A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, January 10, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Aldermanic Chamber.
President David Rootovich presided; City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron recorded.
Prayer was offered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron; Alderman Tollner leading in the Pledge to the
The roll call was taken with 15 members of the Board of Aldermen present.
His Honor Mayor Bernard A. Streeter and Corporation Counsel David R. Connell were also in
REMARKS BY THE MAYOR
Thank you Mr. President and welcome back. The Division of Public Health and Community
Services reports that a regional Public Health Improvement Plan has been developed over the
past year and a copy has been provided to you for review and the public if they would like one.
The Division would be pleased to do a presentation of this at your convenience.
The good news from the division is that the Greater Nashua Medical Reserve Corps celebrated
their second anniversary December 27th at Southern NH Medical Center but the bad news is that
Dr. Joe Sabato has resigned as Medical Director to pursue other ventures, and we wish him much
success. We are pleased that he will continue with his role as the Greater Nashua Medical
Reserve Corps Coordinator under the Medical Reserve Corps Grant.
Keira Delude, Laboratory Director for the Environmental Health Department, representing the
City, recently spoke in favor of House Bill 1464 in Concord. This bill establishes a mosquito
control fund in the Department of Health and Human Services to assist cities like ours to provide
funding to offset mosquito control activities in response to declared threats to the public health.
The Greater Nashua Regional Public Health Preparedness Regional Advisory Group will be
meeting this Thursday here in City Hall. Professor Kerry Fosher from Dartmouth Medical School,
acting as a consultant for the Bureau of Emergency Management, will be conducting an exercise
on taking our respective smallpox plans and moving them into an all-hazards public health
preparedness and response plan. It will be held here at City Hall on Thursday. For
the communities that do not have such a plan, this will be valuable as a primer in developing one.
The exercise will include opportunities for questions and discussion among the group so
we can learn from each other.
The Nashua Regional Planning Commission will present a preliminary report on their work with
the towns regarding Emergency Support Functions as well as plans and the development of local
ordinances to help deal with health emergencies.
The U.S. Department of Justice Office in Concord has just completed the final federal court
approval of our combined sewer overflow consent decree that the city had already agreed to
months ago. This will save our wastewater customers over a hundred million dollars over the
next 13 years.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 2
From the Division of Public Works, the winter of 2005-2006 has been very busy as we all know.
The Division has responded to 9 winter events as of January 3rd. We have received 22.5” of snow
to date and the storms have primarily fallen on weekends and holidays with 2 events over
Thanksgiving, two events over Christmas and two events over New Year weekend. The winter
season is in week number 8 or 40% of the winter season completed. The weekend storms have
caused the use of much overtime to date. 49% of the budgeted amount has been used.
The Street Department excavated and repaired a section of the sewer line on Ash St. that had
collapsed. The department replaced about 16 feet of concrete line with PVC pipe. The goal of
this repair is to delay the replacement of the sewer until spring. This would allow the work to be
bid with non-winter pricing.
The five ice rinks in the city are getting heavy use and the weather is cooperating nicely. The
rinks are located at Roby Park, Rancourt St., Atherton Ave., Sergeants Ave., and Fairgrounds
The newly formed Asbestos Disposal Site Response Team completed its first formal project at the
Senior Activity Center. The project involved excavation through asbestos contaminated soil to
allow for installation of a drainage structure and approximately 105‟ of six-inch drainage line. It is
estimated that if this project were contracted to a private asbestos remediation firm, costs would
have exceeded $8,000.00, however with the use of the Division‟s ADS Response team additional
direct costs over and above regular payroll expenses were less than $500.00.
The Solid Waste Department School Recycling Program took part in an event with the School
District last month to introduce the new Paper Recycling Pilot Program. This program was
developed for the High Schools and utilizes the new recycling trucks and ToterÔ containers for
more efficient and effective recycling. Students from the high schools‟ Green Club have been
instrumental in implementing this program and were present along elected officials to unveil this
We are pleased to welcome our new City Traffic Engineer, Jean Marie Kennamer. Her first day
as our City Traffic Engineer was December 29th.
New traffic signals have been installed at the intersection of East Hollis and Allds Streets. The
intersection was set up with video detection, and the City‟s' Traffic Department staff did all of the
installation and traffic control at this intersection.
Elm Street Garage lighting is being vastly improved by staff. The Sign Crew also installed a mirror
on the second floor of the garage.
Renovations are being done at the new DPW-Transit Office at 11 Riverside Street. Interior plans
are being prepared by PMR Architects. The Street Department will be performing most of this
demo work and the Engineering Department has started work on the design of the site plan.
On December 9, the Nashua Wastewater Treatment Facility received the “Plant of the Year”
award from the New Hampshire Water Pollution Control Association. This award recognizes
excellence in compliance, maintenance and operation and is a testament to the
management and employees of this facility.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 3
This Thursday at 2:30 p.m., the House of Representatives Transportation Committee is holding a
hearing on House Joint Resolution 24, supporting efforts for commuter rail in our state.
It is recognized that restoring commuter rail service to our state offers significant economic
development opportunities and an important alternative to our congested highways. As many of
your know, the City envisions that the train station site will be designed using transit-oriented
development and smart growth principles and that the increased value of the property will be used
to generate the funding match through tax increment financing. The citizens of our city and the
region and many from throughout the State have been critical to the success of the steps taken to
date and are integral to the implementation of passenger rail to our city.
And for some good news on the FY „06 revenue front, the City received $1,217,000 in School
Catastrophic Aid reflecting approximately $565,000 above the budgeted projection of $650,000.
The $650,000 budgeted amount reflected the 70% pro-ration we received in FY ‟05, which
resulted in a $327,000 reduction in aid. We budgeted conservatively and so are pleased with the
State‟s full funding in this time of fiscal constraints.
This Thursday, January 12th, will be an important day in the life of the Pennichuck Waterworks
eminent domain case. Both sides will file testimony. In this case the 2 factors the PUC will
consider is whether public ownership is in the public‟s interest and we as a city can properly
manage this utility and the company‟s true value. Our initial testimony will center on providing the
Public Utilities Commission with the names and expertise of our 2 consultants.
You remember that the R. W. Beck Company has been selected by the board to do the
management oversight and engineering services work necessary and Veolia Water North
America, one of the world‟s top water management companies, will manage the operation and
maintenance of the company once the New Hampshire PUC rules in our favor. In addition, our 2
consultants, Sansoucy Associates and the Upton law firm will present testimony on what we feel
the true value of the company is as well as the savings that will be incurred by the water rate
payers of our city as a result of public ownership.
When our testimony and filings have been completed you will be hearing first hand from our
consultants not only what the costs of the taking will be to the city‟s water rate payers but more
importantly what the actual savings will be to our city‟s water rate payers over the period of a 30-
year bond issue, the cost of which will be paid by the rate payers not the city via taxes.
In addition, when we are successful, every penny the city has and will spend on this acquisition
will be reimbursed us from the bond proceeds.
In an effort to keep you fully informed of this taking, I will be inviting Don Correll, President and
CEO of Pennichuck, to meet with the Board at a special meeting to be called next week. I‟m sure
you would like to personally hear from him on any suggestions he may have to resolve this
matter. I also expect that President Rootovich will be calling another special meeting later this
month at which time the Board and the public will hear from each of our consultants including
representatives from R. W. Beck and the President of Veolia Water North America. This meeting
should be fruitful, as it will bring all of us up-to-date on the progress of our case. And with that,
thank you Mr. President.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 4
RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR
With regard to inviting Mr. Correll to speak to the Board, it seems that since the meeting on our
side will be with the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen, who are the Chief Executive Officer and
the Board of Directors of the City it would only be appropriate to invite both Mr. Correll and the
Board of Directors of Pennichuck Corporation to attend that meeting.
Mayor will the meeting be a presentation by Mr. Correll and will that be a public meeting here in
Yes it will be public. An invitation was issued today. If he agrees it will be held immediately
following the Finance Committee meeting next week.
And we will be able to question Mr. Correll?
In regards to the sewer work that is going on on Ash Street, just an addition I would like to
mention we are also keying on some other streets where we have sewer problems; Ash, Nevada,
Lake, and Elm. We are going to delay the spring contract for Ash to include some work to be
done on Elm Street. The bid will be re-advertised in March of this year. Some borings were
already started December 28, 2005. We are moving forward. We are looking at some other
problematic streets. Thank you.
Endorsers: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
Board of Aldermen
EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NASHUA ELKS CRUSADERS
PEE WEE DIVISION I FOOTBALL TEAM
Given its first reading;
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 5
MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO
ALLOW FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-06-01
Resolution R-06-01 given its second reading
MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-01
Resolution R-06-01 declared duly adopted.
