It's not oh there I'm there we go it does take a while had a delay.

Uh good evening everyone uh welcome uh this is uh Wednesday July 22nd, 2026 at 7 p.m.

and I've got a call to order the committee of infrastructure here at the automatic chamber, and it is duly noted in two places, including the city's websites in accordance with the requirements of RSA 91-A semi-callon two, room numero two.

Uh will the clerk please take the role.

I will.

Um Alderman Paula Johnson, present.

Um Alderman uh Richard Dowd.

Present.

Alderman Alicia Greg is here, Alderman Michael O'Brien.

Present.

All right, we have four, and then also in attendance we have Diane Mulholland, uh Treasurer, Jill Stanfield, parking manager, Matt Sullivan is here, Tim Cummings, Liz Hanum, um, and I said Jill Stanfield didn't.

Uh Jeff O'Cour.

Yeah.

From Jeff LaFleur.

Yes.

Yes.

Is that and anybody else of no notoriety we did not?

Well, all of our valued guests here.

Uh who's oh, uh Fire Marshal.

Yes, the fire marshals here.

I'm on Zoom as well.

Who's on oh Alderman Sullivan?

Alderman Sullivan and she's joining us as well.

Thank you.

All right, so we do have quorum.

Alderman Sullivan, just so that you know we do have maps up.

So we don't unless we change screens, we won't be able to see you.

So if you put your hand up or something like that, we may not see it.

So you feel free to fight if you have something to say, okay?

Understood, I'll be polite.

Outstanding, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh I will uh declare uh a quorum for tonight's meeting and moving on to public comment.

Is there anybody that would like to have public comment?

Okay, seeing none, move to communications to the clerk.

Um we have one from director of photo.

Um which it's okay, you're gonna have to help me out.

How do I do we actually have a communication?

Just referral from the board of aldermen, R 26046.

Yeah, usually I say, you know, uh reason or referral.

Yeah, if you've got it.

Okay.

And then um we have one from Sam Durfee, planning manager, which is a referral uh from the Board of Alderman on resolution 26046 authorizing the sale of the surplus property.

Okay, there being no objection, uh accept the communication and place them on file.

Uh also uh without objection, uh if we can suspend the rules to allow for two communications that were received after the agenda was prepared.

Uh they were handed out to you, so if you can take a few moments and just uh review them, and uh that would be good.

And the two communications uh from uh the first one is from Thornton Tomasetti, which is a proposed ward five overnight parking legislation, and the second from Dan Healy City Clerk, 026-020, allowing overnight on-street parking in ward five from May 1st through October 31st, except on certain main roads.

Okay, there being no objection, I'll accept the communications and place them on file.

Uh none.

New business resolution.

We have um R 26-046 authorizing the sale of surplus property.

Okay.

Uh yes, okay, we're gonna have uh Mr.

Matt Sullivan of the community division to vote on this, please.

Mr.

Chairman, you want to make motion?

Of course, I would like to have can the clerk make a motion so we can discuss.

Um make a motion to pass or just take a question.

Yes, recommend final pass.

Okay.

I'd like to make a so you know we always introduce a bill under the positive motion.

And we can change it to whatever we want.

Sounds good.

That bridge between the state house and city.

I'm still working on it.

I would like to make a motion to uh for uh pass it to for passage of 26 dash 046.

Yeah, and was that what you've got to remind me of uh Autumn Dowd?

Yes, thank you.

You're right on top of it.

God bless you.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Sullivan, if you please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Matt Sullivan Community Development Director, uh, here on behalf of R26046.

Uh we've been working certainly through a conversation with the infrastructure committee at your last meeting and a staff level.

I've been working with Director Hanam and Director Cummings on looking at this property adjacent to what's currently uh underway is the Mohawk Tannery redevelopment and remediation just to the west here.

But the area that we're actually talking about as part of R26046 is sort of the linear uh parcel area below where it says Veterans Memorial Parkway, right on that map there.

And I'm happy to grab the cursor if it's helpful, but it's actually just to the north of that, Alderman McGregor, that sort of section.

It looks like it's part of the road.

Right here.

That's correct.

So that's an approximately four acre area of land currently right of way.

What we are proposing as part of uh this legislation is to actually dispose of that property and release an RFP to the community at large, uh, really to accomplish a few, I think, public objectives, and that is to certainly provide future accommodation for some sort of multimodal pathway or other recreational passage in this area.

That's something we heard as part of a previous conversation at the infrastructure committee.

And we believe that this area uh may potentially unlock development or land protection potential in this area as well.

I think it's no secret to everyone on the infrastructure committee and certainly the Board of Alderman that uh there has been some contemplation in the past, and certainly via a ZBA approval actually, of redevelopment of some of the parcels to the south of this right of way area.

It's our position that in order to accomplish some of that redevelopment potential or great and or or uh increase the redevelopment potential and to accomplish again that multimodal path objective and land conservation, disposition disposition of this right-of-way could in fact be a critical piece of that puzzle.

And so what we're asking for is authorization to dispose of this via a request for proposals.

Uh, we'd love to hear your feedback tonight, and I'm happy to answer any questions, but we do believe it will be a critical part of redevelopment of this corridor as a whole, while also allowing us to make critical connections both to Mine Falls but also to the downtown area and the riverfront just beyond.

Uh happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

Yeah, I we had this previous discussion uh, and I I believe that we are not gonna allow any curb cuts to the Veterans Memorial Parkway from that piece of land as part of this, right?

So Alderman Dowd, I'm I'd love to give you uh the solid absolutely not answer.

Uh but the reality is the answer to that question is a bit nuanced.

Um there was long a commitment that there would be no additional curb cuts onto the Veterans Memorial Parkway.

That that discussion certainly took place.

Our position at this point in time is that there would need to be demonstration by a developer or owner of the property that a curb cut could be successfully implemented there and safely implemented there, but that is certainly not the preferred access for any redevelopment to the south of the property that we're we're talking about.

And I just want to go one step further before what I expect might be a follow-up question.

Uh to be clear, our our position is that a curb cut is is not preferred.

That said, it is possible through traffic study and traffic design that a curb cut could be accommodated there, but particularly in light of the fact that we intend to hopefully in the future build out a multimodal path, have additional accommodations for pedestrian and bikes here while still moving traffic.

There would have to be significant proving out that that concept is actually viable, but that's not the intent.

Um follow up.

So I mean, this parkway's been going on for I think I was a teenager when we started talking about this.

And that wasn't yesterday.

So but I I don't think we want the Veterans Memorial Parkway to be stop and go traffic lights all the way in.

It was designed and built for fast access to downtown.

So if any curb cut were allowed, it would require, because of the speed of the people on that street, would require a light.

Is that a question or a statement?

It's more like a statement because I don't think I would want to approve anything that starts putting stop lights along this whole area.

We still haven't decided what the final design of the of the curb cut is for the new development at the tannery site.

Also, I thought we can also consider if it's up for sale, the people that own those adjacent properties and budding properties could buy that to increase the size of their lot for development.

Mr.

Chair, may I just respond to that?

Yes, you may.

So all good points, Alderman Dowd.

You reminded me of a few things I wanted to say.

So absolutely.

I don't want to say development potential from a density perspective, but would it allow configuration of those sites in an alternative way beyond what exists today?

Uh, particularly as you see, there's sort of a dark area in between the two parcels to the south.

That's actually a wetland or water body area.

That constrains the ability to actually develop or frankly do land protection in that area to some extent.

So disposing of the the right-of-way would provide additional flexibility.

The access plans for the tannery have in fact been approved.

Uh that will be a blinking signalized intersection, so it won't be a full signalized intersection, but that has been approved as part of the off-site plans for the Mohawk tannery.

When did that get approved?

That got approved as part of the planning board application.

And those those plans have been fully signed off on by engineering.

It met the traffic volume requirements.

And I want to just add on something else that the way that the Mohawk tannery is currently configured, it's anticipated that access to any development to the east, those two parcels below this right-of-way, would happen through the tannery parcel.

So right now it's contemplated that all traffic access would go through the tannery.

Yes.

What I just want to be really careful not to do tonight is commit to you that there would absolutely never be another curb cut along the parkway because that could potentially be authorized by the city, DOT, federal highways, all of the parties that have some level of interest in the parkway at this point in time.

But it's not at in any way a preferred solution or something that we're proposing.

So we're getting back to the access to the tannery site.

We're building almost 500 units in here.

And that traffic is all going to be controlled with a blinking light.

It does not necessitate a full-on signalized stop intersection.

It may be surprising, but it does not necessitate that level of traffic control.

Doesn't make sense to me because of the amount of traffic involved.

Because the people on that road, I don't know, it's supposed to be 30 miles an hour, but everybody's doing 40, 45.

To have traffic trying to turn in and out of that, use it just a blinking light to me is a hazard.

And Mr.

Chair, if I may address that.

I'm just gonna address that very quickly, Mr.

Chair, if I could.

Yeah.

The the conversation initially around the tannery was about a fully signalized intersection and what's being constructed there could be converted to that uh if need be.

