemental
appropriations will be used to transfer additional funds into CERF during the first quarter of FY 2021.

YEAR UNIT# PLATE# | MAKE/MODEL VIN# MILEAGE
7/13/20
2019 24 MP64624 Ford Interceptor IFM5K8AR5KGAT791 82 47,076

Pursuant to NRO 5-84 (A) (3), the replacement vehicle and equipment will be purchased through the State
of Massachusetts Greater Boston Police Council Vehicle Procurement Contract #GBPC2019/2020.

A quote from MH is attached for your review showcasing the features and options of the new vehicle.

The Nashua Police Department and Fleet Supervisor recommend the purchase in the amount of
$49,516.55 from M-H-Q, inc. Municipal Vehicles, Marlborough, MA.

Sincerely,

¢LY

Karen A, Smith
Business Manager

cc: David Fredetie

a

MHO

VWEHIGLES B CQOUIPMENT B OEAR

CUSTOMER
Contact Name:
Company/Dept:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:

Email:

Brian Sojka

Nashua NH Police Dept.
O Panther Dr

Nashua, NH 03062
(603) 594-3624

SoikaB@nashuapd.com

Date:

Valid For:
Customer #:
Contract:
Sales Rep:

7/21/2020

60 days

12051

GBPC

Kris Wright

Crash Replacement

Please find below a budget quote for 2020 Ford Police Interceptor Utility AWD per the Greater Boston

Police Council Contract RFP # GBPC 2019/2020 - Law Enforcement Equipment Ford

Vehicle:

Root a

Seaside
2026 Ford Utility Police Interceptor Hybrid - 3.3L V6 Direct-
Injection Hybrid System - 10 Speed Automatic Transmission -
Heavy Duty 18" Steel Wheels Small Chrome Center Hub Caps-
Heavy Duty Vinyl Flooring - Ist Row Police Grade Cloth Dual
KBA Front Bucket Seats (Driver's Side Six Way Power Seat; Passenger } 5 37,100.00} 1 [5 37,100.00
side Manual} - 2nd Row Vinyl 60/40 Split Bench Seats - 3 Year
36,000 mile Bumper to Bumper Warranty- 5 Year 100,000 mile
Drivetrain Warranty- 8 Year 100,00 mile Hybrid/Electric
Component Warranty
Engine: 3.31 V6 Direct-Injection Gasoline (FFV} -inc: (136-MPH
Top Speed) Note: Deletes Regenerative Braking and Lithuim-ion
99B Battery Pack; adds 250-Amp Alternator, replaces H7 AGM 5 {3,459.00}, 1 {5S (3,459.00)
battery (BOO CCA/80-amp} w/H7 SLI battery (730 CCA/80-amp}
and replaces 19-galion tank w/21.4-gallon "CREDIT"
UM Agate Black $ - 1 {Ss -
Global Lock / Unlock feature (Door-panel switches will
18D lock/unlock all doors and rear liftgate. Eliminates the overhead | 5 - 1 {5 -
console liftgate unlock switch}
87R Rear View Camera {Mirror Display} 5 - 1 s([s -
153 License Plate Bracket - Front 5 : 1 =|$ -
43D Dark Car Feature — Courtesy lamp disable when any door is § 25.00 i |g 25.00
opened
51R Spot Lamp - Driver only {Whelen LED} 5 412.00 1 {5s 412.00
S49 Mirrors - Heated Side View S 59.00; 1 |[5 59.00
Hidden Door-Lock Plunger -inc; rear-door controls inoperable
S2P flocks, handles and windows} Locks/windows operable from 5 157.00 no) 157,00
driver's door switches
76R Reverse Sensing 5 270.00 1 615 270.00
527 Trailer hitch wiring - Class lil 5 72.00} 1 |S 78.00
Standard — }Hands Free/ Bluetooth $ - 1 {$s -
Standard Trailer hitch - Class Ill 5 - 1 [Ss -
17A Aux Climate Control (Rear seat A/C} 5 598.00/ i |5 598.00
VEHICLE TOTAL: $35,240.00

MHQ Quote + 2020 Ford INUT+ Patrol Crash Replacement Pagel of3