Good evening and welcome to tonight's city council meeting for August 17th,
2026. I'd first ask that we uh close the non-public session and seal the minutes of
that session. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Uh Sally,
will you please take the role? Mayor Mcker here. Assistant Mayor Kelly here. Councelor Cook here.
Councelor Bllelock present. Councelor Badley here. Councelor Maro here. Councelor Flynn
here. Councelor Hopkins here. And absent tonight is councelor Taber. I I would ask
uh that the uh ports little league uh state champions lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
You guys started. You guys started. You guys start to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I didn't tell you about that before. I could have. Uh handled it well. Um, we have the acceptance of
minutes for the August 3rd, 2026 city council meeting here. And I move to accept and approve
the meeting minutes for August 3rd, 2026. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Um,
and now on to uh two uh a proclamation and a recognition. First, uh we have the proclamation
of National Service Dog Month. um and Brendan Madden here uh to receive it. Whereas September
is National Dog Month created to raise awareness and show appreciation for the extraordinary work
carefully trained and certified service dog do every day for the people in their care to honor
the dedicated individuals who train and care for these remarkable animals and to celebrate
the profound bond between service dogs and the individuals they serve. And whereas service
dogs are specially trained to perform specific tasks for people with disabilities as defined by
the Americans with Disabilities Act, they can be trained to retrieve objects, assist with balance,
give seizure or diabetic alerts, or assist with those psychiatric disabilities. Many also serve
veterans living with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, helping them better manage
their disabilities and live fuller lives. And whereas these special dogs exemplify the healing
power of the human human animal bond, research shows canine companions can improve cardiovascular
health, lower cholesterol, and decrease blood pressure while offering support and a sense
of calm that helps balance the emotional and psychological stresses of daily life.
And whereas there are more than half a million service dogs in America working on behalf of
their companions and their communities, more than 12% of the entire US population and more
than 10% of our Portsouth residents cope with some type of disability on a daily basis. And whereas
the city of Portsouth recognized the profound impact that service dogs have on the lives of
adults and children with disabilities thanks to the unique ability to enhance the independence,
mobility, and overall quality of life. opening doors for those they serve. Now therefore, I,
[ __ ] McCaffran, mayor of the city of Portsouth, on behalf of the members of the city council and
citizens of Portsouth, do hereby proclaim September as National Service Dog Month
in Portsmouth and call upon our residents and businesses to recognize and respect the
important job service dogs do in helping us live up to our model of the city of the open
door. given with my hand in the seal of the city of Portsouth on this 17th day of August, 2026.
[applause]
I would ask um Brennan to say a few words. I'll just give you this first. I would like to
thank the mayor and counselors for making this proclamation. Having had my own service dog,
I know the profound impact that these dogs make in people's lives. Jaffy,
my first service dog, worked right up until the day he died. I hope that this
proclamation encourages others to learn more about service dogs. Thank you again. [applause]
[applause]
you. Thank you.
Another
round of a hand for Brendan here. [applause]
Brandon is a uh is a true advocate uh to us um and um you know make sure that we remember this day
um every every month every year uh continues to advocate for service
dogs and to be recognized here in Portsman. Thank you again Brendan for your advocacy
and for for leading the charge on this. It's appreciated. [applause]
So, we have uh a few folks uh in pinstripes here uh today. Um and they had a remarkable season.
I'm going to read a little bit and I'm going to say a few words and then um we're going to honor
our uh state champions here. Uh the Portsouth Little League put together a remarkable 2026
season that will remember it as one of the most successful in Portsouth baseball history.
The team first captured the New Hampshire District 2 Championship, defeating North Manchester Hooksit
in a championship game. Building on that momentum, Portsouth advanced the state tournament and
claimed the New Hampshire state championship with a victory over Bedford in the final. The
title marked Portsouth's first Little League state championship since 2010. You guys gave it
your all in the New England regional tournament in Bristol, playing against some pretty tough
uh competition. Um overall uh with a record of 12 and five scored 167 runs while allowing only 55
and posted an impressive team batting average of 383. I you know I don't even know if Rich could
get something like that in Little League. But the um um you know it's uh it's it's a it's an honor
um uh to be able to to read these words. Um, it's also getting to watch you guys
uh play um this year. You had uh what you hope every kid has um when you're a parent. Um and
I'm speaking as like an old dad now. Um but life is not uh an easy thing. Um it's hard.
It takes a lot of hard work. um when you lost one of the toughest games against Bedford,
uh it would have been super easy to pack it in. In fact, that I think that's what Bedford was
counting on you guys doing. Um the fact that you didn't um is a testament to the grit that you guys
that you guys demonstrate on there and I know that it hurts, you know, not winning the whole
uh World Series. Uh but when you look back on this moment when you're a little bit older, um you're
going to realize that the not the not letting each other down, uh showing up for your teammates,
the next man up, um those are the lessons that are tougher to appreciate right now. Uh but this city
is incredibly proud of what you guys demonstrate and you are um you know, just a an example to all
of us of what hard work working for one another uh can lead to. So, um, with that, I just want
to read out, you know, each one of your names. Uh, Bennett Smith, Ryder Raises, and let's clap
as I do this in case I [applause] Sam Carter, Drew Christa, Tyler Hodgeges, Drayton Simmer,
Brady Maloney, Jack Leair, Brian Puland, Joey Kley, Gabe Ponier, Christopher Foster, manager
Charlie Raises, coaches Sam Cresta, and Brett Graham. You know, hell of a job. [applause] All
[applause]
right. So, we don't have keys to the city because the open door wouldn't make sense,
you know, but we do have doors. So,
I cannot get me out of these.
I would assume I have free time. I would assume I have a lot of free time. It's not like
Well, uh, Mayor McKern and rest of the city council,
thank you very much for having us and recognizing the boys tonight. So,
uh, yeah, just unbelievable season. I've said it a few times before, but I'll repeat myself. Like,
started coaching little league six years ago. Never would have imagined finishing
uh, finishing out after my son Ryder was done this year the way we did. uh winning the state
championship and and competing down in Bristol was just an awesome experience. So u 16 years
since we've done this here in Portsouth and I told them they're part of Portsouth history now and
uh just something to be proud of and echoing what what you said mayor that uh you know 20 30 years
from now when they're grown-ups they're going to remember being state champions and playing
in Bristol and that's kind of what it's all about. So, thank you very much. You're here. [applause]
[applause]
Now, this is the awkward moment of the council meetings. We're like, do I have to stay for the
entire council meeting? You can stay for the entire council meeting or you guys can go home
uh right now. But if you don't leave right now, you're gonna be here for the rest of it. So,
hi guys. Thank you. Good job, guys. Good part.
[applause]
So before we get uh to public comment, I'd wait a motion to suspend the rules uh on the resident
first um speaking order. So move second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Uh
so it turns out the first person that did sign up is a port resident, but Tyler Garzo. Uh and we're
just going to go down the list here. And again, it's typically 45 minutes. Uh we'll take as long
as we need. Uh we are going to keep a threeminut timer. If you go over the 3 minutes, we'll just,
you know, allow it to to continue. Uh but just uh 3 minutes is usually a good amount of time to say
something. It allows us to move through it. But uh we'll play it by ear. Tyler, you're up first.
Uh good evening, uh Mayor, Council. Uh Tyler Garzo, 62 McKinley. Uh,
I actually work for Scholes Marine Lab, which has docks next to the salt pile and runs a
shuttle to the park and ride. I'll continue to support the the WAP and the rate increase
uh along with other taxpayers. Uh, [snorts] but the 2025 parking study uh says some interesting
things about the downtown worker parking program. quote uh there will not be available capacity to
continue to support this program in the next 12 to 24 months. Much of tonight's earlier discussion
focused on fitting more parkers downtown uh when the study points the other way. Up to 75% of
public parking is out of town discretionary trips. Uh so the real pressure is visitors, not workers.
This is the time to create alternatives in line with council goal number two,
a multimodal Portsmith. The study says 10 to 15 minute service to a satellite lot
like the Pe's parking ride has significant and cited precedent in other cities. And there's a
two-year lead time before any sort of new garage. So this is the window now where we have to build
real alternatives. Follow the study. Uh the alternatives need to be ready now and the
rate increase being proposed should go directly to supporting those alternatives for workers
and residents alike. Thank you. Thanks Tyler. Uh next is Margot Doring on parking shuttle.
Thank you, Margot Doring, 300 Jones Avenue. On behalf of the four puppies that I've raised
as guide dog puppy, um, service dogs, thank you very much for your support for that program. Um,
regarding parking, I have to say that I think I'm going to buy cervical collars for the entire
city council because of the whiplash you must experience. Portsouth wants a walkable city,
but they want lots of parking at the same time. And I can't imagine how
you have to juggle those competing uh demands. It seems to me that we have
uh a lot of short-term solutions to a very very long-term problem and those
short-term solutions are very difficult because the problem is a long-term one.
I really support your effort to do a exhaustive study, a entire ecosystem study of the parking
and the public transportation and other means of reducing the need for parking in Portsouth.
When I've been to cities that have successfully implemented um walkability, the three things I
notice are lots of public transportation, lots of walking and biking options, and an effort to try
and make it possible for people to live without cars or with fewer cars. That includes things like
um ZIPCAR, other sorts of sharing systems. For the people who live in the south end of Portsouth and
need two cars, it must be impossible to try and figure out how to do that, particularly when you
don't really have another alternative. If you had a car share situation, you know, you might open up
all sorts of possibilities for people. So I think your goal of having a study that's going to look
at this holistically is really really important and I think it's important to do it as soon as
possible because it is going to take a long time to figure out and it's going to take even longer
to implement not just in terms of figuring out how to what to do but also to change people's
mindsets to change people's habits to make people willing to give up that second car or willing to
walk a little bit further. other or park in a parking garage. But I'm absolutely certain that
if you build another parking garage, if you build more parking, you're just going to have more cars
and you're just going to face the same problem a little further down the road and a little further
down the road. Let's take the resources that you would put into that. Let's put it into the study.
Let's put it into some long-term solutions. Let's put it into the public transportation system that
is just begging for the opportunity to increase the frequency of its rides and its routes so that
we can get more people on the system. One last thing I'll note. I actually went on to Google
Maps and if you want to walk around just about anywhere in Portsouth, it will take you less than
10 minutes from the parking garage at at Foundry Place, from the remote lot at um near the Masonic
Temple. It's just 10 minutes into downtown and we should really be encouraging people to get
out and walk. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Margot. Uh, next is Evie Summer Matter.
[clears throat]
Stop it. My name is Evie Summer Matter and I have the great honor and responsibility of managing
Series Bakery. I'm hoping to convince you all that the workforce parking program needs to be amended.
Long before RAP went into effect, the issue of free parking availability came up in conversation
amongst prospective staff and long-term staff alike. Of the 18 employees at Series, only
three are Portsouth residents. We commute from York, Ky, Elliot, South Burwick, Summerssworth,
Dover, Wells, Exit, New Market, Rochester, Seabbrook, and Greenland. Between gas and tolls,
it was never free to show up to work. The hope of a free parking spot was one of the
only things that made the costly commute worth it. I have had stellar potential hires choose
employment elsewhere with fewer barriers. I've had spectacular staff quit over the prohibitive
nature of inconvenient parking. RAP fits the bill perfectly to appease residents. Unfortunately,
this program undermines the efforts of small business owners who are fighting to retain
staff in a highly competitive labor market. After having face-to-face conversations with hundreds
of members of Portsouth workforce, it is clear to me that we must strive for protected free
workforce parking. The Portsouth workforce has demonstrated a willingness to walk far distances
for a free parking space. Currently, the majority of free parking is in residential neighborhoods.
My prediction is that workforce will be pushed further into the neighborhoods and then those
residents will suffer the same inconveniences that Southoun residents dealt with for years.
My hope is that you'll consider collaborating with business owners in an effort to reach
a mutually equitable solution for both workforce and residents. Now more than ever,
we must protect the workers who sacrifice so much to bring culture and community to
this city. It would be devastating to see them leave. Thank you, Evie. [applause]
Justin Richardson.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, members of the city council, Justin Richardson. I live at 586
Woodbury Avenue. Um, I wanted to talk briefly about parking just to give my perspective as a
resident who's been here for about 11 years on the sea coast for I guess 26 now. Um, I remember when
the parking rates were raised because we wanted to move people into the the new garage at the time,
the foundry. And and it it you know, I did some research on that. It drove me nuts because we
were taking essentially what were free parking spots that were already paid for and then raising
the rates on them in in order to force people to change their behavior to go somewhere else.
I think that was my recollection. Um I think all parking decisions have both good and bad
consequences. Um the one thing that I think is the problem is is that when we use the machinery
of government to punish people or to influence behavior, I think that's a mistake. Um what I
would like to see is is you know using parking fees. It's the wrong tool for the job. I think
the only and best policy for this city council is to take government out of that business,
make parking everywhere as easy and affordable, especially for the workers. Um,
I have a daughter who worked at Siri Bakery for a long time. I really understand how
that impacts them with the salaries that they have. Um, let people get to work, go downtown,
um, buy groceries, and even visit for less. We shouldn't be using the parking fees because that
takes people like me and I don't go downtown anymore. I I in the summertime especially, I
drive to Kery because it's just easier, you know, the having to spend $3 for a parking pass. I know
there's a resident program. I didn't get in it for about five years. Um I just think it's a it's,
you know, the only policy and the best policy is just make it easy and affordable for everyone.
let people figure it out from there. Thank you very much. Thanks, Justin. Um, Buzz Sher on Flock.
I apologize for not expressing any opinions on parking. Um, I people have said plenty. Um,
at the very end of tonight's uh agenda is an item uh uh a sample motion brought up by uh councelor
uh Bagley. Um I don't know whether he's he's going to continue to pursue that, but I uh I wasn't sure
whether that was going to be public comment then on that or whether now is the time. So,
um two things uh three things actually. one uh I've I've been working for the last 10 years on
license plate readers in the legislature. Uh in 2016 then uh Republican Representative Neil Kirk
uh who's a very strong privacy advocate uh passed uh got passed a bill uh that
put significant restrictions on uses of license plate readers, automated license plate readers.
Uh that bill had a sunset provision uh that uh it was it was to be repealed as of December 31st of
this year. Uh this past session I was the prime sponsor at the behest of Representative Kirk
uh to uh repeal the sunset provision. And so that statute is now permanent.
It regulates automated license plate readers and it does a very effective job. It has a lot of
uh restrictions to it uh in particularly uh related to how long uh the agency doing
a license plate reading can maintain that information that doesn't result in an arrest.
uh we on uh House Criminal Justice, we'll be taking a look at that again this coming session
to see it given the advent of flock which is new in the last 5 years or so whether whether we need
to make any adjustments but the way I read it now is it pretty much covers it and regulates it well.
Um so uh I I uh would ask the council to uh to wait uh and see what we do in the legislature. Uh,
number two, uh, a minor point, and not to not to provoke the council in any regard, but I think,
uh, the the council telling the police department what to do with license plate readers, which is
within their purvey, is beyond the charter. Uh, it's the it's the c it's the police commission's
responsibility to make policy for the police department. uh we're more than willing to,
you know, talk with uh council members who want to talk to us about this. Uh we will have
a discussion about this at our next meeting, but I I I I would ask the uh council to postpone any
discussion uh any resolution or conclusion about flock uh and how it would be done uh
until the this the police commission meets and the legislature decides whether there's anything more
do we do that we want to do to really put strong limitations on flock. Thank you guys. [applause]
Um, next, uh, David. Um, and just, uh, just quickly on that, the, uh, uh, the motion before us
is to schedule first reading on whether or not we would prevent flock from being uh, adopted on city
buildings and public lands uh, here in the city of Portsouth. um that is uh will go to second reading
of the public comment if it passes tonight. So there will be much more time to speak out
um on you know whether uh folks do actually want the cameras uh in the city of Portsouth. [cough
and clears throat] Um next up is sorry what that is what our motion is. It says that that we're
going to prevent them on uh city land. That's the motion that's before the council. So you guys are
probably in agreement on that. Um but we will have the conversation and everybody can come back for
uh the public hearing which will be at the next uh council meeting if this gets good. This is
just a schedule first meeting. Oh scheduled first reading. So two meetings. All right. Two meetings.
