Search

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 42

grassy field to the left with a radio antenna in it. But it’s a few acres. The park doesn’t start, believe it or
not, until you get beyond that field and then there’s a sign. You kind of enter the more wilderness area.
That field is owned by the Millyard Association which is a co-op basically of Millyard owners of which we
are some because we acquired some parcels for the Broad Street Parkway. So all the Millyard owners,
ClockT ower, Bagshaw, the City, you know, others like Nimco puts us in that group and there’s a couple of
other parcels we own.

Some on the mill yard association advocate that they develop that parcel for some otheruse. Nowthe
Riverfront experts that we have, it used to be Madeline Minnow and now it’s Deb Chisolm, believe that that
parcel is not developable because it is in the flood plain. Unfortunately, | think we have to persuade the
mill yard owners that thatis the case. And in order to persuade them, we are going to need more than just
Deb Chisolm’s opinion. We need an expert, to get that expert costs money, so what we would use the
money for, if you appropriate it, is to do the groundwork, the expertise, the justification to convince the mill
yard association that t is not a developable parcel and therefor they should allow the dog park to use the
land based on the argument that you can’t really use it for anything else. Why not doing something nice like
this. Now that’s the dog park.

Now your other question had to do with the operating fund. | think you’ve asked about line, | forget which
one. It’s like the $57,000.00, whatever line that is.

Alderwoman Lu

OK, yeah.

Mayor Donchess
35?
Alderwoman Lu

29.

Mayor Donchess

29. So that has to do with the operation of the Mine Falls Dam. In about 2015 and it might have been 14,
| was an Aldermen then so | know it was one of those two years. The City acquired full rights to the Mine
Falls Dam. We owned, we the City, owned the dam but had leased it long-term, this goes back to the ‘70's,
had leased it long-term to a private operator. And they made the hydro-electric improvements so they
turned it into a hydro-electric station generating power. We got a very small amount of revenue and they
got the operating money from selling the power. At some point in the agreement with like 10 years left, the
City had the right to buy out the remainder of the lease. At the time a financial analysis was done and the
administration then under Mayor Lozeau proposed that we buy out the dam, buy out the lease and thereby
capture the — you know- then get full ownership basically, full control. The argument was, and | agreed
with it, that they were not taking very good care of the dam and we could do much better on our own, in
terms of getting it up to snuff sort to speak, fixed up and it needs to be re-licensed as well by FERC,
periodically needs to be relicensed.

The damcame with a lot of problems. Itis like buying an old house. They knewthat, “they” the City and
Administration, people who were working on it at the time it was Madeline Minnowat the time who is very
capable, but understood that we would need to make a lot of improvements and thought that they could
make those improvements over time. You know, you buy an old house one year you fix the roof, another
year you redo the kitchen or whatever. And wnat happened hereis that during the course of this past year
something broke and Sarah Marchant would have to get deeply into the details or Deb Chisolm, but
something broke which they hadn't anticipated would break as quickly as it did. And say all of a sudden,
the shingles blew off the roof. You didn’t really think that was going to happen this year. You thought it

* Community Development 589-3095
City of Nash ua Planning and Zoning 589-3090

. aren Building Saf 589-3080
Community Development Division Code Enforcement 389-3100
City Hall, 229 Main Street, PO Box 2019 Cerra s mmission Ste onee
Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2019 Transportalon 880-0100
www,nashuanh.gov FAX 589-3119

Date: January 4, 2015
To: Alderman Brian McCarthy, President
From: Sarah Marchant, Director of Community Development

Subject: Waiver of ZBA Application Fee

The property owner at 149 Hills Ferry Rd, Ms. Denise Salvato, applied for a variance to encroach 3
feet into the 25 foot rear setback to enlarge an existing 9’x 11' deck to.an L1'x 14° deck in August.
Unfortunately, the property owner wanted to apply to enlarge the existing 9’xi 1° deck, by adding
on an additional 11’x14’ deck, thus creating a 22’ x 14’ deck with exit stairs, which was not clearly
communicated to the ZBA.

In summary, Ms. Salvato has an existing deck she was proposing to significantly enlarge, which
would encroach into the setback. At the meeting the discussion and presentation to the ZBA
differed from the plans presented by Ms. Salvato. Ultimately, the ZBA granted her a variance to
extend the deck “two additional feet towards the back of the property” , which is not what was
represented on the plan or what she later applied for a building permit to construct.

The only way for the ZBA to review the full deck size application would be for Ms. Salvato to
apply to the ZBA for the correct dimensions of her deck, and its encroachment into the setback. Ms.
Salvato is extremely frustrated with this process and finds the costs to return to the ZBA fora
second approval to be overly onerous. She has requested a waiver of fees, as she is seeking the same
variance she originally wanted.