But because the development is going to be phased as it's contemplated, the initial phases will have the blinking light condition.

That's what they'll have.

If there is a need at some point in time to increase that to a full signalized intersection, that capability would exist.

But at least based on the traffic reports that were produced and reviewed, that's not necessary.

But I certainly I I know you and I have talked about signalized intersections before, particularly in school contexts.

Um, but the the volumes were not such that fully signalized would be required immediately.

It may end up being that way downstream.

And also wasn't there some access across the road to the or is it is that gone by the board?

Across the Veterans Memorial Park way into that other neighborhood.

So I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but many, many, many decades ago, there was some discussion of connection to those neighborhoods.

That's what I'm referring to.

But that was before the parkway design was finalized.

That's not contemplated here as part of as part of at least the the parkways that exist today and our future access plans.

Yes, one last thing.

Um I talked to Director Cummings about this uh that site development is going very quickly, and I think the Board of Wildman should get a review, even if we get aerial pictures of what's going on and where they're at because uh you can't just tell them by driving by.

So I would like to like to request that to come before at least the infrastructure committee or or the full board.

Certainly.

Absolutely.

Yep.

I'll send it all in the back of the board.

That's it.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

I guess sometimes you've got to be careful what you vote for, because you don't know the full story until it starts coming back to you.

That parcel of land that you're talking about.

I remember when we discussed that.

And we had members of the public here because they were talking about their street and ward eight over that little hump.

And they were saying the same thing.

What if we sell that parcel?

What are you envisioning, envisioning being developed over there?

So Mr.

Chair, if I may respond to that.

Yes, you may.

So Alderman Johnson, we don't we don't know fully to be totally honest.

There is zoning in place, obviously, that allows a variety of residential uses.

That certainly could be done.

As I mentioned before, the land is the land is fairly constrained, though.

There is a fairly large wetland or water body in the middle of it.

It makes access sort of east to west very challenging.

The area to the to the east has some development potential, but as as has been referenced already, that in some ways is constrained by the facts that the fact that access to that area is a bit challenging.

And then the area to the west of the water body uh similarly could be developed, but access is a challenge.

So I think it's our expectation that in the event that an RFP goes out for that right-of-way area, and the owner of either one of those properties or both of the properties were to submit something.

I expect it would be some form of residential or housing development in sort of two independent pockets around the water body.

That's sort of as I see it from a zoning perspective, the highest and best use that's allowed right now.

But again, it it is a fairly constrained piece of property or set of properties.

May I continue?

Follow up.

Thank you.

Because some I know that some of that is protected land, definitely because of the wetlands.

Um would the conservation commission have to be brought in to review any type of development over there.

Mr.

Chair, if I if I can respond to that, uh the conservation commission would need to be brought in in the event that jurisdictional wetlands or wetland buffers were being impacted.

Uh, or if there were some idea of conveying a conservation interest as well, they would actually absolutely have to come in.

If there were a way to do some sort of redevelopment that didn't impact the buffers in any way, you know, you in theory could could avoid the zoning board conservation commission process, but uh it will be challenging uh just based on the configuration of these parcels.

May I do a follow-up again, please, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, and additional follow-up.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

I have a problem supporting this because I think that I keep hearing about the housing crisis, housing crisis, housing crisis.

That's all we have is a crisis.

This whole country is a crisis right now.

And I would just like because I keep asking, I think you've got my email.

I didn't okay, and why I went back and asked the question and why you've asked all those questions.

Um we don't know what people are coming from, but we're told that the Nash went.

But um I would like to kind of not do any building, just kind of see where we're at with everything that we're building, because my fear is that we're gonna go into an overbuilt situation, supply and demand.

We all know what supply and demand is.

When there's supply, prices usually come down.

When there's a demand and there's nothing, prices usually rise because people are looking for something that doesn't exist and they'll pay more for it mostly because that it doesn't exist.

Um and I'm really concerned with the fact that we're gonna come out with a supply.

And it's gonna hurt everybody if you have more than you have with people looking.

And everybody says there's a crisis, and everybody's coming, people coming over the border because it's Nashua.

But I don't know how much longer it's gonna be until people just it just levels out because we know the housing market is leveling out to a certain point because I I read, I get things that they're making price adjustments.

So the higher prices are now starting to level off a little bit coming down.

So I'm not gonna support this because I really do not have a good feeling about land going for more development at this point.

I think we have a lot of development right down the road.

We're gonna have over 500 units with the Mohawk tannery, uh, which have a lot of reservations about that, and I watched the whole thing.

And I watched the whole thing.

And I just feel that this should be protected land.

It really should be.

And we heard people in the audience talk about too that they don't want to see this sold for any type of development.

And I'm really concerned what's going to happen with that parcel of land.

Thank you.

You may respond.

I'm not going to take long to respond.

I I don't, I don't certainly Alderman Johnson and I have talked about our feelings on the housing crisis together.

We have different opinions, and I it's not the forum for tonight.

It's not tonight is not the forum for that.

What I will just say is that the two parcels to the south of the of the area that we're talking about, at the risk of making this conversation more complicated, those have already been approved for development by the zoning board.

Not fully by the planning board.

I want to be really clear, but development is possible here regardless of the disposition of this right-of-way.

Trying to find opportunities where through a disposition process, we can produce something that benefits the public.

And I think what really comes to mind here is that this area of disposition could allow us to create stronger, more productive pedestrian connections between any proposed development and the Mohawk tannery.

And it may allow us working with a private developer to conserve additional land and create that multimodal path.

Now I want to be really clear about the multimodal path.

We don't know exactly how that would be configured along the parkway.

That's something we're looking into a bit right now.

We can't say whether it would be constructed on this side of the of the parkway or on the north side of the parkway.

I want to be really clear about that.

But what we do know is that in order to build such a multimodal path out, there will likely need to be some level of public-private partnership at some point in time because that will be a substantial effort.

So I don't want to convolute the disposition conversation this evening, but I want to just say that disposition of this property may unlock other public benefits beyond just selling land.

Thank you.

So when you're talking about um selling this land and what could be developed on it, it's not like zone just residential or anything.

So we correct or it is.

It is just residential.

And I'll confirm that in just a second.

But that that is correct.

So really the the uses are limited here to largely residential uses.

Okay.

I mean it's so close to the highway, but I I assume that anything that would be talked about there, it's gonna have to go through the multi-step process, you know, um to be approved there just because we let go of the land, so we have some possibilities, correct?

It'll still have to go through planning board and everything else.

Absolutely.

Um in fact, this is it's it's RC residential land uh that is the zoning on it, it's predominantly residential.

There are a few accessory uses that could be could be built here, but no question that any wetlands or other impacts would have to go through the zoning board conservation commission process.

If they can't meet the dimensional requirements or other things, they'd be going for a zoning board variants.

Um further, the the site plan itself, all women rights, your point, would be subject to full planning and board review, the public hearing process, etc.

etc.

Um absolutely.

Okay.

Oh, no doubt.

Just two quick questions.

If this gets approved by this committee and goes to the full board and they approve it.

The there will be other reviews when it comes up for sale as to its use.

Yes.

Uh I think I I think uh I sort of am alluding to that, but I want to make sure I answer your question, Alderman Dow.

So absolutely the the use, the permitted uses will be defined by zoning.

Uh they are technically today, although the city, of course, owns owns the fee here.

But when a proposal, if a proposal came forward for some mix of uh housing, land protection, etc., that configuration and the uses proposed would all be subject to planning board review.

It would have to go through that process.

Now, if your question is, would it come back to the Board of Aldermen?

The answer is no, as it's currently structured, unless some other type of legislative action were necessary.

Uh but if you choose to dispose of this land and we go through an RFP process and dispose of it, it will be under the control of another party.

So we're talking about selling this land and the proceeds that we gain from selling this land go into the general fund.

So that's a great question.

It certainly is.

It's a very interesting situation here, and I you know, I I I didn't want to call in Director Cummings, but I may ask for him to back me up on this.

Um this property is the city's as a result of a partnership project with Federal Highways, DOT and the City of Nashua.

We are still working on understanding the exact proceeds split or proceed disposition that would happen when this property or if this property is sold.

There's, I think some difference of opinion right now about how the proceeds would ultimately be split between those entities.

We're still trying to understand exactly what the requirements are by federal highways to have additional curve cuts on this on this on this parkway.

But if the proceeds question is something you absolutely need to know more about, I can get additional detail.

I'm not sure if Director Cummings can speak to that, but I believe we don't have a full understanding at this time of exactly how the proceeds would be split between the city and others.

I knew it was convoluted, that's why I asked the question.

Fair question.

Because if we go to sell this, we're certainly going to have to have in mind what that split's going to be.

Absolutely.

So there's further analysis that needs to be done with the federal government because they helped us buy this land for the highway, which was supposed to be twice as big as it is.

And that's where this property came from originally.

The other thing is, do we have to, since we're selling portion of the property that has wetlands on it?

Any kind of review that has to go back to the conservation commission?

No.

No.

Oh, Set Otten.