I went against my rule of responding back and here we are. Um so David Hansen on workforce parking.
Uh my name is David Hansen. I live on Broad Street in Portsouth. Uh, I was just here to talk about
the workforce parking at the foundry. I know there's like a 10-hour limit. Um,
I think it was mentioned earlier to increase it to 12. I would uh ask to increase that to maybe 15 or
16 because I know a lot of people that do work long hour shifts in the service industry, they
show up at 8:00 a.m. and they're not getting to their car until like 11:00 p.m. midnight. Um, so
I would just like to ask to extend that time frame for those individuals. Thanks. Thank you, David.
Um,
um, Penny, I'm gonna get your last name wrong. Um,
oh, okay. Hey, Eddie, come on up. Penny Dreadful. All right.
So, my name is Penny Dreadful and I am the CEO of Pwix Merkantile,
Fezywigs Food and Fountain and Dewix Ethereal and Forum here in Portsouth,
New Hampshire. And there are a couple of things. First of all, I want to stand behind what everyone
else has said who is a business owner or a manager. It is very hard to get workforce
into this city when there is no parking for them. We provide a vital resource for this
city. We entertain and we enthral and we bring people back to this city time and time again.
And we're only able to do that if we have the right people in place to do so. And making it
harder for people to find parking is going to make it harder for us to make that happen for Portmith.
the um guests that do come to see us. One of the other things that I'm hearing is that the parking
is as expensive as it is in Boston. This is what I'm hearing from the visitors that are coming to
see us. You can do that, but that's what the perception is of the guests who are visiting
us. And the fees that they are getting if they overstay are very prohibitive as well. So that is
for visitors as well as for people who are here. Um, with any of these plans that go into place,
there are two things that really stand out to me. Having been here since 2013,
we need to do something about how these sidewalks are cleared during the wintertime. You're talking
about walking to parking garages. These city sidewalks are not walkable whenever we have
a winter storm. So, I would ask that that be addressed so that you actually can have people
having a safe way to walk to work because we don't have it. And then we just had all of the streets
um not all of streets, we just had State Street repaved. I don't know if anybody has
gone and looked at the parking spaces and the lines that they painted, but we lost spaces.
You can absolutely see it right in front of Fezywigs. Uh where there was one spot there or
where there were two spots or three spots, there's now two. So, someone should probably go back,
take a look at that, and we need to get those repainted so you can get more parking spaces
so you can make more revenue. And I yield the rest of my minutes. I know you can't,
but but I do just want to stand behind everybody else who's been here and said it. It's hard to get
workforce here. And I know that the residents need um places to park as well, but we're not going
to build a city if you don't have businesses to bring other people in. We are what makes Portsmith
special and we are why people have chosen to come here and live here. Thank you, Penny. [applause]
Um Colin Schiller on Coast
Hi, I'm Colin Schler. Um, Shanty Street, Portsmith. Um, all of this parking conversation,
it's all supply and demand. um we have frankly a fixed supply and we have everinccreasing demand
and demand that now really more than ever has a higher personal cost associated with it. Uh
and that's what we're seeing here at these conversations. Uh our current system clearly
needs some improvements and we've heard a lot of good suggestions both from the people here as well
as the council and I think everyone's on the same page that improvements are needed. Um, but it is
important to remember what the intention of this program is and what the intention of I think what
everyone wants here, which is that parking is available for those who need it. Um, but since
our supply is fixed, the only thing that we can do practically for a long-term lasting solution is
to lower our demand. Um, and that can really only be done with alternative means of transportation.
um you know studies and the explorations are important and I'm glad that we've started
those but again we have a head start and we have something that we can take advantage
of in the meantime while we're waiting for those to get back to us. Um and we can do
it in parallel. We have the coast. We have a bus that currently does get a fine amount of
funding but it is operating at only a fraction of what it could do. It operates only on cash.
It doesn't operate past 8:00 p.m. It operates once an hour. All things that if you really
need an alternative, make it frankly useless. And it's not that far away from being extremely
useful for a much larger number of people than it already is. Thanks. Thank you, Colin.
Uh Jared Parker on parking.
[clears throat]
Thank you, council members. Um, I'm asking you to look at the parking issue not as a revenue issue,
but as a workforce issue. Many people who work in downtown Portsouth earn, you know, $15 to
$20 an hour. Uh, when when parking costs $2 an hour, it can it is a significant portion of their
daily income to come to work. Uh not only is it a small inconvenience, it directly affects whether
the working in working is working in downtown is going to be financially stable. Um I go to work I
my many of my co-workers can't even go to places like Siri Bakery um because they can't afford it.
You they're already and now they are going to have to pay for parking. So we're we have a workforce
that can actually contribute back into the revenue stream of other these small businesses,
but they can't afford it. And now we're going to be adding an additional tax to the people who are
coming from very far away or even close by that uh they don't have parking. Addition to this, I also
work at Strawberry Bank Museum where we also have free parking for the members who come to visit our
uh historical landmark. Unfortunately, what we're finding at the museum is that we have members
uh or part people parking in our free lot because they know it's free. uh we take down you know our
manager our site managers are taking down how many people are actually using our lot but not
using it for the museum so we're losing money from the museum as well and one instance I saw someone
coming and parking our we have two handicap spots and they parked in our handicap spots they take
their chairs and they're going over to Prescuit Park or going somewhere else besides the museum
Um, [clears throat] I do understand that the city needs to manage parking and appreciate the that
of far. Oh, so I'm sorry. Um, thank you for the foundry. I know we we do have that is a program
uh that is available to those of us that work in downtown Portsouth. But quite frankly,
sometimes it is too far and as other members have spoken in the wintertime, it's it can be a little
bit dangerous, especially going on these sidewalks and not having a safe commute, walking commute
to go all the way from the foundry all the way to downtown Portsouth. Um, you know, I've unfort I've
been in the workforce here in Portsouth since the 90s. I remember working at the Gap. All I had to
do was show my [laughter] show my my badge and um I was able to get free parking over at Hanover Lot
and that is that's gone. Some of the opportunities that I have seen within parking within Portsouth
for over 30 years have come and gone and this is just going in a negative trajectory for those of
us who want to and uh contribute to Portsouth's income and um society. Thank you Jared. [applause]
Uh Moira Wright on parking.
Hi Moira Wright. Um I grew up in Burwick Maine, but I've been coming to Corsa since I was really
really young. Um I used to go to the library back when it was, you know, where where the like museum
is now, I guess. I don't know what it's called, but I remember going there. I took my senior
pictures in Prescott Park. I used to do ballet recital at the music hall. Like, I might not
be a resident, but I feel really connected to this city. And I've went to UNH. I started working here
probably my sophomore year, which was like 2014 or something like that. I've worked all over town,
and I've seen the parking diminish and dwindle. You know, this town is really special. I I really
do love it here. I think we've got a lot of great people who work here who live here.
And if it's a revenue issue, it doesn't make sense to me to get revenue from charging people
from for something they don't want to pay for, right? Like why wouldn't we use that? You know,
I I feel like we should just create things in town that people want to pay for. And the employees
and the residents here have a lot of great ideas. If you take a little bit of pressure off of them
with parking, like think about how much mental energy people have spent trying to find parking,
arguing about parking. This, you know, and they could be using that to create events or
uh businesses that would be totally unique to Portsmith that would draw people in. People
would probably be willing to spend more money here and more money for parking if they can't
go anywhere else to get the same experience. I'll also say right now I work at Read More Books and
Bruise. We've got a lot of tourists coming in. We we have so many people who say, "Wow, I wish
we had something like this in our town. I wish we had something like this in our state." It's,
you know, I remember Book and Bar that was also great, but I don't know a lot of other
places that have similar. I mean, there's like Trident out in Boston, but like that's something
really special and really unique. And I just think that if we took pressure off of people,
it would be beneficial to everyone. As for the Foundry Garage, I've served at a lot of different
restaurants in town since I was like early 20s, 19. And honestly, sometimes you leave at midnight
at 1:00 a.m. You're walking back with cash. You know, I've had I had one boyfriend get me a taser.
I had another boyfriend get me maze because they're worried about me walking back. I mean,
forget the ice. It's, you know, it's not always that safe outside if you're walking around with
a lot of cash. And I just think that, you know, Horseman is so special and so unique. If we're
able to put the money back into the people who live here and work here, we really will create
something that makes people want to come and spend their money, their time, their their
energy here. Um, yeah. But I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you very much.
So that is all I have for signups. Does anybody else want to speak? Certainly you can get you.
Yep. Yeah. Happy come on up here. [applause] I've said enough. I'm not as nervous. I just
wanted to more or less ask a question or bring up bring up for consideration the privately owned
parking lots that we have in town. Um, I'm I have no idea what that business structure is
as far as their relationship with you guys, but the banks that are located downtown that operate
as like a privately owned parking lot after business hours, those fees are exorbitant. I
guess I'm offering up for consideration. Is there any way or an arrangement that can be made with
those privately owned lots to open those up for workforce parking within certain business hours,
not at the rate that they're asking now, but if we are if these are businesses that are also a
part of our ecosystem, [clears throat] bringing in some sort of arrangement where that those spaces
and those lots would be opened up for workforce parking just to offer up some sort of solution
towards this very large um issue. And I feel like one thing I look at too is the federal building
downtown and that part who that who owns that. Um Lorenzo. Uh yeah, I feel like he's got enough
cash from the bank. Maybe he would be willing to offer that up [laughter] for free workforce
parking. I just want to say that out loud. Um, again, I'm not I'm not sure, but that's a great
opportunity I think that is available to ease this issue. Thank you. Thanks, Kelsey. [applause]
Thank you, Kelsey. Other Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to present one other idea
since I know everyone's talking about free parking and obviously we are fighting for
free workforce parking but I think it has been proven that Park mobile
can allow for a discounted rate on Parrot Avenue. So I don't see why more streets,
more metered spaces can't be made available at a discounted rate for the workforce.
Thank you Nissa. Any other ideas, comments?
Nobody. Okay. Um, but I guess um we'll go on to other parts of the agenda. One of them is
um on parking uh later. I just want to I want to thank uh the folks that have come here uh
for a couple reasons. Um one, we I know it doesn't always seem like it, but this is why we're here.
um to listen and to try to incorporate as many ideas for as many people uh as we can. Um two,
uh this could have gone a lot of different ways. Um and it could have been a lot more
angry than what folks came up and asked us to do, but you asked to be considered and to think about
ways that we can improve the system that we have. understanding that there's a lot of parts to the
system and a lot of pressures on the system. I don't think anybody was under the illusion
that parking was a great situation in June. I mean, I think uh Kelsey, you talked about
uh the the tickets. Um and there was a there was a a focus on trying to create a better system. Um,
and I want to recognize something that councelor Blew said, and when he said it, I kind of, uh,
was taken aback, uh, but the mental health aspect of all of this, I think that there's opportunity
to engage in a way that feels like this is a program that is putting you at, you know,
a priority in here. Um there's a lot of competing priorities in the city, but to be able to think at
whatever program we end up with that the workforce looks at it and says this is an improvement over
what we have instead of this is a regression that one day is going to force me out of here
completely. And so I just thank you for for being here. This is certainly not the end of this and
and you know when we make changes we schedule changes so that people can come speak too for
against them. Um, so those changes aren't going to happen tonight, but we are going to take the
feedback that you have and there's been a lot of feedback. One of the things we're going to start
is just getting a feedback to the pilot just, you know, generally so we can start tracking it. But,
um, to be able to make changes so at the end of the day, you feel as though and by Portsouth that
we have a program that's putting us on a better trajectory than the trajectory that we're on and
have been on, I think, since the gap closed. And I don't know if that's the reason why. Um,
but that was, you know, uh, Portsmith in the 90s was a beautiful thing. Um, and you know, I think,
uh, trying to get to a point where it feels as though it's a benefit and not a burden is what
we're trying to accomplish. And I just want to thank everybody for being here this evening and
being constructive because we are a community. We are bigger than our borders. Uh, we know a lot of
folks that have moved um, out of Portsouth. Um, and the goal is to try to create something that
we feel all part of um and all proud of. And so I appreciate the effort that was brought to tonight.
Stick around for uh the rest of the meeting if you want, but I just want to thank you guys for
um and that was folks supporting the RAP and those that are supporting a better workforce uh parking
program um to to come to the table and making um the city better because of your input. So,
I know also it's not easy to do uh for two hours tonight that you were here. And so,
just thank you for spending your time uh with us to make Portson better. It is appreciated. So,
with that, um we're going to go on to the rest of the agenda. If you guys want to hang out, you can,
but there's probably some other things you want to do, too. So, understand that. Thanks for coming.
You're going to miss the best part. They're missing all the good stuff. There's a lot. I
miss 80s barbecue. Maybe think of 80s barbecue. Remember the smoke would come out. AD would come
out and he'd be like, "All right, [laughter] now it's like Yeah. I mean, things that I miss,
you know, Club Spin. Yes. always trying to I used to hang out at Club Spin when I 30 years
ago. [laughter] I'm only I was going to say I'm only old enough for bananas, guys. That's right.
Yeah. Hang out there, too. Yeah. Okay. So, um we do have um public hearings and vote on ordinance
of resolutions. We have a first reading, couple of first readings here, uh to amend chapter 7
or chapter 10, zoning ordinances, article 2, administration and enforcement section 10.234.
234 Procedures for variances, special exemptions and appeals from decisions of the code official.
Section 10.246 expiration and abandonment of approvals and section 10.1017- or70 expiration
and extension. Move to pass first reading and schedule a public hearing and second
reading for September 14th, 2026. Second. Any further discussion or any discussion on this?
Maro, a lot of the um administrative changes that we're making to this really have to do
with trying to line certain things up and it's really more of a cleanup than anything else. So,
we're not making any major changes. What I'm trying to get at Okay, we'll take your word
for it and we'll have a public hearing. Uh, council. All right. Um, all right. So, again,
first reading. This will pass. Uh, we'll schedule uh uh second reading at the next uh city council
meeting. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Next, uh we have first reading amendment amending chapter 7,
vehicles, traffic, and parking article 3 traffic ordinances section 7.330A. No parking in section
7.336A. one-way streets. Your honor, I move to pass first reading, schedule a public hearing, and
second reading of the September 14th, 2026 city council meeting regarding amendment to chapter 7
vehicles, traffic, and parking. Article 3, traffic ordinance section 7.330A, no parking, which will
move parking spaces from the west to east side of Flee Street as presented. Second. And thank
you. We got to talk we vote and then Yeah. So, um, I could speak to it briefly if Yeah, I have some
questions. So, councelor Hopkins Thunder, but essentially there's a lot of things happening
on Fleet Street and in order to make them happen, it makes a lot more sense to have the parking on
the opposite side of the street of where it is now. So, we're taking parking from the I don't
know if it's north or south. Where the parking is now will now be on the other side of the street.
And there's a bunch of reasons why that makes sense after all the reconfiguration of Fleet
Street is done. And I think we can get into that a little bit with the the oneway section. Okay.
Um are there any other questions? again. No, I'll I'll just say that um these fleet street
design changes um have been run through parking traffic and safety and the bike ped committee
and both are in favor of this because it's going to create a more um welcoming and amendable um
biking and walking uh ecosystem on there. So in order to do that to improve safety for bikers and
um we need to move parking to the other side and that's the reason and it has support.