Representative Pamela G. Price provided to the Nashua Elks Crusaders Pee Wee Division I
Football Team a Declaration, signed by the Speaker of the New Hampshire House of
MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE FOR A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS
Endorsers: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
Board of Aldermen
EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NASHUA ELKS CRUSADERS
MIDGET FOOTBALL TEAM
Given its first reading;
MOTION BY ALDERMAN DION THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW
FOR THE SECOND READING OF R-06-02
Resolution R-06-02 given its second reading
MOTION BY ALDERMAN DION FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-02
Resolution R-06-02 declared duly adopted.
READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
MOTION BY ALDERMAN TOLLNER THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
MEETING OF DECEMBER 27, 2005, BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON FILE, AND THE READING
MOTION BY ALDERMAN TEEBOOM THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO
ALLOW FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER THE
AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE ONLY
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 6
From: Fred S. Teeboom
Re: Resignation as Intervener in the PUC Eminent Domain Case, DW-04-048
MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE
ON THE QUESTION
This is a communication I sent that you all have a copy of. It contains my resignation as an
intervener in the Public Utility Commission‟s eminent domain case. You will see there are three
letters attached, two from the Staff Attorney from the PUC and a third letter from the Paralegal
from the PUC to all of those on the service list, and presumably I got removed from the list at this
point. What I wanted to say on the main letter is that I originally was granted intervenership
because I applied because I felt that the City of Nashua had not informed the citizens adequately
of all of the events leading up to the eminent domain process and then after the eminent domain
process, and I was granted intervenership. However, after the election the question came to my
mind am I facing a conflict of interest.
I addressed this question to Attorney Connell and also Marsha Thornbrook who is the Staff
Attorney for the PUC. Attorney Connell was kind enough to send me a very comprehensive
synopsis and basically there is no law on this point in the State of New Hampshire – I can hold
both positions and not be in a conflict of interest. I could even go to non-public sessions, possibly
not attend strategy sessions, but even that is not clear in the State of New Hampshire. However,
there is the issue of an appearance of conflict. People might perceive me to have access to
information as an intervener where you get all of the information from the PUC directly related to
the service list information and be on the side of one of the two litigants namely the side of
Nashua and, therefore, there would seem to be an appearance.
I ran during the campaign and I made it very well known that I did not condone even the
appearance, the slightest of appearance by any elected official, any appointed official, and
municipal employee – just don‟t condone it so it would be highly hypocritical for me to now be in a
situation where I could be accused of an appearance of conflict. Therefore, following the
swearing in last Sunday I wrote this letter of resignation, and I regret it, but I don‟t want to be
hypocritical. I just want it to be on the record. Thank you Mr. President.
PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
Bruce Hanson, 5 Trombly Terrace
Thank you Mr. President, Mr. Mayor, and thank the Board for allowing me to speak. I am a 20
year resident of Nashua, a businessman of Nashua; a construction business, and my most recent
endeavor that was successful was the taking over of 136 Pine Street Eatery, which has been in
now almost 8 years. That property at the time was run down when I picked it up and improved
the neighborhood and the environment around it. I am here tonight on R-06-03, which is 42 Pine
Street. I was in front of the Infrastructure Committee on November 21, 2005 at which we
determined that the Department of Mental Health had previously been awarded the property for
$1, and that I have been trying to obtain that property for some time. It has since been conveyed
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 7
that the Department of Mental Health no longer exists and that the City would be taking that
At that meeting, I presented a bid to the Infrastructure Committee in order to try and purchase that
property. The reason being is that my partner and I own 40 Pine Street, which is on the corner of
Pine and Central. It has been referred to as an eyesore and should be cleaned up and taken care
of. We have since done that. We have painted it and cleaned it up both inside and out. When I
approached the city for options on what we can do with the property we were being told over and
over again that there is no parking so you are limited on what you are allowed to do. If we are
able to obtain 42 Pine Street we have parking. In the short picture we could at least take down 42
Pine Street, which by the way the city has had now for five years and it has not done any good for
the city at all; does not make the city any money. As a matter of fact it costs the city about $2,000
a year for insurance on the property. If the city goes and puts it out to public bid and I don‟t get
that property I am still stuck with 40 Pine Street, which is on the corner of Pine and Central, and I
can‟t do anything with it.
I am asking that the Board consider my original bid, which would be accepted or at least counter-
offer me on that bid and not put it out for a sealed bid or a public bid. From my understanding I
am the only party that has been interested in it and we are willing to take that property and clean it
up. If our budget allows we will take it down immediately and in the short picture start using it for
40 Pine Street. The big picture if I am able to get this property would be to take down both
properties; 40 and 42 Pine Street, and clean up the whole corner – put up either workforce
housing or some sort of commercial – whatever will be best for the neighborhood, and of course
we would be in front of every board to be able to do that when that time comes. It is my intent to
improve the neighborhood.
We currently have my partner living in that property now, the property next to us, which is 42 Pine
Street, has been empty for five years – it has been boarded up during that time. It is an eyesore.
We intend to clean it up and take care of the neighborhood. I am asking that the resolution not go
out for bid and that the city at least consider what they considered on November 21st in front of
the Infrastructure Committee that it could have gone to me then. It was brought up in the meeting
that night that they do not have to put it out to bid and that the Board could vote on it and sell it to
me at that night, and they said they would wait until the end of December and now we are into
next year and it might go out for private or a sealed bid. I am not quite sure how that looks, but it
doesn‟t appear as though I will be getting the property without getting to some sort of a bidding
process that is sealed. Again I ask the Board to consider that.
Bob Sullivan, 12 Stonybrook Road
Good evening. First off congratulations to all of you new and not so new who won your election.
Tonight I would like to very briefly speak a little on R-06-06 pertaining to Broad Street. Before I do
that I would like to wish Dot Nice the best. She had a slight heart attack and she is in the Lahey
Clinic in Burlington. She is recovering. I spoke to her last night. She is doing well, and I wish her
God‟s speed in her recovery.
Regarding R-06-06, many of us frankly forgot about this resolution pertaining to the Broad Street
Parkway. It has been a long time – 3 years, and it is somewhat vague in my mind anyway, and I
know perhaps in many citizens‟ minds. Frankly I was leaning for as an individual citizen
expressing his opinion, I was leaning toward the Broad Street Parking back three years ago.
However, since it has been quite a while I would like to bring up a couple of points on this
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 8
Resolution. I am assuming that this will got to a committee – either the Planning & Economic
Development or the Infrastructure. In the body of the resolution it talks to a lot of whereas‟. For
instance it says whereas the Broad Street Parkway will create another Nashua river crossing,
which has been identified as important to improving the circulations – I frankly don‟t know what
that means. It might be that it has been a while.
I think under each whereas regardless of what committee it goes to, there should be a where is
underneath the whereas. For instance on the one that I just talked about – where is the data and
analysis that points to the proof that it will be important in providing circulation and just what does
circulation mean. Whereas the Broad Street Parkway will alleviate traffic congestion on several
streets – where is the data analysis that points to the proof that this parkway will alleviate traffic
conditions, and what exactly does alleviate mean? Whereas several redevelopment proposals
valuable to the city economically are dependent on the completion …. – perhaps where is the
document that points to this. I think you get the picture on the whereas‟ should be answered by
where is, and if it is proven I think we should move forward because it has been quite a while on
Where it says to be resolved, the last two sentences or so – “As part of the agreement the City
will commit to providing a local match currently estimated to be approximately $6.2 million.” I
guess the question I have is I thought that the Broad Street Parkway was not going to cost the
citizens anything. I remember that clearly being talked about 3-5 years ago. If this is a TIF then I
think it should be pronounced as a TIF in the body of the resolution or explained at these
meetings what exactly the $6.2 million is coming from. I understand tax incremental financing – I
think it looks good on paper. I am hoping that the real TIF comes through as per the benefits
noted on the resolution and that there are decision points/go and no go points denoted on that
resolution, but I am a little confused about the $6.2 million. As I recall this wasn‟t going to cost us.
If it is proven that we are going to have increased tax revenues associated with this then let‟s see
the data and let‟s make sure that the committee just refreshes the citizens‟ minds. I remember
this project back 3-5 years ago. This thing has been going on for I want to say decades. I
remember this back in the „80s as a young many in his early 30s back then and I remember David
Gleneck a citizen speaking up for years. I remember there was a charette and the consultants
that we paid basically defined the project to be basically what Dave Gleneck‟s recommendations
were. If this is resurrected again I would like citizen David Gleneck take a look at it. I remember
he was for the Broad Street Parkway a few years ago or so and I would feel comfortable if he was
for it again. Thank you very much.
PETITIONS – None
NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS
Appointments by the Mayor
Board of Registrars
Carol Ann Cordero (Re-Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2007
144 Amherst Street
Nashua, NH 03064
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 9
MOTION BY ALDERMAN TOLLNER TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR THE
DISCUSSION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF CAROL ANN CORDERO
MOTION BY ALDERMAN TOLLNER TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF
CAROL ANN CORDERO TO THE BOARD OF REGISTRARS FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE
DECEMBER 31, 2007
ON THE QUESTION
This appointment here and the one for Mine Falls Advisory Committee are all re-appointments.