In light of this request and the unique situation the Community Development Office is asking for a
waiver of the following two fees for a total of $345.00. As this is a reapplication for the same plan
the work required by Statf will be reduced. Community Development is not asking for a waiver
from abutters fees as those will be lost to the City:

ZBA Dimensional Variance fee - $330

ZBA Sign fee - $15

CC: Roger Houston, Planning Department Manager

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 43
might happen next year. But the repairs had to be made from — there’s a reserve account on this as well.
Repairs had to be made, which they were, but that caused, because of the necessity to make the repairs,
that caused the total amount spent between operations and repairs to be higher than had been projected
by $57,000.00. So there itis. Keep in mined that the dams are generating for the City somewhere in the
vicinity of $1.2 million in revenue every year. So really we are only directing conceptually a small part of
the revenue of the dams into this.

Alderwoman Lu

Just a follow-up please. So] think Mayor Donchess the answers we make capital improvements out of the
operating fund ...

Mayor Donchess

Correct.

Alderwoman Lu

... the operating budget in the past so we are just replenishing that.

Mayor Donchess

Correct.

Alderwoman Lu

Ok, thank you. It didn’t make sense to me to have the operating expenses but | appreciate your patience

with me. | want to just recommend that we consider not putting money into the barriers until we decide
whether we want to do that.

Mayor Donchess

On the barriers, committing the money now does not commit you to buying the barriers. But what it does is
it makes it possible that if you want to do that, you can. If the money isn’t reserved now, you exclude that
possibility. And if the decision were made, now obviously for reasons that we can discuss and it’s pretty
late now but! won’t get into my whole thing about wnat that has done for the City. But ifwe didn’t go
ahead, then the money would go into surplus next year. But if we don’t reserve the money in the escrows
now that excludes, then there’s no funds budgeted to do next year and we would be saying we can’t do the
barriers next year because we don’t have any money for it.

Alderwoman Lu

OK | think that was one of my first questions, anything that we don’t move, then it goes into ...

Mayor Donchess

Will come back next year, at the end of the year, we still have it, you know.

Alderwoman Lu

We still have access to it correct?

Mayor Donchess

Correct.

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 44

Alderwoman Lu

Ok, well thank you everyone for your patience, | am sorry that | had to ask these questions tonight. | am all
set.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Aldermen we are considering the amendment to 20-069. Is there further discussion on the
amendment? Seeing none, 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

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-20-069 AS AMENDED, BY ROLL
CALL

ON THE QUESTION

President Wilshire

You've heard the motion, discussion on the motion?

Alderman Dowd

Yes, | recommend that we pass this and allow the Mayor and his staff to spend the monies that are
allocated in these various lines. And | know they will do that judiciously and if there are changes, they will
come back to us. So thank you.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Alderman Lu?

Alderwoman Lu

| am very —| want to really encourage everyone to consider holding off on the river, the $410,000.00 for
Riverfront lighting. | love the idea but | think it’s important when we have a tax incentive area project, that
we ensure that as those tax increases happen that they don’t just go into a — that they are put toward wnat
they are supposed to be put toward which is the improvements in that district. | also want to encourage, so
I'd like to move to amend.

President Wilshire

Ok?

Alderwoman Lu

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 45

I'd like to a motion that we remove line 32 and also line 35 from the transfer and we leave it in the general
fund?

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN LU TO AMEND R-20-069 TO REMOVE LINES 32 AND 35 FROM THE
TRANSFER AND LEAVE IT IN THE GENERAL FUND, BY ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION

President Wilshire

Ok that’s your motion?

Alderwoman Lu

Yeah, | am referring to the $410,000.00 and the $200,000.00; one for the lighting and one for the barriers.
President Wilshire

So the barriers are ... ok, you’ve heard the motion. Discussion on that motion? Alderman Clemons?

Alderman Clemons

Thank you. | can understand the argument for the Riverfront project of the lighting. | get that, whereas we
have a TIF District. | can see that. | don’t necessarily agree with that; | think that if we have this money |
think we should spend it on that project. Because, as the Mayor said, we can complete it. But | definitely
am notin support of not allocating the money for the barriers. Being on the Downtown Improvement
Committee and also being very connected to the business folks downtown, | can tell you without a doubt
that the barriers have made a tremendous of difference to our downtown community. Putting those up
definitely saved business.