So in those I guess the the only question that I have and it's maybe being um sensitive on uh the
topic here on parking uh have we we used to um there used to be outdoor dining on that street
in Fleet Street and then we said that that's not allowed because of the space and construction and
so I'm just wondering if these restaurants would have I mean they won't be able to have outdoor
dining there if we move the cars to the other side or the park cars the other side of the
street. And I'm wondering, you know, if we had factored in for the times which they are actually
um if they were to use that outdoor dining um option to get walkability if that would have
incurred the same sort of danger and require it to move over to the other side of the street. I
Yes. So the primary reason for moving the parking to the other side of the street is that with the
one way design to have a contraflow bike lane. Um what we would be asking if parking remained where
it was was for people to park to go through the bike lane to park their car which is suboptimal
at best. Um I'm not sure if you know there is sidewalk widening in this project too and I'm
not sure where that stands with you know outdoor dining and sidewalks. I don't know what those
rules and such are, but the sidewalk is going to be significantly widened in this spot. Um, and but
yeah, I I don't think that has been in and all the times I've heard this explicitly brought up about
um outdoor dining in the street. So, that's a great question. Uh, councelor Beley. Yeah, thanks,
Mayor. Um, I see Eric Eie is here and he's quite knowledgeable on Fleet Street. Um I wasn't at
the meeting where we improved the contraflow bike by grain. Um so I made sure I don't think we Oh,
at the PTS meeting. No, the council meeting, didn't we talk about it? We talked about it
and we asked to this would be the meeting. So So then second reading I w and this will tie into
everything. I was going to wait for the second motion, but I think maybe now is the right time
to bring it up. I was generally opposed to the idea and the reason is it's a very short section
of town and it doesn't fundamentally serve a major bicycle purpose in my my opinion and having lived
through the middle street bike lanes my concern is for two blocks of bike lane we may create a
public backlash I don't know if we will but we might however when I watched the PTS meeting
um Erica who's great expertise in uh all things parking. She had a concern about the 18 foot
uh travel lane, which I think, and this is where I'm hoping Eric Eie will be helpful, um is kind
of a requirement of the fire department because they got to be able to get the ladder trucks to do
ladder truck things to the tall buildings there if there's ever a fire. Um that's the technical term,
ladder truck things. So my concern is I don't want to have an 18 foot wide one way road because
people will continuously try to turn down it the wrong way. I agree with Eric Oanic on that. Like
if we don't have something there that makes it hard for you to go the wrong way in the one way,
it's going to be a problem because of the with the lane. However, I think there's a lot more
public benefit to some kind of bumped out sidewalk that could potentially allow for outdoor dining
or something like that than a contraflow bike lane. What I'm unaware of is there a way to do
that and still meet fire department requirements. And and the the thought process I have would be
um the sidewalks on Chestnut Street. So Chestnut Street is I forget the technical term, but it
doesn't have curbs. It has kind of like shared street or a lunar. Yeah. It has a a colored gel
nation of where the sidewalk is. And the reason it works there is it's relatively low traffic.
I think Fleet Street's going to be relatively low traffic with the oneway configuration. Um so those
are my thoughts, but I do worry about the the fallout when the public sees the contraflow lane.
there's going to be a lot of push back and having lived through the middle street bike lanes,
I don't know if the the benefit is worth the the push back. Well, to Okay, councelor Hopkins. Well,
I would just ask um because I Eric, I believe we have that data on bike usage on fleek street.
So if that would help inform decisions um would you please share some of the data on
numbers and perhaps also you know because yes a change is going to be difficult
um to change habits on people driving the wrong way on on Fleet Street. So at PTS you know we've
discussed putting up you know a barrier a temporary barrier to really like show people
no you may not enter here. Um but I'll let I would ask Eric to speak more to those things.
We certainly can. Um, this is first reading though, so we can have it as
a presentation. But Eric, why don't you inform us if you can on this uh right now? Certainly.
Yes. Um, prior to our PTS meeting, we put a a traffic camera out on Fleet Street, which
recorded all activity on the street. uh it was a two-week period in July and what we saw on average
was about uh two bicycles an hour going that way down uh Fleet Street from Hanover to Congress. The
most the highest usage we saw was nine bicycles in one hour and the highest usage in one day was
50 bicycles. So on average about 25 bikes a day going from handover to Congress in that direction
on Fleet Street. So is that just for context? How many cars were there? Uh peak hour on Fleet
Street, there's 100 cars in each direction. 200 cars total on Fleet Street. Okay. Um and then for
other parts of the city, is that comparable, high, low for bikes? I I it's it's probably low. I mean,
compared, it's depends on what street you pick. I mean, it middle street gets it gets more usage
than that. Um, you know, we don't have bike counts on every street, but it it's it's low for vehicle
counts. I know that. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Other questions for Eric or comments? Councelor Cook.
Uh, thank you, your honor. Um, as someone who uses Fleet Street as my cross town um street
because when you live in the south end, there's not an easy way around downtown. You either go to
one end or the other, but Fleet Street provides that cross town back and forth. I think that's
going to be the biggest challenge for people is that suddenly they can't go back across town from
handover. Um you can't get to to the south end or to the library or to town hall coming across fleet
that right way. In fact, you have to go um to the end of the street and go around and you have
to loop around which sometimes takes a little bit longer. So I think that's going to be the biggest
adjustment. But I personally, as somebody who uses Fleet Street both ways a lot, thinks I think
it's worth it. And I think the change is worth it because we need the wider sidewalks in this space.
And so I look at it as we're we're gaining a huge benefit um on fleet by having that expansion of
sidewalks. Um, we're not just gaining larger sidewalks, we're graing gaining some greenery,
some potentially some trees, I'm hoping, uh, in this space. Um, but I think that the bike lane is
also important for bike traffic. And the cars have other routes that are really easy to access around
town, even though it can be frustrating to have to go around. Um, we don't have a good access point
for bicycles where they're not in the flow of traffic. So this provides that access to Congress.
Thank you, Councelor Cook. Um I guess the and I the idea of not doing something because of push
back. Um is a is a fair one. Uh I think it's more if I just refine that a little bit. It's somewhat
difficult sometimes when we do things and this is going to be a huge change. Like the Fleet Street
change is going to be monumental uh for folks and when we do it, it's going to be um it's going to
be immense. Um and it's and we'll we'll we'll go through and we'll find through the public hearing
process. Um and it's likely based on what we've seen, especially the changes on Congress Street,
it will make more sense long term. don't think it's going to be up there, you know, in changes
of like market square, but you know, it will make more sense, you know, long term and it's been
fully vetted and a lot of input over the years has put into that. The only thing on the bike lane
and I would just ask folks to to think about this and for for us, you know, for uh people that are,
you know, part of Saber to come and speak to um or others uh is what is it connecting it to? because
the big takeaway that I found in the middle street bike lane uh part of my life um was that there
wasn't enough people outside of people that wanted to speak for kind of bicycling in general to come
and speak and say this is something that I use on a daily basis and if you take it away it will
impact me x. It was more or less we have to invest in bike infrastructure and I always think the best
way to do that is to connect two neighborhoods or two parts of town completely fully before
um you know so that people will actually miss if it's taken away and not just bike enthusiasts
which I certainly love and respect their efforts to push Portsouth in a direction that will make
biking easier but we need more than those people to show up. we need the people that are going to
be negatively impacted if we don't actually move the bike lane. So, you know, I'll support this in
terms of, you know, the first reading. I really think the counterflow um you know conversation is
going to be one that will have more push back and it runs the risk of being tied up into a you know
a person that will watch none of these meetings will say that we closed off the street so that
we can do a reverse bike lane on the other side of the street. And that's not the the actual answer,
but that's what this change will end up having um in people's minds because they can't, you know,
it's difficult to, you know, be as intentive as as as we're forced to be and they'll just
kind of look at it. Um so that's one. And I guess the other point, you know, we've changed parking
on the other side. Like we've never made parking decisions or traffic decisions based on outdoor
dining. We're not going to start now, but we have had in the past uh moved uh parking to the other
side of the street if um I think on Masimo's which uh or series um where it made sense we just took
away parking from one side and moved it to the other. So, it's something that we could bring back
here if there was a desire. Uh but I do just have some concerns on the counterflow only because it
um it's it doesn't necessarily connect two points as well as as maybe it could. Uh I'll go councelor
Hopkins and then councelor Um I I would say that you know the counterfloor bike lane has
been identified as a connector through downtown somewhat um how councelor Cook was talking. So it
is because it is a quieter street. It's a smaller street. Um so to the bike community what I've
heard through the bike and pedestrian committee is that the this is a connector from one side
of town to the other. The other thing I'll say too is, you know, if if we make it one way and
we're worried about um the wide street inviting folks to come down the wrong way, um a bike lane
with not just a single, you know, regular like two stripes, but you can make like a one to two
foot like stripe with cross across really to um it's it's a certain pavement treatment that you
can do that really like delineates this is a bike lane and this is the travel lane. Um those are
ways where you can not restrict pavement space so that fire trucks can still operate but still
create visual you know awareness of this is one way and the bikes go here. Um parking again I just
having parking on the other side of a bike lane makes no sense to me. Um, and the other thing too
that I would push back on the um, hypothetical of we're always going to hear negative opinions.
I'm not saying that we won't, but if part of our commitment to the climate action plan,
our commitment to multimmodal, our commitment to decrease parking means that we are going to make
changes to improve bike infrastructure. I think they need to be visible as part of this plan.
um on Congress Street, bikes will have their own separate um traffic light. So again, it there's a
difference between and I just thought this this weekend I went to a memorial service where, you
know, we were in a church that had kids toys out in the back. And that to me says we expect kids
to come here and be in this space. When there's bike lanes that are s, you know, clearly marked,
they have their own traffic signal, we're saying we expect bikers to be in this downtown. And you
know, if we want a walkable downtown core, this is downtown core. So if we want something that
is better for bikers and walkers, we are going to have to shift parking and restrict cars or
restrict traffic flow cars to just one way um in order to actually take the action. You know,
I I just don't think that um the backlash is worth it on this. I wasn't here for Middle Street and
I think I'm I'm happy about that. But um this is something again that's well supported by the bike
and pedestrian committee who is made up of more than just you know gung-ho cyclists. Like my I am
not a gung-ho cyclist but I would want this to take my kid downtown to honestly to get to the
library. This is how personally I would come. I would rather do this than, you know, coming down
further or going through that worst intersection in Portsouth where it's all crosswalks. So, I am
thoroughly in support of this these initiatives. Just for the record, the worst intersection is the
Bartlett Bridge, uh, K Street. It's just I want that to be, you know, doing the best we got there.
Second worst. Uh, councelor Bagley. Thank you, J. And and you know when I talk about push back,
it's not I think people be mad at me. I think I do a pretty good job of that already without having
to worry about that. It's when we get push back on middle street bike lanes, it really retards the
chance to have future discussions about bike lanes elsewhere in the city. It's it's not we shouldn't
do something because of push back. It's we should be very thoughtful that this is the community
feels like they got value for the changes. So they're supportive of more and future changes.
And you know, thinking about this more, um, and I can't remember. I know we did the QR codes. We
got a lot of public comment two or three years ago and everything got delayed because we had
to do sewer pipes downstream before we could do this. I feel like the contra bike lane was thrown
in kind of in the last six months or something. It wasn't originally or do I have that wrong? I
don't remember. What we could do is add that to the presentation at second reading. It wasn't a
part of the um original proposal. It came in as a part of the recent conversations as a a request of
I believe the bike ped um working committee. And you know during my time on on PTS I was always
hesitant about a committee like that that was focused on one core group in the city because it
can sometimes drive things that have support in the room but not necessarily as a bad base. But
what stuck out to me is, and I don't know if we have counts on pedestrians, but we have a 100 cars
each way, two bikes each way per hour on average. We probably have a at least 100 pedestrians. And
we have an opportunity to make, especially if the the what happens to Lad Street uh actually goes
through, that could be a very very pedestrian heavy area. And to me, to be giving up sidewalk
space for for two bikes an hour, um, if there's a way we can incorporate the the really wide
sidewalks and the fire trucks, to me, that would be the highest and best use of that street. And
I know we're not making decisions tonight, but I thought it was good to get that idea out there to
see if it has any support. Thank councelor Bagley. And I, you know, I think everybody's saying or
reasonably the same thing. I think uh, councelor Flynn or councelor Hopkins makes some points.
uh that are certainly useful in terms of this is a through fair and being able to have bikes
on there. I think the question you know that that that I have and we will see on the public comment
at the public hearing that's why we get it um is to see how much uh feeling is this is a connector
there because the point that we and not to no scar tissue councelor Hopkins you are uh you know on
the the middle street bike lane but we ended up just fighting about bike lanes that you know were
on the other side of traffic you know that were like very hard to to to get to And then you know
we tried to make you know some modifications and they just made nobody happy and kind of pushed us
and [ __ ] that program for a while because it was you know such a you know the ballards just
became such a blowback uh issue. [snorts] So um we'll have the the well first we have this
motion here and then um we have to uh wait what is hold on we have first reading and then another one
um on this is it's not an amendment. Oh, it's two different ones that have the same thing. Okay.
That we have to do. Okay. So, the motion on the floor is to move the uh the parking to the other
side of the street as presented. And I I think I made the motion councelor Maro seconded it. Yep.
And this is for first reading to get to second reading to hear from the public. All in favor?
I. Any opposed? Second is uh second portion of that. Your honor, I move to pass first reading
and schedule a public hearing and second reading of the September 14th, 2026 city council meeting
regarding an amendment to chapter 7 vehicles traffic and parking article 3 traffic ordinance
section 7.336A oneway streets changing flea street to oneway from Congress Street to handover street
as presented. Second. And I kind of said all my thoughts on that on the previous one. Yep. Again,
this is to put it to second read or second reading in the public comment. All in favor?
I. Any opposed? All right. Public hearing and second reading of the annual omnib
omnibus ordinance amending chapter 7 vehicles traffic and parking article 3 traffic ordinance
section 7.326A limited parking 15 minutes section 7.33A no parking in article 6 loading zone section
7.601 limited hours loading zone. Your honor, we have uh city engineer for parking, transportation,
and planning, Eric Eie, who has a couple of slides to walk through. Thank you. Uh yes. Um Mr. Mayor,
city councilors, this is the annual omnibus which covers the changes made by parking traffic safety
committee over the past year that affects uh ordinances in chapter 7. We have three of them
tonight. Uh the first one is on uh 15minute parking spaces and that is on Daniel Street.
And these are the two spaces in front of Moe's uh sub shop. And what happened was those two spaces
were put into place and the three existing spaces on the other side of Daniel Street were returned
to uh regular zone A parking spaces. And this change was actually implemented back in 22 to 23,
but didn't make it into the omnibus until then. And so we're just we brought it back to the PTS
this year for reapproval so that we can get it onto the omnibus now. But these spaces have been
in place for uh at least three years now. So it's been well tried and and successful. Uh the second
slide shows the uh parking space on Middle Street that was removed at the intersection
of C Street. This was to open up sight lines at the intersection of Cass and Middle for vehicles
pulling out of Cast Street. The original request from some residents was to remove, you know, two,
three spaces on at this location. PTS approved the removal of one space that was approved back
in October of 24, but it it didn't get in place until 25. And part of the condition
was to monitor it to see how it went. And that brought us past the omnibus for last year. So,
it was reapproved again for another one-year trial. And that's why it's on the omnibus now,
but it's been one space has been removed now for uh over a year, and it's been going well.
And the last item is loading zones. And this one is on Brewster Street. This one was approved in
May of 2025. However, at the time, the Islington Street project was still under construction. So,
we weren't able to stripe it or put the uh loading zone sign in place until after
the omnibus deadline had passed for last year. So, we brought it back to PTS again.
They reapproved [snorts] it in October and it's back now for approval. This was requested by the
restaurants there at the corner. It allows a parking space next to um closest to Islington
and then a loading zone after that. And what it did was change the hours of the loading zone so
it would be more available to their uh customers of the restaurants during hours. And so it's been
working out well for them. It's been uh the sign has been in place and it's going to be restriped
again. So these these actions have all been in place now for upwards of a year at least.
Your honor, I move to pass second reading of annual omnibus ordinance amending chapter 7
vehicles traffic and parking article 3 traffic ordinance section 7.326A limited parking 15
minutes. Section 7.330A, no parking, and article 6, loading zones. Section 7.601,
limited hours loading zone, and schedule the third reading at September 14th, 2026,
city council meeting. I second that, but we need a public hearing. Yeah,
we'll have a public hearing. Yeah. Uh but we can have questions uh of Eric before the uh the public
hearing as well since I don't see maybe um but go ahead councelor Cook. Uh thank you your honor. Um
has there been any anyone come in and ask for additional um spaces now to be removed um at
that intersection of Cass and Middle. I know that the visibility is not ideal there. No,
but uh yes, there was someone at PTS last uh month meeting. They they've concerns about
the intersection of Cass and Chevrolet at Louisville as well as Middle Cass. You know,
it's unless you take a lot away a lot of parking spaces there, you're not going to have full sight
lines that you you should have. But we tried they the committee tried to reach a compromise
to remove one's parking space to improve it. And we did monitor it with cameras afterwards and saw
that it was working better where vehicles didn't have to pull way out into, you know, traffic to
see what was coming. They were able to stay back a little bit further. Thank you. Um, and I just
wanted to note this Brewster Street um, loading zone is important and it's one of the areas that
I think has become a little more challenging with the wrap um, with people trying to park there.