There was some difficulty with the schedule on Thursday night. I asked the individuals who are the
members of the Personnel/Advisory Committee if they had a problem with handling this tonight and
they did not. I contacted every single member prior to tonight‟s meeting.
I would point out that such contact and straw poles is a direct violation of state law.
To clarify my previous statement, I didn‟t take a straw pole to find out whether the individuals were
in favor of it, I was told that a couple of people had some difficulty – if this Board has a problem then
we will just hold this until the next Board of Aldermen meeting. I think everyone here understands
what we are trying to accomplish.
I have no particular problem with the re-appointment of Ms. Cordero. The problem is it is a violation
of law for the Chairman of a committee to call every other member of the committee and agree to
take action in a certain format whatever that is. All such conversations, discussions, consensus of
opinions of that nature have to be done pursuant to a noticed meeting in public session.
These are all re-appointments is that correct?
Could I ask a question to the Chair or Corporation Counsel?
By all means.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 10
Our practice is that sitting members of committees remain active as members of those committees
until either a replacement is sworn in or until they are sworn in again themselves is that not correct?
That is the general rule.
I guess I just don‟t see the urgency of why we needed to do this. I know this Board does not in
general like to suspend the rules and take action without referring things to committee that doesn‟t
have it, and it seems to me that there is absolutely no functional reason why this has to be done…
tape flipped …
Thank your Mr. Chairman. For the last eight years I have seen it done many times. I don‟t see
anything wrong with the motion. Usually re-appointments are re-appointed, and we have done this
many times where there has been a re-appointment we have suspended the rules many times to
re-appoint these people without it going to committee. We have done it many times Mr. Chairman.
Is there any further discussion? The motion before you is to confirm by voice vote the appointment
of Carol Ann Cordero to the Board of Registrars for a term to expire December 31, 2007.
President Rootovich declared Carol Ann Cordero duly appointed to the Board of Registrars for a
term to expire December 31, 2007.
Mine Falls Park Advisory Committee
G. Matthew Dalianis (Re-Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2008
90 Walden Pond Drive
Nashua, NH 03064
Paul Keegan (Re-Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2008
29 McKean Street
Nashua, NH 03060
James T. Laliberte (Re-Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2008
4 Roby Road
Nashua, NH 03064
Jodie Michon (Re-Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2008
1 Anders Lane
Nashua, NH 03060
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 11
Magnus Pardoe (Re-Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2008
7 Westray Drive
Nashua, NH 03062
Sherman S. Sewell (Re-Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2008
3 Reservoir Street
Nashua, NH 03064
Peter Testa (Re-Appointment) Term to Expire: December 31, 2008
12 Mapleleaf Drive
Nashua, NH 03062
MOTION BY ALDERMAN TOLLNER TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR AS
READ AND REFER THEM TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
REPORTS OF COMMITTEE
Finance Committee............................................................................. 01/03/06
There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the January 3, 2006
Finance Committee accepted and placed on file.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS – None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES – None
NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS
Endorsers: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
Alderman Robert A. Dion
Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
RELATIVE TO THE DISPOSITION OF TAX DEEDED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 42 PINE
STREET (SHEET 83, LOT 107)
Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane
Alderman-at-Large James R. Tollner
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $30,189 FROM ACCOUNT 531-11993 “POLICE
DEPARTMENT – PAYROLL TRANSFERS” INTO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ACCOUNT
631-11 “POLICE HVAC SYSTEM”
Given its first reading; assigned to the FINANCE COMMITTEE by President Rootovich
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 12
It has been our practice to send transfers to the Budget Committee for some period of time.
Alderman McCarthy you are correct, but the tradition has been for the last two years. Prior to that it
has always gone to the Finance Committee. As President of the Board of Aldermen I am choosing to
send those back to the Finance Committee. If there is an objection I will address your objection, the
Board can take a vote on it.
MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO REFER R-06-04 TO THE BUDGET REVIEW
ON THE QUESTION
The Finance Committee is constituted under the Charter of the city to make sure that our system of
accounts is consistent and to make sure that money is expended in keeping with the purchasing
regulations of the city and the state. The movement of items within the budget and appropriation
money is by our ordinances delegated to the Budget Review Committee.
Are there any further questions/comments?
Given that I am on the Finance Committee and not on the Budget Committee despite what my desires
might be, I do believe that it is correct that legislation before the Board of Aldermen aught to be referred
to sub-committees of the Board of Aldermen. The Finance Committee is clearly not a sub-committee of
the Board of Aldermen. It has a member who is not a member of the Board of Aldermen. Giving the
Mayor in this case the opportunity to vote on legislation when it is in committee as well as to have the
veto power given the Mayor by the Charter presents a double bite at the apple, which certainly was not
the intention of the drafters of the Charter. I would urge you Mr. President to reconsider your thoughts
on this matter and wherever else we might go for advice, every piece of legislation ought to be referred
to a sub-committee of the Board of Aldermen. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion? The motion before you by Alderman McCarthy is to refer R-06-04 to
the Budget Review Committee.
If I could Mr. President to the two previous speakers, in their opinion, if there was a contract that came
before the Board of Aldermen should that contract be referred to the Budget Committee or to the
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 13
Certainly I can‟t answer for either one of them, but I would be glad to recognize Alderman Bolton and
Alderman McCarthy for a response.
Thank you. This is particularly an appropriate question in context of understanding what the Finance
Committee is for. If it is a contract for the expenditure of money that has already been appropriated it
should go to the Finance Committee because that is what the Finance Committee is for – to ensure that
the finances of the city are being done appropriately, that we are not paying for things if an account has
been drained, that we are not paying for things when there is no appropriation for such things, that if
there is a requirement that there be public bidding for the purchase of the goods or services involved in
the contract that that has been done and done correctly in accordance with our purchasing code. That
is what the Finance Committee is for. If we are talking about a contract that will be paid for through
monies that have already been appropriated it should be referred only to the Finance Committee and in
fact should not be before the Board of Aldermen at all the Board of Aldermen having already acted to
appropriate the money in the city budget.
If, however, we are talking about a contract that extends for a series of years and involves for example
the lease of city property for a long period of time, that is particularly not within the purview of the
Finance Committee that is a matter for the entire Board of Aldermen probably ought to be referred to
our Infrastructure Committee. If we are talking about something that will require a city expenditure over
more than one year, involve monies not yet appropriated that would have to be passed ultimately by
the entire Board of Aldermen. In that case, it would make sense for the Board of Aldermen to pass it
and then each installment payment would have to be approved in accordance with the Warrant by the
Finance Committee as each payment is made.
Alderman Bolton has covered it eloquently.
Once again the motion before you is to refer R-06-04 to the Budget Review Committee
Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Rootovich
Endorser: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
Alderman-at-Large James R. Tollner
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 05-270, WHICH AUTHORIZES A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ON CERTAIN CITY-OWNED LAND, AND AUTHORIZING A SIMILAR CONSERVATION
EASEMENT SUBJECT TO A RESERVED RIGHT TO WITHDRAW LAND FOR MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS
Given its first reading; assigned to the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
and the NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD by President Rootovich
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 14
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
Alderman-at-Large Steven A. Bolton
Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko
SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO PROCEED WITH THE BROAD STREET PARKWAY AND
AUTHORIZING A MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
TO MUNICIPALLY MANAGE THE PROJECT AND PROVIDE THE LOCAL MATCH
MOTION BY ALDERMAN TEEBOOM FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT
ON THE QUESTION
This resolution if you look at it beside the whereas – if you look at now therefore, the now
therefore resolution it states that this is an agreement to enter into management of the Broad
Street Parkway that hasn‟t even been built yet then it talks about committing $6.2 million without
citing where this money is supposed to come from other than stating it will be from taxes later on.
This commitment is in direct violation of the Charter, Section 53 as well as ordinance Sec 243- it
says – we are talking about 06 now. “After the budget has been adopted no money shall be
drawn from the Treasurer of the City nor shall any obligation for the expenditure of money be
incurred except to a budget appropriation unless there shall be a specific appropriation therefore
specifying the source from which the funds shall come.” There are no funds cited here. $Six
point two million dollars is not a trivial amount.
On top of that the Mayor who is supposed to make this agreement, as far as I know, was not
consulted on this. That defies my understanding. On top of that, we have a Broad Street
Parkway Committee. Alderman Plamondon I believe is Chairman. It turns out the Broad Street
Parkway Committee was not consulted on this. This resolution is premature, completely not
thought through, there is no funding for $6.2 million, and my motion is to indefinitely postpone.
Once the money has been found and cited, the Mayor has been consulted plus the parkway
consultant maybe can come back in in a substantially different forum.
Thank you Mr. President. The Previous speaker I think sometimes has managed to get the cart
before the horse. You do have to manage the project that is the construction before it is built.
Management needs do not spring into existence once it has been built out of nothing. What the
management in the resolution refers to is the management of the project that would construct the
facility. As far as the Broad Street Parkway Committee, this legislation very specifically ought to
be referred to the Broad Street Parkway Committee for its input and advice, and the Mayor is
certainly welcome to give us his input and advice, but we have an independent right to bring
things up in this Board and consider it without getting the Mayor‟s preliminary approval and that is
what has happened in this case.