But in addition to that, it drew people to our downtown that might not have otherwise come and might not
have otherwise seen wnat a great place our community is. That's particularly important because we set
apart as a community that overcame the obstacle of the COVID-19 Pandemic by swiftly acting and really
that was the biggest change to downtown in Nashua in my lifetime, and | was born here in 1982 and|can
tell you that nothing in Nashua ever happens overnight. Thathappened overnight and it was for good.
And because this community came together and we respondedto an action that was really largely outside
of our control, we did things to help our local businesses stay in business.

With that being said, the program was a success. And so we have gotten requests from the businesses
and from many of the patrons that go downtown to continue that project. And to do it next year and to doit
year over year. As the Mayor stated, if we do not fund the $200,000.00 with the escrow, then we will find it
hard to find that money to continue the project if we so desire next year. If we decide later on that we don’t
want to do it for wnatever reason, we can always put that money back. The thing about the escrows, it is
money that we have already taken from taxpayers. So this isn’t — none of these expenditures are costing
taxpayers any more money, we've already taken it from them, we have it in the bank. So we are not
costing anybody anymore really in theory by doing this. Because if the motion that is before us passes, the
money is just going to lapse into the general fund which will increase the unexpended fund balance thatwe
were talking about earlier in the previous conversation which we have already heard from the CFO is ata
balance that is good enough to get a Triple A Bond Rating with two different credit agencies.

So for all of those reasons | can’t support this amendment and | hope my colleagues will consider not
supporting it as well.

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 46
President Wilshire

Alderman Klee.

Alderman Klee

Thank you, Madam President. | want to echo much of what Alderman Clemons said, especially about the
barriers. The issue that! would have with us not putting money aside, this year we were able to do it
because of CARES money and soon. So we were able to use that money that we didn’t have. Ithad not
been ’appropriated” or “budgeted” or whatever. | slightly disagree with, “we’ve already taken the money
therefore we should spend it”. | don’t necessarily believe in that, but in this particular case, | think that it’s
good. | think that it’s necessary. | believe that this is something we are going to continue year after year. |
think it made downtown quite easy to move around. Everybody | talked to absolutely loved it. We had a
hard time getting used to some of the traffic patterns. | will agree that in terms of noise downtown is not all
that conducive. We had people thatwere literally going up and down the streets, | don’t know for what
reason, but in the end this is good for busines, it's good for downtown Nashua. | think we should put this
money aside as if we had budgeted it. | mean obviously we came up with this idea after basically the
budget had gone through. So we used the CARES money for it. If we don’t budget it then | think we are
not being fiscally responsible because we are going to have to take it from somewhere else sometime
down the road. So for that reason | cannot supportthis motion.

President Wilshire

Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

Yeah, | just wanted to also express my support for the downtown barriers. That is the number one thing
that businesses downtown have asked for us to continue. There is a lot of interest and enthusiasm for it.
And as Alderman Clemons says, it really did re-shape the downtown into a much better communal space
particularly in the areas where there’s multiple restaurants and they are all collectively having outdoor
dining, maybe a couple of them have some outdoor music. It also creates a space for people who aren’t
necessarily engaged in that particular scene can pleasantly walk and be involved in downtown, listen to
music, and feel like they are included. So for that | think it’s a lot for the City’s morale at a time wnen we
really needed it.

| think next year when we are looking at people coming back out, we really, really want to encourage that
behavior to continue. Because we can have restaurants all just clam back up and go back to worrying
about their own space all by themselves or we can take this opportunity to have a vibrant downtown that is
interactive and works together and shares a population and a commitment to that group. So | want to see
that continue and | want to see that sense of comradery that the outdoor dining has created. And | know
businesses really, really do too. So for that, |am unwavering my support for it.

With regards to the Riverfront Project, | have never been the most vocally enthusiastic supporter of the
Riverfront Project because | just really never understood the vision of it, particulary when all the trees were
wiped outlast year. | just couldn’t understand why we were doing that to a Riverfront. But over the summer
the grass is growing in, Nashua Area Kayak Exploration Destination has been much, much more active.
People have been out using and enjoying the Riverfront. And as the Mayor and Lori have said, you can
see it so much better and more clearly, | think that’s also very good for our downtown community and our
downtown climate. The area where the improvements are, if | understand correctly, is actually Ward 3.

But that area has had a lot of new housing being putin. Ithas a potential use for people taking walks.

We started the whole green scooter, bicycles project last year and then we had to stop it this year, but | thin
all of those things are going to come into play next year wnen we need themto. Because next year we
are going to really want to see an economic return to vitality downtown. We are really going to want to see

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 47

people coming back out and enjoying Nashua. And we need to encourage that and to be very blunt, | don’t
have the same optimism that other members of the Board do for the Performing Arts Center. So | think this
is amuch, much more cost-effective mechanism and incremental investment in downtown that is going to
pay dividends.

| understand that we have a TaxIncrement Financing District in that area, but | also understand there’sa
lot of work to be done in that area and there’s gong to be a lot of maintenance and upkeep to be done too.
So | don’t want to try to count the same money twice. If we have the opportunity to do it nowwith a surplus
that can be invested effectively now at this year’s rates, and start capitalizing on that next year, | think we
should do it.

President Wilshire

All set Alderman Lopez?
Alderman Lopez
Mm-hmm.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Alderman Kelly.

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you. | wanted to first express my thank you to everybody really for digging in on this issue and
Alderman Lu in particular | thank you for bringing your questions forward. | don’t think you should be
apologizing for that at all. | don’t feel that the particular projects that were pulled out that you were looking
at are the right ones to be pulling, so | am not going to support this amendment. But! do appreciate that
we are digging in and really talking about this. So thanks.

President Wilshire
Anyone else? Alderman Lu.
Alderwoman Lu

Thank you. | just wanted to respond to a couple of things. | don’t think this amendment will make any
difference to the unassigned fund balance because my understanding is it’s assigned to one thing now. |
could be wrong. And it’s being requested to be put into some other category. My perspective is this will
prevent the decision of funding the barriers from being a decision that’s made at the Committee level
because $72,000.00 do | have that right expenditure will only go to the Finance Committee. And by leaving
it there, | just feel that there’s nothing preventing us from spending it on barriers at some later point. It’s
just, you know, this doesn’t mean we are doing the barriers. And the amendment doesn’t mean we are not
doing the barriers.

| dispute the idea that if we don’t move it into the barriers nowit will be hard for us to do it later because the
money will still be there. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Attorney Bolton.

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 48
Attorney Bolton

Madam President, may | correct something that was said?

President Wilshire

Yes.

Attorney Bolton

Any money thatis in surplus that is not designated to be escrowed in this manner does lapse into
undesignated fund balance. So if this amendment passes that amount of money that is struck from this
Resolution increases the undesignated fund balance. That is not really here or there; you can do that if you
want to do that. If in the future later in the Fiscal Year, there’s a decision to again narrow Main Street by
the use of barriers, and there was going to be a supplemental appropriation from fund balance, that would
require 10 votes, not a simple majority. So it does impact the ease with which it could be done next year,
or in the course of the year.

President Wilshire

Any further discussion on the amendment to remove the $410,000.00 from the Riverfront Lighting and the
cost of barriers for $200,000.00. Alderman Cleaver?

Alderman Cleaver
Yes, thank you Madam President. These two line items are very important to the downtown, both are
important, both are long-standing and proven to be beneficial. We have to go forward with this. | think it
would be ridiculous to try and remove those funds at this point.
President Wilshire
Thank you, Alderman Cleaver, anyone else? Seeing none, would the Clerk please call the roll?
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderwoman Lu 1
Nay: 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 14
MOTION FAILED
President Wilshire
So that motion carries, so we are back to Alderman Clemons’ motion for final passage as amended.
Alderman Clemons
| think you meant the motion fails.

Alderman Dowd

Fails.

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 49

President Wilshire

rm sorry, the Motion fails. Yeah that’s what | meant to say, thank you. Alderman Clemons?
Alderman Clemons

No | just wanted to clarify.
President Wilshire

Ok, it’s been a long night. OK so the motion before us is for final passage as amended. Further discussion
on that motion. Seeing none, would the Clerk please call the roll?

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-20-069 AS AMENDED, BY ROLL
CALL

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 14

Nay: Alderwoman Lu 1

Resolution R-20-069 declared duly adopted as amended.

R-20-070
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $294,676 FROM THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITY “COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKER

SUPPORT TO VULNERABLE POPULATIONS”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-20-070, BY ROLL CALL
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

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 50
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-20-070 declared duly adopted.

R-20-072
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large Lon Wilshire
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $356,046 FROM THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, AND $26,828
FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTO TRANSIT
GRANT ACTIVITY “LOW OR NO EMISSION GRANT PROGRAM”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN KELLY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-20-072, BY ROLL CALL
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
Resolution R-20-072 declared duly adopted.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — ORDINANCES

O-20-008
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien
Alderman Thomas Lopez
CHANGING THE STARTING TIME OF THE OVERNIGHT PARKING TIME LIMIT

RESTRICTION IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF O-20-008, BY ROLL
CALL

ON THE QUESTION