Also.

Okay.

Uh, not off the hook yet.

I got two.

Okay.

Okay.

This was originally Veterans Parkway was supposed to be a four-lane road.

Yes.

Previous boards cut it down.

Looking, you do not have a crystal ball, and neither do I.

But did we uh bet our nose off despite our face?

Uh have we looked at with future growth and usage?

And by liquidating this, my concern is alpha how to get it back.

As you remember with the original project, uh we didn't know we planned for a four-lane road.

We took a lot more property even on Stephen Street, and as it uh ended in the terminus down at Pine Street extension area.

So are we safe in doing this?

Well, Alderman O'Brien, you know, I'm sure someone will pull me forward in 50 years and say that I said we'd be fine and we're not.

Uh yeah, you're on recording.

But you know, I think a couple a couple points of information.

And um we've had conversations with with Engineer Hudson about the parkway.

Uh the parkway is underperforming in the sense that the volumes that were on anticipated to be using the parkway have not actually been realized.

Um so that's not to say the project is a is a failure in any way, shape, or form, but the volumes that were anticipated are are not actually seen using that that roadway infrastructure.

The tannery will certainly add additional volume, uh, but it in no way, shape or form will break uh the traffic design standards that this parkway was built with.

What I can't anticipate, of course, is some massive large-scale redevelopment at either end of this of this infrastructure that would trigger the need for expansion.

But what I can say again is that the current remote roadway as it's built was built for a much higher volume that we have been in no way close to realizing.

So there's a great deal of capacity.

Um frankly, I think in the event that there were an interest in expansion of the parkway, this area would be the least of worries when it comes to design constraints.

It would be the areas near the bridges and closer to downtown where things get a lot tighter where you'd have issues with actually expanding the width of the roadway.

And so that's a that's a problem for a future iteration of ourselves, but I think we can feel good knowing that we're far under the capacity it was designed for, and there's a lot of capacity left for additional growth and development in the area.

Okay.

Uh as you know, I was on the fire department when this was and all the arguments with it.

And what they never asked was can we get a fire truck downtown pretty quick?

And when I'm talking like get it into the neighborhoods of Pine Street and Ash, and now engine five can take the Broad Street Parkway right down there on the click.

It's a success.

Anytime you can move fire apparatus easily through a city, it's a success.

So I think in that find, yeah, you know, the thing is successful.

Sure.

You know, four lanes, two lanes, we got sirens in the air horns.

They'll get out of the way.

They'll get to hint, you know what I mean?

But uh yeah.

So very good.

Uh and the second question no problems with those because of Mohawk, no problems with those bodies of water.

They're not brown.

Uh not to my knowledge, and I don't want to appear, you know, dodging.

So that won't be in the penny uh with the sale, you know, won't we're not aware, no, we're not aware of any uh issues related to those two to the to that body of water, I should say.

Right.

Uh that said, I I can't speak to that any testing that may have been done in there.

What I can speak to is that the Mohawk tannery site has been fully characterized by the environmental agencies.

That's good.

Uh, and so you know, they've generated an opinion.

Uh, and I don't believe these bodies of water are or this body of water is a part of it.

Okay.

Yeah, I just want to make sure because that could come back to bite too.

You know, uh right, Alderman Doubt.

Yeah, one final question.

When we were doing the traffic study for that blinking light, did they also include the because now we have access that we've approved from the new development uh just uh south of the tannery down through the tannery road to the was that included in the traffic study?

Because there's going to be several homes homes built up there.

Alderman, can you just clarify the development you're referring to?

It's land that I believe is owned by the tamposies, but the remember we we have designed we are have an access road from pieces of property that haven't been able to be developed because they had no access, and it's going to come down through the tannery site onto that road for access to the veterans memorial parkway.

Was that included in the traffic study?

So Alderman Dow, I think you're referring to those two properties south of the right of way that we're talking about, right?

Those are owned by the Tamposes, those are the ones that are in the current tannery design, they are connected by a road.

So that that the traffic study did take into account that potential development.

Uh we were very specific that the at least the infrastructure that was being designed had to be prepared to take that on.

Uh because it comes back to the idea that those parcels are supposed to be gaining access through the tannery property, not through a separate curb cut somewhere else.

That it that remains our design preference, or frankly, it's our position.

Um so yes, that's it is designed for that.

Okay.

All set.

All set.

All right.

I think it's time to call for the vote.

Um, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Also, before it's this evening to the clerk.

Um, yes, I'd like to make a motion for a final passage for R26-051 relative to auctioning tax-deeded property.

Okay, and you are it, Miss Mahone.

Um before we get into it, um, I know this is going to the planning board.

Right.

August 6th.

Yep.

So my question to you is the chicken and the egg between the two committees.

If we approve this evening, it's got another hearing with the planning board.

So I just wonder who supersedes with this.

Or should we delay it until after we have in the planning board?

Alderman O'Brien, I think there are a few ways it can be handled.

Uh what and we've done it a couple different ways in the past.

What I would recommend is that you you take the legislation up tonight, you consider it, and you issue a recommendation.

In the event that the planning board issues a recommendation that you believe requires further review, you could re-refer it back to the committee because that communication will go to the board of Alderman for review.

That would be my recommendation, but certainly I know in other situations the committee has held on acting until the planning board review comes in.

I don't think that's necessary here, but that certainly is my opinion.

So I I believe you can proceed this evening, and we'll get the planning board recommendation to you as a full board in the event that there's a concern, it could be re-referred back to committee for consideration.

Okay.

Alderman Dow, is there any time to strain on this?

Not to my no.

I mean, the auction is in September, so as long as I have approval before.

Okay, we'll go continue.

Miss Mahone Mohand.

Um Diane Mahullen, treasurer tax collector for the city of Nashua.

Good evening.

The city is requesting authorization to proceed with the public auction of tax dated properties in the fall of 2026.

These properties were acquired by the city through the tax deeding process after all statutory requirements under New Hampshire RSA 8076 and 8077 were satisfied.

Although these properties have been tax deeded to the city, the former owners still have a statutory 90-day repurchase period during which they may pay all taxes and associated costs as outlined in RSA 8089.

Should a property be repurchased before the auction, it will be removed from the auction list and no longer be offered to sit for sale.

Once the repurchase period has expired on September 10th, the remaining properties will be offered at a public auction in accordance of with New Hampshire RSA 8080 and the city's established procedures.

Conducting the auction allows the city to return these properties to productive private ownership, place them back on the tax rolls, and encourage reinvestment within our community.

It is also reduces the city's responsibility for maintaining these properties while ensuring the disposition process remains transparent and equitable.

The proceeds from the sale will be distributed in accordance with New Hampshire RSA 8088.

The city will recover the delinquent taxes, interests, penalties, cost, and other allowable expenses associated with the tax eating and sale process.

Any remaining proceeds will be potentially returned to the prior owner through the interpleter process in accordance with state law.

Approval of this request will allow staff to complete the necessary preparation for the fall auction while conducting continuing to honor the statutory rights of the property owners during the repurchase period.

Does anyone have any questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I know you and I have had a couple of conversations about this.

The mobile home will be auctioned if the owner doesn't repurchase.

So we'd um have an auction if the property in the um the mobile home park would have to approve of the person purchasing the home, so they would have an application process at the same time as the auction.

Okay.

And some of the properties that I looked up here, this if PS that the city owns them already?

Yeah, we own them all right now.

Well, right, but some of them don't list the city, some of them list owners.

Well, we just tax dated them in May, so the owners may not have transferred quite yet.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay, uh, this is a terrible thing in a way, but it's the only way to make it all fair.

We can't put gold scars on people's foreheads for paying their taxes, but we can enforce the tax laws in the city.

So we're not in the real estate business, folks.

You know, we're hoping people do the due diligence and make amends.

I appreciate I know you worked with me on a person that did have, and I find your division to be very compassionate when it comes to these delicate matters.

So uh if the people out there thinking no, we're going after property, not really, you know.

I mean, we're not in the real estate business, you know.

Uh, but we need our tax money.

Uh and to that, I just a personal comment.

I would like to see in the future if uh another board is needed with the automatic board.

I'm gonna call it re-supersede the point.

Okay.

Give them the I sign here.

Okay.

But I would like it to go to them because I think we're the ones that are elected in the Hayeke, so it kind of makes it you know.

So if we can do that.

Okay.

I know it doesn't always come to fruitation, but okay.

Uh anybody else comment on what I said, okay.

Good.

Uh so I'm gonna call for the vote.

All those in favor signify by saying an aye.

Aye.

Oh, motion carries.

Uh new business ordinances.

Um, yes, try to find a passage.

I'd like to um uh recommend final passage for uh 026-020, which is allowing overnight on street parking in Ward 5 from May 1st to October 31st, except on certain main roads.

Okay.

Um we're here, we're gonna have some we have some people that would want to uh speak on this, so I'm gonna invite them up to the horseshoe so you can sit in the comfortable seats.

That's okay.

Wow, I never thought that by putting in an ordinance like this, I'd have the whole city here.