If in fact we come to the point where we are going to have to have a local match of $6.2 million
then it is up to this Board to consider what the source of that funding should be. The authority
read by the previous speaker refers to the administration of this city not expending money for
which there has been no appropriation. It is within the authority of this Board to consider when
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 15
and whether to make an appropriation for this or any other purpose. We do that by considering
legislation. We specifically cannot do that without considering legislation, and, therefore, to
indefinitely postpone legislation on its first reading without referring it to committees, without
getting advice of the various stakeholders is particularly inappropriate and is not doing the duty
that we have to do to ensure the benefit of our citizens in Nashua. Thank you.
I hope we are not changing the rules to the point where things have to be ready for final passage
on first reading where we are not allowed to debate them. This is a piece of legislation that has
come in that is to be sent to committee and any deficiencies in it as with any other piece of
legislation this board takes up should be dealt with in the committee, public input should be taken
– we are proposing tonight to not even allow public input. I find that ironic coming from the
greatest defenders of open government, and we have a process for doing this. There is nothing
in this that asks that any action be taken by this board tonight. If there are concerns about the
revenues, if there are concerns about where the parkway project stands those should be taken
into account during committee process. That is why we have the committee process. If we‟re
going to indefinitely postpone anything we don‟t like at first reading we can eliminate the
committees and free up an awful lot of nights during the year. I would happily sponsor legislation
to do so if that is the path we wish to take. I don‟t want to take that path however. I would ask
that we do refer this to committee.
As for some of the other points that were raised, I believe the Broad Street Parkway Committee
should certainly be consulted. As for whether the Mayor was consulted on this or not he most
certainly was. This legislation was originally introduced last term and the decision was made not
to bring it forward at the end of the term but to wait for this one. My understanding from the Legal
Department at that point was that the Mayor was in fact listed as a sponsor in the version that
would have gone on last year‟s agenda. He has chosen not to sponsor it in this term, but the
Mayor is most certainly aware that this legislation was introduced.
Thank you Mr. President. To add some more points to this, this particular legislation – we have
put forward some of the legislation in past years. The intent of this legislation is to bring the topic
of the Broad Street Parkway before the Board of Aldermen and other committees once again with
this new term. For example, the intent would be to have the NRPC come through and give
updated information to this new term Board of Aldermen so that everybody could be brought up to
speed as to the current numbers and past numbers. As it had been mentioned, this topic, Broad
Street Parkway, as been before the Board of Aldermen and the City of Nashua in excess of 30
years. The Broad Street Parkway Advisory Committee has been looking at this. We have not
had a meeting of late because right now we are waiting to look at a public/private partnership,
potential TIF – there are a lot of options still to consider that would have a tremendous impact on
what is the city‟s matching funds, which currently is listed around $6.2 million, to move forward
with the project.
The rest of the funds are available through federal dollars for this project. This resolution does
not appropriate the expenditure of the funds, but it moves the topic forward before the Aldermen,
the Broad Street Parkway Advisory Committee, the NRPC, and the sub-committees of the Board
of Aldermen. It is to if you will open conversations and discussions again on this topic, which is
vital to the city.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 16
As far as issues brought forward during public comment in replacing whereas with where is the
facts of this project have been publicly known for years. Go right down the line as far as viability
of downtown – this is key, as far as with the millyard – this is key. Main Street has been at failure
for well over 10 years. The New Hampshire DOT had just called a meeting with the public
officials of the City of Nashua and southern New Hampshire for the reason of the traffic
congestion in this area. One of the primary reasons is we just widened Route 3 – it is already at
failure ladies and gentlemen – already. We need to look at alternative means of transportation;
we need to look at where we can address alleviating our congestion so that we can continue to
grow as a city in a prosperous and economic format. Thank you Mr. President.
I have a couple of questions of the sponsors. The last paragraph there where it says “Increased
property values that will result from one or more of the redevelopment proposals would generate
increased tax revenue that would be used to finance the match.” Alderman Plamondon you
mentioned a TIF – it isn‟t the intent to create a TIF in this area to cover the cost of the $6.2 million
Alderman Tollner who is your question to?
Any of the sponsors.
If and when that is the intent I would come before the Board of Aldermen with the plan. Right now
there is just discussions going on. Whether or not that is going to happen your guess is as good
as mine. We definitely do not want to spend $6.2 million. We don‟t have the money. We need to
look at any and all alternative means of supplementing as much of those funds as possible in
order to move forward toward a build. The intent of this is not for a TIF if that answers your
It is not my intention to do a TIF or to not do a TIF. It is my intention to get a discussion that
determines what mechanism is appropriate to fund it if any. This project as was pointed out
during public comment has been hanging around for what I believe to be on the order of 40 years
now, and has never either come to fruition nor has it been ceased. Millions and millions of dollars
have been spent on the right of way acquisition for this project to this point. It is unclear whether
or not ceasing the project makes us liable to reimburse the federal government for some of those
funds or not. If we are not going to go forward with it we ought to understand that and take our
lumps. If we are going to go forward with it we ought to come up with a plan for how we are going
to pay for it because to sit here year after year after year and say some day in the future we will
do this but we don‟t know how while the bills pile up – the amount we are probably liable for if we
cancel it is more than the $6.2 million, and I think we need to understand that before that number
becomes larger and larger.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 17
There are projects in the city, with regard to redevelopment of underutilized properties, which can
only be facilitated if some sort of access becomes available, which is what this project proposes
to do. We owe it to ourselves to figure out whether those projects are worth doing, we owe it to
the owners of those properties to figure out whether it makes sense for them to continue thinking
about developing those properties, and as a matter of orderly planning of the community we
simply need to come to a decision on what we are doing whether the numbers that are generated
by the parkway support finishing building it or whether we are better off to just get rid of it and
figure out what that costs us. There are costs coming no matter what we do. My goal with
sponsoring the resolution is simply to get that debate started so that we can understand what the
model is for this road and whether it needs to be built, what it is going to cost, and whether or not
we should do it.
Citizen Bob Sullivan brought this up in his remarks. I remember back 8 years ago when I first got
on the board I was called by Mayor Davidson‟s office to be in his office at a certain time, and I
went over to see him. He and Tom Kelly at that time had the sketches and the maps of the Broad
Street Parkway project on an easel and I looked at it and I remember like it was yesterday Mayor
Davidson told me this is going to be a great thing for the City of Nashua, it will alleviate traffic on
Main Street and other areas, and he said it will not cost the City of Nashua a dime, this is going to
all be paid by the federal and state government. He told me this and I will swear on a bible that is
what he said.
Now here we are talking about $6.2 million. I am sure that figure will grow. I have no complaints
with sending it to the respective committees to discuss this. I think it is the right thing to do. I will
support sending it to committee.
Just listening to the comments from Aldermen Plamondon and McCarthy it isn‟t the intent really at
this point in time to create a TIF to cover the cost of the $6.2 million. For the newer members I
don‟t think that this particular resolution commits the city to the $6.2 million it is just to look at it. It
might be a good idea – I don‟t know where you plan on forwarding this to, but maybe to
Infrastructure as well as PEDC would be my request. Thank you.
Alderman McCarthy made a statement – I believe I heard right, that this project was about 40
years in the making. He is right. I am sure that Alderman Dion can remember. I don‟t want to
age our city clerk, but I am sure he remembers. One of the original projects that they were talking
about – we have been talking about crossing the Nashua River for decades. One of the original
projects was the Elm Street Extension. It was going to continue straight across onto Auburn
Street out and come out by the firehouse on Amherst Street. The reason the High Street Garage
was built the way it was built, if you go to the High Street Garage you notice that on the west side
there is a strip of parking, well the reason they didn‟t center that garage was that was going to be
the roadway if they built the Elm Street extension. They also had plans about the Pine Street
Extension they were going to do something there also. I am not exactly sure if it was ‟76 or ‟77
the State of New Hampshire came in and they had 13 different alignments of crossing the Nashua
River. At that time, I represented the downtown association on the traffic committee of the Board
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 18
of Aldermen and the merchants downtown had a representation on the Board, not voting, but
there to put in their input. I can remember attending meetings about these 13 potential roadways.
This isn‟t anything that is new.
Alderman Dion is right when we first started this it was going to be at no cost to the city. The cost
was going to be something like $36 million at that time. As time goes on the federal government
starts saying this is how much we are going to give, how much are you going to give? That is
some of the history of the Broad Street Parkway. I think that we need to have that discussion in
earnest. It is time to either say we are going to do this or we are not going to do it. Thank you.
