Search

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 9

well how do | say this — after you determine it’s necessary, you have to schedule a public hearing that has to
be noticed in the newspaper. When you get word back from the three State officials, you will then have to
finalize the language taking into consideration what you hear in the public hearing, taking into consideration
what those three State officials had to say. If they say anything other than go ahead, you look okay.

Once they say that or don’t say that, you have seven days to finalize that language. If you change the
language, you need to schedule another public hearing. Again, it has to be advertised in the newspaper in
advance. My understanding is if this drags along beyond the first week in September, we will miss the
opportunity to place it on the ballot this year. So you may, in fact, run into a time crunch at some point in the
process.

Alderman Lopez

With respect to Alderman Lu’s concerns that this undermines the public input process, if we vote tonight and
do determine that it's necessary to move forward with it, and then the committee does not recommend it, or if
there is public comment that Aldermen ultimately don’t choose to accept the language, this doesn’t move
forward. It would just go into legislative abyss is that correct?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

This doesn’t commit you to putting it on the ballot. It doesn’t commit you to the existing language. Itjustisa
determination that it is necessary and this context necessary does not mean absolutely necessary. It means
more a can do being appropriate and helpful. So you are not irrevocably committing anything and in fact it
doesn’t change the Charter until the voters vote to approve it if they ever do.

Alderman Lopez

Thank you.
President Wilshire

All set Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

| would just comment! guess that in my opinion voting to identify it as necessary is giving the voters an
opportunity to directly weigh in on an issue that over this past year has directly affected them. | think it does
place some bearing on the timeliness of the responses that we’ve gotten. In terms of direction, while largely |
think Public Health and the Board of Health have done an outstanding job under a lot of duress | think having a
larger capacity might have enabled them to explore issues a little bit more closely.

Alderman Klee

Thank you Madam President. | agree with Alderman Lopez. | like many of us here attended a lot of the Board
of Health meetings and often times there were just two people and we would hear “we're going to have to
continue this” because one of them had to leave. It’s no reflection on them, it’s just the process of there’s only
three people. So! do believe that we will have less issues if we do, in fact, go with the five. I'd like to atleast
start the process of making that determination and | will be voting for this.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Alderman Jette.

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 10
Alderman Jette

Thank you Madam President. So! don’t want to do anything to derail this. | think Alderman Lopez's desire to
increase the number of people on the Board of Health it sounds like a great idea. He as liaison has seen them
in action and knows the problems and is trying to solve the problem. The problem | have is that | guess
because of the way the Statute is written, we are supposed to first determine that this is necessary.

It probably is but we ran into the same problem with the Police Commission Charter change. We were asked
to vote that night when the thing was first presented to us without any discussion, without any debate. We
were asked to determine that it was necessary so that it could go to the public hearing. | don’t know...| think
afterwards — | may be wrong about this so | won’t say that because | don’t want to say anything that I’m not
sure of. | don’t know what the solution is but | understand Alderman Lu’s reluctance to vote, to make a
determination that this is necessary when we haven’t had a chance to discuss it. | don’t want to derail it so
given Attorney Bolton’s instruction or suggestion that if we don’t determine its necessary tonight and it doesn’t
go on to public hearing, then we run into scheduling problems so | will vote in favor of this but | don’t know if in
the future whether we need to look at that language.

| guess if Attorney Bolton is saying that’s wnat the Statute says but | think that if we had more time, | suppose
what he’s saying is that if we had more time then it could be referred to committee and the committee could
make a recommendation as to whether it’s necessary or not and should go on to the public, and come back to
us for that vote, and then we schedule the public hearing. Once again we are through no — I'm not blaming
anyone for this — but once again we're facing deadlines thatrequire us to do anything...| don’t think this is
anything really controversial about this. | think if we vote tonight saying it’s necessary, it goes on to public
hearing. There will be plenty of time to discuss it then. The committee will then discuss it and | think there’s
plenty of room to tweak it or abandon itif that’s appropriate. I'll vote for it tonight but | understand Alderman
Lu’s reluctance to vote on this. Thank you for letting me think out loud.