Well, now you know how to get them all here.

I know so thank you all for coming.

Uh Alderman Johnson, main sponsor.

Would you like to introduce this?

Yes, I would.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I had the pleasure of a conversation with Miss Henn and Miss Danfield today regarding um my ordinance.

I've thought for many years why during the warm months people cannot park on the street.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you can't sweep the streets.

There's gonna be snow plowing.

I'm not asking for it to be permitted, like downtown and downtown's a completely different um issue here.

And I was reading the whole memorandum, and I went online and I started looking up all the um ordinances, and I'm just really I didn't think that this was gonna bring such great people out to really be speaking most likely against this.

Um it's ward five.

We have streets that we are exempting from it, the main roads, and then I have two houses on depot road because it's a dead end street.

And it's just this I'm just really amazed, you know.

If you look at the daytime, you have people park on the street during the day, so you talk about emergency high speed emergency vehicle response, people on the street during the day.

This is night time.

You talk about trash pickup.

When was the last time you picked up trash from 12 to 6 a.m.

in the morning?

Very rarely.

Um street sweeping.

I didn't think you could start in a residential neighborhood before seven o'clock, because I believe there's a noise ordinance out there, and if you can, well.

And I'm just what's gonna be impacted here is the fact that if residents want to park on the street in front of their houses, and then with my conversation today, I went in and I looked up some of chapter 262, and I mentioned that you know everybody's so afraid of certain things.

And I talked about people, you know, parking less than 15 feet in front of a hydrant.

You can call the police, or you can call um parking enforcement.

No one's gonna do that.

Um we talk about other things, you know, people parking fire lanes.

Nobody calls the police to remove them.

You see them parking running into the store or double parking, they'll drop somebody off.

I'm talking about, and I I just went through all of this because some of the reasons you put down why you can't do it.

If if you're gonna do that, then you've got to go back into 262-270 and all that and start looking at where people are parking, less than 25 feet from the curb, less than 15 feet from a fire hydrant, and you can't park in that fire lane, no parking lane, because Alderman O'Brien will tell you how important it is because that's a fire lane for emergency vehicles.

So what you're touching here, I I for overnight parking.

I feel that it's just another way not to do what should be done in this city, because if one ward does it, then other wards are probably gonna want to do it from May 1st to October 31st.

There's no snow.

I have never well, I have seen it snow a couple of times in May, but it usually melts.

So that's my argument, and like I said earlier today on the phone, Alderman Johnson wants this, and anything that Alderman Johnson puts in front, usually it's a wash, it gets killed.

So that's my argument, and that's my fight.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you, Alderman Johnson.

I'm gonna give you the opportunity here, because I look at such matters like when somebody in the committee, Arn Alderman comes up and writes uh, let's say uh an ordinance for uh a stop sign.

Well, we do a lot of investigation on that.

We get traffic involved and everything else, so there's a whole complete process.

But one of the things that get asked with a stop sign, it's the difference between a want and a need.

Now the fact that you file the legislation, I can appreciate that you'll want.

But what I like to hear, what is the need for this to have one ward and only one ward to have overnight parking?

I can answer that.

I only represent ward five.

I don't represent the city anymore.

I'm ward five already.

People have had tickets, they park on, they have a dead end, they live on a dead end street.

And people that have called and said that they've left word that they have to put their cars on the street because they're having construction.

And if you have visitors come, why can't you park in front of your home?

What is such a big deal in the city to park in front of your home?

This is not to argue with that.

But I'm not to argue, but um I'm bringing it up.

I understand, Alderman.

But as an Alderman, are you aware for those things that you brought up?

There is a procedure in place.

People who uh because uh uh uh let's say in the case of uh they're repaving the driveway.

Right, yep.

They can call up and get an extension that they can uh do and everything, you know, that uh they won't get ticketed.

If they have a guest, if they call up, it used to be uh there was a problem when the police department ran the parking enforcement, but now it goes on to a hot sheet and they do check it when he's going down the street.

He does check to see if anybody called up and asked for a variance of that evening.

So if they get in, somebody's getting the ticket, they're not following through.

I mean, we can't, you know, write into law or anything and manage, you know, individual behavior.

But there is a procedure, you know, people don't go up and get if they're getting the tickets and something went wrong.

We had we engineered everything that you would shouldn't get a tick into this legislation.

You may respond, yes.

Well, I got a call from constituent that got a ticket, they called, and I sent an email out over the weekend, and my constituent was really upset.

I went I made it a point to go to the house, take pictures to show why they could not park their vehicle in the driveway.

And you know, it's because they're having construction and they called traffic and said that they park enforcement that they couldn't put the vehicles in the driveway because they had a big dumpster there, and they were having construction down on the house.

They got ticketed.

I went down prior when they called me to check it out because that's what you're supposed to do as an alderman, try to get as many places as you can and help your constituents.

And so I wrote this because I feel, and other people have felt and said to me, why in the summertime can we not park in front of our house?

Why do we have to call and ask permission or say that we're having company, or somebody shows up unexpectedly and they park in front of the house.

So I'm I'm loving it that we've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven people here tonight to discuss this.

And I I've discussed it with two people, and you know what?

Rather than killing it at the end, I'll probably most likely, if we don't come to a good consensus, probably table it to bring it back again.

I'm just letting you know.

That's what my plan is.

Alderman, that's of course that's your priority.

I know.

And yeah, you know, like I say, my concerns is not against.

I mean, you have everybody has the right to write, you know, and the thing is my job as a committee chair is to look at the merit of this.

And we have a ward that to me is like the sore thumb of the city in so much as the parking problem.

And that's ward four, parts of ward three, and parts of seven.

And uh I don't know if I let anybody really out on that.

But the thing is we got to look at that in a way first.

You know, maybe perhaps ward five could handle this, but then we'll come future.

Ward nine, ward eight, other wards would be coming up.

And uh I don't know if you really appreciate the fact that I grew up in Boston, and I don't know if you really appreciate the fact that we don't have overnight parking in the city.

You know, uh I've seen in Everett, Massachusetts, where firemen have to crawl out the window of a fire truck in order when they get to a call because of parking on the streets.

And this is something that really we really really, in my opinion, need to look at because once this cat gets out of the bag, you are never ever, ever put that cat back in.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

Couple of things here.

I know that there was a study done 2001 to 2003.

Um and nothing really came out of it.

And I could say I grew up in New York City in Queens.

I grew up in fresh meadows, and then I moved into a into a house in Queens, in a different part of Queens.

Our streets weren't that wide.

A lot of people didn't use their driveways in the garage, they parked on the street.

They were allowed overnight parking, nobody got ticketed.

And yes, did people have to go around cars at times?

Yes.

Maybe back then there was more courtesy than there is now at times.

But the whole thing is people were allowed to park on the street.

So I get a ditch.

You grew up in Boston area.

I grew up in New York.

I live with mass transportation.

Boston's better, I hope not.

Well, it probably is now with what New York has come to.

You know, I won't go back there.

But you know, we both grew up in the big city, and we understand big city life.

And I'm trying to make it easier for my constituents to be able to park on the street.

So I'm willing to sit and listen.

I'm open-minded about things, and I'm and I'm honored that I have so many people that came out tonight to discuss this.

Thank you.

And for the record, uh Johnson, I do appreciate your advocacy on this, you know.

So don't think that I don't, I do, you know.

Uh we've been actively working on this as a committee, you know, not since 2001, you know, but you know, for the time I've been, you know, with infrastructure.

But man, to do it, yeah.

I think when the others speak, you begin to get an understanding of the complexity that this isn't tailored.

You know, this isn't taking the magic wand, making the whole city open in your parking.

We're gonna have to write a lot of ordinances, and maybe perhaps get a tow truck.

Gotta have a tow yard, you know, yeah.

You know, you gotta look past and you know what the situation is.

Alderman Gray.

Um, thank you.

So I first of all wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward.

I think it's a discussion worth having whether or not we can have it.

I I did want to ask so clarifying.

So your constituent that got a ticket, did was that they called beforehand and said I cannot park in my driveway, can I get this variance?

Or they didn't call until after they got the ticket.

May I respond?

Yes, you may.

They called ahead of time.

Okay.

So we're gonna.

So that's a discussion worth having as well.

We're gonna find out because we need to put that out there as a public service announcement, what are the procedures for that?

Because we already wrote that law, and it's in fact, Ottawa Dow is in the last at least two years, maybe longer.

We've been working on a citywide parking study, which we spent a lot of money on, and I think I'm glad to see the father of the study is here.

And uh I I thought that we had decided a long time ago that we weren't gonna do anything by wards, but by sectors, and that's I believe is in the a lot of that is in the study, and and you know, if if we're not gonna follow the study we spent all that money on, then we just wasted that money, and and you know, we should be following discussing and following what we decide on with a study, and I don't think it's by wards, so but I do want to hear from everybody here as to their their opinions, because I I think that they have a lot to input.

And we are gonna get into that.

But if you look at the sheets I passed out, and you did get, I think, on your email account, but uh we asked uh the city clerk, Mr.