I am a firm believer in the plain English language when I look at legislation, not what someone
says it is or pretends it says it is. In plain English language it is not only on the front but also on
the back – it says under the analysis, and I guess Attorney Bennett wrote this as part of the
agreement (this is an agreement where we authorize the Mayor who has not even reviewed it, his
agreement – “As part of the agreement the City will commit to providing the local match currently
estimated to be approximately $6.2 million.” Committing to me means you are in it. It says in
Charter Section 53 if you seek to make obligations you better have a source. We don‟t even
know if we have a TIF. I don‟t know where this money comes from. I didn‟t make a motion to
debate the Broad Street Parkway – simply a question if are we going to commit $6.2 million to this
resolution it better be better prepared.
Point of Order Mr. President – what is under discussion is whether we will indefinitely postpone
this measure at this point in time or alternatively send it on to committee for further discussion.
What is under consideration at this point in time is not to commit $6.2 million, and references to
that are out of order in this discussion.
I really don‟t like to keep being interrupted at the start of the very first meeting…
Point of Personal Privilege Mr. President – Mason‟s Rules of Order allow, and it is part of our
adopted rules that allow, interruptions to make points of order and points of privilege so for the
previous speaker to indicate that I have done something wrong in bringing up a point of order is
itself out of order and is disrespectful not only to me, but to our adopted process.
Alderman Teeboom I would ask that you keep your comments to the motion before you, which is
to indefinitely postpone.
I have done that. I don‟t believe the point of order was in order…
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 19
Alderman Teeboom again I am not going to argue the point with you. I ask that you refer your
comments to the motion before you, which is to indefinitely postpone.
The reason for that is it is very clear that this legislation is not ready, this legislations commits to
$6.2 million – it states that …
Alderman Teeboom if I may it does not commit anything until this board with a majority vote votes
on this resolution. We are not committing anything until this Board votes for that resolution.
You can read the English language the way you wish. Thank you.
I would encourage my colleagues to move forward with this resolution so we can get it to
committee and get everybody again up to speed with the current facts and statistics as to where
we are at and potential options of where we can go with the project. Thank you.
The way I understand this whether you are a proponent or not of the Broad Street Parkway voting
no for indefinite postponement doesn‟t spend a single penny – all it does is allow people to have
some dialogue on whether this makes sense to continue to explore.
Correct – nothing gets done until the majority of this Board passes this resolution.
Maybe to one of the sponsors – where did we come up with the $6.2 million and is it essential that
we leave that in this legislation when we refer it to committee?
That is as far as I know the number that is carried by the project for the local match to what is
available from the federal government in funds to build the project.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 20
That dollar amount is pretty much flexible as to whatever the final agreement of the project is.
The Broad Street Parkway Advisory Committee has made recommendations – not all of those
recommendations have been agreed upon by the NH DOT. There are certain recommendations
that again we need to bring the Board up to speed on, which narrows it from a four lane roadway
to two, it puts another access onto Franklin Street, additional railroad crossings – those are
reasons why we need to move forward so we can discuss this so you know all the details about it.
The dollar amount will fluctuate. The reducing of the width of the roadway there is a cost savings
especially in narrowing the bridge and straightening it – substantial costs have been realized
since then because of that. Now with inflation and everything it is basically we have been able to
keep it at a parity level.
Are we having discussion on the motion to indefinitely postpone?
I am allowing some latitude here Alderman Deane.
I would like to vote on the issue. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman I would ask, through the Chair, to Alderman Teeboom to withdraw his motion and
allow this to go to committee for discussion. This is not binding. I see no reason why we can‟t
sent it to committee Alderman Teeboom.
I have no problem – if it goes to the right committees.
Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE ON
INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE BROAD STREET PARKWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE by President
NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES - None
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 21
PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Robert Sullivan, 12 Stonybrook Road
Frankly I was pleased that R-06-06 was moved to another committee. I think that perhaps this is
the year that we should resolve this issue. I didn‟t realize it was going on for 40 years. I was only
1 back then. I think that this is one of the issues that needs to be addressed, and if it does make
sense, and to the Chair of the Broad Street Parkway Advisory Committee, my comments were not
referring that we shouldn‟t do it, but I don‟t think that the information is that visible to the public.
Those are the ones that really should have a lot of input pertaining to this situation. If it is
beneficial then we should do it. Let‟s just make that decision this year. We don‟t need other
things dragging on. Let‟s just look at it and if it is feasible to do it then accept it and if it isn‟t let‟s I
won‟t say kill it because then I will miss this one.
I just want to congratulate those who won the election. When you own your own business you
say every week let‟s start over if you have had a bad week and if you have had a good week you
say what have you done for yourself lately. I kind of look at starting anew and wiping the slate
clean and moving forward, and I think the Board of Aldermen regardless of whether you are new
or you have been here for I don‟t know how long – it is a chance to start anew and to take a look
at the issues. Remember the past for lessons learned, but let the past go regarding personal
I think that there are some major points over the last several years of lessons learned that are
kind of hitting the citizens in the wrong place. A lot of it has to do with the decisions and the lack
of decisions that you make. It is easy for me to stand up here and talk about what should have
been done or maybe shouldn‟t have been done. I am not going to talk about it. There are some
major issues that I used to bring up now and then and I think that they should be addressed
because you know the senior citizens are really hurting in this city. They are really hurting. I think
we have two beautiful schools and I think the citizens of Nashua have emptied their pockets and
put a lot of money into the school system. If you read the Broadcaster a couple of weeks ago I
kind of made a suggestion that we have to make the most use of the assets that we have and
perhaps postpone some of the visions that we have, nothing wrong with the visions, for a couple
of years so that we can tighten our belts and give the citizens a little breathing room. Let‟s face it
folks the last 2-3 years those tax bills have been much greater than the norm. Let‟s just forget
I want to talk about the discussion points over the last several months associated with the term of
the Mayor‟s position. I agree with many that the Mayor‟s term should be reduced from a four-year
term to a two-year term. On the other hand, I would also like to suggest to this Board that the
Aldermen-at-Large positions be reduced from four years to two years for the very same reasons
many people talk about reducing the Mayor‟s position. I really don‟t see the big difference
between – well I do see the difference, but why is it that the Aldermen-at-Large require a four year
term and the Ward Aldermen have two years? The Ward Aldermen vote on basically the same
things that the Aldermen-at-Large vote on and I think that the point being that well if you don‟t like
us then vote us out, but unfortunately just take a look at the last two years – we the citizens have
to accommodate the decision making over a period of several years, and I think the citizens did
make a kind of a notice that we need some change. I think – I fully agree with those in this
Chamber that have recommended that the Mayor‟s term should be a two year term, but I would
also suggest just as importantly that the Aldermen-at-Large position be reduced to a two year
term. That would have to be a Charter change.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 22
I am very saddened to hear and see and read in the newspapers that there are already talks of
layoffs. I believe in the Eastern Culture that layoffs if they happen are a direct result of failure of
management. Usually it is a reactive process. The management in this case is the executive
branch, but more importantly you can never forget that the buck stops here in the Aldermanic
Chambers. I believe if layoffs occur it would be a failure of the executive and legislative branches
and it is reactive. It is reactive for many reasons. I think we should do everything possible not to
have layoffs. I think you are going to find in the school system that in the coming years we are
going to have a teacher shortage and I do realize that there is a lack of planning sometimes in the
school system because the plan wasn‟t when I asked about it last year of how we are going to
coordinate the retiring of the baby boom generation teachers to accommodate perhaps
downsizing the number of teachers without laying off and having this plan of attrition, and there
was none. I think in order to avoid that it would behoove the city workers regardless of whether
you are union or non-union to seriously consider not taking a raise for the next year or two. Now
it does work because where I came from in my public office holdings was in the town of Littleton,
NH, and for two years the teachers didn‟t have raises because of the tough times or the fiscal
times that we were in. No one left and there were no layoffs. I think that it is prudent for those
who are within the system again regardless of whether you are union or non-union to think about
delaying any increases in salary for a year perhaps two so that if there are layoffs number one
they won‟t occur and if they do they will be minimal. I think that is a reactive issue. I am a little
concerned also that would be brought up in the newspapers prior to a thorough analysis on what
it is going to take for the next budget season. Although goodness knows I don‟t think we can
afford much of a property tax bill increase. It is quite a challenge.
The other thing last year that caught my attention was the issue around the public access
channel. Frankly I didn‟t give that much thought. When I watched some of the proceedings, and I
didn‟t watch all of them, it became apparent to me that the public access channel run by the
citizens of Nashua is an important aspect. I have always been critical about the lack of debates
that occur in Nashua. I am not saying that they don‟t occur I think we need more. Not only
debates on individuals running for public office but debating the issues. Even like for instance the
Broad Street Parkway – even though there is a committee and they have perhaps been meeting
and they know what is going on, the general public does not know what is going on. I think the
public access channel is a fine idea, and by the way the public is paying for it.