President Wilshire

Sure.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

| just have a question. So when | look at the next motion down there, it says this is going to go to
Personnel/Administrative so it goes there before it would go to a public hearing? Just trying to get clarity for
myself. Would it go to public hearing first?

President Wilshire

It's the same night.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Oh okay. All right.

President Wilshire

Okay. You allset? Anyone else? Anyone on Zoom?

Alderman Lopez

Just as an observation, yeah it’s pretty cumbersome that you have the public hearing on it and then the
committee meeting at the same time but there is public comment at the committee meeting and also at the
Board of Aldermen. So if any significant red flags were raised, then | think there would still be public input but |
have not changed very much here.

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 11
Alderwoman Lu

Thank you. | would just like a little clarification. It seemed to me that I'm not sure if | heard Corporation
Counsel's answer to the question do we have to take the vote tonight. It seemed that you went on to say yes
this could be a real time crunch if it’s not done tonight but we do have the option of voting in committee on the
necessity. Am! correct?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

You wouldn’t believe me no matter what | told you so I'll decline to answer.

Alderwoman Lu

Now that’s...there’s no call for that.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

You've made yourself clear in the past Alderwoman Lu.

Alderwoman Lu

Well Pm very sorry but | think that | deserve an answer.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

No | don’t think you are.

Alderwoman Lu

rve apologized to you more than twice...

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

No you have not. In fact, thatis an absolute lie. You have never apologized to me.

Alderwoman Lu

You have refused my apologies. Ill send you the e-mails.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

You have not.

Alderwoman Lu

Well do we have another attorney that could answer my question whether...?

President Wilshire

We do not.

Alderwoman Lu

Okay well then! object to this vote based on | can’t get an answer.

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 12
President Wilshire

Anyone else?

Alderman Caron

To you Madam Chair to Corporation Counsel. You said that this may not get done in time to be on the
November ballot. Would that mean we would have to have a special election or would this just die out in
December?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

It would be up to the Board.

Alderman Caron

Okay. All right. Thank you.

President Wilshire

| would not be inclined to hold a special election for this. If it’s going to go, we should send it. We still have
time to talk about it at committee, at the public hearing, back here at the Board. We'll have plenty of time for
input. This is just wnat the Statute says according to our Attorney.

Alderman Caron

No | appreciate it. | just don’t want us doing this and then find out that you knowwe have to have a special
election. So he clarified. Thank you.

President Wilshire
Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?

Alderwoman Kelly

Thanks. | don’t want to belabor the point but | do agree that there is some confusion at least in my mind as
well in terms of how are we supposed to determine whether this is necessary if we haven’t had the discussion
yet so it does feel a little cart before the horse just the way it’s written. So there’s an opportunity to adjust that
in the future and maybe there isn’t. I'm sure Attorney Bolton could weigh in on that but it definitely is confusing
when things come and we are asked to determine if it's necessary with no information.

President Wilshire

Did you want to address that?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

If the piece of legislation had been introduced earlier in the year, there would obviously be more time. If the
legislature were to adjust the Statute so that it did not require a determination of it being necessary before a

public hearing could be schedule, then it would perhaps be easier to understand. | didn’t write it. | wasn’t
consulted before it was written. That's wnatit says.

Alderwoman Kelly

Can | follow up please?

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 13
President Wilshire
Are you set Attorney Bolton?

Alderwoman Kelly

Attorney Bolton when you Say “legislature” you’re referring to the State. This is a State Statute that makes us
have to do it this way, correct?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Yes that’s what! meant when | said the “legislature”. Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly

| appreciate that. Thank you for the clarification.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

| meant the New Hampshire legislature. Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you.