Dan Healing, and using wards is not the way because the wards change by the uh census every 10 years.

So what is on the map as ward five?

If you look if you live dead center in the ward, you're safe.

But if you're on the peripheral of the ward, you know, we've had uh we're at the whim of who's in power at the uh at the state house, and there has been.

If you look at the center ward we have the center, got two two or three Nashville wards, but yeah, that looks like a snake going up through Republican neighborhoods, you know.

Uh so there is German mandering, and that could be done at any particular time.

So the best way, which I agree with you, is to come up with zoning, and that may not follow the ward lines, you know, and everything.

Okay, yes uh Alderman Sullivan.

I see your hand up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for uh calling on me.

I I didn't say at the beginning, too, that I'm on Zoom because I'm traveling and um I'm alone in the room and I can hear everybody, so I just wanted to put that out there.

I wanted to say just a few remarks.

Um I also had a conversation on Monday with uh Director Hannum and uh Director Stansfield about this because I had I I saw this ordinance come down.

I actually took an informal poll on my Facebook page, and it it opened up some good discussion.

And and first of all, what I wanted to say was I wanted to compliment Aldermer Johnson for putting this legislation forward because I think it is a conversation that we need to have.

It's a conversation that we started back when I was uh starting my second term when I was on this committee, and it seemed like we had some good momentum, and then it kind of uh fell away.

Uh so I'm hoping that this reignites the discussion.

I'm not sure.

I mean, obviously, I don't have a vote tonight when this comes to the full board.

I'm not sure where I sit on it.

I have some concerns as far as doing it by ward, only because I think that most people across the city uh, and I'm just generalizing here, probably don't know what ward they're in.

Uh so that could be of of a concern.

Um, on the other on the other part of it, um, and I I did mention this to Alderman uh Johnson in a uh an email.

I'd like to maybe if uh if this does get tabled or uh if it gets reconsidered, maybe putting in a sunset clause on the ordinance uh to basically test market it uh wherever it is in the city.

Um I'm a big fan of sunset clauses because it it allows us to test market something and and put it out there and test it against real life and and see where we go.

Um it's it's my hope that by opening up this discussion that we can have a plan put forward.

If this isn't the right, if this isn't the right ordinance, uh I'm I'm hoping that uh parking can see this as it's obviously a concern, and it opens up discussions across the city uh as to why, and it's my hope that we can come forward to the residents with a comprehensive plan on overnight parking, whatever that looks like, and I believe that it is in the parking study.

I actually have it pulled up here on another screen.

Um so I did I joined tonight to to say these remarks about the ordinance and to listen in to see uh where this fell and and and what the uh how other people thought about it.

But uh I just wanted to say uh compliments to Alderman Johnson for bringing this forward and opening up a discussion that I think needs to be had.

Thanks.

Thank you, Alderman Sullivan.

Um just to let the people out there know that in my time on the board of Alderman, um, pretty much we've been working on this.

It's a very complex issue to do it, and if you're gonna do something, you gotta do it right.

I mean, if it wasn't years ago, we could have just said overnight parking.

This place would have been a chaos, you know.

Uh so we have a lot of concerns, and so what I want to get into uh first.

I just want to say to the good people out there, most of the uh guests this evening are in infrastructures brain trust of people who have been actively working on this for years, and I'll have you know, as like Alderman Sullivan pointed out.

Well, we're already on top of it.

We're looking at one designated area in the future that we're gonna be in, and it'll be a test sample for everything that needs to be constructed, and so we'll get into that.

So, enough of me.

We I think we need to hear from my guests.

So I'm gonna turn to you, Jill, and uh let you uh, you know, between the two of you, we are in that's Ms.

Yeah, and that's Ms.

Director Hammond.

Um I mean, let you uh start it off, and then what we'll do is we'll go through with us and what they would really want to say.

So Mike night.

Sure.

Uh Liz Hannem, economic development director.

Um we have a plethora of experts here today.

Um we normally when we put legislation in, um, we've we've talked it through with lots of different departments.

Manager Stanfield and I really pride ourselves on making sure that every department has signed off on things.

Um, and we didn't get to do that this time.

Um, so we invited them to come give their opinion on the the legislation here tonight.

Um, and so we appreciate all the different departments that are uh participating.

Um, but I will give um manager Stansfield the the floor.

Um Jill Stansfield parking manager.

Thank you for having all of us this evening, and I also thank Alderman Johnson for bringing this forward.

This is a conversation that we do need to start back up.

Um I did bring a sort of small presentation.

If you want to pull it up, I can go through it.

It talks about our current overnight exception program that we have in place right now.

Okay, so we'll do that.

And I would like to find out um the address that had asked for an overnight exception at some point, so we can rectify that.

I don't know if that was the one we discussed earlier today.

It is.

Oh, it is, okay.

So that was rectified, but they I did not realize that they um did call in ahead of time.

You you stated they did call in ahead of time and they still got a ticket.

Okay, well, I'll look into that.

There are some times we're all human that we will make a mistake, but we always rectify it on the backside.

So for that, is this on the city website to recommend to people on what to do?

Absolutely.

It's right on our parking page.

Okay, thank you.

I don't know how to use this.

All right.

So thank you again very much for having us this evening.

I wanted to kind of start the conversation off by what is the problem that we're trying to solve.

Um, because we do have a process in place now where folks can call in if they're having construction, uh, overnight guests, um, driveway paving, um, any other type of you know, construction or need to park in the street for whatever reason.

There's a process in place now where folks can call in and uh request days request the days that they need to be able to park in in the street.

Uh we do have an appeal process that we did bring in-house uh eight years ago when enforcement came over to our department, and it's pretty robust.

So if you have an issue with a ticket and it's it's incorrectly written, you send that appeal in, and our office will get back to you.

We we try to get back to folks within a couple of weeks at the most.

The um program we have right now really does um provide that flexibility and kind of the equitable treatment of all residents.

So um I'm gonna have you go to the next slide.

Um, okay.

So the um existing overnight exception program is easy to access.

It you can um call our office, you can go online and use the online form, you can send us an email.

I even have some people text me, and we add that to the overnight exception list.

Um we it's responsive to our residents' needs, we allow it case by case.

We have had issues where people will abuse the policy that we have in place, um, and then we do have to work with them on that, and we have to let them know that you know, unfortunately, it's come to the time you can't park on the street.

Um then it provides accountability and oversight, and then the result a balanced approach that offers flexibility without permanently changing citywide parking rules.

Um, why the current ordinance matters?

The current ordinance helps preserve order, predictability, consistent enforcement, clear public right-of-way, emergency vehicle access, efficient trash collection, mail delivery access, and neighborhood quality of life.

It also helps prevent long-term vehicle storage, abandoned vehicles, camping and public right-of-way, and parking-related neighborhood conflicts.

Um it's a consistent and transparent and fair process.

Um, same rules applied citywide, with the exception obviously of our downtown area.

We do have some permit areas.

But otherwise, it's the same rules citywide.

I wasn't down, sorry.

So yeah, I mean, I guess I did kind of talk to all of that, so yeah, we can go to the next one.

Sorry.

Um, potential operational impacts.

Um, allowing seasonal overnight parking may increase complaint calls, enforcement demands, citation processing, appeals and adjudication, administrative workload, interdepartmental coordination, and then additional considerations that we would want to look at are signage requirements, program administration, public education and outreach, ongoing compliance and monitoring.

Um the impacts go beyond parking.

The stakeholders are all of us, really.

Um, and we need to make sure that these folks are all at the table when we're having this conversation.

Police department, fire department, public works, our department, parking, and our residents, and of course, all of you, our board of aldermen.

Some of the questions to consider emergency access impacts, trash collection impacts, street maintenance impacts, and neighborhood quality of life impacts, fiscal considerations, potential costs may include regulatory signage, installation labor, program administration, enforcement staffing, citation processing, appeal hearings, and ongoing monitoring.

And we should have a fiscal analysis should be conducted before we push forward.

And due diligence still needed before implementing this type of change.

We want to identify the problems, identify the problem being solved, gather department feedback, evaluate operational impacts, evaluate the fiscal impacts, seek community input, and review ordinance conflicts and enforcement challenges.

In the parking department position, we will administer whatever policy is adopted by the Board of Alderman.

Our professional assessment, the current overnight parking ordinance provides a balance between flexibility and order.

Existing exception processes already address legitimate resident needs.

Additional review and stakeholder input should occur before adopting a significant change.

And then I go back to the first question we ask is what problem are we trying to solve?

If the objective is to accommodate legitimate resident needs, a process already exists today that provides flexibility, consistency, transparency, and fairness, all while protecting the city's public right-of-way and neighborhood quality of life.

And then I do this slide for everyone.

So we have some contact information up here.

If you need overnight, temporary overnight on-street parking, here's how you can contact us.

You can email us, you can call us, you can go on our website, we have a form.

Our goal is to provide customer service while administering parking regulations with consistency, transparency, fairness, and respect for every resident.

And then I have one more slide, I think, with some more sort of our main information as well there, just to keep that up on the screen for a few minutes for folks at home if they want to jot down that information.