I want to speak up about the water situation – Pennichuck. I was the one who actually formed the
Keep Our Water Locally Controlled. I was the Treasurer and formed that group. I was involved in
the Pennichuck situation. I have to think back because it was 3 or 4 years ago. I remember
standing out there with the signs and making up the pamphlets. I was one of the people that
helped educate the voters and got this thing going, not that I did it myself, but worked with other
individuals. I am still for this. I have kept quiet because I think in these situations it is best to take
a laid back position, not become too visible, and just help behind the scenes rather than get
before the cameras because especially considering the fact that I read in the newspapers when
things are mentioned that all of a sudden your comments are in the Telegraph under a
Pennichuck ad. It is best to keep quite on that. I am for the continue pursuit of the Pennichuck
Water acquisition. I think there are other communities that do so. Manchester is a good example
of a fine run water municipal entity. Where I came from, I am a simple man from the north country
of New Hampshire; Littleton, NH had just a fine running water system run by the town. It was
beautiful. I am for the citizens who are thinking about this, and I am going to be very interested
come January 12th. I would like to see what is going to happen – what kind of information is going
to transpire. By the way if it is not feasible to purchase the company – yes it has been probably a
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 23
little longer than I thought, but if it is not feasible then we shouldn‟t do it. I think that is the premise
I would like to thank Alderman David Deane for his work on the Budget Committee last year. I
think it was noticed by the citizens the work ethic and the amount of work it took not only to
reposition some of those 99999 numbers but also reduce the wasteful spending. I would also like
to thank Alderman Tollner for chipping in and putting together a political forum for the citizens of
Ward 1. I think that Ward 1 was the only ward that had those forums. Maybe other wards should
follow suit. That is an example Alderman MacLaughlin and others – that is why Ward 1 is known
as the number 1 ward. Thank you very much and have a good evening.
REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
I would like to start out with when I first came on this Board there was no television camera, we
were still on radio, there was no public comment section, and after some debate we added one,
after a few years we added another one. We have hade concern over the years after the first public
comment section not having an opportunity for Board members to reply regardless of what was said
publicly. The seated members of the Board of Aldermen our replies at the very end of the meeting
and typically audience members who have made the statements have left. I would like to look at
maybe changing or putting legislation in so we would have at least a brief opportunity to reply to
some comments to at least bring some facts forward.
On that topic, one thing I would like to bring forward is regarding acquisition of properties for back
taxes, where it is true for example 42 Pine the city has owned for 5 years – it needs to be made
public that by state law the city has to sit on that property for 3 years. We can‟t do a thing with it. It
is a very long complicated process that I won‟t go into, but that is a point that I would like the public
to know that we are handicapped or legislated I should say by federal and state laws regarding a lot
of topics on that issue.
On some points of the Broad Street Parkway a couple of things I would like to bring forward or as a
reminder, this Broad Street Parkway went via referendum to the residents of the City of Nashua and
it was voted for in the favorable. This has gone to the voters and has been very public. There have
been umpteen public hearings on this and will continue to be so. I certainly encourage that process
wholeheartedly. We need to move forward with the project. Regarding the statements from the
past administration that this would not cost the residents of Nashua any money, that administration
had a plan to take state monies that were allocated to the city every year, and those monies were
put aside to put towards this project, but since there have been various budget cuts those funds
have been allocated to be disbursed to the city streets and so on. That has been the major change
for the funding and how we don‟t have that plan in existence anymore.
To the residents of Ward 4, the Ledge Street sewer work is moving forward although December 15th
it is shut down for the winter. Construction will resume again on April 1st. The remaining work will
include final payment on Ledge Street and the side streets from Second Street to Seventh Street.
Again I want to recognize the Nashua Waste Water Treatment Plant. It is consistently – our
treatment plant receives accolades nationally, and again plant of the year ward from NH Water
Pollution Control Association is another fine example of how well our city is run particularly a
division such as wastewater. On that point, also our Superintendent of Waste Water, Mario
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 24
LeClerc, I want to give my personal condolences for the passing of his Mother during the holidays.
Mario does a fantastic job there. The passing of his Mother I am sure is a great loss to him.
I would like to thank Eagle Scout Joshua Lopez for his Eagle Scout project, which was constructing
a kiosk on the Nashua Heritage Rail Trail in the section adopted by the Daniel Webster Council of
the Boy Scouts and is dedicated to Max Silber. Eagle Scout, Joshua Lopez did a phenomenal job.
I am sure he will hopefully soon be before our Board so we can recognize him for his project.
Another interesting point, we look at landfills and they are not actually looked at very favorably,
however, our Nashua landfill is known to have snowy egrets, great blue herons, deer, duck, wild
turkeys, and of late the citing of an American Bald Eagle so we have got to be doing something right
at our landfill as well. I think finally I want to wish the best to the New England Patriots. I was at the
last game. Go Patriots! Thank you Mr. President.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Ward 9 for the opportunity to represent
them this term. I would also like to pay special thanks to Bill Maury Sutton, Scott McCullough for
their help during the campaign. I would also like to offer a special thanks to my wife Julie and our
children for their support during this time.
As the Alderman of Ward 9 I would like to outline some of my next steps. I have already had the
opportunity to meet with Mayor Streeter and his department heads. In the coming months I will be
visiting with these leaders and their support teams to gain more knowledge of other city services. At
that time I will be scheduling a Ward meeting with the residents of Ward 9. I would like to take the
opportunity to thank City Clerk, Paul Bergeron and Alderman-at-Large David Deane and former
Alderman Kathryn Vitale for their work on the Inauguration the other day. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. President. I would also like to take this time to take the opportunity to express my
thanks and appreciation to those that supported my campaign. I also want to give a special thanks
to my family for their continued encouragement and support. I know that the next two years are
going to be very difficult. We as a Board have many difficult decisions that we will have to make,
but I look forward to the opportunity to collaborate with each and every one of you – the Board of
Aldermen as well as the residents of Ward 1. I just want to thank you for the opportunity to
represent as Mr. Sullivan stated the number 1 ward. I am hoping to provide you the leadership that
you are so desperately seeking – better communication and that two-way dialogue that is so
important to make sure that you are heard and listened to.
I am seeing a new era of optimism as we enter this next two years. I would like to close by a
personal quote that I like to live by – it is Anthropologist Margaret Mead who stated “Never doubt
that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing
that ever has.” I want to make sure that we are part of that. Thank you.
I have in my house a very large library, and the two most important books in that entire library are
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New Hampshire. That is all I need to
say. Thank you.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 25
I would like to welcome the new Board members on and wish them luck. I look forward to working
I have a small update on the East Hollis Street Fire Station I would like to read into the record if you
don‟t mind Mr. President. Construction on the new East Hollis Street fire station is going on and
progressing nicely despite the cold weather although it is starting to warm up. Work on the site
retaining wall is still ongoing. The walls are approximately 90% done and will be completed once
the gas main installation is finished. KeySpan has relocated the on site gas main and is finishing up
the tie ends to the live lines this week. The site sub-contractors will be completing the lower
drainage system and finishing the retaining wall over the next two weeks and is expected off site for
the balance of the winter until spring. The East Hollis Street improvement work on the guardrail as
you can see when you go down there and the fence is completed and the Public Works Department
has removed a large portion of the Jersey barriers that were out there on East Hollis Street for a
number of years.
As for the building itself the masonry load-bearing wall should be completed by the third week in
January. A brick and granite veneer on the admin. side of the building is complete and that staging
is coming down now so you can really get a look at it. The masons did a beautiful job on it. The
structural steel for the second floor of the building is being erected this week and both steer towers
are complete allowing access to both the basement and the second level. By week end the floor
slab on the deck will be poured weather permitting, and the way the weather looks it is going to
happen. A good portion of the wood trusses have been delivered and are on site. The admin, side
of the roof is framed and the clock tower sits on the site already built and ready to pop up once the
frame is there to put the rest of the trusses up. Wood truss installation and roof structure will be
erected from left to right across the building throughout the month of January and into February,
plumbing and electrical roughing continues to go hand in hand with the masonry block installation.
The sub-contractors currently on site in various trades, Kollman is hopefully going to leave at the
end of the week, that is the site contractor. The concrete supplied is Nashua ReadyMix. The slab
finished is Premier Concrete. The masonry is Pin Masonry. The framer is DEKR Construction.
They are going to be doing the roof. Eckhart and Johnson is doing the mechanical and Gate City
Electric is doing the electrical. They are coming along quite well. Harveys is doing an outstanding
I wanted to comment on a couple of things. We had a lot of youth teams in here; the football teams
and basketball is going full swing – we are celebrating 50 years of that this year, we had a
resolution prior to this meeting. I work down at the country club and I maintain the curling ice and
the weekend of December n8-11th we had a couple of brothers that curled – they participated in a
12 team junior curling event down at the country club in Brookline, MA where they hosted the cup a
number of years ago, and two of these teams were competing in the junior nationals to represent
the regional section of the country and they finished second. I would like to recognize the two
brothers that curled; Ben and Nate Clarke. Their parents are both curlers. These are pretty
outstanding young men. Ben is attending Clarke University, but Nate is the one who is going to be
going out to Duluth … tape ended … I would like to wish them luck.