Alderman Jette

SO just to clarify, | think what you're telling us Attorney Bolton is if we had more time — so if this Charter
change had been introduced two months ago for example, it is possible under that circumstance that it could
have been referred to the committee before the determination of it being necessary and then the committee
could discuss it, make a recommendation to us, it could come back to us, we could say yes it's necessary, and
then the public hearing could be scheduled. If there was enough time, it could have been done that way?
Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Yes.

Alderman Jette

Okay thank you.

Alderman Tencza

As much as | love sitting here and debating process with everybody, |am not sure how much more we’re going
to learn about the necessity of this after going through a pandemic and listening to what Alderman Lopez just
told us about how the Board of Public Health operates. If we think aboutit, the Public Works has 5
commissioners. Police Department has 5 commissioners. The Fire Department has 5 commissioners. This
would...

President Wilshire

Police has 3.

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 14
Alderman Tencza

Oh okay. I’m sorry.

President Wilshire

That’s okay.

Alderman Tencza

But! think given the considerations of the Board of Public Health that | think it’s an easy decision to say this is
necessary and we should move forward with this tonight and let it go through the process from here.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? Alderwoman Lu.

Alderwoman Lu

| just want to explain that a big reason why | am moving to send it to committee first is that | wanted to
establish that thatis an option. Itwas my understanding it’s an option. | believe that Corporation Counsel has
told us it’s actually an option and after the last reading to change the Charter, | felt that it — well now can tell
that most people or many people in here were not aware that it was an option. | wanted that to be more clear.
The reason | say that - Madam Chairman I'm sorry if ’m making you roll your eyes — but the reason I’m saying
that is | had conversations with people. Corporation Counsel is very angry with me because | expressed that |
tried to get to the bottom of it at the meeting that night.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

You don’t know why I'm angry with you apparently.

Alderwoman Lu

Excuse me. fm speaking.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Yeah and nowl'm speaking...

Alderwoman Lu

No.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

and you're misrepresenting me and I’m interrupting you so that you don’t continue to misrepresent me.
Alderwoman Lu

Who’s running this meeting? lmesorry. I’m all set.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion that Alderman Lopez made? Seeing none, will the Clerk
please call the roll?

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 15
A viva voce roll call was taken to adjourn the Board of Aldermen meeting which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,

Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,
Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright,

Alderman Wilshire 13
Nay: Alderwoman Lu 1
MOTION CARRIED

If the vote passes then,

Assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, BOARD OF HEALTH, and
SCHEDULE A SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMEN meeting on Tuesday, July 6, 2021, in the aldermanic
chamber at 7:00 p.m. by President Wilshire

There being no objection, President Wilshire suspended the rules to allow for a first reading of
Resolution R-21-153 which was received after the agenda was prepared.

R-21-153
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large David C. Tencza
Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $50,000 FROM THE KRESGE
FOUNDATION INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITY “EQUITY IN
COVID-19 RESPONSE”
Given its first reading;

There being no objection, President Wilshire suspended the rules to allow for a second reading of
Resolution R-21-153.

Resolution R-21-153 given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-21-153, BY ROLL CALL
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Caron

Yes is this time sensitive? Is that why we're doing this?

President Wilshire

Itis. Thank you.

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 16
Alderman Caron

Thank you.

President Wilshire

Any other discussion on the motion? Alderman Jette

Alderman Jette

It seems pretty obvious but can we have an explanation as to wnat this all about?

President Wilshire

Well its money that the city is accepting from the Kresge Foundation to start the post COVID work that the
Public Health Department needs to do. The grant started in June and if we don’t accept it tonight, they
probably won’t get it in until August at which point the grant will already have been in play for three months.
They really want to get started on that work and they can’t do it until they have the funds.

Alderman Jette

Thank you.

President Wilshire

Any other discussion on the motion for final passage? Seeing none, will the Clerk please call the roll?
A viva voce roll call was taken to adjourn the Board of Aldermen meeting 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,
Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 14

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-21-153 declared duly adopted.
NEW BUSINESS — ORDINANCES

O-21-066
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman-at-Large David C. Tencza
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
PROVIDING FOR ALDERMEN-AT-LARGE TO ACT IN COMMITTEES TO MEET REQUIREMENT THAT
QUORUMS BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, by President
Wilshire

City of Nashua

Purchasing Department
Administrative Services Division (603) 589-3330
229 Main Street - Nashua, NH 03060 Fax (603) 594-3233

February 23, 2022
Memo #22-244

TO: Mayor Donchess
Finance Committee

SUBJECT: Evaluation and Preliminary Design of Class A Biosolids Management Upgrade in the
amount not to exceed $199,886.60 funded from 53107 Architect & Engineering
Services/Wastewater Fund

Please see attached communications from David Boucher, Superintendent of the Wastewater Department,
dated February 24, 2022 for project specific details related to this purchase. Below please find a summary
of the purchase approval request:

Item: Evaluation of Preliminary Design to Upgrade of Biosolids Management from Class
B to Class A

Value: not to exceed $199,886.60

Vendor: Wright Pierce

Department: 169 Wastewater
Source Fund: 53107 Architect & Engineering Services/ Wastewater Fund

Ordinance: Pursuant to NRO § 5-83 Professional Services (A) In the purchase of accounting,
architectural, auditing, engineering, legal, medical and ambulance services and
purchases of independent professional consultant services for personnel, data
processing, actuarial, planning, management and other comparable purchases
competitive bidding shall not be required.

The Board of Public Works (2/24/22 BPW meeting), Division of Public Works: Wastewater, and the
Purchasing Department respectfully request your approval of this contract.

Regards,
Kelly Parkinson

Purchasing Manager

Ce: D Boucher
C O'Connor

Board of Aldermen 06-22-2021 Page 17
PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - None

REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Also the R-21-152 | think itis. Can we sign on as sponsors? | don’t think we did that with his.
President Wilshire

Which one are you talking about?

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

R-21-152.

President Wilshire

Did you want to be added as a sponsor?

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Yes thank you. Sorry.

President Wilshire

Did you have any comments Alderman Gathright?

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Yes. | just wanted to say that Southern New Hampshire Outreach of Black Community and the Greater
Nashua NAACP will be celebrating Fredrick Douglas on July 3% at the Library Common at 12 p.m.

Alderman Jette

Yes thank you Madam President. | think its necessary to say that we are a legislative body. We gather and
this is the first time we’ve had a chance to meetin person for some time. These meetings are — this is where
we discuss things. The Right-to-Know Law prohibits us from talking about stuff outside of these meetings. It
has to be properly noticed. The public has to have an opportunity to watch us debate these issues so that
when we discussion things, we’re doing our jobs. You know! hope that none of you thinks mnen | ask
questions or | talk about things that 'm wasting your time or you’ve got some place else you'd rather be. I’m
sorry about that but this my job. | was elected to come here at these meetings and talk about these things with
you people and reach a consensus about issues.

The second thing I'd like to talk about is I'd like to all of my fellow people of French Canadian heritage, | would
like to wish a bon Saint John Baptist this Thursday the 24" of June is the Feast of Saint John the Baptist. Its’ a
holiday in the Province of Quebec and it’s a national holiday in Canada. This Thursday in Nashua at 11:00
there’s going to be a celebration of the installation of that sculpture down at the park known as Le Parc De
Notre Renaissance Francaise. That statue is actually called “La Dame De Renaissance Francaise’ and its a
statue which was installed 20 years ago. So there’s going to be a celebration of that anniversary but the statue
commemorates the role that women played when the French/Canadian immigrants came to this city. The
women as mothers and as teachers taught the immigrant children at that time — the French/Canadian children
and that’s what that statue commemorates and that’s what that’s all about. So there’s going to be a
celebration. | believe the Mayor is going to be there, and someone from the French Council from Boston, and