And then if you have any other questions for me, I can certainly speak to this.

Um, but we we were able to have our Jeff LaFleur from our solid waste department is here to speak from the solid waste perspective.

Um then we also have we also have Andy Hill here, who is our parking consultant who can also speak to the memorandum that was submitted.

Well, absolutely, we're gonna go down the line while we're at you.

My question is if this gets opened up to the ward, do you have the common adequate staff to handle this?

No.

So this will be an additional surcharge to the tax base.

If we're gonna do it, we're gonna do it right.

Right.

And based on that premise.

So we're gonna have to hire more people to have 24-7 because now right.

If we allow parking just arbitrarily anywhere, it's gonna require more enforcement because we're in, we're gonna the calls are gonna increase.

We're gonna get calls about trash not being picked up, which we do now where we have parents.

So we're already doing that, but this would just add in abundance of that in another section of Nashua.

To uh director Stanfield and any questions, all of them and correct.

Yes, while people at home maybe are just copying this down.

I just want to clarify if for some reason they have called, gotten an exception, maybe their kiddos home for the summer for college, and they're you they know that they have the exception, but they get a ticket, they can call you to have that um right.

Um right, we do have an heal process in place.

Okay, absolutely.

I just wanted to clarify for everybody at home.

Yep, thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

Alderman Josh.

Thank you very much.

Um, I would appreciate if you could send a copy of your presentation so we all can get it.

Absolutely.

I will double down on that and copy to uh our administration.

Absolutely, yes.

I plan to I apologize.

I was putting this together just before the meeting.

And may I continue?

Yeah, if you may just made a statement that people called because they don't I get the trash picked up.

Absolutely, yes.

Uh Jill Standsfield parking manager, we have that issue now regularly, and I will let Jeffart LaFleur speak to that.

Um, but we get the calls um sometimes daily, um, especially in our permit areas.

Um where trash pickup is is unable to be done because of the truck can't get down the street or um it's blocked by it's the vehicles in the street are like prohibiting the trucks from actually coming down, but I'll let I'll I won't steal his thunder on that.

Can I just follow up on that?

Follow up, yeah.

But that's daytime.

That's during the day.

So this is night time, so it's a different, you're not gonna have trash pickup during the night.

So yes, thank you for the question.

Jill Stansfield parking manager.

Um, just because the program may end at 6 a.m.

doesn't mean the vehicles move at 6 a.m.

So we have a lot of folks even in our permanent now.

The vehicles don't move sometimes all day.

Um so and I'll just add to that.

Um that is an enforcement issue, right?

So if they're if they are staying there, then we need additional staff to be able to manage that across the city and change behavior so that people do move by 6 a.m.

So it it it it will be a very large learning curve, I think, for the community.

May I do a follow-up on this, Mr.

Chairman?

You know, I know that in the morning my husband will put my vehicle out on the street and I'll sit there all day long on my neighbor that having stuff done at that house during the day.

Uh you know, we're talking daytime is different than nighttime.

People will put their vehicles out on the street during the day because they might have a contractor coming in during the day or then leaving or whatever.

So it's it's different than nighttime.

And so what we're doing, we're taking daytime and nighttime and kind of combined it together here, which habits during the day is different than habits at night, because we're not gonna have trash pickup.

I understand what snow plowing, but we're not talking about this during winter months, we're just talking about this during warm months.

That's it.

Trash is not picked up during the night, sweeping isn't done at night time.

And like I I read all of this, and um so uh that's why I just gotta correct so when people are watching this, they understand that some of it is daylight, some of it is nighttime.

But we yes, people will put the cards on the street during the day when they're picking up trash.

And it just it happens that way, but it's not night time.

Can I just um so I I agree um if everyone follows exactly what what we put in place, but uh most people don't.

But I I actually am gonna hand it over to Jeff Flafleur because um we are discussing his domain.

Jeff LaFleur's superintendent solid waste.

So I'm here as part of DLW, and we do do sweeping at night starting at 3 45 in the morning.

That's when our shift starts.

It starts at 3 45 in the morning and it goes to 11 in the morning.

So that's when the cars are off the streets.

That's when we have the opportunity to do the initial sweeping of all the curb to curb stops.

As far as the trash, as everyone else has said, the most people will abide by the rules, but the ones that don't and have their cars on the street still at six, my trash truck start at 6 45 in the morning, we would have problems collecting the trash.

Now they'll just, you know, residents have learned that they'll call in and say, well, our trash was missed.

Well, was it actually missed, or was it because there was a vehicle in the way?

Uh when we started this uh automated collection it in 2003 when I was actually running the trucks, we weren't allowed to pick up barrels that were any closer than three feet to a to a vehicle because of damage.

We could damage them with the with the arm of the truck hitting the vehicles at a parked curb side.

So now we have a uh uh uh an order or an agreement within my department, do not touch anything that's 10 feet close to a vehicle.

If we have multiple vehicles on a road, there won't be 10 feet of space to put your trash barrels out.

So my automated trucks wouldn't be as efficient as they are right now.

Right now, in uh 85% of the city is done by automated collection.

So if we start going ward to ward to ward or citywide, my whole collection process would switch over to from being an automated truck with one person on it to rearload packers, and each automated route would have to do probably two additional trucks with three people on each truck.

So now I'm looking at more uh personnel to do collections that we had started, you know, in 2003, and assume that you know there wouldn't be curbside parking of vehicles.

Thank you.

I want to go back to the sweeping.

So at 3 45 in the morning, where does the sweep a truck start?

Is it in residential neighborhoods?

Absolutely.

I didn't think we could start that early in the morning because of noise.

We have been for years, ever since I've been 29 years of the city.

We've been working, there's always been a shift from 3.45 in the morning till 11 o'clock in the morning.

That's the time that we can get the sweeping done efficiently when there's no cars on the roads.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Le Ferr, because this is another thing added on.

If this was allowed, you're gonna need my whole process would change.

Uh Ms.

Anthony, you're gonna need more personnel.

Absolutely, and different vehicles.

And uh and lifting these barrels, they could be heavy at times, so the injury rate can't go up, correct?

Uh concern.

Yes, there's always workman's comp.

Our workmen's comp issues have gone down since we went automated.

They have gone down since automation.

Absolutely, it's less less people on the ground slips and falls and tax being.

Um, I just heard you lightly say in different vehicles, which is a massive expense.

So what are we talking about there?

Well, one automated truck is approximately uh 400,000, and and to do the routes in a different way with rearload packers, I'd need at least two vehicles there, and those are about 350,000.

So we're looking at 800,000 as opposed to a 400,000 dollar vehicle with one person on it.

Okay, and extra manpower, benefits, pension, all that's has to be included.

It's worth thinking about to take into consideration.

Thanks.

Any other questions from Mr.

Looker?

No.

Okay, I'm gonna uh if I may still mind me, so I'm gonna go to the fire marshal.

How are you?

Good and you you've been busy.

Yeah, yes.

Uh thank you.

Uh Mike DeVarney, fire marshal.

Um, you know, Alderman Johnson did did mention that there are things in the ordinance that you know limit parking in certain areas, corners, fire hydrants, stuff like that.

Uh, the one thing that it does not show is that the fire code requires a unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, and that's due to the size of our vehicles and mostly the ladder trucks being able to set up where in front of buildings wherever they're needed.

So that would be you know, one of one of those issues um would need to be looked at.

Also, the other issue is cul-de-sacks and and uh dead ends, you know, the the trucks wouldn't be able to navigate those cul-de-sacs, tight cul-de-sacs.

It's tough as it is right now, so those are also need to be uh kept in mind.

Okay, yeah.

And the situation of a I had a five on down on uh oh, I forget the name of the street, but it went off of Bridge Street down into the uh the gas yacht.

Wasn't it proof street?

And somebody asked me, sis, why didn't you pull engine four down the street?

We hand drag the line down the street to get to the building where he's phone involved.

And I looked at them and we said that's because I didn't want to make a 500,000 dollar investment into you know having catch fire.

So there's a lot of you know considerations with this.

Yes, firemen can move holes and stuff like that, but it makes the job just more difficult.

Oh, and now that I see a hand.

Yeah, um it seems when we're talking about parking in front of your house, we're talking maybe like one car.

But if there were several cars parked on the street, bumper to bumper, with only the driveway open, a you don't have access to um for fire coverage.

And also, if you park on both sides of the street, on many streets, I think we've determined that you can't get one of our big fire trucks down there.

Also, in I've been around for a couple of years, and I remember times when the fire department had to bust the windows in the cars to run a hose through to get it to the house for the fight the fire.

Um there's that.

The other thing is I know the police concerns, I don't see anybody here from the police department, do I?

No.

Uh their concern is if you have somebody that's a stalker or is trying to rob your house and they park for extended periods to either case the house or do the robbery or whatever in front of your house.

Um you know there's nothing to stop them from doing that, uh, especially on stalking if they're parked there, you know.

The police can try to make a move, but you know, hey, the legislation says I can park here.

Um not a major issue, but it is an issue.

Um so I want to hear from the rest of the the people, but uh the the other just the other thing while I got the floor.

Uh I'm the alderman from ward two.

I'm not going to vote to pass anything that's a ward specific unless it's something that only impacts that ward.

This isn't one of those.

Thank you.

Okay.

You're all uh five marsh from the money.

Are you all set?

Sure, just one thing left to add.

Um you know, we also we have uh on-street parking downtown, and we notice really there's an up to it's it's harder to get around at night because of the street, the street parking.

More people are on that street at night while they're home and not during the day when they're at work.

So that makes a uh a difference in that situation as well.

Yeah.

I just with the fire you had the other night.

I could just imagine that bend in the street there, like if there were people.

Oh my word, you know, so yeah.

Okay, yes, drive to hand.

Um Liz Hannem, economic development director.

Um as we're talking through this, uh, we we do plan to bring a proposal to to you to do an overnight parking um like a resident parking program for overnight.

Um, and so we we do have our consultant here, Andy Hill, potentially to talk about that or to talk about the issues of enforcing the current legislation as it's written.

Um, but so if if the desire of the Board of Aldermen is to start um or enact some sort of overnight parking program, um a resident program, then um we can certainly bring forward a draft piece of legislation for you in the in the coming months here um if that's of um that that we've kind of talked through with all the different departments and and able to enforce.

Um that's a perfect segue for Mr.

Hill.

But if I may at first the hundred thousand dollar question here is what do people want?

And I think maybe we would be best served instead of writing parking by ward by ward by ward, but coming up with something to put it on the ballot to see if people really want to give away, you know, what they're enjoying now today, you know.

And I bet you'd be surprised at how many people would not really be quartered, you know.

You gotta keep in mind, it's a public street.

The guy next door to me can park right in front of my house, and I can't do anything about it.

He can park in front of his house, but he prefers my house.

You can't do nothing, it's a public street.

So there's a lot to really fight the apple.

So with that, Mr.

Elf.

Thank you for being in here.

Thank you for having me.

Uh, for the record, uh, my name is Andy Hill.

I am a parking and mobility specialist for the firm of Thornton Tomasetti.

Um, I have been working here in the city of Nashville on parking since uh early 2020.

Um, under a prior employer, and I am in point of fact the architect of the current parking master plan that has been adopted by the Board of Alderman and put in place, which addresses this particular topic.

Uh point of clarification.

There is a significant memorandum that was drafted and placed uh before this body for consideration.

And it would be tempting to read through that and believe that uh this was a constructed argument for all the reasons why you shouldn't do this or why, in my professional opinion, uh I oppose either this legislation or overnight parking.

I don't oppose overnight parking.

I think overnight parking is going to have to happen.

I think it's going to have to happen in Nashua.

And worked into amendments in the language before you could move forward with this particular ordinance.

And in highlighting those, what I essentially was trying to identify as a way that this can be done.

When you strip away all the titles, at the end of the day, my job is basically to serve at the pleasure of the city of Nashua, listen to what you want to do, and then try find a way to do it in the most successful manner, benefiting the greatest number of people and harming the least.

And having worked at over 100 municipalities across the country, Lily's last 25 years, I can tell you that this is one area that is ripe for abuse if it's not carefully constructed, and if there aren't checks and balances put in place in order to make things happen effectively.

Alderman O'Brien, you just referenced one of the reasons that this is such a contentious issue, which is when you talk about on-street parking, you're talking about a public access asset that within the boundaries of the program that's administering it are available to everyone, which means that there is no reserved parking on the space, particularly in front of your house.

Anytime you talk about doing overnight parking, you have to go into it with a lot of education up front.

You have to put together a very structured program that preserves the rights of all the people who are interested in parking overnight and balances those rights and those freedoms of uses against emergency medical services, city services, uh snow removal, and all of the other things that might potentially impact the allowance of overnight parking.

We have been working on this question since the spring of 2020.

We've looked at it from several different perspectives.

We've had a lot of conversation in this room with infrastructure, with planning, uh, with a Board of Alderman about how to participate, how in particular to approach this issue.

We believe that there is an opportunity right now to do a structured pilot in one section of the city where we can really work through how you would put together this kind of program, work through the issues of education and specifically outreach to the community, because that is typically the toughest part.

And if we are successful there, then I think we've got a model to start exporting it all around the rest of the city.

Um very rarely I will tell you is this something that's done board by ward.

Um it is usually something that is done uh in much smaller geographic footprints, primarily because nobody wants to walk from one end of the ward to the other to find the last available parking space, uh, if if that's what it comes down to.

And certainly in Queens in Everett, um, that's not unconceivable.

Um I don't think we're looking at that here in Nashua, but what we are looking at is being able to balance what is a public resource of limited supply against a significant amount of demand or interest in using that supply and finding an equitable way to balance that out.

Uh and in order to do that, in order to be transparent and equitable and fair, um, you need to have uh more structure than is in place in this ordinance as it's currently written here today.

And does allow for overnight parking on both sides of the street?

One of the reasons that the city can balance that is because they have the ability very quickly to identify those people who are authorized and allowed to park along those certain streets, specifically so that they can be contacted in a hurry if that parking obstructs the ability of emergency medical services or fire services or police services to respond to a particular incident.

And one of the things that I do ask, should this legislation go forward, is that there be some sort of consideration for a program within the ordinance that causes folks to register their vehicles in such a manner if they are going to be parking overnight, even during the summer months, so that if there is an issue and there's need for speedy response, there is the ability to reach out to those individuals to make sure that you can contact them quickly and have those vehicles removed.

And I know it's always tempting to say, well, you can always call for a tow truck, etc.

Um, but um in my former business, in in the chief's business, uh fire marshal's business, every second counts.

Um, and so thinking through this stuff and having it put in place ahead of time is um a service to the public, including those who will be um parking curbside overnight.

Uh I do have one, just uh a couple of softballs by you.

But you identified an area, and I'm aware of it.

Everybody's aware of it.

This would be a great, you know, because like you, I'm not against overnight parking.

But like I said, let me say it again, folks.

You let this cat out of the bag, you are never ever, ever gonna put it back in.

Well, in the so we gotta do it right.

We can't go, you gotta look past your nose on this to really do it correctly.

So we do have a target area.

A lot of people think we've been sitting on that hands.

We don't we do have a target area and in and we have a very challenging target area, so we can make it work here, right?

We can make it work anywhere.

And at our meetings, nobody brings donuts, so we're not just sitting there eating donuts during all the meetings, are we?

You know, no, I gave up donuts.

No, okay, that's a good idea.

You know, but you know, we're actually been pursuing this because would you agree with me?

The complexity of the question, you saw one solution, something else pops up.

I mean, uh to my count, we've we have looked at this at least from four different ways, uh proposed four different potential programs in order to advance it.

And in each case, um we got far enough into the due diligence to realize that that may not be the best fit for Nashua.

So uh the bad news is, yes, um, Councilman Dubb, we we did spend quite a bit of the city's money at one point on three ways that didn't work, but that also got us to the place where I think we're in a fourth way that is going to work.

And if I may, uh coming up with this test area, I mean, as a city, we get we get actually wards, but you know, it's not gonna go by wards, it's gotta go, so let's use the term of zones.

Zones or districts, yes.

Yeah.

So as we go by zones, some of them in the downtown, those are zones of need.

Significant need.

Significant needs.

Yes.

You gotta understand, folks, when they built the house in 1890, it was a two-family house.

Somebody, I'm not against capitalism, but somebody came in and made it a six-family house.

So now there's at least six cars, and then if Sweetie Pie wants to come over and spend the night, you could be up to ten cars.

So if you've got property on the street, you tell me we're gonna buy ten cars.

And don't forget that that house was built on a roadway that was built to accommodate uh horse and buggy, correct?

Not a 20-foot-wide fire truck.

No, no, absolutely correct.

So, I mean, it's a very, I just want the people to understand.

I'm patting myself on the back.

Us Irish do that occasionally, but uh, you know, we really have been doing diligence to this.

And the thing is the invitation is out there to all the Alderman.

You want to come to our meetings, they're a lot of fun.

You know what I mean?

But uh basically what we see here is our core group that really sits down with this.

So, you know, you've got to keep in mind, folks, and before the meeting, I was running through some numbers.

I just was curious.

I asked uh director photo of public works about guesstimate how many miles the city uh of City Road do we have, and she says something around 300, you know, give and take a mile or two.

Okay, and then I asked about how many cars we got in the city, and we're registering around 80,000 cars, and a parking space is what, 20 feet to park a car.

So with opposite driveways, fire hydrants, and other things, and God knows what we're gonna do with trash.

Are we gonna have to have trash barrel safety zones?

I don't know, you know.

Um you're gonna see that this is it's a Herculean task, you know.

But we're gonna solve it, you know.

Hopefully before my term ends, you know.

It would be uh a good thing, but yeah, we will solve this.

So we're working on this project.

I'm not gonna say what is the project because I don't know if it's a secret still, you know what I mean.

But it's one that I think everybody would be happy because this is gonna increase housing and start the tone for this.

Any questions for Mr.

Hill?

Okay.

Yes, I do.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Um you've been working on this since 2021 since COVID.

That's true, yes, ma'am.

Okay, and it's 2026.

And you had a plan, one a couple, yeah, three other plans in place, kind of like you had an idea what you could do, right?

Up until this point.

Yes, ma'am, we've tested multiple plans and multiple coaches.

And so now you've got one that you're gonna want to test again.

Is that correct?

Um we feel that we have having vetted some of the plans that we had come up with previously, which were based on best practice with stakeholders from the city of Nashua.

Um we found out that the best practices were not the best practices for the city of Nashua when betting those plans.

Uh, and so we have come up now with a new plan that we feel is closer aligned to this consider constituents' wants and needs as we understand them.

May I continue?

Yes, you may.

Thank you.

Is there any way?

Well, when are you going to be um letting the board, the committee know about this?

Um I I think we're gonna we're getting close to uh an actual draft, so I think by September we should probably be back at this committee and be able to present something to you.

May I continue, please?

Yes, you may.

Okay, because Miss Handman, when I was on the phone with uh the two of you today, I said I'd be more than happy to sit down and come into any meetings to hear what you're doing so I can see, because you know, if my schedule allows me, I'd be more than happy because um I like I'm hands-on and I like to be informed and you know, see what's going on out there because I put this through because it was like to open up a conversation, yeah.

Not knowing because I was not on the board from 2021 to 2025.

I just got someone in in January, so I really wouldn't know that much about what was going on and didn't really know that much about the study, although I want to thank my colleague Alderman Sullivan for his kind words.

Um, and he did send me a link which just didn't open, no matter what I went on a computer or my iPads and my phone.

It's a very large document, just so you have to do it on a desktop.

Okay.

If anybody is looking.

Okay, thank you for letting us know.

So I'm trying to, you know, put this through, and now it here that there's been things in the works.

I'm open-minded to sit down and work with people on this.

I'm not hard-nosed about a lot of stuff, but you know, some of the things that are said, I've got to ask questions on it because some things don't make sense if we're talking nighttime, and you're talking about things that usually get done in the daytime.

So I'd be more than happy if you have a meeting to please include me in on it.

Um and I'll keep my lips sealed.

I won't, you know, say anything to anybody.

Let the cat out of the bag ahead of time.

But I'd like to see what's going on here.

Thank you very much.

Well uh we'll email you the secret high sign that join the committee.

Okay.

Uh but I just want to say all Alderman.

I requested, thank God for our administrative assistant, Miss Graham.

She printed, you should have received one.

A stack about this thing uh Mr.

Hill's report.

Every question you had out of the sun of what we were doing has been asked and answered in that you know document.

She had to go through 15 times of a stack of like about is it about that big, you know?

It was big.

Yeah, yeah.

360 pages or so.

Yeah, she wasn't too pleased.

And you know, me and I had a oh god, the paper budget just went up, but you know, but it's information that was out there.

I've been trying to get the information out there.

So I hope my fellow alderman would read it because it explains really a lot of what we tackled and done.

But again, we will be more forthcoming.

I think I'll probably speak to uh Miss Graham to probably put it on the list when the meeting is called and we'll put it and we'll see what Alderman will uh you know want to do to come, you know.

So we could do that.

So uh any other comment.

Okay, seeing none.

Uh this has been read.

It is open for any other motions.

Alderman Dow.

Do you have a motion on this?

Uh I'd like to make a motion indefinitely postpone.

Motion indefinitely postpone.

Alderman Johnson discussion on a motion.

Yes, I would rather have a motion to table it right now till more information comes back.

I think it's wrong to indefinitely postpone this.

I think there's a lot of discussion that needs to be done.

And this is something that if need be could be tweaked to meet um Mr.

Hill uh information comes back, and then once we get that information, then we can decide whether or not it needs to be indefinitely postponed.

The reason for indefinitely postponing is because any action that comes back will be significantly different from this particular resolution, and I don't think that what they've come up with will be able to be put into this resolution by an order ordinance by uh amendment.

So I think a new ordinance that that comes up with a new plan will be much different, much more significant, and that's why in deaf and postponed.

Oh well stated, and uh I understand your point, Alderman Johnson, but we'll see where this vote goes, and then if not, it's still open for an additional motion.

Um other discussion on the motion.

Okay, seeing none, I'll call for the vote.

The motion is to uh indefinitely postpone.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye opposed, nay.

Thank you.

Okay, uh motion carries.

Um we just catch up on my paperwork.

Uh I think we can let the uh fire marshal go.

He's been up all night.

Yeah, thank you for all of your work.

Any of you guys uh catch a bit of a question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We can we can let you know to schedule uh uh presentation when we're ready with the new overnight parking program.

That would be thankful.

Yeah, um Miss Stanfield, you do you want your they already have it?

We downloaded it.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Uh petitions.

Um none.

Okay, you haven't been approached with anything to be removed from the table.

Uh general discussion.

Okay, I just want to say uh Alderman Johnson, thank you for bringing this up.

It was uh timely.

Umfortunately, maybe my fault.

We didn't really put a lot of release of information out there, but I think the public does understand we've been really actively preserving this.

What the objective of looking more at the downtown than Ward 5, but uh looking at the sense of need.

And so that needs to be done.

It's the wards-free for perhaps some of it, you know.

So Alderman uh thank you.

I just again want to thank um Alderman Johnson because I do think it's an important discussion, and I more so even than this study is the fact that I think it's it would be um beneficial for us to let all of our constituents know about being able to get that exception for parking on the street that you can get right now.

So there is relief right now.

I don't want people who are frustrated at home to say, well, great, I needed to park on the street and now I can't.

You can get this exception right now, and the bonus to that is you can park in front of your house.

So when you get that exception, you're guaranteed to be able to do that, um, as long as there's no other problem.

So I think that that would probably going forward as we wait for this study.

There is a relief for our constituents that we just maybe need to have that conversation and make them aware of.

Okay, uh Alderman uh Solomon.

Thank you.

Uh I just wanted to say that good discussion tonight.

I think we uncovered a lot of information that wasn't out there otherwise.

So that's good.

That's on the record now.

Unfortunately, I would have I would have supported the table it because I think what it does is it keeps it on the agenda and it keeps it keeps uh you know you you're reminded of it on the agenda.

I understand that there are going to be major changes to it, but this is a word document.

Uh you can do major amendments to any legislation that you want.

Well, I think uh by tabling it, it keeps it on the agenda and keeps you reminded.

Director Hannem said we'd see something by September.

I'm eager to see that, but every time you see uh an infrastructure agenda, you know you're gonna see overnight parking on there, but now uh should it be indefinitely postponed at the full board, you won't see it again.

So this keeps it in front of people.

Um so those are just my two cents.

Thanks.

Okay.

Um yeah.

I think when the committee comes out with it, we will reintroduce it.

And I'd be happy to approach Alderman Johnson if you want to what we come up with.

It is gonna look different than what you uh originally.

So there is a difference of apples and oranges.

So we'll get you involved with whatever actually comes down and writing, you know.

I don't care who sponsors it.

Uh but I want to get this done.

I've been working way too long on this.

And so, yes, Alderman Johnson.

Well, thank you.

I want to thank Alderman Sullivan and Alderman Greg and yourself for the kind words.

Um we can get this done because I'm a go-getter.

And I'm out there all the time and I speak to people all the time, and um, and a lot, hopefully, this will come up on Facebook tomorrow.

Although I read it, I don't comment on Facebook because when I was on the board of it, I said I wasn't gonna do it.

I don't want people to get into an argument whether they like me or dislike me, and I just don't want that to happen.

I want people to talk about the issues, not about the person.

And I think that's what we miss a lot of times.

We talk more about the people versus the issue, and that's why nobody gets along here and the disrespect comes.

But it was a good conversation tonight.

I'm willing to try to get into as many meetings as I can.

Work um with my work schedule permitting, although the next two weeks I'm kind of open.

I'm not working a lot, which is gonna be nice.

And I think this is something that it's been looked at for so long.

You have to make a decision one way or the other.

Are we going to allow it for not what?

Well, you know, I went to attorney clock and I told her what I wanted.

She's legal, so she looks at everything and writes it up legally.

So now we know it's not gonna probably be by what's maybe by sector, however, they want to do it, but it's on the table right now, and I hope that um it's gonna come back to us around September for a great conversation.

So thank you all.

And but keep in mind what's gonna come back in September, it's just gonna be to the test structure.

Right.

And you're gonna have to see if it flies or fails.

Right.

Modify it if it fails, you know, get the bugs out of as they say.

You know, the first rocket didn't really fly.

You know, I mean, it exploded.

So uh we'll get this.

We've got to get there.

Uh so uh that's it.

Anyone else with a comment?

Okay.

Alderman Dow, do you have a your favorite motion?

Yes, motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Posed motion carries, and I'll declare uh the infrastructure adjourned at 850.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.