In closing Mr. President, all baseball applications for children ages 5-12 will be hitting the streets
very shortly so be on the lookout for those. There will be people at Biddy Basketball games
handing out information for that. Thank you very much.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 26
Thank you Mr. President. In the Mayor‟s remarks at the front of the meeting, he noted that the city
has experienced 9 winter storms or events. I know it is a challenge to clear the city of the snow. I
am just thinking that the Division of Public Works has seemingly forgotten one very important
sidewalk on Spit Brook Road. After the first storm that sidewalk has remained covered in snow for
the last 8 times that it has snowed. This has resulted in pedestrians, many of whom work among
the retail establishments or shop among the retail shops on the Daniel Webster strip and the Spit
Brook Road shopping plazas – they have to leave what would be a sidewalk and instead traverse in
the roads creating very unsafe conditions for both the motorists and the pedestrians. I am hoping
that before the next snowfall or at least no later than the next storm, the sidewalk equipment can be
brought to bare down there before we have a tragedy.
Speaking of tragedy, I would like to extend my personal condolences to the family of Victor and
Joan Schulze They experienced the loss of Victor‟s Mother back in December.
Also condolences to the family of T. Harrison Whalen, a Ward 8 resident, who never missed a
single election – not one. That was amazing, and that was in spite of having to take care of his
Wife, Patricia, who passed away last September. Some very distinguished people have suffered
very emotional losses.
Finally I might close with the thought that Ward 1 may be the number 1 ward, but the 8th ward is the
great ward. Thank you.
I would like to express my admiration for Alderman Teeboom to take seriously his ethical stance
and resign from the PUC as an intervener. That is certainly something that he probably did not
want to do, but he took it seriously and he did it and he did the right thing.
With regard to the Broad Street Parkway, several of the people here who have been on the Board
for a long period of time certainly have been exposed to a lot of information about the Broad Street
Parkway. People who are new to the Board probably do not have that in view condition. I think it
might be advisable to bring, especially the new members, up to speed with the current state of
affairs. As people have mentioned it has been a long time in coming, and some of the information
has aged and become obsolete I am sure. We probably need to know the new state of affairs. I
would appreciate very much if that was to come about.
Finally, there is a gentleman who has been sitting in the back – I believe that he thought that he was
going to be able to speak tonight and I am disappointed that - apparently he wasn‟t on the speaking
list, Thomas Trimarco. I don‟t know how to get him on the list.
There is a list prior to each Board meeting – there are two lists; one list is for individuals to speak to
items that are on the agenda and the secondary list at the end of the meeting is for individuals to
speak on anything that they wish to speak about. That have to be signed up prior to the meeting to
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 27
You are welcome.
Thank you Mr. President. I have to say I am moved to comment that it came as a surprise to me
that there are issues upon which Mr. Sullivan thinks he ought to remain silent. I commend him for
With regard to the recent Superior Court decision in the action brought by Mayor Streeter, I had
looked forward to the opportunity for this Board to consult with the legal council we had represent
us in that case or with any other appropriate council as to the short and long term affects of that
decision and as to the advisability of considering an appeal. I gather from your predecessor Mr.
President that between the press of the holidays and the feeling on the part of some that newly
elected members of this Board ought to have the opportunity to make such decisions about what
is going to happen on an ongoing basis, that we were not able to arrange for that. The days are
getting very short before the time for appeal will expire. If I may ask, do you have any plans to
give this Board the opportunity to be informed as to what competent legal council would tell us
concerning the short and long term impacts of that decision at the Superior Court level and to give
us advice on the appropriateness of an appeal?
If it is the wish of this Board I would be more than glad to set up a meeting with the council that
we hired to do just what you asked.
What is your plan to assess the will of the Board? The days are rapidly coming to an end –
Right now I would entertain any comments with respect to your request.
I can tell you I have no interest in pursuing that.
I reviewed the case in detail. It is very well written. I believe it was done by the same Superior
Judge who just became a Supreme Court Nominee. I see no chance of an appeal. I am saying
that and I have gone through at least one recall, which I petitioned myself. I don‟t see any chance
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 28
of that appeal prevailing. There was a case in Seabrook that actually preceded this case where
also the recall was invalidated. I kind of like to see Mayor Streeter sitting there. Thank you.
Does anyone else wish to weigh in on this at this time?
I have no interest.
I have no interest.
I have no interest Mr. President.
I have no interest either.
Going once, twice…
With all due respect to the legal knowledge, experience, and acumen of the Alderman-at-Large…
… that gave his opinion…
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 29
Objection, objection …objection to that point. I would like to reply about his opinion about my
Mr. Chairman one of the public comments…
Excuse me. I would ask like I said at the Inauguration – I would ask that you address the merits
of the discussion and of the issue, but do not mention individuals‟ motive or wishes.
I did not do any of those things Mr. President.
You mentioned Alderman Teeboom, the previous speaker‟s legal background.
I said with respect to his analysis and acumen on the subject…
Point of Personal Privilege…
Alderman Teeboom I will not entertain it. I will not go around in circles with this Board going back
and forth between Aldermen. I am going to ask one more time that if you are going to address
something address the issue, the issue – I don‟t want comments given back and forth about one‟s
ability on legal law or anything else. If the Board wishes to challenge me on it by all means, but I
am not going to tolerate this for the next two years. We will treat each other with respect, dignity,
and honor. Alderman Bolton please continue sir.
Mr. President I have exclusively addressed myself to you. I have not gone back and forth with
any other member of this Board and I resent the fact that you would imply that I had. Now, if I
may be allowed to continue…
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 30
It is my opinion that this Board has an obligation on behalf of this city to understand the legal
decisions that come down that affect us, and I don‟t think with all respect to every member sitting
here, that every one of us or any one of us as an individual is the fountain of all knowledge. We
all on various issues need advice and guidance from appropriate experts. In the case of a
decision of the Superior Court, and the wisdom or lack thereof of considering an appeal, it is
appropriate to get guidance from an expert. I am disappointed, and I have expressed this
disappointment to your predecessor and I am expressing this disappointment to you that a
decision not to appeal, not even to discuss the wisdom of appealing a decision like this is, in my
opinion, not a wise course of action for this Board.
On a very much related issue, I would like to request that the Legal Department undertake a
section by section review of the City Charter and of the other special acts which affect the
operation of city government in Nashua in light of the Streeter decision and in light of any other
relevant law to determine which other provisions of the Charter or the Special Acts are invalid or
otherwise not applicable to our ongoing operation of government. I think it is apparent that at
least as to the recall provisions we on this board and the citizenry in general had been under a
misimpression for many years, and I think as soon as we can find out what other sections of the
Charter and Special Acts that we may be operating under similar misimpressions we will be better
off and we will be able to tailor our decisions to the law as it is revealed to be. I understand that
the undertaking I am proposing is not something that will be ready in a matter of days or by the
time of our next meeting, it is going to take some effort over some period of time. I hope the
Legal Department can do that. If it cannot do that within a reasonable number of weeks or
months that we be so informed and we consider what our best options are because to continue to
flail around with uncertainty as far as what our procedure ought to be is again not a wise course
for this Board. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am sure the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen will join me in wishing
Dot Nice a speedy and complete recovery from her surgery at the Lahey Clinic. Dot we look
forward to seeing you again in our Aldermanic Chambers.
I would like to congratulate the four new Ward Aldermen; Richardson, Williams, Flynn, and
Cookson to the Board of Aldermen. You have been elected two months ago and I am sure that
you were glad to take the oath on Sunday, and here we are at your first meeting and I hope you
enjoyed it. It has been a short one by the way. Be prepared for some long ones. Alderman
Teeboom you said on this Board before. I congratulate you on being with us again, and I
particularly want to thank you for withdrawing your motion on R-06-06. I appreciated that. Thank
you Mr. Chairman.
I am sure it was an oversight, but you also wanted to include Alderman Tabacsko I am sure as
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 31
He was missed?
On a much lighter note I thought the Inauguration ceremony on Sunday was very well put
together. My family and I talked a little bit about it. Right from the very beginning the scout color
guard, the school glee club – throughout the whole ceremony it was a very nice day for my family
and me. I would like to – I don‟t know if I want to challenge people across the room, but I certainly
had as much support from my family as anybody did during this election, and I appreciate
everything that they have done for me.
On a different note, I have a request of you Mr. President. Back on November 28th there was a
special meeting held to discuss some of the Pennichuck issues. My understanding is it is a
common practice at special meetings as a cost savings measure not to really publish the minutes
or transcribe the minutes, but rather to just agree to reserve a tape of that meeting. Because that
was a meeting about Pennichuck and there as nearly two hours worth of dialogue, and I did watch
that at home and thought it was very well. I would like to request that perhaps you could see your
way towards spending that small amount of money to be sure that other people, people who
might have had to work that night or had other obligations, perhaps they could also have the
opportunity to read that. I think Pennichuck is a pretty important issue. I try to get every
opportunity I can to get my hands on something to read about that, and perhaps this special
meeting of November 28th is something else that we could offer people as information about
I will have those transcribed from now on.