Councelor Begley, thanks. And just just a note on Cass,
we would have it would have been nice if we could have gotten one more space removed,
but like anything else, we compromised. Uh, but what's really nice is when they repaved middle,
there's now like a bumpout that prevents you from parking. And that that parking space
that's no longer there was the one that caused I think the the dangerous intersection by far.
And now that you physically can't park there, I think we're going to have pretty good compliance.
Thank you, Councelor Bagley. Um, Eric, just had a quick question on this just on the one that's the
15 minute. I know we've already done that. Um, but we made I mean that it's it's been there.
Um but there was some there was a space or two that was leading up to the crosswalk there. Uh
that was deleted. Um did we already pass that? Does this have to was that's separate from this.
I'm not sure where exactly what if you have that. Sorry. Yeah. Daniel coming into Market Square. Um
there used to be a parking spot just above like well um there there's a parking spot ahead of
the the crosswalk and then it's removed as a no parking zone. I'm just curious on if that was
is this on you Daniel heading into market. It's on the left side of the road. Yeah. Yeah. There
there had been 15inute spaces there. There was a alleyway as well where there was no parking and
a temporary crosswalk during construction. No, I'm actually talking about just right in front
of Npalitano. Um, right. You know, um, right there. So, nope. Um, sorry. Right there. Yeah,
that one. Again, I thought this was all in the same time horizon. I'm just wondering why that's
uh where we uh where we deleted that one because it does seem, you know, it's like 25 ft from the
crosswalk and I'm just wondering um is that something that I don't I don't recall that
coming to the vote and I thought this was on the same one to put that in the omnibus. So,
I'm just curious if that's something you can speak to. Yeah, I I don't recall that unless it was one
that was removed because it was too close to the crosswalk. If you park, you know, you're
not supposed to park right up to the edge of a crosswalk. You have to give it at least 20 feet,
30 feet at a stop sign. That may have been why it was removed. I I don't recall it coming to PTS for
approval of that. Yeah. Okay. Um, are you I guess we can look into that and and report back, but I I
don't recall removing that parking space as a as a measure. Well, we did remove it. Um, you know,
I do remember because you can still like on Google Maps, you can still see where the line was before.
Yeah. Um, I know we did shift things around that alleyway between the brick market where you
can see the gap there in front of those colored spaces. That is now a parking space. So, we did
shift things around in order to get more parking in that area. That that gap doesn't exist anymore.
There is parking space there. So, okay. U maybe just a just a a flag. Um this doesn't affect that,
but would love to know if we can put that parking space uh back in there. Um and what the is it it
seems like there's room to the to the crosswalk. Uh maybe not the or just the actual crosswalk,
not the white line that's before the crosswalk, but the actual crosswalk. Councelor Bagley,
do you remember that one? No. But I remember walking downtown like a week ago and be like,
"Oh, it looks like we lost a space." But it could be that when we gained more spaces further down,
we just didn't we had like an orphan chunk of land and what used to be big enough isn't anymore for
a space in that particular location. But I thought it might be a good time. Um, we've gotten a number
of emails and a number of uh I think we even got like a letter from a downtown worker who
lives elsewhere that is convinced that we can gain back like 250 parking spaces downtown by not um
listening to setbacks. And if you walk downtown on State Street or Court Street or Pleasant, you'll
see that the parking spaces often time go very close to the intersection or the stop sign because
we've looked so the the 20 foot rule and the 15 rolls foot rules are kind of general guidelines
for the city. Um but in parking intensive areas where the speeds are quite slow, um we can kind of
adjust accordingly or we haven't taken away those parking spots proactively. But the the letter
isn't really factually correct in the sense that a lot of those intersections we go right up to
the or very close to the intersection with parking in a way that we wouldn't if it was like a a more
rural non-down street. And I didn't know if you could speak to that, Eric, or about how we look at
some intersections in the city very individually, but then we have a general rule for everywhere
else. Yeah. Well, there is state law and city ordinance that when you're at an intersection
with a stop sign, you must be 30 feet back from the stop line at that intersection to provide room
for turning movements. And when there's not an stop sign, you must be 20 feet from the crosswalk
at an intersection. And that 20 feet, you know, if there's no crosswalk, then it's measured from the
curb line of the existing the side street. So when you have a radius involved, sometimes it can look
like you're closer to that side street than you really are. But it's always a minimum of 20 feet
that we must stay back from an intersection. And and I think that that letter that we received was
asking us to allow parking within that 20 foot area because 20 feet is the length of a a car,
you know, on average. Is there anything that prevents us from like what is the what's the
governing authority on uh making a change and put cars before 20 ft? It's well the primary reason is
for safety because when you park so close to an intersection then you can't see it blocks
your sightelines coming out of the side street and so that's why the reason for the state law
and the city ordinance prohibiting parking within 20 feet. So it's a state law. State law. Yep. 20
and and 30 at a stop sign and as well as the city ordinance for 20. Okay. I guess just the um the
areas of which it's rather congested and folks go, you know, somewhat slower. It'd be nice to know
um you know where those are or if that law has changed because I'm looking at the space that I
was mentioning earlier and it was there was no it wasn't moved back at all. It was simply the line.
It used to go up and then diagonal and now it just kind of just start the diagonal of the no parking
starts faster. So, I'd be interested to know if that was something that we had had previously that
didn't comply with state law because I imagine there's some parts of her town that don't comply
with state law because they're older than the state law, you know, that well, they're before
the cars uh with errors and the streets were built. So it would be good to know about any of
those areas where we could ask for dispensation from the state to and is that a process that we
can you know because I know we have speed limits that are lower than 25 miles an hour and we have
to ask to do that. So if there's you know any way that we could um uh put a report together to see
if we could add parking request a waiver of the state there. Is that a process that we could go
through for additional parking? Uh I I don't think you really have to ask permission from the state.
It's more of a uh you know it's a safety feature is why parking is prohibited from an intersection.
It's if you you could you we allow parking right up to the edges of driveways because we don't
not a lot of traffic comes out of a driveway and they'll have to just deal with that occasionally.
But when you're dealing with a public street you want to make sure you have safe sight lines for
coming out of a street. Certainly and I and that's the reason why we're making that change on Cass
because there wasn't the sightelines that are there and we're removing parking and that makes
all the sense in the world. I'm just asking in terms of looking at the downtown given the speed
of which cars are traveling in the downtown if you know the same uh if the same alignment for Cast
Street and the decisions we're making there would have a different view when there's the cars are
inherently going somewhat slower because of the traffic uh that exists there. But um we'll take
that up in a separate motion or separate uh report back request. Oh, councelor Cook. Um thank you,
your honor. Um I just wanted to point out that this intersection on that side in particular,
a car that's parked there would not be blocking any sight line because there is not a road that
is approaching Daniel right there because of Market Square because there's a large bump out
there for the Market Square seating area. So you were at least 20 feet off um Pleasant Street there
on that side. So I don't I don't know I if we moved it because we're close to an intersection,
it it doesn't impact sight lines on that side and the intersection isn't on that side. It's
on the other side of the street where we do have a bumpout that prevents additional parking. So
um I think it's it's a reasonable um idea to look at that again and if it's feasible to add
that parking spot back. Yeah, because that that 20 foot rule applies to side streets, intersections,
as well as crosswalks. And I think the reason is it's it's a crosswalk distance is why it's
there because when you have a cross a vehicle parked right up to the edge of a crosswalk and a
pedestrian walks out in front of that parked car, you're not seeing him until he's all of a sudden
in traffic. So, councelor Bagley, your honor, I might have inadvertently opened a can of worms.
Uh, much like the 20 m per hour speed limit that we have places that may not 100% be in compliance.
I think we may have some parking spaces downtown that are not 100% in compliant in compliance. So,
I wouldn't want to do anything to uh trigger an audit. I mean, it's well, I think Eric mentioned
that we don't have to. It's not a Is that something that is the I was guess unclear. Is
the state going to make us change any of these things? No, but it's a city ordinance that you
can't have the parking close to an intersection. So, you'd be going against a city ordinance if you
allowed parking within 20 ft of an intersection. Okay. Um, understandably for and but that is a
that's [clears throat] regardless of traffic uh speeds. Yes. Okay. I mean, is it possible to take
a look at that from a standpoint of Is there do we do traffic speeds have any impact on the on
the safety of the intersection and the requirement of 20 feet? Oh yes. I mean the the 20 ft is really
insufficient for most speeds because the actual sight line is is so so short. If you have a car
parked right up to the edge your sight lines are extremely limited and you know a vehicle going
more than a couple miles an hour you wouldn't be able to see them or stop to them. Okay. Uh,
Council Moro, just to follow up with that, let's keep in mind you need that 20 feet to also be able
to parallel park into a parking spot. So, you're going to be pulling into a crosswalk if you're
right on top of the crosswalk in order to get into the parking spot. Before I get anybody kind
of reaching out to me like you know Devil Mayare attitude when it comes to parking I this was just
a this was a parking spot that used to exist and then when we made the other changes that we're now
approving right now it went away and it's not on the list of things that we are uh accepting
as a part of the omnibus. And so I'm just trying to get to the bottom of where that parking spot
change happened and maybe it happened in another omnibus bill that we passed. Um, but if it didn't,
I just would like to know what the reasonings before it because it used it lived there for,
you know, um, well, for as long as, you know, I can recall and now it's not there. And so,
I thought it was a part of this one. It's not and I just want to figure out where it is. We'll
provide a report back. All right. You need to open and close a public hearing. All right. Uh,
opening the public hearing if anybody still wants to talk about uh, parking [clears throat] as it is
currently and not changing any of that right now. Um seeing no one rise, no one on Zoom, closing the
public hearing. Um now we will have a uh any other additional uh council questions. Seeing none,
uh all in favor? I. Any opposed? Your honor, I'd like to suspend the rules and pass third and final
reading. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? I forget. Do we have to do Did you
say to? Yeah. Now we got to do the motion. Your honor, I move to pass third and final reading of
the annual omnibus ordinance amending chapter 7 vehicles traffic parking article 3 traffic
ordinance section 7.36 326A limited parking 15 minutes. Section 7.330A no parking and article 6
loading zones. Section 7.601 limited hours loading zones with schedule 3. And pass third and final
reading. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Next. Third and
final reading of ordinance amendment chapter 12 building code section 1201 through 1209
by deleting and replacing the entire chapter. I move to pass third and final reading of the
amendment to chapter 12 building code section 121 through 1209 is presented. Second second
uh biggest question looking at Jane did they accept they accepted our changes. All right happy
days. Happy days. All right. All in favor I. Any opposed? Thank you Sean. You can turn us off now.
All right. Uh public hearing continued from August 3rd, 2026 needing to set parking fees for on
street and lot parking for FY27, $3 per hour for the first three hours and $6 per hour thereafter
pursuant to chapter 1 administrative code article 16 adoption of fees section 1.1601 procedure.
Your honor, I move to set parking fees for on street and lot parking for fiscal year 2027.
$3 per hour for the first three hours and six per hour thereafter pursuant to chapter
1 administrative code article 16 adoption of fees section 1.1601 procedure uh we have
the public hearing uh second for discussion second for discussion um uh public hearing
uh we will I guess we could always continue it if we uh but we'll close the public hearing Um,
seeing no one rise and no one on Zoom. Um, any discussion on this after uh this evening. We have
some Oh, you do? Oh, sorry. I didn't see you, Sue. All right. Uh, opening the public hearing.
You snuck back. You snuck back in. You didn't see you come back. Yeah. Um, I'm Susan Stary,
Broad Street Portsmith. Does it I've read articles of the newspaper and everything. Does this change
the resident rate? No. So technically or right now it's going to be a$125 for as long as I live here.
No. [laughter] Um so it changes nothing in that in that area. And was there a study done on on this
um raising it to three and then the six or I mean where did the figure come from? I'm just curious
if that's possible. Uh the fee committee could speak to that or councelor Beagley. Um member
of both um we raised the garage fees uh to $3 an hour and we raised the garage uh monthly passes.
Uh best parking practices is your on street you want the most turnover. Right. So it should never
be priced lower than the garages, which it is currently because of the Oh, okay. So So we're
raising it so that it maintains its uh status as the the highest uh valued park in the city.
Oh okay. So it in the future like if we raise parking in the garages the rate on streets will
come up too probably presumably it would be up to the council at the time but that would be the
best committee now committee gets to do both of them committ or council right which is approved
by council. So but yeah best practices is your on street should always be your highest cost parking.
So in theory, if in the future another council wanted to raise fees or prices,
the the street parking would always be the highest number. Gotcha. And my one last question,
how would this affect or does it affect with all the discussion going on about
um workforce or yeah, parking downtown for service people, the wrap would remain the same. Um,
but if a a service worker who is not a resident parked in a parking spot in Market Square,
they would have a higher price because everybody that is not a resident now has a higher price in
Market Square, for instance. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Sue. Apologies for closing
the public hearing early. Um, now we'll close it. Uh, councelor Bagley. All right. So, your honor,
um I I still have yet to have anybody give me any feedback on this change whatsoever
other than what we could do with the money, but not the actual change in pricing. Um I do think
this is an opportunity. I was looking at the signs today. They have the pricing on the sign. There's
been some talk that maybe the workforce parking should be included in some of the signs or that
maybe there's different verbiage we could use on the sign. I'm guessing we'll probably just put a
sticker over the $2 to say $3 um in the short term, but this could be a good opportunity to
get signs that are a little clearer. And I don't know what that means exactly, but if we're going
to be changing a bunch of signs, let's not do it twice if we don't have to. Understood.
Councelor Bo, thank you, honor. Uh I'm going to vote against this at this time. Um I just think
this is not the right time to be adding on. Um, you know, I just feel like we've really
I don't know, we have just kind of, you know, put a twister over portions of parking and uh
really affected everyone's mental health and everything like that. And I I yeah,
I'm not I'm not worried about dollars and cents right now. I'm worried about taking care of our
people of our community. Um, so I'll be voting against this at this time. Thanks,
Council Boa. Councelor Cook. Um, thank you, your honor. Um, so I want to know how how quickly and
what we would need to do to change the workforce designation so that more people qualify for the
workforce parking program. And the reason I'm asking that is that we received several emails
from people who are saying they're spending $20 a day parking and and that tells me that
they're not using the workforce program. And so um, I want to make sure that our workforce isn't
negatively impacted by this increase in rates. And I think the best way to do that is to make
sure that more people can actually enroll in the workforce parking program. And so I just
want to know how quickly can we affectuate that change because it's not really written
down anywhere in ordinance or anything how that is administered. I think it would be I think
your I think it would be fair to provide all that information in a report back at the next meeting.
Okay. Um other questions or comments? Council, um, could that report back just include like the if
the founding garage is filling up and like when it is filling up? Um, because I have heard that, you
know, our the supply we've provided for downtown worker uh, parking is sometimes not available.
Fair point. I think one of the points that was made um in the uh or one of the requests was to
be able to have more areas included in the uh the downtown worker parker program. Um you know that's
if they're full uh then you know obviously uh $3 is a is a lot more uh to pay there. The issue
that we're facing at the moment is the garages are uh we changed the garage before we changed
the downtown worker parker. So the garages are now more expensive than the street parking the
inverse of where we want to be. Um I understand the current situation. I just don't want to
add anything else to, you know, our one of our marginal our most sensitive um community members,
you know, um these people are just trying to make ends meet, you know, and we're just here's
another, you know, it just Yeah. Not right now. If anything, I'd go back and let's go back and
change the garage and lower that, you know what I mean? Let's go in that direction. Let's not keep
climbing up this mountain that, you know what I mean? People are urging us not to climb up.
Um, I just feel like we should maybe pause and listen maybe and try to, you know,
instead of just stamping forward, but that's just me. Council, any other questions or comments,
councelor Cook. Uh, thank you, your honor. Um, so what I think is critical is I I do understand the
issue with the garage being priced um higher than on street parking and that absolutely
should not be the case. Um, it goes against our parking principles. It goes against all
of our planning and the way that we administer parking programs within the city. However,
um we have to be able to move quickly on fixes for the workforce if they're having challenges
with regard to parking. And that means our next meeting isn't until middle of September. So,
if we make this change, that's a month of an additional dollar an hour parking and then an
escalation to $6 an hour, which is an additional dollar more than they were paying for on street
parking if they have to park in the downtown zone. So, if we're waiting for a report back
in September, that means there's no action on that until at least probably October. And so,
I'm concerned about that kind of timing. We could schedule another meeting. Your honor, I have a I
have a potential modification. Perhaps a counselor could bring forth a request to modify the existing
policy for the war worker program to specify the expansion for of the workforce program to include
different folks um salaried versus otherwise. So that if that helps your line of thinking
uh system mayor, thank you. Um, I think to to express my opinion, piggybacking off my fellow
two counselors, the concern is that we know that whether whether it is um positive or negative,
we know that downtown workers are parking on the street. And so I think part of the issue is that
um as councelor Blakes that foundry does fill up. It we we've seen it several times over the summer
that it's it's full between the the downtown Parker program, between regular between renters,
between passholders, which is great. I mean, a couple years ago, I think nobody without
boundary would ever fill up. Um, but you know, I I sympathize with the fact that we're making
this change and we know um that there are people who and downtown employees and workers that park
on the street. So, while we won't have a solution as councelor Cook said or we and and or we won't
really have any um update about the RAT program until October. That is where um I struggle to vote
yes for this understanding the logic of you know that we want them all to be the same rate. Um but
it feels like it came backwards. Um, and now it feels like we are we're having to do this because
we have to do it. Um, but yeah, I think again the acknowledgement that not everyone uses the
the the work um first program. There's not always enough room for people in the work program. Um,
and some people come in at five o'clock at night to a shift and they are running late and they park
on the street. And I understand that the goal is turnover and turnover and turnover. That is
the whole point of paid parking, but that's not always the reality of the paid parking.
Agreed. Um, and I think so just uh really one quick point on the the mechanisms of this. So,
a 4-hour stay is cheaper uh on uh the street than a garage. Um a fiveh hour stay
um would be more expensive on the street than the garage. Yeah. Right. Because it goes to $5. So,
I mean, at the end of the day, like it's kind of on the margin at the moment here. Um but
um councelor uh Hopkins and then councelor Begler. So I while I do hear the workforce's
concerns and you know it it's I do agree with the sentiment that this is a lot all at once. If we
don't change this then we're going to run out of street inventory. If if it does take that time,
you know, so then we're going to have tourists parking where we don't want them to park. So the
parking behavior patterns would would shift in an unfavorable way. And you know that arguably
could cause workforce folks to just not find a spot and have to circle should the parking on
street continue to be cheaper than in the garage. I think we Sorry. Um councelor uh
Bagley and then go back to assistant mayor. Um I I I think I'm going to vote in support tonight
for for a couple reasons. The first is we're in the middle of a data collection exercise. Yes,
this did come at the tail end of all the other changes, but procedurally it had to. There was
no choice. We're in the middle of the summer season. This is when we want to collect the
data on what this pricing change happens. Two other things are going to happen. One, with the
increase in pricing, I think we're going to see a lot more residents sign up than we had previously,
which I think is a great thing. So, all residents should be in this program. And we're going to see
more workers sign up and we're going to get to see what the pressures are and are do those spare
spots on Parrot Avenue go away? Do we need to do something with the Parrot Avenue lot? Um, and then
I'll push back a little bit and this will make me incredibly unpopular, but you know, we've got
storefronts downtown that are renting for $9,000, $10,000, $11,000 a month, and all that money goes
to the landlord. Why is it that the Portsmith taxpayer who never goes downtown has to supply
parking for that landlord? You know, why is it the system that the city is beholdened to provide
parking for employees that work at a t-shirt company? Shouldn't that come from the t-shirt
company and the landlord of the t-shirt company? I mean, we're talking about 30 cents an hour, which
I a 50 cent an hour bump in pay would support the parking cost. Now, there's a lot of arguments to
be made, but there's a lot of economic vitality in this town that's not downtown. We have the trade
port. We have all the the companies out on Route One. We have all the companies out towards MA
Market Basket. We've got a lot of commercial and office businesses in this town that provide their
own parking lots and they pay for those parking lots. They pay property taxes on those parking
lots. They pay to have them plowed. They pay to have them lit. Downtown, if you own a building,
in a lot of cases, you don't pay any of the parking overhead. And I think it's unreasonable
to expect that Portsmith residents bear 100% of that burden. And if a landlord can only get
$8,000 a month for his downtown storefront instead of $10,000 a month, I think that's actually a good
thing. And we're going to see a return of downtown resident focused businesses. And it's painful, but
it has to be said if we want to go down this road of just tourism and we keep our residents from
the downtown, I don't think that's a good path. We've gotten a number of emails from residents.
We had re residents reach out. Some come tonight. I go downtown more now because I can find parking.
Don't we want a downtown that the people that live here want to visit? Isn't that like a good thing?
Um, councelor or uh assistant mayor and then Hey counselor um I councelor Frankly I would say that
nobody's arguing against that that this council has very vocally tried to bring residents back
downtown. I would argue that that same argument of a property owner could be argued against the south
end to say you bought your house with one parking spot. That's your why should your neighbors over
in Elwin Park be responsible to make sure that you have more parking. Like um I also think we
have to make sure that we're categorizing downtown property owners and businesses very differently.
We heard tonight that there are, you know, employees of much larger companies like
Novaccure using that using the downtown partners program, which I'm okay with, but you know, you
are we are in this discussion comparing a small business who the majority of the small businesses
downtown don't own their property. They they're they're renters. And so by saying, you know,
it's not our responsibility, it's the landlord's responsibility. Well, we've seen what happens. The
landlords are using private companies to monetize those lots more. When it used to be you would show
up at for your 5:00 shift, you know, you'd be five minutes late because you'd be parking at a bank.
Now that bank, that bigger corporate company is monetizing in a way that the little people even
if they own the property cannot monetize the same way. So I think we have to be careful about when
we're when we're doing the generalizations of well a downtown landlord as a former tenant we were
lucky enough to be able to buy a small space but we were one of those businesses paying $8,500 to
$9,000 a month um for a commercial lease with no help or no parking or no anything. So,
and my landlord was banking all that money. So, the question is if we're going to say the
onus falls on somebody, how do you then it's a trickle down? You're then putting the onus
on the small business that is locally owned. We are seeing a higher concentration of larger
corporate companies coming in, retailers coming in because they can foot that bill.
So when we talk about wanting to bring more local downtown um centric businesses,
those are the little ones that are owned by the mom and pops that live here, the Gus and Rubies,
you know what I mean? The series, the the the Cali Bees that don't the majority of time don't
own their buildings. And so if we want more of those and less of no offense to them, but less of
fat faces or the cheap overload or these larger corporations, then we have to do something. Um,
so I I just think we have to make sure that we're very careful when we talk about like a landlord's
getting well what a landlord is getting and what profit that small business is making
are [clears throat] big deltas. Thanks, assist mayor. Councelor Bla. Thank you. Um we actually
the history reports we used to actually make uh businesses pay for the spaces in front of their
business. So the businesses used to not move ever. Um I remember talking to the owners of the you
know rusty Russell Tammer. Um you know and then he would it one of the best things we did was remove
that fee so then it allowed small businesses to open up without this extra cost. Um and downtown
has been built by these small businesses by these restaurants. I mean, back in the 70s,
it wasn't a place you wanted to go. You wouldn't let your kids go down there. Um, we used to have
to walk our waitresses back to their cars because girls were getting murdered in the 80s. Like,
I don't know if you've understand how they've contributed to our community. Um, I mean, it
takes a village. It takes all of us, but they're part of it. Council Council Cook. Um, thank you,
your honor. So, so what I'm really struggling with is this. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Several of
the individuals who were here tonight have told me that they are not part of the workforce parking
program. And the reason they're not part of the workforce parking program is they work full-time,
they're salaried, or they're a business owner and they don't take a paycheck. So,
they have no proof to show besides their lease and um guess they could open their books to to
the city to show that they work downtown. And um as a result they either now if they don't get a
spot on on parrot they are and they don't get a spot in the parrot lot or the Masonic lot which
Masonic lot actually fills in the morning. The parrot lot is almost always full by the way they
have to park at Pierce Island where they don't feel safe because they're leaving at midnight
um from their business after they close up shop. And I can while Portsmouth seems relatively safe
um and I feel like it's very safe um at night walking around in dark areas. As a woman I can
understand how anyone might feel unsafe walking to Pierce Island. Um, so their only choice they
feel many times is to park on the street and to pay the full rate or to park off site until it's
a little bit later and they can sneak out and grab the car and move it and then they park it on the
street so they're only paying for, you know, four hours of parking on street. So my concern is that
we're disenfranchising the people who are running our small businesses downtown because they're not
part of our workforce parking program and we haven't allowed them to join. And so I want
to make sure that we're we're including them all before we change a rate downtown in our parking.
In terms of sequencing, uh, if the council were to uh, to find consensus and support this item
tonight, which is in keeping with the parking principles, as [snorts] a matter of sequencing, we
now need to order and install the signage. We need to get messaging out. So, in reality, this parking
increase would not take effect until October 1st. So, what I'm suggesting um for your consideration
is you could define as a council eligibility for the downtown worker parking program on September
14th. You could if if you saw in keeping with the vote tonight, take this vote tonight knowing that
this would not take effect until October 1st. So, just for your consideration. Thank you,
city manager. Uh councelor Hopkins. Um, one thing I'd like to because I'd like to mention here
whenever um, folks have asked for exceptions or, you know, certain programs or can I, you know, buy
something at a at a resident rate even though I'm a non-resident. The answer that I've gotten from
our parking staff is it would have to be equitable across all companies. like we cannot just pick and
choose which businesses we give benefit to and which we don't. So whenever we look at I think
changes are warranted but keeping in mind it's I and you know the city attorney can correct me if
I'm wrong but from the the the sense that I get from the folks in our parking department are that
it's just well it's not equitable and it might not be legal to provide certain exceptions for certain
people and not others. So when we're looking at this, we really do have to look at all businesses,
the Sheran and Saras Bakery would get the same benefit or not because then that just
opens up a whole other can of worms. So while there is definitely a big, you know,
delta in in pay and um profits and whatnot and revenue, um I from what I have heard, it's that
we just we can't delineate. It's either all or none of our businesses for programs like this.
Is that accurate?
I think that you've made a good argument as to why you might have certain classifications
that would help defend your classifications. But, you know, I'm giving you a off the top
of my head. [laughter] Okay. in terms of like income eligibility or things like that. I also,
you know, I think running a um there's limits of what like our our you know process allows us uh
to do in some levels. Um but you know uh that's useful information and it seems like I guess I
was surprised to find that um uh members of the uh or councelor Hopkins was it your husband that
qualifies for Novvicure? He does. So and Novakare pays for you know he he gets reimbursed for
parking at Foundry. Okay. So, but the the through the worker rate or through uh no rate. When he
feels like showing up to show his payub, he'll get the worker rate and when he doesn't No just pays
the full rate. Okay. So, that's why I don't know. I would love to see that where that's written down
in the sal because he is full-time salaried. Yeah. He gets the stickers at Foundry. It's not
written down anyway. Okay. Councelor Beley, I I'll just make one more point where, you know, we're
concerned about the the raise in parking. Um, in 2024, we did the state mandated reevaluation. And
by and large, uh, for instance, I own roughly a median household value home and it went from
uh roughly 7,500 a year in taxes to 9,500 a year in taxes that year. It was a $2,6 increase in
taxes. I looked up a lot of downtown businesses. Um, a lot of them actually saw a reduction in
taxes that year because their valuation didn't rise nearly as fast. It went up, but it didn't
rise as fast as residential. And in fact, the hotels collectively paid over $300,000 less in
taxes that year because of the readjustment and the revaluation. So, the residents really got hit
hard with the revaluation because the cost of residential relative to commercial changed so
much. Now, albeit it went up a lot less on places like Peas than in our downtown commercial sector.
And some places saw uh some of the downtown places saw evaluations rise as much as residential. But,
you know, as a question of fairness, my job as a counselor, I have to think of residents first. And
we're in a budget scenario because of downshifting everything else, inflationary pressures where
we're reducing our headcounts in the schools. You know, I I've got to think of all of the competing
things that happen as a city. And I think this is the right move. And yes, it's painful. And yes,
it's going to cost people more money. But the people that live here that never go downtown,
they are paying substantially more in taxes than they did prior to the re revaluation. And a lot of
the commercial properties are either paying less in taxes or almost the same in taxes as they did
prior to the re revaluation. So I I think there's a lot at play here and and I'll be supporting this
because of that. Councelor Begley, any other uh discussion? Mayor, I'm sorry. Thank you,
Counc. Um, you know, I agree that we heard from a lot of residents that are in support of this,
particularly those residents that are in those neighborhoods, but I feel like coupled with
some of those comments were like, and we are sympathetic and empathetic to what the workers
in town, the people that I mean, I think it's fair to say that is why people go down, right? you got
to have these places open and vibrant and you need workers and it's just this is you know it's just
been another piling on of costs uh for people. So it's it is hard for me to think about saying yes
to this even though I know that this is a part of the parking behaviors and that we need to do this
to make it competitive but it's a tough um pill to swallow. You know, I heard from a lot of residents
who were like, "Support the workers. This is like, [clears throat] you know, this is why we're going
into town. This is a really, really tough thing." I know that there's a I mean, intellectually I
understand it, but another part of me is like, uh, it doesn't feel like a good time to do it,
you know, which is I think why you brought it up to begin with, council. You know, put
the brakes on the last meeting. Um, I don't have a resolution, but Thank Council fun. Councelor Cook.
Um your honor, I have a legal question. If we move to continue the continue um consideration until
the September 14th meeting, um would that be too late to implement the changes um by October 1st?
What are the changes again? the signage and the computers signage and messaging to folks and that
grace period we typically give them where we don't enforce the increase in the fee. It's not really
if that your question was about notice and public hearing. Yeah, we don't need to worry about that,
but it's more the implementation issues about that hiring the purchase of signs installation.
Assistant mayor, I feel like while I'm not in support of this, the the delay of it then somewhat
feels I this is probably going to be the wrong word, but punitive towards residents as we're
coming out of high tourist season that we are, you know, it's almost like the longer we wait,
the worse it is because now it's say November when it's one of the lowest tourist months and we want
residents to come back, you know, say like, "Hey, it's time to reclaim. We've we've kicked them out.
Those 16 weeks are gone." And now we're like, "And you know, the res." Well, if I could Okay, if you
haven't remembered to sign up, which we know that there are a lot of res residents who still don't
do it, you know, it can be seen as it can be seen as a little punitive, but that's my only concern
with pushing it or like now we're kicking it into the holiday season when we're asking people again.
So, I I don't feel like there's any good time except there's never the now. Never a good time.
Uh, councelor Cook, thank you, your honor. Um my my concern is I just want to make sure that we
don't that we don't somehow fail to change income eligibility or something in September that we vote
if we make vote to make this change. I don't want to be in a position that we turn around
and we don't make some of the individuals who are ch are struggling with this eligible then for the
program. So, um, without that kind of information tonight, I guess I feel kind of challenged,
um, as to to make this decision without knowing what their eligibility will be. So,
councelor Beagley, parliamentary question. If this was to fail tonight, how does it get brought back?
Because we can't bring back something if it fails unless and I know there's like a certain Robert's
rules of order of how you would it would be somebody that would have to have voted against it.
would have to bring it back in the future. I believe it's somebody who voted for it would
have to then move to reconsider and you do that at the time of the vote. You have to be somebody on
the winning side of the vote. Not necessarily for against it, but the winning portion of the vote.
Is that correct? Right. That's what I believe. If it didn't pass, it would be have to be somebody
that voted no tonight. Sorry. To bring it back. Right. And The rule specifically is that you make
that motion at the time the same night as the vote that you're going to move to reconsider it. Not at
a subsequent meeting. Not at a subsequent meeting. So if we vote this down tonight,
does that mean it doesn't buy us anymore? I'm confused about orderations. If it doesn't pass,
can we not ever bring it back at $3? If it doesn't pass and you want to reconsider it at the next
meeting, you would make the motion to reconsider it after it doesn't pass. Okay. Might be to reopen
the public hearing and to continue this matter to table it. Yeah. So, okay, I'll um pass the gabble
to so assistant mayor keeps me um on point. Um, I think that I don't I think it was Margot
uh that was offering uh um some cervical collars uh when it comes to [laughter] uh to this and all
of the things I think are are accurate. I think that everybody um that would come in would speak
about wanting walkability. Um want to move us into a direction of less cars. Um at the same time
there are some realities that exist for those uh workers that are commuting in um that don't have
necessarily one the luxury to come to meetings uh and pay attention what city council does. I mean
that it takes a lot of time. Um and it takes a lot of Yeah. It just simply takes time and
so they could be working uh during this time and many I think when we were having a conversation
um about this or it was being the conversation was happening was the feeling of parking right now is
$2 an hour and it's going to $3 an hour. Um and more of our free parking is being taken
away. And while that is accurate, it doesn't reflect that there is an extension and expansion
of the downtown worker parker program that I I believe right now needs some tweaks um and
needs some improvements. Ger Cook and others have spoken about the you know to include more people
uh as a part of that. That's one I think the idea of making passes easier to get and
potentially expanding what those passes uh would get you uh would be a second one. Um, you know,
even things that are further a field of, you know, are we talking about using the app? Are
we talking about using, you know, some sort of just uh, you know, you you buy a permit and,
you know, that gets you into the system where you can just park at the resident rates, you know,
regardless. But all of those things I feel as though need more time uh to discuss as a part
of this program because simply the fact that we're going to change this is what will happen
if we vote for this this evening according to me. Um the uh the res or the folks that came will uh
feel as though uh we listened to them and then we simply changed uh the parking rate. Anyways,
now I feel we have to change the parking rate. Like that is something that I've been, you know,
like there is a a lot of people that come to to park here and you know, well, if you park in a
private lot, we have no control over what rates they set. We've tried to be able to get them to
uh at least sign the fact that it's not a city lot, but they're you're paying 10 bucks an hour
to park in one of those rates um or park in one of those uh spots, you know, and we would be charging
$3 and we can use that difference to fund more things like a transit loop or things like that.
So, it's right now a couple of things I think need to happen in order for us to pass, which I think,
you know, I agree with councelor Blew and you know, I I I don't want to put words in his mouth,
but not right now. Meaning not before we have a better clarified plan of what is going to
occur with the workers, which I, you know, would love for the landlords to take care of,
but um it's not it's something that's currently um there right now. Um two,
uh what we're going to use some of that um extra money that we will create as a part of, you know,
doing this. Right now, it's going into the parking fund, you know, to creating a third
garage. I would like to, you know, uh, have a better plan in terms of are we gonna fund a,
uh, fund a shuttle loop or some of the other things that have come up, you know, uh,
currently. But I just think that, you know, and it's literally the idea of thinking about parking
for another two and a half weeks. Um, is not something that I want to do, but unfortunately,
parking is something that everybody thinks about every single day. And we need to figure out I
believe that we need to figure out a better uh worker parker program that would seem as though
is an actual benefit even if it's not the you know even if it's not perfect. Heard some ideas that we
could implement uh this evening and then come back as a way to fund some of those changes an increase
of the parking uh rates for tourists and you know uh non-residents. um you know lost in this is
the volunteers and I think there's been some work made on the volunteer uh you know lots that could
be opened up to to that but I think that even though this is something that makes economic sense
uh can certainly fund some of the things that we need to take down the problem put more people in
the garages this is something that I will um eventually support but want to be able to have
a better uh a better action action plan for the workers that are going to not have followed any
of this, not signed up for any of E's petitions and, you know, will be surprised when they're late
for work uh and have to park on the street and look at, okay, well, uh the first uh the first
hour of my uh first hour of my day is going to to parking. So, I think we just need a little
bit more time to figure out, you know, how do we extend the parking program to more people and
then raise the rates in order to justify expending the additional money that we will spend on that.
So, I think you have a motion second. We have a motion and a second to pass as presented. Um, I
would uh I would support if um uh council moral I would like to float the idea of what if we amended
the motion that it wouldn't take effect to a specific date. So that would give us time to look
at, but we'd still have we'd be able to change some of the policies around the employee program,
possibly even expand it, but at the same time, at least we would have this piece. I think we have
one shot at this to be honest, and I don't know if it's passing the and I understand all the reason
to do it. And I certainly understand the fact that this is going to be very painful going forward and
having this conversation at a third or fourth council meeting after having this conversation
for seven different uh council meetings before that. Uh my concern is that we don't control
the conversation in Portsouth. Uh meaning that we can't talk to every individual and we can't have
a conversation with hey we have a plan for this. What is going to come out of this I fear is going
to be we had a work session council went forward with raising rates to $3 and what's going to be
lost in that nuance is the efforts that we've made for the Parker programming just having one
in general what we're trying to do to expand that and I think that if we do change the if we change
the rates before we have a plan that at least is in the ether of hey this is like how we're going
to use that money to expand access to what you have and ultimely ultimately some of the plans
of how do we get more cars off the road, make it an easier way to get into Portsouth. You know,
take, you know, the million dollars that we give to Coast and say we're going to generate another
million from this. What can we do to reduce our dependence on, you know, cars commuting? If we
have a credible story for that, it's a win. If we do this and then come and try to scribble
out what we're going to figure out, I just don't see that is going to be the I just don't think
that we're going to have the ability to control the conversation because we don't control any
conversation that happens in Portsouth. I mean, this is the only room we control. Um, and even
then, it's limited. Um, and so I would say that if we could come up with a more concrete plan of how
we're going to expand the worker parker program and delay the increase in the on street rates,
even though it doesn't affect residents right now and there's place for the workers to find parking,
it's not going to be $3. I think we're going to lose out on an opportunity. Even though I know and
like I I can't express how much I would like to, you know, have this kind of recede into, you know,
uh just expect it. But we have a chance to do not business as normal and figure out a pathway to
engage more citizens and more, you know, other folks uh that aren't citizens of Portsouth,
but are part of our community. Councelor Bagley. Um I I tend to agree and I greatly respect your
opinion may there but I tend to agree um with council Maro or passing it tonight and delaying
it in a sense so there's a chance to make those modifications. We had a lot of people
show up today. We have a lot of visibility. We don't pass it tonight and I think a lot
of people are going to think okay we won that battle and three months from now we're going to
raise prices a dollar in the middle of you know going into the winter season. And I I
think we either pass it tonight or we put this on the shelf for a couple years. A couple years.
Okay. So, um is there not a motion? Okay. Councelor Cook. Um thank you,
your honor. Um this is a legal [clears throat] question. Um because this is raising revenue,
what is the vote required? Is it just a majority or do we need a twothirds? I think it's for your
fees. So, it would just be a majority. Okay. Thank you, councelor Bo. Thank you, honor. Um, so just
to reiterate my perception of the situation right now, I feel like we've kind of kicked them on the
ground, right? We've kicked the employees, the downtown workers on the ground. They're lying
on the ground right now. We don't want to kick them again. All right. But if we could come up
with a plan and say, "Hey, we're including you in this plan. We have a solution. Once we find that,
then we can go back and take care of business and and make sure all the numbers work out and
everything like that. But until you get there, you've kicked them down. You can't just be like,
"Hey, sorry. This is, you know, we already just kick them." Um,
that's that's going to be the perception. I promise you. So, let's just be sensitive. Like,
they all came here. We had,900 signatures. U there's people that couldn't speak tonight because
we spoke for 45 minutes of the work session. So, there's some people that were residents and
business owners and they couldn't stay. They had to leave. Um, so there's no reason to rush this,
but we got to do it right, guys. Thank the mayor. I have a parliamentary inquiry. [laughter] Um,
and it's not it's directly but undirectly related to this. Um, for not a motion to be made tonight,
but if we wanted to say at our next meeting, amend our pilot program to remove parrot a
Is that something that could be done separating it apart from this? Correct. Yeah. This passes,
this goes through. Is it possible for a counselor to make a motion for Well, I
think your wrap program is a policy that you have currently. So, you have to be moving to amend your
policy. I thought it was an ordinance. It's It's a policy. I think I'm looking for confirmation,
but I think it was a pilot policy. Policy that kept following the packet as it went on. Yes.
Right. Yeah. So to change it is not it would not be it would not be three readings all Okay.
Right. Okay. So is that allows me to consider I'm looking for firm confirmation from Jane making
moves? She said confirmation of the parrot listed in the ordinance. Great. I thought I knew some
part of it was some part of it. So parrot lot versus a wrap. Yes, you are. Everyone's right.
I'm a lawyer. Um the um the policy is um one that the council adopted and that is the rap program.
However, you also adopted an ordinance on the wrap zone which includes and lists paradav. So
that is in fact an ordinance. So it's in the it's paradaves baked in the ordinance
and it's also I believe part of the uh part of the policy part of the policy as well.
Just just a timeline question and I know this is throwing a wrench in people and I do apologize
but I just want to put out the scenario. If this passed tonight and then it's September 17th 14th
that meeting um a change to the RAP a potential change to the RAP pilot pro pilot program
um was brought first for first reading then a second reading um it could fall within the same
timeline of the implementation of the change of fees. It could if I could just address that. Um so
if September 14th it was first reading to remove parrot then the first meeting in October would be
public hearing second and if you suspended your rules to pass third and final it would be the
first week in October that you could conceivably remove parrot through the ordinance and all you'd
have to do is remove it from your policy once. you don't have to do the second and third. So
conceivably it could time with early October and that's helpful. And I bring this up for for two
two sides of the coin. Obviously we heard a lot from the workers of that space. We have had you
know no movement of what we are really going to do for volunteers for library overflow. We're hearing
from those other neighborhoods forward that they're seeing more overflow now. So in hindsight
with obviously with and I part apologies Carl Ben and everyone that loves the data that even
without the data we're we're already starting to see minor ripples and repercussions that
are only going to potentially grow. So, I just want to put it out there timelinewise. If we're
thinking that this if this passed tonight and we're thinking that it's Octoberish timeline
um for um this to really be implemented, I just would wonder if that's the base that
I'm wondering that in that same timeline, could we possibly amend the RAP program to remove what
seems to be one of the artillery zones that have really triggered people, which is that paradise.
That's all. Sorry guys. I just wanted to make sure I was Could we change it faster if we just
change the fee on it? Like Yeah. This is just like on the parro a lot or the parrot a not
the lot. Not the lot. Is if we just change the parrot a could we just remove the fee from that
without three readings because fee is now moved. Right. I'd have to review the what we say in the
ordinance. The paradav I believe is specifically called out for the worker parking program and the
rates in the ordinance. Look at it again, but that's my recollection. You could pull it from
from everything, you know, and you could again the timing of whatever ordinance you want to
change could be done with um in early October if you did whatever you want. first reading in
September 14th and then uh public hearing second early October meeting and then suspend rules third
and final. But that would require consensus. Yes. And so that's what's tough with something like
this with so many different elements. Yeah. That are just being brought to the council's
attention. You know, how do we want to adjust and move forward? How do we amend these pilot
this pilot over the next year? And do we do we amend it or do we just run the I just wanted
to get clarification of timeline that if it's something that came up that we wanted to amend it
um it could be potentially done within a period of time where these fees would be enacted. The
the other issue is you know this is obviously a new process with fees being adopted by the by
the council. Um I am trying to recall the what was in the actual budget for the for the wrap rate as
well. I believe that came forward in in the budget approval if I'm not mistaken as as well. So again,
you have a hearing, you can change your fees. Um but we wrapped an ordinance um prior to that
change. You know what I mean? We we created that ordinance before uh it was determined
that that you you guys would just pass parking fees as fees at one hearing as a post ordinance.
Sorry, I just Well, we certainly had enough, you know, like we've extended the meetings on that
and the that quick change, but uh councelor Cook and then council mor. Thank you, your honor. Thank
you, Jane. Um I think it's important to remember that the reason that there's availability for the
workforce parking program right now on Parrot A is that that is now metered. Whereas before, Paradav
was always full almost 247, lots of long-term parkers. So we would be removing the availability
of the workforce parking program there. So they might actually lose parking spots, not gain it by
taking parrot away and making it available for everyone again because really there was a lot
of long-term parking. Is there a timeline limit on par? What was that question? 72 hours have
is also 72. Everywhere in the city is 72 hours everywhere. Um and So the parro aav lot um and
parro a simply just have that 72-hour requirement everywhere um in the entire even in front of your
house but we don't enforce it there. Councelor Bagley um council moral I mean we've received
several emails from residents specifically about paradav and how they're coming downtown more to
shop or coming downtown more to volunteer because they can find parking on paradav. I'd be against
removing paradav because that seems to be the part that's working the best in the whole system.
I mean, if we want people to be able to come downtown that live here in town and we've
given them a opportunity to get downtown and have a decent chance of finding parking with
a relatively easy walk into town, to me that looks like a win. I'm not saying it's not. I'm
just council. I'm pretty sure I remember from fee study committee that we actually set the 30
cent per hour plus transaction fee and the other fees. So we didn't actually put the fees in the
ordinance. We actually put it up to the fee study committee. That's I remember because I remember
at fees committee we actually set that. That makes sense. Yeah. I just because we were talking before
that the fee was in the ordinance. I don't I think we pulled all these out and put it to the peakly
for for precisely that reason to give flexibility. Correct. So that the council could make those
changes with just one hearing in the middle of the program if we wanted to. Just wanted to remind
everyone of that. Yeah. Because [clears throat] weren't we thinking about changing the wrap area
program um as a part of the ordinance previously because it had been different than it was in the
garages? Correct. because it had originally they were matching the garage and we wanted to match
the on street parking. So we set the wrap period the wrap rate to equal whatever the on street
downtown rate was without escalation. Okay. I mean, so conceivably we could amend this to say
um you know, the uh the rate goes to uh zero dollars uh per hour uh provided you
are a downtown employee on the Paradav and people Paradise Street. Parad Street. Yes. Oh my god. Do
not say that. [laughter] We're gonna change the Yeah. So, but I'm just saying we could do that.
Um still require workers to sign up. Uh uh to get the uh the pass and the parking. Um and
conceivably the enforcement of that would be paid for by the increased parking rates that we would
have otherwise supported, but we would need to renotice. That would be a substantial substantial
change and would need to have this at the next meeting if that was the case. Right. Again,
it's it's this is not an ordinance. It's a fee change and it's kind of a new process. But given
that that would be a substantial change, I would suggest another public hearing. And let me just
note if we do that, um, we are going to be pushing a lot of the workforce onto Parrot,
who would normally be parking in Foundry. So, um, we're going to have to potentially expand
that space to maybe even the Parrot lot. And I'm saying that because I know that our middle school
workers will be coming back to work in this month and suddenly we're going to occupy a lot of Parrot
Avenue with them parking in that zone. So, I'm sorry, Cook. I guess I would I would um we talk
about this con continuously about the about the school teach school employees. I would have to be
under the assumption or I am under the assumption that at some point someone from city hall as we've
developed this project has talked to the school about and if they were they are not charged
they're not charged they're not charged or white that is that is what I understood but I just want
to make sure the library too substitute teachers charged no teachers are not charged substitute
teachers I believe are charged or they're not charged are like little league volunteers and
or umpires or I would like the makuda. I don't know if they are yet, Rich, but or council.
Okay. I I just wanted to clarify that because I feel like that has been a big conversation of of
where are they going to park. I would I would assume that the staff has has addressed that,
handled that, and we So, I mean, the cause it's always kind of been a cluster down there, and
it will always making it worse be a cluster. Um, and there's always been for people to park. So, I
think we should just call this vote and then we'll go to the next story issue. [laughter] Um, so if
the vote fails, uh, and there's no amendment to the vote on the table or consider at the moment,
um, what would the uh what occurs uh after? If the vote fails and no one makes a motion to reconsider
the vote and reconsider at a future meeting or reconsider just again right now you'd have to
make a motion to consider at the next reconsider at the next meeting. Um and at it's rule 16 for
your rules and um you can only have one motion to reconsider any vote during your term. still
like during our two years. Mhm. Yeah. Per issue. Not just not like a per issue. It's like per It's
not It's not a mulligan. It's not like something motion for that vote. Motion to reconsider any
particular vote. I definitely heard that wrong. I did. All right. You have one challenge. Um yes. I
would much prefer that uh we have I prefer it that way. Yeah. Um a way uh to tie this to something
that seemed more of a benefit. Uh I understand the point of trying to uh trying to rightsize
the rates. Uh but I just don't think that the our ability to get information out is as fast as
uh this will feel. Um and I think that there's an opportunity to engage more people. So, um I would
like to see this uh at the next council meeting when we have a plan for the uh the worker parker
program that seems a little bit more thought out. Um but at the moment it doesn't seem like we have
that. So, we'll do a roll call vote uh on this and we'll see what happens if it ends in a tie.
Roll call. Roll call. Okay. Don't know if I should
start or not. [laughter] Assistant Mayor Kelly. No. [clears throat] Councelor Cook,
no. Councelor Bllelock, no. Councelor Baggley, yes. Uh, Councelor Moro, yes. Councelor Flynn,
no. Councelor Hopkins, sucks being last. No, the mayor's last. the mayor's last.
I'm voting yes, Mayor McCern. Oh, where are we at now? Um, we're at four. Three yeses. Three yeses,
four nos. Correct. What happens if it fails anyway? You have to pass it by a majority.
Okay. Uh, no. So, it fails uh because it's tied anyways. Okay. Um, your honor, I would It's not
tied though. It was to three. Correct. Five to three. No. No. Five nos, three yeses. Oh, okay.
So, all right, your honor, I would make the motion motion to reconsider this at the next city council
meeting on October 14th. September. September 14th. September. Wow. Is there a second? Second.
And if I can speak on it, y I think that hopefully we can have a little bit more of the information
back and some ideas from staff of um potential workforce um downtown worker um ideas and and and
besides ideas just some of the requests for data that we asked for at the work session by then.
So there can be um things like when we talk about foundry we you know we ask for data on the usage
of that the how full that is getting all of those things. So if we can have some of that data back
by that meeting I think that will help at least myself be able to support um this adoption.
Councelor Cook. Uh thank you honor. Yes. Um, I echo what the assistant mayor says
and also I would love to see what um, parameters the staff thinks we should set
um, as far as qualification for the program and how people can prove that they qualify
for the program, especially someone who is a business owner and doesn't necessarily
take a paycheck like a an is kind of essentially an independent contractor.
Uh, councelor Begman. Yeah, thanks. I won't be supporting the motion tonight. I think we had a
lot of people show up. We had a lot of attention. That's the time to make unpopular decisions. Um
I will not support any motion to increase street parking for the rest of this council term. Okay.
Uh all in favor? I. Any opposed? Opposed. Can I second? Opposed. Okay. Thank you.
It's not often I agree with Andrew. Well, that's good. [laughter] We can bring you
two together then. Who knows what's possible. All right. Uh we'll take a five minute recess.
Good evening and welcome back um on to the city manager's items which require action. Thank you
your honor. First up is a request to hold a work session solely for the topic of rolling
stock and historically it's really almost served as a footnote in and around the CIP process and
um we're going to have the kickoff for the CIP coming up this evening.
Um, but what we'd like to do because we've gotten some qu questions in the past about
how rolling stock is comprised and and can you explain more about the replacement schedule,
we thought it would be helpful to give it its own work session. So, we would propose to do that in
and around the uh the formation of the CIP. So, we would propose to hold that right before the
council meeting on October 26 of this year. You I move to schedule rolling stock work session at
6 p.m. on October 26, 2026. Second. Any further discussion? Yes, I have a question. Sorry. Um,
when would be a good time to bring up something like bofuels since the electrification of the
city fleet has been, you know, put to the side? What else? What other options could we explore
and when would be the best time to explore them as far as sustainable transportation options?
I think it'd be great to to know now that we can provide that as part of I would request the
work session. I would request that for this work session. Then what what the you know the landscape
is with um biodeiesel and alternative fuels um since electrification has been
um pushed to the side for now. Happy to do that. Thank you. All in favor? I I.
Any opposed? All right. Item B would be a request to rescend city council policy uh number 2018-02,
the license fee for the incumbrance of city property. As you will recall at the last meeting,
we now have that incorporated into chapter 6. So, the policy is essentially rendered no longer
applicable. So, we're looking to resend that policy tonight. and move to resend city council
policy number 2018-02 license fee for encumbrance of city property. Second. Any further discussion?
All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Item C is a request to hold first reading of
uh amendment to chapter 1 administrative code article 3 boards section 1.302D at
the September 14th city council meeting. And this is relative to appointments, tenure, and removal.
And in the same way that we have recently updated procurement notification, we would
look to make that same modification here to remove the requirement of a newspaper publication and to
rework notice provisions to be more flexible such as um on the city website and through the city's
um means and methods of channeling information. So, um, for your review and consideration in
advance of the filing for first reading, um, we would have Suzanne Woodland, Regulatory Council,
come to present on that matter. Your honor, I move to schedule first reading, uh, amendments to
chapter 1, administrative code, article 3, boards section 1302D, appointments, tenure, and removal
at the September 14th, 2026 meeting. Second, councelor Cook. Thank you, your honor. Um, I just
wanted to thank the city manager for bringing this change forward. This is probably long overdue.
Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any oppose? Thank you. Item D is a request to
establish polling hours for both the New Hampshire state primary and the general
election. And in accordance with RSA 659 col4, the council does determine those polling hours.
And based on past midterm election years, we would request that the polling hours
for the primary election on September 8th and the general election on November 3rd
of this year be established from 8:00 a.m. to 700 p.m. I move to set the polling hours
for the New Hampshire state primary election on September 8th, 2026 and the New Hampshire
general election on November 3rd, 2026 from 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. Second. Any discussion?
Council. Um, no. I think this these hours give everyone an opportunity to vote. Um,
but I also feel like we don't, you know, that is a long day for anyone working the polls
um working the um election insights, but um you know it's it's reasonable.
All in favor? Any opposed? Item E is a request to approve the custodial
supervisor tenative agreement in your packet. It is a three-year agreement which uh grants
us increased flexibility on health and dental insurance plan and carrier considerations and
uh includes an annual one-year percent increase in the contribution of health
insurance on the part of employees and a cola increase in wages based on the 10-year rolling
average of the CPI at 3.03 retro to July 1st of this year. Your honor, I move to
approve the proposed custodial supervisors tenative agreement as presented. Second.
Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Next up is approval of
the tenative agreement with ASME 1386A. And I'm pleased to see uh one of the union reps,
Andrew Holdsworth on Zoom. Thanks for joining us, Andrew. Um very similar to
provisions in the custodial supervisors along with some others specific to the uh
the ASME 1386A folks. And just as a point of reference, all members fall under DPW across
all divisions. That's the group that makes up this union. [clears throat] Move to approve
the proposed ASME 1386A tentative agreement as presented. Second.
Further discussion? All in favor? I. Any oppose? Thank you. Item G is my last item and is a request
um relative to a donation of a memorial bench at Boheno Gateway Park in honor of Sue Warner Thor.
Typically, a donation in and of itself would come under grants and donations. This one is a little
different in that um uh we are receiving a check uh that would should cover most of the event uh
most of the costs but in the event that donations do not cover fully all the costs related to this
bench there are funds available in the public art trust and therefore the the second part of this
um it's a two-part motion would be to allow the city uh for the release of funds from
the public art trust and in and in this way we have satisfied the requirements of the put forth
by the trustees of trust funds in how we direct the funds. So there are two specific motions
here tonight. But I would I would like to add that Sue Thor was able to see the completion
of the wonderful work of the endeavor as part of the 400th and noted that there would the
absence of benches with back support. So that's what Bob's trying to do tonight.
Your honor, I move to request the city council accept a $10,000 donation to the city from Bo
Bob Bob Thorson to be used towards the towards the bench and vote to accept any additional financial
contri contributions towards the bench from Bob Thorson [clears throat] the Thorson family or
other private donors. Second. Councelor Blewock. Thank you. Um I'm very happy we can um help honor
the Thor family. Um they've been such generous members of our community. Um just selfless,
just outstanding. Um but yeah, my heart goes out to the Thor family. Thank you, Councelor Block.
Agreed. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Your honor, I move to authorize and direct the trustees of
the trust funds to disperse such sums from the city of Portsmith public art trust as directed
and certified by the city manager that such funds are needed to complete the design, fabrication,
and installation of a sculpture memorial bench to be installed in Bohenko Park not otherwise
paid by private donations. Such sums may include without limitation payments due or obligations
satisfied under a contract with CJ sorry CJ Chen and any incidentals that might fall outside of
said contract fund shall come from the capital improvement program contributions to the public
art trust. No further approvals of the city council is required. Second was a long one.
Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. [clears throat and cough]
Oh, we're through your All right. Now we have the
consent agenda. I move to adopt the consent agenda as presented. Second.
Any further discussion?
All in favor? I. Any opposed?
Next we have the uh CIP kickoff presentation. City manager finance administr
good evening folks. Uh as the city manager pulls up my uh 75 slides I'll I warn you
I warn you that uh that this could run long and I apologize for that. Actually,
you've seen all of this before. It's an important part of our CIP. We talked a month ago about the
CIP U citizen portal being open uh early in July. It remains open. Uh we'll reference the dates in
a moment. Our committees uh have opportunity to kick in suggestions and our citizens as well.
uh our CIP capital improvement plan in earnest for fiscal years 28 through 33 kicks off now
uh which is really a signal as much as anything to staff as the departments begin to work on
bringing together their their submissions tonight. Uh we just have a few slides to remind you and the
public about the the capital improvement plan. Uh first slide up is uh a definition. Uh next
slide. Thank you. First slide up is a a definition about the CIP and what it is and why we have it.
It is for us a long-term multi-year financial and infrastructure planning tool and it helps serve
uh serve the purpose of helping us maintain saferu uh infrastructure in the city,
help us coordinate financial strategies for the capital projects that uh that we undertake and
uh assist in the achievement of citywide goals. the CIP process and the document that we create
at the end communicate to our residents about capital needs uh that contribute information to
the development of the annual budget each year and promote maintenance of safe maintenance of
and safe access to our city infrastructure. Next up uh is just a quick definition. What is it that
qualifies as a CIP project? There are a handful of categories of six a half dozen actually.
First the construction or expansion of uh public infrastructure in general major rehabilitation of
of of a public infrastructure planning or design related to a capital project. So the early effort
uh uh any significant non-vehicular equipment purchase [clears throat] large vehicle purchases
generally with a 10 or more year lifespan and the acquisition of land when appropriate.
Uh over the over the last couple of years we worked really to refine the rubric with which
uh proposed projects are evaluated and our priorities considered. The capital
improvement plus pro process considers three core strategies. The first of those does the
project fulfill a core function of the city that may be regulatory expectation,
public health and safety needs or addressing something substandard in conditions throughout
city infrastructure. The second category is does [clears throat] the project achieve a
financial benefit to the city? That may be uh matching funds being available or efficiencies
uh being achievable through synergies with other projects or maybe reductions to operating costs
that we seek as a part of our budgeting process. The third is does this project address a community
plan or some service improvement? Maybe will satisfy the objectives identified in our planning
study that we've worked on. It'll improve or add capacity to some existing city service. Maybe it
drives further economic development or it responds to a request of our residents. So what are they?
How are they judged? How then do we fund them? First up is uh well, let me say we we we lean
on two major funding streams. Uh in in addition to and beyond state and federal and private funding,
we have our local capital outlay and we have borrowing through municipal bonding. The first of
those capital outlay is our pay as you go funding option. Capital outlay represents dollars that we
appropriate every year as a part of the general fund annual budget. And the target for our capital
outlay is to invest at a level of up to 2% of the priory year budget. That's one of our financial
policies. You'll read about that in the financial policy section of the annual uh budget document.
and and this I changed the language just to just because I thought it was important as you look at
the graph uh our goal is that we move this in the direction of 2% and as we are able and can afford
to we're using these general appropriations to invest in capital infrastructure. You can see
uh from the graph that we we got close in FY18 to 2% certainly through the pandemic
uh we backed off on some of that cash infusion of capital projects. This last cycle after the
amendments that we made to the budget which were in the area of capital outlay our FY27 capital
outlay is 96% of the prior year's appropriation. The second then of those funding alternatives or
funding streams is municipal borrowing and uh and we do this with multi-year repayment plans through
municipal bonding. Annual payment of principal and interest we refer to as debt service. And our
policy is that the target for net debt service is to remain below 10% of each year's annual budget.
This last year, uh, FY27 stands at 7.64%. And the chart shows you the 10% bar, but it also gives you
a sense of what the outy years of our most recent six-year CIP looked like. I think it's important
for us to call out that every year in uh the last I think the analysis that we did was 15 years.
Every year we come in in the seven and a half eight% range. Generally the outy years often
look larger. Not because not because they will be when we get there, but because as we go through
the management exercise of deferring things that can be deferred and trying to limit the scope
of our net debt service year-over-year, we push projects into the outy years so as not to leave
them behind or forget them, but to defer them. Uh if we look at the next slide which considers
a 10-year run and looks just beyond the out the the six-year outlook again only based on what we
have and what we know. This includes our net debt service. This includes all of our ongoing projects
or past projects for which we are continuing to make principal and interest payments against
municipal borrowing. uh you you should not walk away concerned that if you look in year five,
six, seven, eight, those numbers are up near 10% or over 10%. Because our exercise has been that
by the time that becomes the year that we're making decisions on that will have fallen back
into the 7 and a half to 8 and a half% range. Uh it's important to note that these are all based
on last year's CP CIP. They do not include any projections of anything new we've been discussing.
All of the project information behind this graph is based on June 30 of 26, the end of fiscal 26.
No new projects added and uh um no new projects added and and we look forward this year to trying
to put a little more substance into the 10-year cycle. The CIP will continue to be a six-year,
but the departments are working to make sure that we at least identify projects that reasonably are
in the 10-year horizon. Nathan, I think before you leave this slide, it's important to note
that this includes the initial debt amount for the municipal complex project of 42.2. The 42.2
initially envisioned. Absolutely. Thank you for that. uh and I I won't read to you but there's
a number of additional comments here about our CIP CIP uh process. Uh these are excellent for
posterity and for those who will download this as a resource later. I it's important I think I
want to emphasize uh as we often do that capital project approval has really three steps. This CIP
plan is the first step. We consider through the development of this with the council and
the planning board's participation and that of our public uh a plan for six years of capital
uh capital investment. Uh the plan is recommended ultimately by the planning board and then adopted
by the city council. Your timeline has included that happening in December in most recent years.
The second step the is that the first year of the of the approved CIP as it's finalized
it's in December becomes a part of the proposed budget that you'll see in the spring. Doesn't
mean that it all stays in that proposed budget but the first year of the adopted
uh CIP plan becomes uh a foundational block in the budget that we present in the spring. And finally,
any long-term borrowing that is in the approved CIP that works its way through the second step
of the budget comes back to the council as we did a month ago for the consideration of
uh bonding authorization. So the council and the public all see any of these projects at
least three times for very formal discussion. The timeline is here so that you can refer back to it.
I would call out all of the all of the uh little human figurines represent uh opportunities for
public input. [clears throat and cough] We are tonight here the kickoff of the council uh the
kickoff of the of the CIP. I mentioned the citizen submissions of uh citizen portal submissions of
citizens requests. Those due on Friday the 18th of September. Your departments will make their
final submissions on the 20 by the 25th and then we will have a citizen request subcommittee of
the council that will review those projects that have been requested by citizens. That is scheduled
now for 8th of October 6:00 I believe will be in conference room A. And then we start in earnest
with the council and the planning board with a joint work session November 12th. You'll have
a public hearing at your November 16th um council meeting. Uh the planning board will be invited to
attend to hear the public's input. The planning board will consider it in November and you'll be
hopefully uh adopting the CIP in December. Uh only to make sure that the public has access.
Citizens requests are uh available for submission through the portal which is at the link at the
bottom of this screen. Uh all of the submissions that come in will be reviewed by uh staff to put
some substance to them and help us to delineate those that are potentially already CIP projects,
those that are uh not eligible by definition to be part of the CIP and those that are uh and and
may become CIP projects. And then we also have to address that in some cases the requests that
are made are better served alternatively and we work with the residents to make sure they
understand what those are so that we can pursue them in that direction. Uh the meeting I mentioned
again October 8th uh I commend that to you. Our CIP process that kicks off now with the staff any
questions certainly would be happy to try to address those. Councelor Buck. Thank you. Um,
will the CIP subcommittee get to see these um, resident requests before the meeting?
I just know in the past I've been on that committee and I kind of get blindsided. Did
you get blindsided with it? Yeah. You just, you know what I mean? And then I have to make all my
analysis and I think it's I think it's quite reasonable you want to see those in advance.
Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, Councelor Hopkins. Um, thank you. Nathan,
could you go into a little bit more? Because to me, as someone new to engaging with city
government, submitting a request for CIP sounds kind of scary. Can you talk a little bit about
what that would look like? Can I just write down anything? Does it have to be in a certain format?
Do I have to site have citations? Like what what what are we asking the public for in the simplest
terms? Uh so the the best answer I can give you is that the portal is pretty intuitive and that
when you kick to that link and log in, it'll ask you for contact information. It'll ask you
uh to describe the location or facility. It'll ask you and prompt you for some elements and
then it provides you a fairly open narrative and all of the suggestions or the comments
that you made have been among the you know the submissions that we've received. Some of them
are very straightforward. They're very succinct. I when I need a sidewalk on XYZ Street and some
of them are some of them are much longer in terms of the detail that is provided references and the
like. Uh no expectation really. This is uh your community and uh and your process as residents
as well as council. And so for residents uh once you've identified yourself and to the best of your
ability the location or nature of your need and then describe it narratively uh that moves forward
in the process. Staff will do their best without without changing the scope or trying to amend the
request. Staff will work to try to wrap that with uh explanation about um facility expectations,
needs, legal requirements, and the like uh and flesh that out in our process. So,
we're really looking for for residents to provide us with the pain points that they think need to be
addressed. Uh, and we'll do as much of the leg work as we can. Thank you, uh, Councelor Cook.
And thank you, your honor, and thank you for the presentation tonight. I just wanted to encourage
our residents to submit requests for the CIP if you see something that needs to happen in
the community. Um this year we're completing uh the Little Harbor School playground project and
that was brought to our attention from parents um in the Little Harbor School um letting us know
that that project absolutely needed to be done and needed to be done sooner rather than later. And so
um it's because of residents who bring issues forward to us that we see the things that need
to be improved. And I'm I'm very excited to um for our new playground at Little Harbor,
which is the first of three playgrounds at all of our elementary schools. Absolutely. And that
all started with a conversation that parents brought to to the process. I guess I would
offer one clarification. If it's if it's broken and it's dangerous and you identify something,
we have click and fix and you should let us know. This is this is not for acute care.
This is these capital requests are for things that you would prefer to see uh that would
make your life in the city and the lives of your your neighbors better. Uh if you see something
that is of critical mass or of acute nature, obviously we have a mechanism for that as well.
Thank you very much, Nathan. Looking forward to this process once again. All right, next up,
email correspondence. Your honor, I move to accept and place on file. Second. All in favor? I. Any
opposed? Um, an appointment to be considered is the appointment of uh Jack Hollesman, John Jack
Hollesman, uh to the zoning board of adjustment. This took a little bit longer because we had to
notice the uh the vacancy and he will be uh being appointed uh if he is successful uh to the full
um member uh vacancy that was created. uh and with the departure of Paul Manel serving out
the rest of his term and we'll have a vote again um in January. [snorts] They
their terms end I think the end of November. End of November. So very quickly thereafter
um and then um so that's just appointment to be considered. A appointment to be voted
would be the appointment of Wendy Ellip to the sustainability committee. I move to appoint
Wendy Ellip to the sustainability committee. Second. Any further discussion? Thank you,
Wendy, for stepping up to serve again. Uh, all in favor? I. Any opposed? Councelor Cook. Uh,
thank you, your honor. Um, I am just reporting out on the legislative subcommittee meeting um that we
had this last week. Um we will be attending the New Hampshire Municipal Association's
um annual discussion to uh adopt their proposed legislative policies and the committee met and
registered our views on the policies to be discussed at that meeting. Um you'll note in
the packet that there is a memo that outlines the policies with which we had questions in which we
decided to register our opposition. Um, so I think it's important to note that we don't always agree
with all of the policies, but when we do attend, we register our opposition or um choose to not
express an opinion on on items that we think are nebulous or um confusing and don't would not make
sense to for the city of Portsouth to support. So you will see that in your packet. I'm happy
to answer any questions as I'm sure the other committee members are as well. So I would move
to approve New Hampshire Municipal Association's 2027 to 2028 proposed legislative policies and
principles as recommended by the legislative subcommittee. Second. Thank you, Councelor
Cook. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Uh, councelor Bagley. Thanks, honor. Um,
my motion. Uh, I move to direct the city attorney to review the attached proposed ordinance language
regarding automated license plate reader systems and return a final draft ordinance
to the city council for first reading. I got a second. I'll speak to it. A second. Um, yeah,
as as Commissioner Sher uh mentioned earlier tonight, um they're commonly known as uh Flock
cameras. That's really just a brand name. Um believe the cameras that we use currently are
not Flock brand. They're a different brand. Um, but what's happened with the acceleration of uh
license plate reader cameras and the combination of AI and and video is uh we've seen it in states
outside of New Hampshire that it becomes a a surveillance tool that can be abused. Uh right
now we have RSAs in place u thanks to Commissioner Sher as in his state rep role uh preventing the
sunsetting of the existing law. Um however, it's not to say that that law is not overturned at
some point in the future. So, I think uh it'd be worthwhile to investigate if we can pass municipal
um ordinance that takes advantage of that law just in case it is sunset in the future. It adds a an
extra point of friction and an extra chance for the public to come and express their opinion. Um
I think generally the public sentiment is is we don't like being tracked. Thank councelor Bagley.
Council moro. Um, I'm just wondering if we could also um amend the motion to also send back for a
um feedback after it's drafted from the police commission. I would accept that. Oh, what I guess
uh as I read it and I know that was an email I want to make sure that I have it right. I guess I
was surprised to hear uh the police commission uh members concern around erecting fixed cameras on
uh city land. Why there would be any jurisdiction for the police to do anything like that without
the express written permission of the city of Portsouth. I understand they could use these in
their cars or mobile units, but a way I understood that the uh the draft ordinance was written was
that it would be uh preventing any kind of fixed camera on uh city land or buildings and I don't
believe that that would run to the uh the ability or run a foul of the separation of powers within
our charter. Um thanks. I I agree with your opinion. I am not a 100% sure that uh based
on emails I receive that the commission or one of the commissioners at least agrees and thinks that
the maybe the council's overstepping its bounds by having this discussion which to me means all the
more reason to have the discussion in public. Certainly. Yeah. I guess I'm happy to I guess
it would be a a question for the city attorney on and we'll get maybe it's easier to have her
draft something that comes back to us. you know, for discussion around this. I can do that. And I
can also share that um the chief of police and the commission, at least commissioner Shure,
have significant concerns about the proposal and we'll probably want to address those with
with the council at the appropriate time. Okay. Uh Councelor Cook, thank you, your honor. Um,
I'm happy to discuss the delineation between whose roles um, this falls under, whose role this falls
under, but I would note that these cameras have not just been used for law enforcement purpose
purposes, they've also been used for insurance enforcement purposes um, and general tracking
beyond law enforcement. So, um, this is not just a law enforcement function that we are discussing.
Can I just clarify that that that might be true in around the rest of the country. Um
but in New Hampshire um the use of these types of reader license plate reader systems is only
authorized to law enforcement and under very strict controls. The statutes very um detailed
in terms of how they can be used. They have to be registered. They have to be policies that
etc. And the information can only be held for a certain period of time, like three minutes. So,
um, other states, however, do not regulate them. So, what you're hearing from
other states around the country and how they've been abused, um, these types of,
uh, equipment cannot be used outside of law enforcement legally in New Hampshire.
So, um, and sorry to jump in on Council Maro's, uh, jumped all over. Did [laughter] you guys were
agreeing so well? Um, um, I guess in terms of the, uh, this would come back at first reading. I don't
uh I mean again I think that the um the effort to have the conversations in public on this would not
be prohibited um in terms of first reading or second reading on this to be able to speak to
um at after first reading and once we see what is um what's before us um I mean I think maybe
a way to thread the needle would be to uh send them a draft of what is going to come back for
first reading so that they're prepared to speak, you know, um, ahead of, you know,
public comment before we have first reading and then, um, certainly they'd have the opportunity
to speak at at second reading. Um, but, you know, I I think it's pretty clear in terms of the city
buildings and what we would do and the feelings of many in Portsouth and New Hampshire that want
to make sure that, you know, while the police have every ability to enforce, you know, in their cars,
I think there was draft for temporary um you know uh temporary uh locations to be used or
in the event of a an emergency. Um but I think the permanent affiction of these cameras to
uh to buildings or public lands in the city of Portsouth is something that a lot of people would
have or at least want their uh voices um heard on through the council vote. Councelor Bwood.
Yeah. I would just say, your honor, and I'm not going to bore everybody reading it tonight, but
I did put in the packet. It's about a page long. It's fairly technical and [clears throat] uses,
you know, the technical terms, but it does have a lot of carveouts um for different types of uses,
but all with a caveat of oversight. Um, as I never get tired of saying, but I wish I didn't
have to. We're Dylan's rule state. We can only do things when we have enabling legislation.
This legislation was due to sunset this year, but Commissioner Sher as a state ref uh eliminated the
sunset uh provision. But that's not to say next year it gets overturned. As we know,
the state house makes uh new laws and regulations every year. And if we have something in the books
now, when we have the ability to put something on the books now, I think it serves us well
in the future. And that's the reason for my bringing it forward because of that sunset p
uh provision. I'm worried that it will be forced out in the next couple years. So, I'll just add
to the conversation for, you know, I've been looking at where this could go in our in our
ordinances and looking at the law. I mean, there are and looking at the charter issues. There are
potential charter issues here. there are potential issues that the state has preempted this field
um in terms of trying to regulate it um in any way. But on on the other hand, I've also looked
at the council's authority and your main authority is your control over city property and the use of
city property. So, um I'm still trying to balance all those concerns. They haven't come to a a final
legal opinion on all of that, but there are a lot of issues at play and um and certainly I
think that the police commission would welcome the opportunity to have an opportunity to contribute.
Sister Mayor, um and I don't know if this would have to be uh um sorry within an added motion,
but I would certainly like to see a memo back from the city legal department outlining kind of
all of the things that um the city attorney just mentioned ideally prior to or in conjunction with
um a proposed ordinance language. Um because I think an ordinance can read one way but without
the backstory of why it's written a certain way. Um, I think it can, you know, I think it's good
for the public to be able to see the memo and the council to be able to see the memo. Uh, and all
of the different uh touch points that have to go into considering if we can even write an ordinance
or if that needs to come again from a charter department or not. I So, I don't I don't know if
I can just request that or if that has to be added as an amendment to the motion. Well, would it So,
I guess um maybe city attorney, would you be writing this like this? Would you be writing an
ordinance that conflicted with their charter? So, there are questions about, you know, who controls,
you know, the operations of the police department and their, you know, investigative abilities
abilities and the equipment that they use to conduct their investigations. So,
as long as they're in compliance with state law, um to have the city council chime in at those are
the concerns that the commissioners raised um in the first instance. So,
um I'm happy to do a report back um prior to any final draft or a draft for first reading um if
that's what the council would prefer. I guess the question is would you be able to create a chart
uh an ordinance that um um could we just change the rule slightly to say or um a draft summary of
the uh ordinance as presented or uh a report back saying why it can't be completed? I guess that's
what I was trying to get to. Is that like is that possible like because we're not going to be able
to pass an ordinance that you deem [clears throat] as illegal. So if in the process of finding this
um you find that it is illegal. Yeah. So either or is that possible to do, would that satisfy the
maker of the motion? I I think yeah, if the city attorney comes back and says that the council has
no authority on block cameras, then that's the city attorney's opinion. Okay. Um so do you amend
your motion? I I think the motion is suitable for my request. Okay. So then I guess I would make an
I would make an amendment to your motion to Well, I guess like the request is like I guess like I
don't so I don't know how uh councelor Bagley can request something that's illegal. So if it comes
back and the report back is stated this is you know um like we can't make this then that's the
end of that and we have a conversation uh on the what would need to change you know and if there's
a willingness to look at the charter uh to prevent um the uh the installation of uh uh surveillance
cameras on city buildings and property um you know further down the field but like so like if we
can't come back we'll come back a different, you know, conversation. But I feel like the motion as
it's presented allows the city attorney to make an opinion u make that opinion known. And sometimes
it come back and says we can't do this because x, y, and z. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh I'll
make a motion to go past 10:30. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, that's only three. Um
uh all in, uh the motion on the table as presented by councelor Bagley. All in favor? I. Any opposed?
All right. Now we're on to uh councelor Hopkins. Your honor, I move to approve and accept the
action sheet and minutes of the August 6, 2026 parking, traffic, and safety committee meeting.
So moved. No. Second. Second. [laughter] I love your enthusias. I said not past 10:30.
All right. Any discussion on this? All in favor? We have something about minutes. Hold on. Oh,
wait. [laughter] Minutes related to parking and traffic safety. But um I would ask if Jane
could come and explain what she's Oh, okay. what she's trying to tell us. Yes. [laughter]
Just to clarify the um city council, it was almost like a report back for parking, traffic and safety
on those two elements and on those two specific motions. So the actions is the action is PTS
uh recommends the two motions as you may remember from the last bike lane issue. um when we accept
the minutes of uh the PTS and their actions, it's being endorsed by the council. But I just want
to clarify that because it just says recommend um the motion that that these can move forward
without binding the council um on those specific motions on Fleet Street. just just just to remind
you all that that because it was really basically a report back from you mayor to say, "Hey, did did
PTS actually address, you know, the the parking the lane and and the parking on one side of the
street?" And they went back and they did, but it isn't binding the council by accepting the action.
That is great. Thank you, J. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. City manager'sformational
items. I have a quick one, your honor, and it's a a report uh back request that you made at a recent
meeting. staff has discussed ways to balance the priorities of those private land owners,
particularly working in the downtown, needing to perform work with those who seek to move
safely through the city, such as um workers and tourists and shoppers to limit the obstacles and
opportunities which can negatively impact the livelihood of our small business community who
depend on that foot traffic to move about safely. So, what is under discussion is a a different set
of rules. I'll say during peak season versus non- peak season as a means to hopefully incentivize
non- peak activities wherever possible and um we appreciate the needs of business owners and
yet recognize the need to limit the negative impacts during the peak season. So if we were
to define the peak season it would roughly be June 15th or right after mark right around
market square day through Columbus Day weekend. And um in the same vein that we talk about this,
the city was mindful to take up many of the very disruptive improvements on Congress Street in a
non- peak manner. And um so we the same way we are trying to do this, we want to be we want
private developers, private land owners, private property owners to do the same. So more to come,
but that's u that's the report back for now. Thank you. Thank you so much. You Thank you,
city manager. I know it doesn't always feel like we're not doing it during the peak, but you guys
buttoned it up and I ran down market square day, you know, um and you guys are going to have to or
we are going to have to pull it back up, you know, uh to finish it before, uh next year,
but it is something that hopefully will will give some relief to some business owners. Anything
under miscellaneous and wait a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I. Good night, Portsmith.