I actually asked that those be transcribed. The Legislative Assistant is checking. She believes we
have and they are probably on the web site at the moment.
I want to thank Alderman Deane, Alderman Williams, and former Alderman Vitale for their work on
the Inauguration Committee. I thought that the ceremony came out very well and at great savings
to the taxpayers. Thank you very much.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 32
I didn‟t want to do this, but since I think that this was the product of an error of us being in the first
meeting, I would like to move to suspend the rules to allow Mr. Trimarco to address the Board
since I believe he probably should have been able to get onto the public comment period.
MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO
ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Thomas Trimarco, 162 Tolles Street
I am a citizens, resident, and taxpayer of Nashua. I am here tonight to talk about my frustration
and my concern with regards to the Mayor‟s Office and the Board‟s lack of concern with regard to
Tolles Street. I have met several times with the Mayor‟s board, the Mayor himself who had told
me that legislation would be before the Board this January, tonight, with regard to the excessive
traffic speeding of commuters coming from Hudson into Merrimack and Merrimack into Hudson.
Last week I sat in front of my house for three days; Monday, Wednesday and Friday for a two
hour period between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and averaged out 486 cars per hour cutting through that
neighborhood. There are two children with mental disabilities on that street and one deaf child. It
has become a speeding trap. There is no police presence whatsoever. The Mayor had promised
me through the Department of Traffic that they were going to look into it. They since did look into
it in June of last year. I have been at this since April of last year. We are now in January and
nothing is done. It is falling on deaf ears. It concerns me – I am speaking here because most of
the people on my street have young children. Last year I was told to bring it to the Board of
Aldermen. I brought it to the Alderman who is no longer with us tonight. It was passed to I
believe Mr. McCarthy who did help me a little bit with regards to the Engineer who then quit and
went to the state. It has fallen on deaf ears ever since then. Several accidents – I don‟t know if
anyone is familiar with Courtland and Tolles, but that corner there they do about 40 mph. This
isn‟t reinventing the wheel here. We are looking for some help from whoever it may be. We have
a new Alderman who will help us, but I don‟t think it is his responsibility solely that this falls on his
shoulders. Nothing is done and I would like an answer from the Mayor‟s office why I have to wait
2.5 hours tonight to speak when I was told that this would be brought forward. I have been very
patient over the last year and that is it.
I am not going to respond for the Mayor. The Mayor can do that for himself. Normally sir we do
have two sign up sheets like I said and I know you probably weren‟t aware that is the process…
No I was aware, however, when you came in tonight there were 450 kids in here.
I apologize for that.
That is fine I don‟t mind waiting. I am just looking for a response. I am looking for a commitment
from Nashua to help these people. There is just so much traffic on that street right now. It is a
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 33
residential neighborhood. We talked about commercial vehicles – we have propane trucks, we
have diesel trucks, we have Budweiser trucks cutting through there right now, and it is a
You have the new Ward 3 Alderman sitting here. I have all the faith and respect in the world that
he will address that as soon as possible.
Does the Mayor wish to respond?
I believe the department has been in contact with you since June. I believe that my staff has
been in communication with you many, many times Mr. Trimarco…
Correct. I am not denying that.
I believe that the division has made some recommendations that you are not happy with.
No… you said that …
I said that perhaps corrective legislation would be needed.
Correct and you told me Mayor that legislation from the Department of Traffic brought to your
attention that you were thinking about putting up signs for no commercial vehicles. That was my
last discussion with you and it was told to me that January you would bring in legislation because
if you brought it to legislation in December it would be moot or dropped because there was a new
committee on board. We are in January now and we are just looking for some type of traffic
control. Police are non-existent on that street because they have other things that they have to
do. I am not blaming anybody, but when I am told something I expect that at least a phone call. I
always initiate the phone calls very respectively to your office as well as other people.
And I respond that my office always responded to your phone calls.
Claire has been very good to me.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 34
However, we have a new City Traffic Engineer and I will ask her to take another look at it as the
previous traffic engineer did.
What happened to the recommendation Mayor with the head of the Traffic Department with
regards to commercial vehicles? We have propane trucks and diesel trucks.
I believe that would require special legislation. I would be happy to chat with you at a more
Since the Board allowed the speaker to come up I just want to point out as the Vice-Chairman of
Infrastructure and Alderman Dion is Chair, I can appreciate the frustration and the tone of the last
speaker. All of these years sitting on Infrastructure this is the number one issue that we hear and
we see throughout the city – residents coming forward on issues exactly as such – residential
neighborhoods with basically neighborhood streets that become arterials. We are very very
limited in resources as to what we can do to handle this issue. One that was brought up, which
would require legislation to look at the possibility of no commercial traffic. Another would be traffic
calming. Traffic calming costs money.
Alderman Plamondon – we are getting into a .. just responded – I didn‟t want to take the time
away from Alderman McCarthy who was kind enough to allow him to speak. I would prefer not to
take his time. I apologize Alderman McCarthy for taking time out. Please continue.
I am done.
I just wanted to let the resident know that the Infrastructure Committee is the committee that will
hear things as this and that is the committee that sees the legislation along these lines.
Thank you very much.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 35
I would just like to take this opportunity to understand – I know exactly what happened a moment
ago – Alderman Dion I think was referring to those colleagues that had races – I like Alderman
Dion and our colleagues from Wards 8 and 4 were unopposed this time. It is an easy way to
overlook it. Although as a new member I am honored to be here and I would thank those in Ward
5 that voted for me and those that helped me. I did campaign even though it was an unopposed
race. I would like to thank my Wife especially. She gets to enjoy the fruits of her labor now by
having me here. I would just say she won. We will just say that I look forward to working with
everyone. It is going to be an interest term. I look forward to it. Thank you.
This will be indeed an interesting term. First of all before I forget I would like to wish Dot Nice the
best and a speedy recovery.
This was our first meeting of the new session and I would have to say hopefully the rest of the
meetings that we have we have a little more cooperation amongst the members when trying to
get things done. I want to thank Alderman Dion for making the suggestion to Alderman Teeboom
and Alderman Teeboom for being willing to withdraw his motion.
Earlier this evening I may have made a motion just to approve the re-appointments of some
people that were going to come before Personnel/Administrative Affairs, and I think everybody if
they had an opportunity to look at the agenda, they were re-appointments to pretty safe
committees and we probably could have easily just voted to appoint those people. We didn‟t, and
the bottom line is after our next meeting in February we will appoint them, but we very easily
could have done it tonight. It was a very benign example of cooperation, and I think we could
have done a better job of it.
During this term I am not going to battle with my colleagues on very simple motions that I think will
make our job a lot easier to get things done. I would just hope that we can put some differences
aside and cooperate with each other and make everybody‟s lives a lot easier and help us get out
of here in a more timely fashion.
I want to congratulate all of the newly elected Aldermen. I wish you all the best of luck. I also
want to thank Alderman Deane and his committee for the work that they did on the Inauguration.
While a number of us were either having a little party with our families or joining together I called
Alderman Deane to find out where he was and he was still over at Court Street cleaning up after
With the City Clerk and his Wife.
I want to thank everybody for their effort. I wish everybody all the best in this next term and
congratulate you on your first meeting back.
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 36
With regard to the cooperation in voting for the re-appointments of the individuals who were re-
nominated by the Mayor, I think the previous speaker misses the point. My point was not that I
was unwilling to vote for their re-appointment. I voted for the one in which a motion was made to
confirm the re-appointment. I would have voted to confirm the re-appointment of all of the rest of
them. I did wish to make the point that it is illegal to take telephone poles of committees as to
what course of action should be taken. We are justifiably criticized for not being as open with the
public as we ought to be. Every time one of us does something that is illegal and is hidden from
the public in that way it reflects poorly on all of us, and it is up to any of us who notices that
happening to make it clear that it ought not to happen, that it ought not to be condoned, and that
was the point.
Mr. Chairman thank you for recognizing me. I have a comment on the last comment. First of all I
am on the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee. I never received any phone call from
anyone on the committee or the Chairman of the committee asking me how to vote. Nobody has
ever contacted me so I don‟t see where this came about. This never happened and I don‟t
understand why we are even talking about it.
First I want to wish Mrs. Nice also a speedy recovery and wish her the best. Our prayers and
wishes are with her.
Alderman Richardson I would encourage you if you want to be brought up on the Broad Street
Parkway to see Mrs. Hersh or Mr. Seymour who probably have the latest plans – spend some
time with each of them and I think you would be brought up to date pretty quickly spending time
with both of them. That is just a suggestion.
I also want to welcome the new members. I really look forward to your input. I think you can
contribute a lot to the Board and bring fresh new ideas as you participate in our debates. Again
welcome and congratulations on your recent election.
Pennichuck Special Water Committee immediately following this meeting for an organizational
Infrastructure tomorrow evening at 7:00 p.m.
Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee, which was scheduled for Thursday, has been
Bd. of Aldermen – 01/10/06 Page 37
MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE THAT THE JANUARY 10, 2006 MEETING OF THE BOARD
OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED
The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk