[6:10] Good evening and welcome to tonight's city council meeting for August 17th,

[6:13] 2026. I'd first ask that we uh close the non-public session and seal the minutes of

[6:19] that session. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Uh Sally,

[6:24] will you please take the role? Mayor Mcker here. Assistant Mayor Kelly here. Councelor Cook here.

[6:30] Councelor Bllelock present. Councelor Badley here. Councelor Maro here. Councelor Flynn

[6:35] here. Councelor Hopkins here. And absent tonight is councelor Taber. I I would ask

[6:40] uh that the uh ports little league uh state champions lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

[6:58] You guys started. You guys started. You guys start to the flag of the

[7:04] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,

[7:11] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[7:17] I didn't tell you about that before. I could have. Uh handled it well. Um, we have the acceptance of

[7:23] minutes for the August 3rd, 2026 city council meeting here. And I move to accept and approve

[7:28] the meeting minutes for August 3rd, 2026. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Um,

[7:39] and now on to uh two uh a proclamation and a recognition. First, uh we have the proclamation

[7:45] of National Service Dog Month. um and Brendan Madden here uh to receive it. Whereas September

[7:52] is National Dog Month created to raise awareness and show appreciation for the extraordinary work

[7:57] carefully trained and certified service dog do every day for the people in their care to honor

[8:02] the dedicated individuals who train and care for these remarkable animals and to celebrate

[8:06] the profound bond between service dogs and the individuals they serve. And whereas service

[8:11] dogs are specially trained to perform specific tasks for people with disabilities as defined by

[8:16] the Americans with Disabilities Act, they can be trained to retrieve objects, assist with balance,

[8:21] give seizure or diabetic alerts, or assist with those psychiatric disabilities. Many also serve

[8:26] veterans living with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, helping them better manage

[8:30] their disabilities and live fuller lives. And whereas these special dogs exemplify the healing

[8:36] power of the human human animal bond, research shows canine companions can improve cardiovascular

[8:42] health, lower cholesterol, and decrease blood pressure while offering support and a sense

[8:46] of calm that helps balance the emotional and psychological stresses of daily life.

[8:50] And whereas there are more than half a million service dogs in America working on behalf of

[8:55] their companions and their communities, more than 12% of the entire US population and more

[9:01] than 10% of our Portsouth residents cope with some type of disability on a daily basis. And whereas

[9:07] the city of Portsouth recognized the profound impact that service dogs have on the lives of

[9:12] adults and children with disabilities thanks to the unique ability to enhance the independence,

[9:17] mobility, and overall quality of life. opening doors for those they serve. Now therefore, I,

[9:23] [ __ ] McCaffran, mayor of the city of Portsouth, on behalf of the members of the city council and

[9:27] citizens of Portsouth, do hereby proclaim September as National Service Dog Month

[9:31] in Portsmouth and call upon our residents and businesses to recognize and respect the

[9:36] important job service dogs do in helping us live up to our model of the city of the open

[9:40] door. given with my hand in the seal of the city of Portsouth on this 17th day of August, 2026.

[9:49] [applause]

[9:53] I would ask um Brennan to say a few words. I'll just give you this first. I would like to

[9:58] thank the mayor and counselors for making this proclamation. Having had my own service dog,

[10:07] I know the profound impact that these dogs make in people's lives. Jaffy,

[10:15] my first service dog, worked right up until the day he died. I hope that this

[10:22] proclamation encourages others to learn more about service dogs. Thank you again. [applause]

[10:39] [applause]

[10:47] you. Thank you.

[10:54] Another

[11:01] round of a hand for Brendan here. [applause]

[11:10] Brandon is a uh is a true advocate uh to us um and um you know make sure that we remember this day

[11:17] um every every month every year uh continues to advocate for service

[11:22] dogs and to be recognized here in Portsman. Thank you again Brendan for your advocacy

[11:26] and for for leading the charge on this. It's appreciated. [applause]

[11:40] So, we have uh a few folks uh in pinstripes here uh today. Um and they had a remarkable season.

[11:47] 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

[11:51] our uh state champions here. Uh the Portsouth Little League put together a remarkable 2026

[11:57] season that will remember it as one of the most successful in Portsouth baseball history.

[12:02] The team first captured the New Hampshire District 2 Championship, defeating North Manchester Hooksit

[12:06] in a championship game. Building on that momentum, Portsouth advanced the state tournament and

[12:12] claimed the New Hampshire state championship with a victory over Bedford in the final. The

[12:16] title marked Portsouth's first Little League state championship since 2010. You guys gave it

[12:21] your all in the New England regional tournament in Bristol, playing against some pretty tough

[12:26] uh competition. Um overall uh with a record of 12 and five scored 167 runs while allowing only 55

[12:35] and posted an impressive team batting average of 383. I you know I don't even know if Rich could

[12:41] 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

[12:49] um uh to be able to to read these words. Um, it's also getting to watch you guys

[12:56] uh play um this year. You had uh what you hope every kid has um when you're a parent. Um and

[13:05] I'm speaking as like an old dad now. Um but life is not uh an easy thing. Um it's hard.

[13:12] It takes a lot of hard work. um when you lost one of the toughest games against Bedford,

[13:19] uh it would have been super easy to pack it in. In fact, that I think that's what Bedford was

[13:24] counting on you guys doing. Um the fact that you didn't um is a testament to the grit that you guys

[13:31] that you guys demonstrate on there and I know that it hurts, you know, not winning the whole

[13:38] uh World Series. Uh but when you look back on this moment when you're a little bit older, um you're

[13:44] going to realize that the not the not letting each other down, uh showing up for your teammates,

[13:51] the next man up, um those are the lessons that are tougher to appreciate right now. Uh but this city

[13:57] is incredibly proud of what you guys demonstrate and you are um you know, just a an example to all

[14:04] of us of what hard work working for one another uh can lead to. So, um, with that, I just want

[14:10] to read out, you know, each one of your names. Uh, Bennett Smith, Ryder Raises, and let's clap

[14:17] as I do this in case I [applause] Sam Carter, Drew Christa, Tyler Hodgeges, Drayton Simmer,

[14:23] Brady Maloney, Jack Leair, Brian Puland, Joey Kley, Gabe Ponier, Christopher Foster, manager

[14:31] Charlie Raises, coaches Sam Cresta, and Brett Graham. You know, hell of a job. [applause] All

[14:37] [applause]

[14:43] [applause]

[14:49] [applause]

[14:55] right. So, we don't have keys to the city because the open door wouldn't make sense,

[15:02] you know, but we do have doors. So,

[15:16] I cannot get me out of these.

[15:29] I would assume I have free time. I would assume I have a lot of free time. It's not like

[16:10] Well, uh, Mayor McKern and rest of the city council,

[16:13] thank you very much for having us and recognizing the boys tonight. So,

[16:17] uh, yeah, just unbelievable season. I've said it a few times before, but I'll repeat myself. Like,

[16:23] started coaching little league six years ago. Never would have imagined finishing

[16:28] uh, finishing out after my son Ryder was done this year the way we did. uh winning the state

[16:33] championship and and competing down in Bristol was just an awesome experience. So u 16 years

[16:38] since we've done this here in Portsouth and I told them they're part of Portsouth history now and

[16:42] uh just something to be proud of and echoing what what you said mayor that uh you know 20 30 years

[16:48] from now when they're grown-ups they're going to remember being state champions and playing

[16:51] in Bristol and that's kind of what it's all about. So, thank you very much. You're here. [applause]

[17:12] [applause]

[17:12] Now, this is the awkward moment of the council meetings. We're like, do I have to stay for the

[17:16] entire council meeting? You can stay for the entire council meeting or you guys can go home

[17:21] uh right now. But if you don't leave right now, you're gonna be here for the rest of it. So,

[17:28] hi guys. Thank you. Good job, guys. Good part.

[17:37] [applause]

[17:39] [applause]

[17:42] So before we get uh to public comment, I'd wait a motion to suspend the rules uh on the resident

[17:49] first um speaking order. So move second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Uh

[17:58] so it turns out the first person that did sign up is a port resident, but Tyler Garzo. Uh and we're

[18:04] just going to go down the list here. And again, it's typically 45 minutes. Uh we'll take as long

[18:09] as we need. Uh we are going to keep a threeminut timer. If you go over the 3 minutes, we'll just,

[18:14] you know, allow it to to continue. Uh but just uh 3 minutes is usually a good amount of time to say

[18:21] something. It allows us to move through it. But uh we'll play it by ear. Tyler, you're up first.

[18:29] Uh good evening, uh Mayor, Council. Uh Tyler Garzo, 62 McKinley. Uh,

[18:34] I actually work for Scholes Marine Lab, which has docks next to the salt pile and runs a

[18:39] shuttle to the park and ride. I'll continue to support the the WAP and the rate increase

[18:46] uh along with other taxpayers. Uh, [snorts] but the 2025 parking study uh says some interesting

[18:53] things about the downtown worker parking program. quote uh there will not be available capacity to

[18:59] continue to support this program in the next 12 to 24 months. Much of tonight's earlier discussion

[19:07] focused on fitting more parkers downtown uh when the study points the other way. Up to 75% of

[19:16] public parking is out of town discretionary trips. Uh so the real pressure is visitors, not workers.

[19:24] This is the time to create alternatives in line with council goal number two,

[19:29] a multimodal Portsmith. The study says 10 to 15 minute service to a satellite lot

[19:38] like the Pe's parking ride has significant and cited precedent in other cities. And there's a

[19:45] two-year lead time before any sort of new garage. So this is the window now where we have to build

[19:52] real alternatives. Follow the study. Uh the alternatives need to be ready now and the

[19:58] rate increase being proposed should go directly to supporting those alternatives for workers

[20:04] and residents alike. Thank you. Thanks Tyler. Uh next is Margot Doring on parking shuttle.

[20:17] Thank you, Margot Doring, 300 Jones Avenue. On behalf of the four puppies that I've raised

[20:22] as guide dog puppy, um, service dogs, thank you very much for your support for that program. Um,

[20:29] regarding parking, I have to say that I think I'm going to buy cervical collars for the entire

[20:34] city council because of the whiplash you must experience. Portsouth wants a walkable city,

[20:39] but they want lots of parking at the same time. And I can't imagine how

[20:42] you have to juggle those competing uh demands. It seems to me that we have

[20:49] uh a lot of short-term solutions to a very very long-term problem and those

[20:54] short-term solutions are very difficult because the problem is a long-term one.

[20:58] I really support your effort to do a exhaustive study, a entire ecosystem study of the parking

[21:07] and the public transportation and other means of reducing the need for parking in Portsouth.

[21:18] When I've been to cities that have successfully implemented um walkability, the three things I

[21:27] notice are lots of public transportation, lots of walking and biking options, and an effort to try

[21:36] and make it possible for people to live without cars or with fewer cars. That includes things like

[21:44] um ZIPCAR, other sorts of sharing systems. For the people who live in the south end of Portsouth and

[21:52] need two cars, it must be impossible to try and figure out how to do that, particularly when you

[21:59] don't really have another alternative. If you had a car share situation, you know, you might open up

[22:05] all sorts of possibilities for people. So I think your goal of having a study that's going to look

[22:11] at this holistically is really really important and I think it's important to do it as soon as

[22:17] possible because it is going to take a long time to figure out and it's going to take even longer

[22:23] to implement not just in terms of figuring out how to what to do but also to change people's

[22:29] mindsets to change people's habits to make people willing to give up that second car or willing to

[22:35] walk a little bit further. other or park in a parking garage. But I'm absolutely certain that

[22:40] if you build another parking garage, if you build more parking, you're just going to have more cars

[22:46] and you're just going to face the same problem a little further down the road and a little further

[22:51] down the road. Let's take the resources that you would put into that. Let's put it into the study.

[22:56] Let's put it into some long-term solutions. Let's put it into the public transportation system that

[23:02] is just begging for the opportunity to increase the frequency of its rides and its routes so that

[23:08] we can get more people on the system. One last thing I'll note. I actually went on to Google

[23:14] Maps and if you want to walk around just about anywhere in Portsouth, it will take you less than

[23:22] 10 minutes from the parking garage at at Foundry Place, from the remote lot at um near the Masonic

[23:30] Temple. It's just 10 minutes into downtown and we should really be encouraging people to get

[23:35] out and walk. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Margot. Uh, next is Evie Summer Matter.

[23:48] [clears throat]

[23:48] Stop it. My name is Evie Summer Matter and I have the great honor and responsibility of managing

[23:55] Series Bakery. I'm hoping to convince you all that the workforce parking program needs to be amended.

[24:01] Long before RAP went into effect, the issue of free parking availability came up in conversation

[24:06] amongst prospective staff and long-term staff alike. Of the 18 employees at Series, only

[24:12] three are Portsouth residents. We commute from York, Ky, Elliot, South Burwick, Summerssworth,

[24:18] Dover, Wells, Exit, New Market, Rochester, Seabbrook, and Greenland. Between gas and tolls,

[24:23] it was never free to show up to work. The hope of a free parking spot was one of the

[24:27] only things that made the costly commute worth it. I have had stellar potential hires choose

[24:32] employment elsewhere with fewer barriers. I've had spectacular staff quit over the prohibitive

[24:38] nature of inconvenient parking. RAP fits the bill perfectly to appease residents. Unfortunately,

[24:45] this program undermines the efforts of small business owners who are fighting to retain

[24:49] staff in a highly competitive labor market. After having face-to-face conversations with hundreds

[24:55] of members of Portsouth workforce, it is clear to me that we must strive for protected free

[25:01] workforce parking. The Portsouth workforce has demonstrated a willingness to walk far distances

[25:06] for a free parking space. Currently, the majority of free parking is in residential neighborhoods.

[25:12] My prediction is that workforce will be pushed further into the neighborhoods and then those

[25:16] residents will suffer the same inconveniences that Southoun residents dealt with for years.

[25:22] My hope is that you'll consider collaborating with business owners in an effort to reach

[25:26] a mutually equitable solution for both workforce and residents. Now more than ever,

[25:30] we must protect the workers who sacrifice so much to bring culture and community to

[25:34] this city. It would be devastating to see them leave. Thank you, Evie. [applause]

[25:46] Justin Richardson.

[25:52] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, members of the city council, Justin Richardson. I live at 586

[25:57] Woodbury Avenue. Um, I wanted to talk briefly about parking just to give my perspective as a

[26:03] resident who's been here for about 11 years on the sea coast for I guess 26 now. Um, I remember when

[26:12] the parking rates were raised because we wanted to move people into the the new garage at the time,

[26:20] the foundry. And and it it you know, I did some research on that. It drove me nuts because we

[26:26] were taking essentially what were free parking spots that were already paid for and then raising

[26:31] the rates on them in in order to force people to change their behavior to go somewhere else.

[26:38] I think that was my recollection. Um I think all parking decisions have both good and bad

[26:46] consequences. Um the one thing that I think is the problem is is that when we use the machinery

[26:54] of government to punish people or to influence behavior, I think that's a mistake. Um what I

[27:02] would like to see is is you know using parking fees. It's the wrong tool for the job. I think

[27:10] the only and best policy for this city council is to take government out of that business,

[27:17] make parking everywhere as easy and affordable, especially for the workers. Um,

[27:22] I have a daughter who worked at Siri Bakery for a long time. I really understand how

[27:26] that impacts them with the salaries that they have. Um, let people get to work, go downtown,

[27:32] um, buy groceries, and even visit for less. We shouldn't be using the parking fees because that

[27:38] takes people like me and I don't go downtown anymore. I I in the summertime especially, I

[27:44] drive to Kery because it's just easier, you know, the having to spend $3 for a parking pass. I know

[27:51] there's a resident program. I didn't get in it for about five years. Um I just think it's a it's,

[27:59] you know, the only policy and the best policy is just make it easy and affordable for everyone.

[28:04] let people figure it out from there. Thank you very much. Thanks, Justin. Um, Buzz Sher on Flock.

[28:19] I apologize for not expressing any opinions on parking. Um, I people have said plenty. Um,

[28:27] at the very end of tonight's uh agenda is an item uh uh a sample motion brought up by uh councelor

[28:35] 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

[28:41] whether that was going to be public comment then on that or whether now is the time. So,

[28:46] um two things uh three things actually. one uh I've I've been working for the last 10 years on

[28:54] license plate readers in the legislature. Uh in 2016 then uh Republican Representative Neil Kirk

[29:02] uh who's a very strong privacy advocate uh passed uh got passed a bill uh that

[29:11] put significant restrictions on uses of license plate readers, automated license plate readers.

[29:17] Uh that bill had a sunset provision uh that uh it was it was to be repealed as of December 31st of

[29:26] this year. Uh this past session I was the prime sponsor at the behest of Representative Kirk

[29:32] uh to uh repeal the sunset provision. And so that statute is now permanent.

[29:41] It regulates automated license plate readers and it does a very effective job. It has a lot of

[29:49] uh restrictions to it uh in particularly uh related to how long uh the agency doing

[29:56] a license plate reading can maintain that information that doesn't result in an arrest.

[30:03] uh we on uh House Criminal Justice, we'll be taking a look at that again this coming session

[30:10] to see it given the advent of flock which is new in the last 5 years or so whether whether we need

[30:16] to make any adjustments but the way I read it now is it pretty much covers it and regulates it well.

[30:23] Um so uh I I uh would ask the council to uh to wait uh and see what we do in the legislature. Uh,

[30:34] number two, uh, a minor point, and not to not to provoke the council in any regard, but I think,

[30:42] uh, the the council telling the police department what to do with license plate readers, which is

[30:49] within their purvey, is beyond the charter. Uh, it's the it's the c it's the police commission's

[30:56] responsibility to make policy for the police department. uh we're more than willing to,

[31:01] you know, talk with uh council members who want to talk to us about this. Uh we will have

[31:06] a discussion about this at our next meeting, but I I I I would ask the uh council to postpone any

[31:14] discussion uh any resolution or conclusion about flock uh and how it would be done uh

[31:22] until the this the police commission meets and the legislature decides whether there's anything more

[31:28] do we do that we want to do to really put strong limitations on flock. Thank you guys. [applause]

[31:39] Um, next, uh, David. Um, and just, uh, just quickly on that, the, uh, uh, the motion before us

[31:48] is to schedule first reading on whether or not we would prevent flock from being uh, adopted on city

[31:54] buildings and public lands uh, here in the city of Portsouth. um that is uh will go to second reading

[32:02] of the public comment if it passes tonight. So there will be much more time to speak out

[32:06] um on you know whether uh folks do actually want the cameras uh in the city of Portsouth. [cough

[32:13] and clears throat] Um next up is sorry what that is what our motion is. It says that that we're

[32:23] going to prevent them on uh city land. That's the motion that's before the council. So you guys are

[32:28] probably in agreement on that. Um but we will have the conversation and everybody can come back for

[32:34] uh the public hearing which will be at the next uh council meeting if this gets good. This is

[32:38] just a schedule first meeting. Oh scheduled first reading. So two meetings. All right. Two meetings.

[32:42] I went against my rule of responding back and here we are. Um so David Hansen on workforce parking.

[32:52] Uh my name is David Hansen. I live on Broad Street in Portsouth. Uh, I was just here to talk about

[32:58] the workforce parking at the foundry. I know there's like a 10-hour limit. Um,

[33:04] I think it was mentioned earlier to increase it to 12. I would uh ask to increase that to maybe 15 or

[33:10] 16 because I know a lot of people that do work long hour shifts in the service industry, they

[33:16] show up at 8:00 a.m. and they're not getting to their car until like 11:00 p.m. midnight. Um, so

[33:21] I would just like to ask to extend that time frame for those individuals. Thanks. Thank you, David.

[33:33] Um,

[33:37] um, Penny, I'm gonna get your last name wrong. Um,

[33:43] oh, okay. Hey, Eddie, come on up. Penny Dreadful. All right.

[34:00] So, my name is Penny Dreadful and I am the CEO of Pwix Merkantile,

[34:04] Fezywigs Food and Fountain and Dewix Ethereal and Forum here in Portsouth,

[34:09] New Hampshire. And there are a couple of things. First of all, I want to stand behind what everyone

[34:14] else has said who is a business owner or a manager. It is very hard to get workforce

[34:20] into this city when there is no parking for them. We provide a vital resource for this

[34:27] city. We entertain and we enthral and we bring people back to this city time and time again.

[34:35] And we're only able to do that if we have the right people in place to do so. And making it

[34:40] harder for people to find parking is going to make it harder for us to make that happen for Portmith.

[34:47] the um guests that do come to see us. One of the other things that I'm hearing is that the parking

[34:52] is as expensive as it is in Boston. This is what I'm hearing from the visitors that are coming to

[34:59] see us. You can do that, but that's what the perception is of the guests who are visiting

[35:04] us. And the fees that they are getting if they overstay are very prohibitive as well. So that is

[35:12] for visitors as well as for people who are here. Um, with any of these plans that go into place,

[35:17] there are two things that really stand out to me. Having been here since 2013,

[35:22] we need to do something about how these sidewalks are cleared during the wintertime. You're talking

[35:28] about walking to parking garages. These city sidewalks are not walkable whenever we have

[35:34] a winter storm. So, I would ask that that be addressed so that you actually can have people

[35:40] having a safe way to walk to work because we don't have it. And then we just had all of the streets

[35:47] um not all of streets, we just had State Street repaved. I don't know if anybody has

[35:51] gone and looked at the parking spaces and the lines that they painted, but we lost spaces.

[35:59] You can absolutely see it right in front of Fezywigs. Uh where there was one spot there or

[36:04] where there were two spots or three spots, there's now two. So, someone should probably go back,

[36:11] take a look at that, and we need to get those repainted so you can get more parking spaces

[36:15] so you can make more revenue. And I yield the rest of my minutes. I know you can't,

[36:21] but but I do just want to stand behind everybody else who's been here and said it. It's hard to get

[36:26] workforce here. And I know that the residents need um places to park as well, but we're not going

[36:32] to build a city if you don't have businesses to bring other people in. We are what makes Portsmith

[36:37] special and we are why people have chosen to come here and live here. Thank you, Penny. [applause]

[36:47] Um Colin Schiller on Coast

[37:06] Hi, I'm Colin Schler. Um, Shanty Street, Portsmith. Um, all of this parking conversation,

[37:12] it's all supply and demand. um we have frankly a fixed supply and we have everinccreasing demand

[37:19] and demand that now really more than ever has a higher personal cost associated with it. Uh

[37:25] and that's what we're seeing here at these conversations. Uh our current system clearly

[37:31] needs some improvements and we've heard a lot of good suggestions both from the people here as well

[37:36] as the council and I think everyone's on the same page that improvements are needed. Um, but it is

[37:42] important to remember what the intention of this program is and what the intention of I think what

[37:49] everyone wants here, which is that parking is available for those who need it. Um, but since

[37:57] our supply is fixed, the only thing that we can do practically for a long-term lasting solution is

[38:02] to lower our demand. Um, and that can really only be done with alternative means of transportation.

[38:10] um you know studies and the explorations are important and I'm glad that we've started

[38:14] those but again we have a head start and we have something that we can take advantage

[38:18] of in the meantime while we're waiting for those to get back to us. Um and we can do

[38:23] it in parallel. We have the coast. We have a bus that currently does get a fine amount of

[38:31] funding but it is operating at only a fraction of what it could do. It operates only on cash.

[38:36] It doesn't operate past 8:00 p.m. It operates once an hour. All things that if you really

[38:41] need an alternative, make it frankly useless. And it's not that far away from being extremely

[38:47] useful for a much larger number of people than it already is. Thanks. Thank you, Colin.

[38:56] Uh Jared Parker on parking.

[39:02] [clears throat]

[39:07] Thank you, council members. Um, I'm asking you to look at the parking issue not as a revenue issue,

[39:13] but as a workforce issue. Many people who work in downtown Portsouth earn, you know, $15 to

[39:19] $20 an hour. Uh, when when parking costs $2 an hour, it can it is a significant portion of their

[39:27] daily income to come to work. Uh not only is it a small inconvenience, it directly affects whether

[39:33] the working in working is working in downtown is going to be financially stable. Um I go to work I

[39:40] my many of my co-workers can't even go to places like Siri Bakery um because they can't afford it.

[39:46] You they're already and now they are going to have to pay for parking. So we're we have a workforce

[39:52] that can actually contribute back into the revenue stream of other these small businesses,

[39:57] but they can't afford it. And now we're going to be adding an additional tax to the people who are

[40:02] coming from very far away or even close by that uh they don't have parking. Addition to this, I also

[40:08] work at Strawberry Bank Museum where we also have free parking for the members who come to visit our

[40:14] uh historical landmark. Unfortunately, what we're finding at the museum is that we have members

[40:20] uh or part people parking in our free lot because they know it's free. uh we take down you know our

[40:28] manager our site managers are taking down how many people are actually using our lot but not

[40:34] using it for the museum so we're losing money from the museum as well and one instance I saw someone

[40:42] coming and parking our we have two handicap spots and they parked in our handicap spots they take

[40:48] their chairs and they're going over to Prescuit Park or going somewhere else besides the museum

[40:54] Um, [clears throat] I do understand that the city needs to manage parking and appreciate the that

[41:00] of far. Oh, so I'm sorry. Um, thank you for the foundry. I know we we do have that is a program

[41:09] uh that is available to those of us that work in downtown Portsouth. But quite frankly,

[41:13] sometimes it is too far and as other members have spoken in the wintertime, it's it can be a little

[41:19] bit dangerous, especially going on these sidewalks and not having a safe commute, walking commute

[41:24] to go all the way from the foundry all the way to downtown Portsouth. Um, you know, I've unfort I've

[41:31] been in the workforce here in Portsouth since the 90s. I remember working at the Gap. All I had to

[41:36] do was show my [laughter] show my my badge and um I was able to get free parking over at Hanover Lot

[41:45] and that is that's gone. Some of the opportunities that I have seen within parking within Portsouth

[41:50] for over 30 years have come and gone and this is just going in a negative trajectory for those of

[41:56] us who want to and uh contribute to Portsouth's income and um society. Thank you Jared. [applause]

[42:08] Uh Moira Wright on parking.

[42:18] Hi Moira Wright. Um I grew up in Burwick Maine, but I've been coming to Corsa since I was really

[42:25] really young. Um I used to go to the library back when it was, you know, where where the like museum

[42:31] is now, I guess. I don't know what it's called, but I remember going there. I took my senior

[42:35] pictures in Prescott Park. I used to do ballet recital at the music hall. Like, I might not

[42:39] be a resident, but I feel really connected to this city. And I've went to UNH. I started working here

[42:45] probably my sophomore year, which was like 2014 or something like that. I've worked all over town,

[42:52] and I've seen the parking diminish and dwindle. You know, this town is really special. I I really

[42:58] do love it here. I think we've got a lot of great people who work here who live here.

[43:03] And if it's a revenue issue, it doesn't make sense to me to get revenue from charging people

[43:08] from for something they don't want to pay for, right? Like why wouldn't we use that? You know,

[43:14] I I feel like we should just create things in town that people want to pay for. And the employees

[43:18] and the residents here have a lot of great ideas. If you take a little bit of pressure off of them

[43:23] with parking, like think about how much mental energy people have spent trying to find parking,

[43:28] arguing about parking. This, you know, and they could be using that to create events or

[43:34] uh businesses that would be totally unique to Portsmith that would draw people in. People

[43:40] would probably be willing to spend more money here and more money for parking if they can't

[43:45] go anywhere else to get the same experience. I'll also say right now I work at Read More Books and

[43:51] Bruise. We've got a lot of tourists coming in. We we have so many people who say, "Wow, I wish

[43:55] we had something like this in our town. I wish we had something like this in our state." It's,

[44:00] you know, I remember Book and Bar that was also great, but I don't know a lot of other

[44:05] places that have similar. I mean, there's like Trident out in Boston, but like that's something

[44:09] really special and really unique. And I just think that if we took pressure off of people,

[44:15] it would be beneficial to everyone. As for the Foundry Garage, I've served at a lot of different

[44:21] restaurants in town since I was like early 20s, 19. And honestly, sometimes you leave at midnight

[44:28] at 1:00 a.m. You're walking back with cash. You know, I've had I had one boyfriend get me a taser.

[44:34] I had another boyfriend get me maze because they're worried about me walking back. I mean,

[44:37] forget the ice. It's, you know, it's not always that safe outside if you're walking around with

[44:42] a lot of cash. And I just think that, you know, Horseman is so special and so unique. If we're

[44:48] able to put the money back into the people who live here and work here, we really will create

[44:53] something that makes people want to come and spend their money, their time, their their

[44:58] energy here. Um, yeah. But I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[45:08] So that is all I have for signups. Does anybody else want to speak? Certainly you can get you.

[45:14] Yep. Yeah. Happy come on up here. [applause] I've said enough. I'm not as nervous. I just

[45:21] wanted to more or less ask a question or bring up bring up for consideration the privately owned

[45:27] parking lots that we have in town. Um, I'm I have no idea what that business structure is

[45:34] as far as their relationship with you guys, but the banks that are located downtown that operate

[45:40] as like a privately owned parking lot after business hours, those fees are exorbitant. I

[45:45] guess I'm offering up for consideration. Is there any way or an arrangement that can be made with

[45:51] those privately owned lots to open those up for workforce parking within certain business hours,

[45:58] not at the rate that they're asking now, but if we are if these are businesses that are also a

[46:03] part of our ecosystem, [clears throat] bringing in some sort of arrangement where that those spaces

[46:10] and those lots would be opened up for workforce parking just to offer up some sort of solution

[46:16] towards this very large um issue. And I feel like one thing I look at too is the federal building

[46:22] downtown and that part who that who owns that. Um Lorenzo. Uh yeah, I feel like he's got enough

[46:31] cash from the bank. Maybe he would be willing to offer that up [laughter] for free workforce

[46:35] parking. I just want to say that out loud. Um, again, I'm not I'm not sure, but that's a great

[46:41] opportunity I think that is available to ease this issue. Thank you. Thanks, Kelsey. [applause]

[46:55] Thank you, Kelsey. Other Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to present one other idea

[46:59] since I know everyone's talking about free parking and obviously we are fighting for

[47:03] free workforce parking but I think it has been proven that Park mobile

[47:09] can allow for a discounted rate on Parrot Avenue. So I don't see why more streets,

[47:15] more metered spaces can't be made available at a discounted rate for the workforce.

[47:25] Thank you Nissa. Any other ideas, comments?

[47:32] Nobody. Okay. Um, but I guess um we'll go on to other parts of the agenda. One of them is

[47:40] um on parking uh later. I just want to I want to thank uh the folks that have come here uh

[47:48] for a couple reasons. Um one, we I know it doesn't always seem like it, but this is why we're here.

[47:56] um to listen and to try to incorporate as many ideas for as many people uh as we can. Um two,

[48:04] uh this could have gone a lot of different ways. Um and it could have been a lot more

[48:09] angry than what folks came up and asked us to do, but you asked to be considered and to think about

[48:17] ways that we can improve the system that we have. understanding that there's a lot of parts to the

[48:23] system and a lot of pressures on the system. I don't think anybody was under the illusion

[48:28] that parking was a great situation in June. I mean, I think uh Kelsey, you talked about

[48:35] uh the the tickets. Um and there was a there was a a focus on trying to create a better system. Um,

[48:43] and I want to recognize something that councelor Blew said, and when he said it, I kind of, uh,

[48:49] was taken aback, uh, but the mental health aspect of all of this, I think that there's opportunity

[48:56] to engage in a way that feels like this is a program that is putting you at, you know,

[49:03] a priority in here. Um there's a lot of competing priorities in the city, but to be able to think at

[49:08] whatever program we end up with that the workforce looks at it and says this is an improvement over

[49:15] what we have instead of this is a regression that one day is going to force me out of here

[49:20] completely. And so I just thank you for for being here. This is certainly not the end of this and

[49:27] and you know when we make changes we schedule changes so that people can come speak too for

[49:31] against them. Um, so those changes aren't going to happen tonight, but we are going to take the

[49:38] feedback that you have and there's been a lot of feedback. One of the things we're going to start

[49:42] is just getting a feedback to the pilot just, you know, generally so we can start tracking it. But,

[49:47] um, to be able to make changes so at the end of the day, you feel as though and by Portsouth that

[49:53] we have a program that's putting us on a better trajectory than the trajectory that we're on and

[49:58] have been on, I think, since the gap closed. And I don't know if that's the reason why. Um,

[50:03] but that was, you know, uh, Portsmith in the 90s was a beautiful thing. Um, and you know, I think,

[50:09] uh, trying to get to a point where it feels as though it's a benefit and not a burden is what

[50:15] we're trying to accomplish. And I just want to thank everybody for being here this evening and

[50:20] being constructive because we are a community. We are bigger than our borders. Uh, we know a lot of

[50:25] folks that have moved um, out of Portsouth. Um, and the goal is to try to create something that

[50:30] we feel all part of um and all proud of. And so I appreciate the effort that was brought to tonight.

[50:37] Stick around for uh the rest of the meeting if you want, but I just want to thank you guys for

[50:42] um and that was folks supporting the RAP and those that are supporting a better workforce uh parking

[50:47] program um to to come to the table and making um the city better because of your input. So,

[50:53] I know also it's not easy to do uh for two hours tonight that you were here. And so,

[51:00] just thank you for spending your time uh with us to make Portson better. It is appreciated. So,

[51:06] with that, um we're going to go on to the rest of the agenda. If you guys want to hang out, you can,

[51:10] but there's probably some other things you want to do, too. So, understand that. Thanks for coming.

[51:24] You're going to miss the best part. They're missing all the good stuff. There's a lot. I

[51:32] miss 80s barbecue. Maybe think of 80s barbecue. Remember the smoke would come out. AD would come

[51:37] out and he'd be like, "All right, [laughter] now it's like Yeah. I mean, things that I miss,

[51:44] you know, Club Spin. Yes. always trying to I used to hang out at Club Spin when I 30 years

[51:49] ago. [laughter] I'm only I was going to say I'm only old enough for bananas, guys. That's right.

[51:56] Yeah. Hang out there, too. Yeah. Okay. So, um we do have um public hearings and vote on ordinance

[52:04] of resolutions. We have a first reading, couple of first readings here, uh to amend chapter 7

[52:09] or chapter 10, zoning ordinances, article 2, administration and enforcement section 10.234.

[52:15] 234 Procedures for variances, special exemptions and appeals from decisions of the code official.

[52:21] Section 10.246 expiration and abandonment of approvals and section 10.1017- or70 expiration

[52:32] and extension. Move to pass first reading and schedule a public hearing and second

[52:38] reading for September 14th, 2026. Second. Any further discussion or any discussion on this?

[52:50] Maro, a lot of the um administrative changes that we're making to this really have to do

[52:57] with trying to line certain things up and it's really more of a cleanup than anything else. So,

[53:03] we're not making any major changes. What I'm trying to get at Okay, we'll take your word

[53:10] for it and we'll have a public hearing. Uh, council. All right. Um, all right. So, again,

[53:15] first reading. This will pass. Uh, we'll schedule uh uh second reading at the next uh city council

[53:22] meeting. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Next, uh we have first reading amendment amending chapter 7,

[53:31] vehicles, traffic, and parking article 3 traffic ordinances section 7.330A. No parking in section

[53:38] 7.336A. one-way streets. Your honor, I move to pass first reading, schedule a public hearing, and

[53:45] second reading of the September 14th, 2026 city council meeting regarding amendment to chapter 7

[53:51] vehicles, traffic, and parking. Article 3, traffic ordinance section 7.330A, no parking, which will

[53:57] move parking spaces from the west to east side of Flee Street as presented. Second. And thank

[54:03] you. We got to talk we vote and then Yeah. So, um, I could speak to it briefly if Yeah, I have some

[54:10] questions. So, councelor Hopkins Thunder, but essentially there's a lot of things happening

[54:15] on Fleet Street and in order to make them happen, it makes a lot more sense to have the parking on

[54:20] the opposite side of the street of where it is now. So, we're taking parking from the I don't

[54:26] know if it's north or south. Where the parking is now will now be on the other side of the street.

[54:31] And there's a bunch of reasons why that makes sense after all the reconfiguration of Fleet

[54:37] Street is done. And I think we can get into that a little bit with the the oneway section. Okay.

[54:44] Um are there any other questions? again. No, I'll I'll just say that um these fleet street

[54:51] design changes um have been run through parking traffic and safety and the bike ped committee

[54:57] and both are in favor of this because it's going to create a more um welcoming and amendable um

[55:05] biking and walking uh ecosystem on there. So in order to do that to improve safety for bikers and

[55:12] um we need to move parking to the other side and that's the reason and it has support.

[55:22] So in those I guess the the only question that I have and it's maybe being um sensitive on uh the

[55:30] topic here on parking uh have we we used to um there used to be outdoor dining on that street

[55:38] in Fleet Street and then we said that that's not allowed because of the space and construction and

[55:43] so I'm just wondering if these restaurants would have I mean they won't be able to have outdoor

[55:49] dining there if we move the cars to the other side or the park cars the other side of the

[55:53] street. And I'm wondering, you know, if we had factored in for the times which they are actually

[56:01] um if they were to use that outdoor dining um option to get walkability if that would have

[56:06] incurred the same sort of danger and require it to move over to the other side of the street. I

[56:13] Yes. So the primary reason for moving the parking to the other side of the street is that with the

[56:20] one way design to have a contraflow bike lane. Um what we would be asking if parking remained where

[56:27] it was was for people to park to go through the bike lane to park their car which is suboptimal

[56:34] at best. Um I'm not sure if you know there is sidewalk widening in this project too and I'm

[56:41] not sure where that stands with you know outdoor dining and sidewalks. I don't know what those

[56:47] rules and such are, but the sidewalk is going to be significantly widened in this spot. Um, and but

[56:55] yeah, I I don't think that has been in and all the times I've heard this explicitly brought up about

[57:01] um outdoor dining in the street. So, that's a great question. Uh, councelor Beley. Yeah, thanks,

[57:09] Mayor. Um, I see Eric Eie is here and he's quite knowledgeable on Fleet Street. Um I wasn't at

[57:15] the meeting where we improved the contraflow bike by grain. Um so I made sure I don't think we Oh,

[57:21] at the PTS meeting. No, the council meeting, didn't we talk about it? We talked about it

[57:24] and we asked to this would be the meeting. So So then second reading I w and this will tie into

[57:30] everything. I was going to wait for the second motion, but I think maybe now is the right time

[57:32] to bring it up. I was generally opposed to the idea and the reason is it's a very short section

[57:38] of town and it doesn't fundamentally serve a major bicycle purpose in my my opinion and having lived

[57:46] through the middle street bike lanes my concern is for two blocks of bike lane we may create a

[57:52] public backlash I don't know if we will but we might however when I watched the PTS meeting

[57:58] um Erica who's great expertise in uh all things parking. She had a concern about the 18 foot

[58:07] uh travel lane, which I think, and this is where I'm hoping Eric Eie will be helpful, um is kind

[58:12] of a requirement of the fire department because they got to be able to get the ladder trucks to do

[58:16] ladder truck things to the tall buildings there if there's ever a fire. Um that's the technical term,

[58:21] ladder truck things. So my concern is I don't want to have an 18 foot wide one way road because

[58:29] people will continuously try to turn down it the wrong way. I agree with Eric Oanic on that. Like

[58:34] if we don't have something there that makes it hard for you to go the wrong way in the one way,

[58:40] it's going to be a problem because of the with the lane. However, I think there's a lot more

[58:44] public benefit to some kind of bumped out sidewalk that could potentially allow for outdoor dining

[58:50] or something like that than a contraflow bike lane. What I'm unaware of is there a way to do

[58:56] that and still meet fire department requirements. And and the the thought process I have would be

[59:02] um the sidewalks on Chestnut Street. So Chestnut Street is I forget the technical term, but it

[59:09] doesn't have curbs. It has kind of like shared street or a lunar. Yeah. It has a a colored gel

[59:15] nation of where the sidewalk is. And the reason it works there is it's relatively low traffic.

[59:20] I think Fleet Street's going to be relatively low traffic with the oneway configuration. Um so those

[59:28] are my thoughts, but I do worry about the the fallout when the public sees the contraflow lane.

[59:33] there's going to be a lot of push back and having lived through the middle street bike lanes,

[59:37] I don't know if the the benefit is worth the the push back. Well, to Okay, councelor Hopkins. Well,

[59:47] I would just ask um because I Eric, I believe we have that data on bike usage on fleek street.

[59:54] So if that would help inform decisions um would you please share some of the data on

[59:59] numbers and perhaps also you know because yes a change is going to be difficult

[1:00:05] um to change habits on people driving the wrong way on on Fleet Street. So at PTS you know we've

[1:00:11] discussed putting up you know a barrier a temporary barrier to really like show people

[1:00:16] no you may not enter here. Um but I'll let I would ask Eric to speak more to those things.

[1:00:23] We certainly can. Um, this is first reading though, so we can have it as

[1:00:26] a presentation. But Eric, why don't you inform us if you can on this uh right now? Certainly.

[1:00:35] Yes. Um, prior to our PTS meeting, we put a a traffic camera out on Fleet Street, which

[1:00:40] recorded all activity on the street. uh it was a two-week period in July and what we saw on average

[1:00:48] was about uh two bicycles an hour going that way down uh Fleet Street from Hanover to Congress. The

[1:00:55] most the highest usage we saw was nine bicycles in one hour and the highest usage in one day was

[1:01:00] 50 bicycles. So on average about 25 bikes a day going from handover to Congress in that direction

[1:01:07] on Fleet Street. So is that just for context? How many cars were there? Uh peak hour on Fleet

[1:01:14] Street, there's 100 cars in each direction. 200 cars total on Fleet Street. Okay. Um and then for

[1:01:20] other parts of the city, is that comparable, high, low for bikes? I I it's it's probably low. I mean,

[1:01:30] compared, it's depends on what street you pick. I mean, it middle street gets it gets more usage

[1:01:35] than that. Um, you know, we don't have bike counts on every street, but it it's it's low for vehicle

[1:01:43] counts. I know that. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Other questions for Eric or comments? Councelor Cook.

[1:01:50] Uh, thank you, your honor. Um, as someone who uses Fleet Street as my cross town um street

[1:01:56] because when you live in the south end, there's not an easy way around downtown. You either go to

[1:02:00] one end or the other, but Fleet Street provides that cross town back and forth. I think that's

[1:02:05] going to be the biggest challenge for people is that suddenly they can't go back across town from

[1:02:11] handover. Um you can't get to to the south end or to the library or to town hall coming across fleet

[1:02:20] that right way. In fact, you have to go um to the end of the street and go around and you have

[1:02:25] to loop around which sometimes takes a little bit longer. So I think that's going to be the biggest

[1:02:29] adjustment. But I personally, as somebody who uses Fleet Street both ways a lot, thinks I think

[1:02:35] it's worth it. And I think the change is worth it because we need the wider sidewalks in this space.

[1:02:42] And so I look at it as we're we're gaining a huge benefit um on fleet by having that expansion of

[1:02:49] sidewalks. Um, we're not just gaining larger sidewalks, we're graing gaining some greenery,

[1:02:55] some potentially some trees, I'm hoping, uh, in this space. Um, but I think that the bike lane is

[1:03:02] also important for bike traffic. And the cars have other routes that are really easy to access around

[1:03:10] town, even though it can be frustrating to have to go around. Um, we don't have a good access point

[1:03:16] for bicycles where they're not in the flow of traffic. So this provides that access to Congress.

[1:03:28] Thank you, Councelor Cook. Um I guess the and I the idea of not doing something because of push

[1:03:35] 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

[1:03:43] difficult sometimes when we do things and this is going to be a huge change. Like the Fleet Street

[1:03:48] change is going to be monumental uh for folks and when we do it, it's going to be um it's going to

[1:03:55] be immense. Um and it's and we'll we'll we'll go through and we'll find through the public hearing

[1:04:00] process. Um and it's likely based on what we've seen, especially the changes on Congress Street,

[1:04:05] it will make more sense long term. don't think it's going to be up there, you know, in changes

[1:04:09] of like market square, but you know, it will make more sense, you know, long term and it's been

[1:04:14] fully vetted and a lot of input over the years has put into that. The only thing on the bike lane

[1:04:19] and I would just ask folks to to think about this and for for us, you know, for uh people that are,

[1:04:27] you know, part of Saber to come and speak to um or others uh is what is it connecting it to? because

[1:04:34] the big takeaway that I found in the middle street bike lane uh part of my life um was that there

[1:04:44] wasn't enough people outside of people that wanted to speak for kind of bicycling in general to come

[1:04:51] and speak and say this is something that I use on a daily basis and if you take it away it will

[1:04:56] impact me x. It was more or less we have to invest in bike infrastructure and I always think the best

[1:05:02] way to do that is to connect two neighborhoods or two parts of town completely fully before

[1:05:10] um you know so that people will actually miss if it's taken away and not just bike enthusiasts

[1:05:15] which I certainly love and respect their efforts to push Portsouth in a direction that will make

[1:05:20] biking easier but we need more than those people to show up. we need the people that are going to

[1:05:25] be negatively impacted if we don't actually move the bike lane. So, you know, I'll support this in

[1:05:32] terms of, you know, the first reading. I really think the counterflow um you know conversation is

[1:05:39] going to be one that will have more push back and it runs the risk of being tied up into a you know

[1:05:45] a person that will watch none of these meetings will say that we closed off the street so that

[1:05:52] we can do a reverse bike lane on the other side of the street. And that's not the the actual answer,

[1:06:00] but that's what this change will end up having um in people's minds because they can't, you know,

[1:06:07] it's difficult to, you know, be as intentive as as as we're forced to be and they'll just

[1:06:12] kind of look at it. Um so that's one. And I guess the other point, you know, we've changed parking

[1:06:17] on the other side. Like we've never made parking decisions or traffic decisions based on outdoor

[1:06:21] dining. We're not going to start now, but we have had in the past uh moved uh parking to the other

[1:06:26] side of the street if um I think on Masimo's which uh or series um where it made sense we just took

[1:06:33] away parking from one side and moved it to the other. So, it's something that we could bring back

[1:06:37] here if there was a desire. Uh but I do just have some concerns on the counterflow only because it

[1:06:43] um it's it doesn't necessarily connect two points as well as as maybe it could. Uh I'll go councelor

[1:06:50] Hopkins and then councelor Um I I would say that you know the counterfloor bike lane has

[1:06:57] been identified as a connector through downtown somewhat um how councelor Cook was talking. So it

[1:07:02] is because it is a quieter street. It's a smaller street. Um so to the bike community what I've

[1:07:08] heard through the bike and pedestrian committee is that the this is a connector from one side

[1:07:14] of town to the other. The other thing I'll say too is, you know, if if we make it one way and

[1:07:20] we're worried about um the wide street inviting folks to come down the wrong way, um a bike lane

[1:07:28] with not just a single, you know, regular like two stripes, but you can make like a one to two

[1:07:35] foot like stripe with cross across really to um it's it's a certain pavement treatment that you

[1:07:42] can do that really like delineates this is a bike lane and this is the travel lane. Um those are

[1:07:48] ways where you can not restrict pavement space so that fire trucks can still operate but still

[1:07:54] create visual you know awareness of this is one way and the bikes go here. Um parking again I just

[1:08:05] having parking on the other side of a bike lane makes no sense to me. Um, and the other thing too

[1:08:11] that I would push back on the um, hypothetical of we're always going to hear negative opinions.

[1:08:18] I'm not saying that we won't, but if part of our commitment to the climate action plan,

[1:08:25] our commitment to multimmodal, our commitment to decrease parking means that we are going to make

[1:08:29] changes to improve bike infrastructure. I think they need to be visible as part of this plan.

[1:08:35] um on Congress Street, bikes will have their own separate um traffic light. So again, it there's a

[1:08:42] difference between and I just thought this this weekend I went to a memorial service where, you

[1:08:47] know, we were in a church that had kids toys out in the back. And that to me says we expect kids

[1:08:52] to come here and be in this space. When there's bike lanes that are s, you know, clearly marked,

[1:08:58] they have their own traffic signal, we're saying we expect bikers to be in this downtown. And you

[1:09:03] know, if we want a walkable downtown core, this is downtown core. So if we want something that

[1:09:09] is better for bikers and walkers, we are going to have to shift parking and restrict cars or

[1:09:15] restrict traffic flow cars to just one way um in order to actually take the action. You know,

[1:09:22] I I just don't think that um the backlash is worth it on this. I wasn't here for Middle Street and

[1:09:30] I think I'm I'm happy about that. But um this is something again that's well supported by the bike

[1:09:37] and pedestrian committee who is made up of more than just you know gung-ho cyclists. Like my I am

[1:09:42] not a gung-ho cyclist but I would want this to take my kid downtown to honestly to get to the

[1:09:48] library. This is how personally I would come. I would rather do this than, you know, coming down

[1:09:55] further or going through that worst intersection in Portsouth where it's all crosswalks. So, I am

[1:10:02] thoroughly in support of this these initiatives. Just for the record, the worst intersection is the

[1:10:07] Bartlett Bridge, uh, K Street. It's just I want that to be, you know, doing the best we got there.

[1:10:12] Second worst. Uh, councelor Bagley. Thank you, J. And and you know when I talk about push back,

[1:10:19] it's not I think people be mad at me. I think I do a pretty good job of that already without having

[1:10:24] to worry about that. It's when we get push back on middle street bike lanes, it really retards the

[1:10:29] chance to have future discussions about bike lanes elsewhere in the city. It's it's not we shouldn't

[1:10:34] do something because of push back. It's we should be very thoughtful that this is the community

[1:10:39] feels like they got value for the changes. So they're supportive of more and future changes.

[1:10:43] And you know, thinking about this more, um, and I can't remember. I know we did the QR codes. We

[1:10:48] got a lot of public comment two or three years ago and everything got delayed because we had

[1:10:52] to do sewer pipes downstream before we could do this. I feel like the contra bike lane was thrown

[1:10:57] in kind of in the last six months or something. It wasn't originally or do I have that wrong? I

[1:11:01] don't remember. What we could do is add that to the presentation at second reading. It wasn't a

[1:11:05] part of the um original proposal. It came in as a part of the recent conversations as a a request of

[1:11:13] I believe the bike ped um working committee. And you know during my time on on PTS I was always

[1:11:21] hesitant about a committee like that that was focused on one core group in the city because it

[1:11:26] can sometimes drive things that have support in the room but not necessarily as a bad base. But

[1:11:32] what stuck out to me is, and I don't know if we have counts on pedestrians, but we have a 100 cars

[1:11:36] each way, two bikes each way per hour on average. We probably have a at least 100 pedestrians. And

[1:11:43] we have an opportunity to make, especially if the the what happens to Lad Street uh actually goes

[1:11:49] through, that could be a very very pedestrian heavy area. And to me, to be giving up sidewalk

[1:11:55] space for for two bikes an hour, um, if there's a way we can incorporate the the really wide

[1:12:00] sidewalks and the fire trucks, to me, that would be the highest and best use of that street. And

[1:12:06] I know we're not making decisions tonight, but I thought it was good to get that idea out there to

[1:12:11] see if it has any support. Thank councelor Bagley. And I, you know, I think everybody's saying or

[1:12:17] reasonably the same thing. I think uh, councelor Flynn or councelor Hopkins makes some points.

[1:12:23] uh that are certainly useful in terms of this is a through fair and being able to have bikes

[1:12:28] on there. I think the question you know that that that I have and we will see on the public comment

[1:12:33] at the public hearing that's why we get it um is to see how much uh feeling is this is a connector

[1:12:39] there because the point that we and not to no scar tissue councelor Hopkins you are uh you know on

[1:12:48] the the middle street bike lane but we ended up just fighting about bike lanes that you know were

[1:12:53] on the other side of traffic you know that were like very hard to to to get to And then you know

[1:12:58] we tried to make you know some modifications and they just made nobody happy and kind of pushed us

[1:13:03] and [ __ ] that program for a while because it was you know such a you know the ballards just

[1:13:10] became such a blowback uh issue. [snorts] So um we'll have the the well first we have this

[1:13:16] motion here and then um we have to uh wait what is hold on we have first reading and then another one

[1:13:24] um on this is it's not an amendment. Oh, it's two different ones that have the same thing. Okay.

[1:13:29] That we have to do. Okay. So, the motion on the floor is to move the uh the parking to the other

[1:13:34] side of the street as presented. And I I think I made the motion councelor Maro seconded it. Yep.

[1:13:41] And this is for first reading to get to second reading to hear from the public. All in favor?

[1:13:45] I. Any opposed? Second is uh second portion of that. Your honor, I move to pass first reading

[1:13:52] and schedule a public hearing and second reading of the September 14th, 2026 city council meeting

[1:13:57] regarding an amendment to chapter 7 vehicles traffic and parking article 3 traffic ordinance

[1:14:02] section 7.336A oneway streets changing flea street to oneway from Congress Street to handover street

[1:14:08] as presented. Second. And I kind of said all my thoughts on that on the previous one. Yep. Again,

[1:14:14] this is to put it to second read or second reading in the public comment. All in favor?

[1:14:18] I. Any opposed? All right. Public hearing and second reading of the annual omnib

[1:14:24] omnibus ordinance amending chapter 7 vehicles traffic and parking article 3 traffic ordinance

[1:14:30] section 7.326A limited parking 15 minutes section 7.33A no parking in article 6 loading zone section

[1:14:40] 7.601 limited hours loading zone. Your honor, we have uh city engineer for parking, transportation,

[1:14:46] and planning, Eric Eie, who has a couple of slides to walk through. Thank you. Uh yes. Um Mr. Mayor,

[1:14:52] city councilors, this is the annual omnibus which covers the changes made by parking traffic safety

[1:14:57] committee over the past year that affects uh ordinances in chapter 7. We have three of them

[1:15:03] tonight. Uh the first one is on uh 15minute parking spaces and that is on Daniel Street.

[1:15:11] And these are the two spaces in front of Moe's uh sub shop. And what happened was those two spaces

[1:15:18] were put into place and the three existing spaces on the other side of Daniel Street were returned

[1:15:23] to uh regular zone A parking spaces. And this change was actually implemented back in 22 to 23,

[1:15:30] but didn't make it into the omnibus until then. And so we're just we brought it back to the PTS

[1:15:35] this year for reapproval so that we can get it onto the omnibus now. But these spaces have been

[1:15:39] in place for uh at least three years now. So it's been well tried and and successful. Uh the second

[1:15:48] slide shows the uh parking space on Middle Street that was removed at the intersection

[1:15:54] of C Street. This was to open up sight lines at the intersection of Cass and Middle for vehicles

[1:15:59] pulling out of Cast Street. The original request from some residents was to remove, you know, two,

[1:16:06] three spaces on at this location. PTS approved the removal of one space that was approved back

[1:16:12] in October of 24, but it it didn't get in place until 25. And part of the condition

[1:16:17] was to monitor it to see how it went. And that brought us past the omnibus for last year. So,

[1:16:22] it was reapproved again for another one-year trial. And that's why it's on the omnibus now,

[1:16:27] but it's been one space has been removed now for uh over a year, and it's been going well.

[1:16:34] And the last item is loading zones. And this one is on Brewster Street. This one was approved in

[1:16:43] May of 2025. However, at the time, the Islington Street project was still under construction. So,

[1:16:49] we weren't able to stripe it or put the uh loading zone sign in place until after

[1:16:54] the omnibus deadline had passed for last year. So, we brought it back to PTS again.

[1:16:59] They reapproved [snorts] it in October and it's back now for approval. This was requested by the

[1:17:05] restaurants there at the corner. It allows a parking space next to um closest to Islington

[1:17:11] and then a loading zone after that. And what it did was change the hours of the loading zone so

[1:17:16] it would be more available to their uh customers of the restaurants during hours. And so it's been

[1:17:22] working out well for them. It's been uh the sign has been in place and it's going to be restriped

[1:17:27] again. So these these actions have all been in place now for upwards of a year at least.

[1:17:37] Your honor, I move to pass second reading of annual omnibus ordinance amending chapter 7

[1:17:42] vehicles traffic and parking article 3 traffic ordinance section 7.326A limited parking 15

[1:17:50] minutes. Section 7.330A, no parking, and article 6, loading zones. Section 7.601,

[1:18:01] limited hours loading zone, and schedule the third reading at September 14th, 2026,

[1:18:06] city council meeting. I second that, but we need a public hearing. Yeah,

[1:18:13] we'll have a public hearing. Yeah. Uh but we can have questions uh of Eric before the uh the public

[1:18:20] hearing as well since I don't see maybe um but go ahead councelor Cook. Uh thank you your honor. Um

[1:18:26] has there been any anyone come in and ask for additional um spaces now to be removed um at

[1:18:32] that intersection of Cass and Middle. I know that the visibility is not ideal there. No,

[1:18:37] but uh yes, there was someone at PTS last uh month meeting. They they've concerns about

[1:18:43] the intersection of Cass and Chevrolet at Louisville as well as Middle Cass. You know,

[1:18:47] it's unless you take a lot away a lot of parking spaces there, you're not going to have full sight

[1:18:52] lines that you you should have. But we tried they the committee tried to reach a compromise

[1:18:57] to remove one's parking space to improve it. And we did monitor it with cameras afterwards and saw

[1:19:02] that it was working better where vehicles didn't have to pull way out into, you know, traffic to

[1:19:07] see what was coming. They were able to stay back a little bit further. Thank you. Um, and I just

[1:19:13] wanted to note this Brewster Street um, loading zone is important and it's one of the areas that

[1:19:19] I think has become a little more challenging with the wrap um, with people trying to park there.

[1:19:26] Councelor Begley, thanks. And just just a note on Cass,

[1:19:30] we would have it would have been nice if we could have gotten one more space removed,

[1:19:33] but like anything else, we compromised. Uh, but what's really nice is when they repaved middle,

[1:19:39] there's now like a bumpout that prevents you from parking. And that that parking space

[1:19:43] that's no longer there was the one that caused I think the the dangerous intersection by far.

[1:19:48] And now that you physically can't park there, I think we're going to have pretty good compliance.

[1:19:54] Thank you, Councelor Bagley. Um, Eric, just had a quick question on this just on the one that's the

[1:19:59] 15 minute. I know we've already done that. Um, but we made I mean that it's it's been there.

[1:20:04] Um but there was some there was a space or two that was leading up to the crosswalk there. Uh

[1:20:12] that was deleted. Um did we already pass that? Does this have to was that's separate from this.

[1:20:19] I'm not sure where exactly what if you have that. Sorry. Yeah. Daniel coming into Market Square. Um

[1:20:24] there used to be a parking spot just above like well um there there's a parking spot ahead of

[1:20:31] the the crosswalk and then it's removed as a no parking zone. I'm just curious on if that was

[1:20:37] is this on you Daniel heading into market. It's on the left side of the road. Yeah. Yeah. There

[1:20:41] there had been 15inute spaces there. There was a alleyway as well where there was no parking and

[1:20:46] a temporary crosswalk during construction. No, I'm actually talking about just right in front

[1:20:51] of Npalitano. Um, right. You know, um, right there. So, nope. Um, sorry. Right there. Yeah,

[1:20:58] that one. Again, I thought this was all in the same time horizon. I'm just wondering why that's

[1:21:04] uh where we uh where we deleted that one because it does seem, you know, it's like 25 ft from the

[1:21:11] crosswalk and I'm just wondering um is that something that I don't I don't recall that

[1:21:17] coming to the vote and I thought this was on the same one to put that in the omnibus. So,

[1:21:21] I'm just curious if that's something you can speak to. Yeah, I I don't recall that unless it was one

[1:21:27] that was removed because it was too close to the crosswalk. If you park, you know, you're

[1:21:31] not supposed to park right up to the edge of a crosswalk. You have to give it at least 20 feet,

[1:21:35] 30 feet at a stop sign. That may have been why it was removed. I I don't recall it coming to PTS for

[1:21:41] approval of that. Yeah. Okay. Um, are you I guess we can look into that and and report back, but I I

[1:21:50] don't recall removing that parking space as a as a measure. Well, we did remove it. Um, you know,

[1:21:57] I do remember because you can still like on Google Maps, you can still see where the line was before.

[1:22:02] Yeah. Um, I know we did shift things around that alleyway between the brick market where you

[1:22:07] can see the gap there in front of those colored spaces. That is now a parking space. So, we did

[1:22:12] shift things around in order to get more parking in that area. That that gap doesn't exist anymore.

[1:22:17] There is parking space there. So, okay. U maybe just a just a a flag. Um this doesn't affect that,

[1:22:26] but would love to know if we can put that parking space uh back in there. Um and what the is it it

[1:22:32] seems like there's room to the to the crosswalk. Uh maybe not the or just the actual crosswalk,

[1:22:38] not the white line that's before the crosswalk, but the actual crosswalk. Councelor Bagley,

[1:22:43] do you remember that one? No. But I remember walking downtown like a week ago and be like,

[1:22:47] "Oh, it looks like we lost a space." But it could be that when we gained more spaces further down,

[1:22:52] we just didn't we had like an orphan chunk of land and what used to be big enough isn't anymore for

[1:22:57] a space in that particular location. But I thought it might be a good time. Um, we've gotten a number

[1:23:02] of emails and a number of uh I think we even got like a letter from a downtown worker who

[1:23:07] lives elsewhere that is convinced that we can gain back like 250 parking spaces downtown by not um

[1:23:14] listening to setbacks. And if you walk downtown on State Street or Court Street or Pleasant, you'll

[1:23:19] see that the parking spaces often time go very close to the intersection or the stop sign because

[1:23:24] we've looked so the the 20 foot rule and the 15 rolls foot rules are kind of general guidelines

[1:23:31] for the city. Um but in parking intensive areas where the speeds are quite slow, um we can kind of

[1:23:40] adjust accordingly or we haven't taken away those parking spots proactively. But the the letter

[1:23:47] isn't really factually correct in the sense that a lot of those intersections we go right up to

[1:23:51] the or very close to the intersection with parking in a way that we wouldn't if it was like a a more

[1:23:56] rural non-down street. And I didn't know if you could speak to that, Eric, or about how we look at

[1:24:01] some intersections in the city very individually, but then we have a general rule for everywhere

[1:24:06] else. Yeah. Well, there is state law and city ordinance that when you're at an intersection

[1:24:11] with a stop sign, you must be 30 feet back from the stop line at that intersection to provide room

[1:24:16] for turning movements. And when there's not an stop sign, you must be 20 feet from the crosswalk

[1:24:21] at an intersection. And that 20 feet, you know, if there's no crosswalk, then it's measured from the

[1:24:26] curb line of the existing the side street. So when you have a radius involved, sometimes it can look

[1:24:31] like you're closer to that side street than you really are. But it's always a minimum of 20 feet

[1:24:35] that we must stay back from an intersection. And and I think that that letter that we received was

[1:24:41] asking us to allow parking within that 20 foot area because 20 feet is the length of a a car,

[1:24:46] you know, on average. Is there anything that prevents us from like what is the what's the

[1:24:52] governing authority on uh making a change and put cars before 20 ft? It's well the primary reason is

[1:25:00] for safety because when you park so close to an intersection then you can't see it blocks

[1:25:04] your sightelines coming out of the side street and so that's why the reason for the state law

[1:25:09] and the city ordinance prohibiting parking within 20 feet. So it's a state law. State law. Yep. 20

[1:25:15] and and 30 at a stop sign and as well as the city ordinance for 20. Okay. I guess just the um the

[1:25:22] areas of which it's rather congested and folks go, you know, somewhat slower. It'd be nice to know

[1:25:28] um you know where those are or if that law has changed because I'm looking at the space that I

[1:25:32] was mentioning earlier and it was there was no it wasn't moved back at all. It was simply the line.

[1:25:38] It used to go up and then diagonal and now it just kind of just start the diagonal of the no parking

[1:25:45] starts faster. So, I'd be interested to know if that was something that we had had previously that

[1:25:50] didn't comply with state law because I imagine there's some parts of her town that don't comply

[1:25:54] with state law because they're older than the state law, you know, that well, they're before

[1:25:59] the cars uh with errors and the streets were built. So it would be good to know about any of

[1:26:04] those areas where we could ask for dispensation from the state to and is that a process that we

[1:26:09] can you know because I know we have speed limits that are lower than 25 miles an hour and we have

[1:26:14] to ask to do that. So if there's you know any way that we could um uh put a report together to see

[1:26:22] if we could add parking request a waiver of the state there. Is that a process that we could go

[1:26:26] through for additional parking? Uh I I don't think you really have to ask permission from the state.

[1:26:30] It's more of a uh you know it's a safety feature is why parking is prohibited from an intersection.

[1:26:36] It's if you you could you we allow parking right up to the edges of driveways because we don't

[1:26:43] not a lot of traffic comes out of a driveway and they'll have to just deal with that occasionally.

[1:26:46] But when you're dealing with a public street you want to make sure you have safe sight lines for

[1:26:51] coming out of a street. Certainly and I and that's the reason why we're making that change on Cass

[1:26:55] because there wasn't the sightelines that are there and we're removing parking and that makes

[1:26:59] all the sense in the world. I'm just asking in terms of looking at the downtown given the speed

[1:27:04] of which cars are traveling in the downtown if you know the same uh if the same alignment for Cast

[1:27:11] Street and the decisions we're making there would have a different view when there's the cars are

[1:27:16] inherently going somewhat slower because of the traffic uh that exists there. But um we'll take

[1:27:22] that up in a separate motion or separate uh report back request. Oh, councelor Cook. Um thank you,

[1:27:28] your honor. Um I just wanted to point out that this intersection on that side in particular,

[1:27:34] a car that's parked there would not be blocking any sight line because there is not a road that

[1:27:40] is approaching Daniel right there because of Market Square because there's a large bump out

[1:27:46] there for the Market Square seating area. So you were at least 20 feet off um Pleasant Street there

[1:27:55] on that side. So I don't I don't know I if we moved it because we're close to an intersection,

[1:28:01] it it doesn't impact sight lines on that side and the intersection isn't on that side. It's

[1:28:06] on the other side of the street where we do have a bumpout that prevents additional parking. So

[1:28:11] um I think it's it's a reasonable um idea to look at that again and if it's feasible to add

[1:28:20] that parking spot back. Yeah, because that that 20 foot rule applies to side streets, intersections,

[1:28:25] as well as crosswalks. And I think the reason is it's it's a crosswalk distance is why it's

[1:28:29] there because when you have a cross a vehicle parked right up to the edge of a crosswalk and a

[1:28:34] pedestrian walks out in front of that parked car, you're not seeing him until he's all of a sudden

[1:28:37] in traffic. So, councelor Bagley, your honor, I might have inadvertently opened a can of worms.

[1:28:45] Uh, much like the 20 m per hour speed limit that we have places that may not 100% be in compliance.

[1:28:50] I think we may have some parking spaces downtown that are not 100% in compliant in compliance. So,

[1:28:56] I wouldn't want to do anything to uh trigger an audit. I mean, it's well, I think Eric mentioned

[1:29:05] that we don't have to. It's not a Is that something that is the I was guess unclear. Is

[1:29:10] the state going to make us change any of these things? No, but it's a city ordinance that you

[1:29:15] can't have the parking close to an intersection. So, you'd be going against a city ordinance if you

[1:29:21] allowed parking within 20 ft of an intersection. Okay. Um, understandably for and but that is a

[1:29:29] that's [clears throat] regardless of traffic uh speeds. Yes. Okay. I mean, is it possible to take

[1:29:35] a look at that from a standpoint of Is there do we do traffic speeds have any impact on the on

[1:29:42] the safety of the intersection and the requirement of 20 feet? Oh yes. I mean the the 20 ft is really

[1:29:47] insufficient for most speeds because the actual sight line is is so so short. If you have a car

[1:29:53] parked right up to the edge your sight lines are extremely limited and you know a vehicle going

[1:30:00] more than a couple miles an hour you wouldn't be able to see them or stop to them. Okay. Uh,

[1:30:05] Council Moro, just to follow up with that, let's keep in mind you need that 20 feet to also be able

[1:30:11] to parallel park into a parking spot. So, you're going to be pulling into a crosswalk if you're

[1:30:16] right on top of the crosswalk in order to get into the parking spot. Before I get anybody kind

[1:30:21] of reaching out to me like you know Devil Mayare attitude when it comes to parking I this was just

[1:30:27] a this was a parking spot that used to exist and then when we made the other changes that we're now

[1:30:33] approving right now it went away and it's not on the list of things that we are uh accepting

[1:30:38] as a part of the omnibus. And so I'm just trying to get to the bottom of where that parking spot

[1:30:42] change happened and maybe it happened in another omnibus bill that we passed. Um, but if it didn't,

[1:30:48] I just would like to know what the reasonings before it because it used it lived there for,

[1:30:52] you know, um, well, for as long as, you know, I can recall and now it's not there. And so,

[1:30:58] I thought it was a part of this one. It's not and I just want to figure out where it is. We'll

[1:31:01] provide a report back. All right. You need to open and close a public hearing. All right. Uh,

[1:31:06] opening the public hearing if anybody still wants to talk about uh, parking [clears throat] as it is

[1:31:12] currently and not changing any of that right now. Um seeing no one rise, no one on Zoom, closing the

[1:31:21] public hearing. Um now we will have a uh any other additional uh council questions. Seeing none,

[1:31:32] uh all in favor? I. Any opposed? Your honor, I'd like to suspend the rules and pass third and final

[1:31:39] reading. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? I forget. Do we have to do Did you

[1:31:50] say to? Yeah. Now we got to do the motion. Your honor, I move to pass third and final reading of

[1:31:55] the annual omnibus ordinance amending chapter 7 vehicles traffic parking article 3 traffic

[1:32:00] ordinance section 7.36 326A limited parking 15 minutes. Section 7.330A no parking and article 6

[1:32:11] loading zones. Section 7.601 limited hours loading zones with schedule 3. And pass third and final

[1:32:19] reading. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Next. Third and

[1:32:31] final reading of ordinance amendment chapter 12 building code section 1201 through 1209

[1:32:37] by deleting and replacing the entire chapter. I move to pass third and final reading of the

[1:32:42] amendment to chapter 12 building code section 121 through 1209 is presented. Second second

[1:32:52] uh biggest question looking at Jane did they accept they accepted our changes. All right happy

[1:32:58] days. Happy days. All right. All in favor I. Any opposed? Thank you Sean. You can turn us off now.

[1:33:08] All right. Uh public hearing continued from August 3rd, 2026 needing to set parking fees for on

[1:33:14] street and lot parking for FY27, $3 per hour for the first three hours and $6 per hour thereafter

[1:33:20] pursuant to chapter 1 administrative code article 16 adoption of fees section 1.1601 procedure.

[1:33:30] Your honor, I move to set parking fees for on street and lot parking for fiscal year 2027.

[1:33:35] $3 per hour for the first three hours and six per hour thereafter pursuant to chapter

[1:33:40] 1 administrative code article 16 adoption of fees section 1.1601 procedure uh we have

[1:33:49] the public hearing uh second for discussion second for discussion um uh public hearing

[1:33:58] uh we will I guess we could always continue it if we uh but we'll close the public hearing Um,

[1:34:06] seeing no one rise and no one on Zoom. Um, any discussion on this after uh this evening. We have

[1:34:12] some Oh, you do? Oh, sorry. I didn't see you, Sue. All right. Uh, opening the public hearing.

[1:34:17] You snuck back. You snuck back in. You didn't see you come back. Yeah. Um, I'm Susan Stary,

[1:34:24] Broad Street Portsmith. Does it I've read articles of the newspaper and everything. Does this change

[1:34:31] the resident rate? No. So technically or right now it's going to be a$125 for as long as I live here.

[1:34:41] No. [laughter] Um so it changes nothing in that in that area. And was there a study done on on this

[1:34:51] um raising it to three and then the six or I mean where did the figure come from? I'm just curious

[1:35:00] if that's possible. Uh the fee committee could speak to that or councelor Beagley. Um member

[1:35:05] of both um we raised the garage fees uh to $3 an hour and we raised the garage uh monthly passes.

[1:35:12] Uh best parking practices is your on street you want the most turnover. Right. So it should never

[1:35:18] be priced lower than the garages, which it is currently because of the Oh, okay. So So we're

[1:35:23] raising it so that it maintains its uh status as the the highest uh valued park in the city.

[1:35:30] Oh okay. So it in the future like if we raise parking in the garages the rate on streets will

[1:35:38] come up too probably presumably it would be up to the council at the time but that would be the

[1:35:42] best committee now committee gets to do both of them committ or council right which is approved

[1:35:48] by council. So but yeah best practices is your on street should always be your highest cost parking.

[1:35:54] So in theory, if in the future another council wanted to raise fees or prices,

[1:35:58] the the street parking would always be the highest number. Gotcha. And my one last question,

[1:36:04] how would this affect or does it affect with all the discussion going on about

[1:36:10] um workforce or yeah, parking downtown for service people, the wrap would remain the same. Um,

[1:36:18] but if a a service worker who is not a resident parked in a parking spot in Market Square,

[1:36:24] they would have a higher price because everybody that is not a resident now has a higher price in

[1:36:28] Market Square, for instance. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Sue. Apologies for closing

[1:36:34] the public hearing early. Um, now we'll close it. Uh, councelor Bagley. All right. So, your honor,

[1:36:42] um I I still have yet to have anybody give me any feedback on this change whatsoever

[1:36:47] other than what we could do with the money, but not the actual change in pricing. Um I do think

[1:36:54] this is an opportunity. I was looking at the signs today. They have the pricing on the sign. There's

[1:37:00] been some talk that maybe the workforce parking should be included in some of the signs or that

[1:37:05] maybe there's different verbiage we could use on the sign. I'm guessing we'll probably just put a

[1:37:10] sticker over the $2 to say $3 um in the short term, but this could be a good opportunity to

[1:37:18] get signs that are a little clearer. And I don't know what that means exactly, but if we're going

[1:37:21] to be changing a bunch of signs, let's not do it twice if we don't have to. Understood.

[1:37:29] Councelor Bo, thank you, honor. Uh I'm going to vote against this at this time. Um I just think

[1:37:33] this is not the right time to be adding on. Um, you know, I just feel like we've really

[1:37:41] I don't know, we have just kind of, you know, put a twister over portions of parking and uh

[1:37:46] really affected everyone's mental health and everything like that. And I I yeah,

[1:37:50] I'm not I'm not worried about dollars and cents right now. I'm worried about taking care of our

[1:37:54] people of our community. Um, so I'll be voting against this at this time. Thanks,

[1:37:58] Council Boa. Councelor Cook. Um, thank you, your honor. Um, so I want to know how how quickly and

[1:38:05] what we would need to do to change the workforce designation so that more people qualify for the

[1:38:11] workforce parking program. And the reason I'm asking that is that we received several emails

[1:38:17] from people who are saying they're spending $20 a day parking and and that tells me that

[1:38:22] they're not using the workforce program. And so um, I want to make sure that our workforce isn't

[1:38:27] negatively impacted by this increase in rates. And I think the best way to do that is to make

[1:38:32] sure that more people can actually enroll in the workforce parking program. And so I just

[1:38:38] want to know how quickly can we affectuate that change because it's not really written

[1:38:43] down anywhere in ordinance or anything how that is administered. I think it would be I think

[1:38:49] your I think it would be fair to provide all that information in a report back at the next meeting.

[1:38:56] Okay. Um other questions or comments? Council, um, could that report back just include like the if

[1:39:04] the founding garage is filling up and like when it is filling up? Um, because I have heard that, you

[1:39:09] know, our the supply we've provided for downtown worker uh, parking is sometimes not available.

[1:39:22] Fair point. I think one of the points that was made um in the uh or one of the requests was to

[1:39:30] be able to have more areas included in the uh the downtown worker parker program. Um you know that's

[1:39:38] if they're full uh then you know obviously uh $3 is a is a lot more uh to pay there. The issue

[1:39:46] that we're facing at the moment is the garages are uh we changed the garage before we changed

[1:39:50] the downtown worker parker. So the garages are now more expensive than the street parking the

[1:39:56] inverse of where we want to be. Um I understand the current situation. I just don't want to

[1:40:00] add anything else to, you know, our one of our marginal our most sensitive um community members,

[1:40:07] you know, um these people are just trying to make ends meet, you know, and we're just here's

[1:40:12] another, you know, it just Yeah. Not right now. If anything, I'd go back and let's go back and

[1:40:17] change the garage and lower that, you know what I mean? Let's go in that direction. Let's not keep

[1:40:21] climbing up this mountain that, you know what I mean? People are urging us not to climb up.

[1:40:25] Um, I just feel like we should maybe pause and listen maybe and try to, you know,

[1:40:30] instead of just stamping forward, but that's just me. Council, any other questions or comments,

[1:40:45] councelor Cook. Uh, thank you, your honor. Um, so what I think is critical is I I do understand the

[1:40:53] issue with the garage being priced um higher than on street parking and that absolutely

[1:40:58] should not be the case. Um, it goes against our parking principles. It goes against all

[1:41:04] of our planning and the way that we administer parking programs within the city. However,

[1:41:10] um we have to be able to move quickly on fixes for the workforce if they're having challenges

[1:41:17] with regard to parking. And that means our next meeting isn't until middle of September. So,

[1:41:24] if we make this change, that's a month of an additional dollar an hour parking and then an

[1:41:30] escalation to $6 an hour, which is an additional dollar more than they were paying for on street

[1:41:35] parking if they have to park in the downtown zone. So, if we're waiting for a report back

[1:41:41] in September, that means there's no action on that until at least probably October. And so,

[1:41:48] I'm concerned about that kind of timing. We could schedule another meeting. Your honor, I have a I

[1:41:53] have a potential modification. Perhaps a counselor could bring forth a request to modify the existing

[1:41:58] policy for the war worker program to specify the expansion for of the workforce program to include

[1:42:06] different folks um salaried versus otherwise. So that if that helps your line of thinking

[1:42:17] uh system mayor, thank you. Um, I think to to express my opinion, piggybacking off my fellow

[1:42:23] two counselors, the concern is that we know that whether whether it is um positive or negative,

[1:42:32] we know that downtown workers are parking on the street. And so I think part of the issue is that

[1:42:38] um as councelor Blakes that foundry does fill up. It we we've seen it several times over the summer

[1:42:43] that it's it's full between the the downtown Parker program, between regular between renters,

[1:42:49] between passholders, which is great. I mean, a couple years ago, I think nobody without

[1:42:54] boundary would ever fill up. Um, but you know, I I sympathize with the fact that we're making

[1:43:00] this change and we know um that there are people who and downtown employees and workers that park

[1:43:08] on the street. So, while we won't have a solution as councelor Cook said or we and and or we won't

[1:43:16] really have any um update about the RAT program until October. That is where um I struggle to vote

[1:43:27] yes for this understanding the logic of you know that we want them all to be the same rate. Um but

[1:43:36] it feels like it came backwards. Um, and now it feels like we are we're having to do this because

[1:43:47] we have to do it. Um, but yeah, I think again the acknowledgement that not everyone uses the

[1:43:54] the the work um first program. There's not always enough room for people in the work program. Um,

[1:44:01] and some people come in at five o'clock at night to a shift and they are running late and they park

[1:44:08] on the street. And I understand that the goal is turnover and turnover and turnover. That is

[1:44:12] the whole point of paid parking, but that's not always the reality of the paid parking.

[1:44:20] Agreed. Um, and I think so just uh really one quick point on the the mechanisms of this. So,

[1:44:26] a 4-hour stay is cheaper uh on uh the street than a garage. Um a fiveh hour stay

[1:44:34] um would be more expensive on the street than the garage. Yeah. Right. Because it goes to $5. So,

[1:44:40] I mean, at the end of the day, like it's kind of on the margin at the moment here. Um but

[1:44:46] um councelor uh Hopkins and then councelor Begler. So I while I do hear the workforce's

[1:44:54] concerns and you know it it's I do agree with the sentiment that this is a lot all at once. If we

[1:45:02] don't change this then we're going to run out of street inventory. If if it does take that time,

[1:45:09] you know, so then we're going to have tourists parking where we don't want them to park. So the

[1:45:14] parking behavior patterns would would shift in an unfavorable way. And you know that arguably

[1:45:21] could cause workforce folks to just not find a spot and have to circle should the parking on

[1:45:28] street continue to be cheaper than in the garage. I think we Sorry. Um councelor uh

[1:45:35] Bagley and then go back to assistant mayor. Um I I I think I'm going to vote in support tonight

[1:45:40] for for a couple reasons. The first is we're in the middle of a data collection exercise. Yes,

[1:45:45] this did come at the tail end of all the other changes, but procedurally it had to. There was

[1:45:49] no choice. We're in the middle of the summer season. This is when we want to collect the

[1:45:53] data on what this pricing change happens. Two other things are going to happen. One, with the

[1:45:58] increase in pricing, I think we're going to see a lot more residents sign up than we had previously,

[1:46:02] which I think is a great thing. So, all residents should be in this program. And we're going to see

[1:46:05] more workers sign up and we're going to get to see what the pressures are and are do those spare

[1:46:10] spots on Parrot Avenue go away? Do we need to do something with the Parrot Avenue lot? Um, and then

[1:46:15] I'll push back a little bit and this will make me incredibly unpopular, but you know, we've got

[1:46:20] storefronts downtown that are renting for $9,000, $10,000, $11,000 a month, and all that money goes

[1:46:26] to the landlord. Why is it that the Portsmith taxpayer who never goes downtown has to supply

[1:46:33] parking for that landlord? You know, why is it the system that the city is beholdened to provide

[1:46:40] parking for employees that work at a t-shirt company? Shouldn't that come from the t-shirt

[1:46:44] company and the landlord of the t-shirt company? I mean, we're talking about 30 cents an hour, which

[1:46:50] I a 50 cent an hour bump in pay would support the parking cost. Now, there's a lot of arguments to

[1:46:58] be made, but there's a lot of economic vitality in this town that's not downtown. We have the trade

[1:47:04] port. We have all the the companies out on Route One. We have all the companies out towards MA

[1:47:09] Market Basket. We've got a lot of commercial and office businesses in this town that provide their

[1:47:16] own parking lots and they pay for those parking lots. They pay property taxes on those parking

[1:47:20] lots. They pay to have them plowed. They pay to have them lit. Downtown, if you own a building,

[1:47:26] in a lot of cases, you don't pay any of the parking overhead. And I think it's unreasonable

[1:47:31] to expect that Portsmith residents bear 100% of that burden. And if a landlord can only get

[1:47:37] $8,000 a month for his downtown storefront instead of $10,000 a month, I think that's actually a good

[1:47:44] thing. And we're going to see a return of downtown resident focused businesses. And it's painful, but

[1:47:51] it has to be said if we want to go down this road of just tourism and we keep our residents from

[1:47:56] the downtown, I don't think that's a good path. We've gotten a number of emails from residents.

[1:48:01] We had re residents reach out. Some come tonight. I go downtown more now because I can find parking.

[1:48:08] Don't we want a downtown that the people that live here want to visit? Isn't that like a good thing?

[1:48:16] Um, councelor or uh assistant mayor and then Hey counselor um I councelor Frankly I would say that

[1:48:24] nobody's arguing against that that this council has very vocally tried to bring residents back

[1:48:30] downtown. I would argue that that same argument of a property owner could be argued against the south

[1:48:39] end to say you bought your house with one parking spot. That's your why should your neighbors over

[1:48:44] in Elwin Park be responsible to make sure that you have more parking. Like um I also think we

[1:48:52] have to make sure that we're categorizing downtown property owners and businesses very differently.

[1:48:57] We heard tonight that there are, you know, employees of much larger companies like

[1:49:02] Novaccure using that using the downtown partners program, which I'm okay with, but you know, you

[1:49:09] are we are in this discussion comparing a small business who the majority of the small businesses

[1:49:17] downtown don't own their property. They they're they're renters. And so by saying, you know,

[1:49:25] it's not our responsibility, it's the landlord's responsibility. Well, we've seen what happens. The

[1:49:30] landlords are using private companies to monetize those lots more. When it used to be you would show

[1:49:37] up at for your 5:00 shift, you know, you'd be five minutes late because you'd be parking at a bank.

[1:49:42] Now that bank, that bigger corporate company is monetizing in a way that the little people even

[1:49:48] if they own the property cannot monetize the same way. So I think we have to be careful about when

[1:49:55] we're when we're doing the generalizations of well a downtown landlord as a former tenant we were

[1:50:00] lucky enough to be able to buy a small space but we were one of those businesses paying $8,500 to

[1:50:05] $9,000 a month um for a commercial lease with no help or no parking or no anything. So,

[1:50:12] and my landlord was banking all that money. So, the question is if we're going to say the

[1:50:18] onus falls on somebody, how do you then it's a trickle down? You're then putting the onus

[1:50:23] on the small business that is locally owned. We are seeing a higher concentration of larger

[1:50:30] corporate companies coming in, retailers coming in because they can foot that bill.

[1:50:36] So when we talk about wanting to bring more local downtown um centric businesses,

[1:50:43] those are the little ones that are owned by the mom and pops that live here, the Gus and Rubies,

[1:50:48] you know what I mean? The series, the the the Cali Bees that don't the majority of time don't

[1:50:55] own their buildings. And so if we want more of those and less of no offense to them, but less of

[1:51:03] fat faces or the cheap overload or these larger corporations, then we have to do something. Um,

[1:51:11] so I I just think we have to make sure that we're very careful when we talk about like a landlord's

[1:51:17] getting well what a landlord is getting and what profit that small business is making

[1:51:22] are [clears throat] big deltas. Thanks, assist mayor. Councelor Bla. Thank you. Um we actually

[1:51:29] the history reports we used to actually make uh businesses pay for the spaces in front of their

[1:51:35] business. So the businesses used to not move ever. Um I remember talking to the owners of the you

[1:51:40] know rusty Russell Tammer. Um you know and then he would it one of the best things we did was remove

[1:51:47] that fee so then it allowed small businesses to open up without this extra cost. Um and downtown

[1:51:54] has been built by these small businesses by these restaurants. I mean, back in the 70s,

[1:51:58] it wasn't a place you wanted to go. You wouldn't let your kids go down there. Um, we used to have

[1:52:03] to walk our waitresses back to their cars because girls were getting murdered in the 80s. Like,

[1:52:08] I don't know if you've understand how they've contributed to our community. Um, I mean, it

[1:52:13] takes a village. It takes all of us, but they're part of it. Council Council Cook. Um, thank you,

[1:52:21] your honor. So, so what I'm really struggling with is this. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Several of

[1:52:28] the individuals who were here tonight have told me that they are not part of the workforce parking

[1:52:33] program. And the reason they're not part of the workforce parking program is they work full-time,

[1:52:38] they're salaried, or they're a business owner and they don't take a paycheck. So,

[1:52:42] they have no proof to show besides their lease and um guess they could open their books to to

[1:52:48] the city to show that they work downtown. And um as a result they either now if they don't get a

[1:52:56] spot on on parrot they are and they don't get a spot in the parrot lot or the Masonic lot which

[1:53:02] Masonic lot actually fills in the morning. The parrot lot is almost always full by the way they

[1:53:07] have to park at Pierce Island where they don't feel safe because they're leaving at midnight

[1:53:11] um from their business after they close up shop. And I can while Portsmouth seems relatively safe

[1:53:19] um and I feel like it's very safe um at night walking around in dark areas. As a woman I can

[1:53:27] understand how anyone might feel unsafe walking to Pierce Island. Um, so their only choice they

[1:53:35] feel many times is to park on the street and to pay the full rate or to park off site until it's

[1:53:41] a little bit later and they can sneak out and grab the car and move it and then they park it on the

[1:53:46] street so they're only paying for, you know, four hours of parking on street. So my concern is that

[1:53:52] we're disenfranchising the people who are running our small businesses downtown because they're not

[1:53:58] part of our workforce parking program and we haven't allowed them to join. And so I want

[1:54:02] to make sure that we're we're including them all before we change a rate downtown in our parking.

[1:54:11] In terms of sequencing, uh, if the council were to uh, to find consensus and support this item

[1:54:17] tonight, which is in keeping with the parking principles, as [snorts] a matter of sequencing, we

[1:54:23] now need to order and install the signage. We need to get messaging out. So, in reality, this parking

[1:54:29] increase would not take effect until October 1st. So, what I'm suggesting um for your consideration

[1:54:36] is you could define as a council eligibility for the downtown worker parking program on September

[1:54:42] 14th. You could if if you saw in keeping with the vote tonight, take this vote tonight knowing that

[1:54:49] this would not take effect until October 1st. So, just for your consideration. Thank you,

[1:54:55] city manager. Uh councelor Hopkins. Um, one thing I'd like to because I'd like to mention here

[1:55:02] whenever um, folks have asked for exceptions or, you know, certain programs or can I, you know, buy

[1:55:12] something at a at a resident rate even though I'm a non-resident. The answer that I've gotten from

[1:55:17] our parking staff is it would have to be equitable across all companies. like we cannot just pick and

[1:55:23] choose which businesses we give benefit to and which we don't. So whenever we look at I think

[1:55:30] changes are warranted but keeping in mind it's I and you know the city attorney can correct me if

[1:55:37] I'm wrong but from the the the sense that I get from the folks in our parking department are that

[1:55:43] it's just well it's not equitable and it might not be legal to provide certain exceptions for certain

[1:55:50] people and not others. So when we're looking at this, we really do have to look at all businesses,

[1:55:56] the Sheran and Saras Bakery would get the same benefit or not because then that just

[1:56:02] opens up a whole other can of worms. So while there is definitely a big, you know,

[1:56:07] delta in in pay and um profits and whatnot and revenue, um I from what I have heard, it's that

[1:56:17] we just we can't delineate. It's either all or none of our businesses for programs like this.

[1:56:28] Is that accurate?

[1:56:32] I think that you've made a good argument as to why you might have certain classifications

[1:56:38] that would help defend your classifications. But, you know, I'm giving you a off the top

[1:56:44] of my head. [laughter] Okay. in terms of like income eligibility or things like that. I also,

[1:56:49] you know, I think running a um there's limits of what like our our you know process allows us uh

[1:56:58] to do in some levels. Um but you know uh that's useful information and it seems like I guess I

[1:57:05] was surprised to find that um uh members of the uh or councelor Hopkins was it your husband that

[1:57:16] qualifies for Novvicure? He does. So and Novakare pays for you know he he gets reimbursed for

[1:57:22] parking at Foundry. Okay. So, but the the through the worker rate or through uh no rate. When he

[1:57:30] feels like showing up to show his payub, he'll get the worker rate and when he doesn't No just pays

[1:57:36] the full rate. Okay. So, that's why I don't know. I would love to see that where that's written down

[1:57:41] in the sal because he is full-time salaried. Yeah. He gets the stickers at Foundry. It's not

[1:57:47] written down anyway. Okay. Councelor Beley, I I'll just make one more point where, you know, we're

[1:57:53] concerned about the the raise in parking. Um, in 2024, we did the state mandated reevaluation. And

[1:57:59] by and large, uh, for instance, I own roughly a median household value home and it went from

[1:58:06] uh roughly 7,500 a year in taxes to 9,500 a year in taxes that year. It was a $2,6 increase in

[1:58:12] taxes. I looked up a lot of downtown businesses. Um, a lot of them actually saw a reduction in

[1:58:18] taxes that year because their valuation didn't rise nearly as fast. It went up, but it didn't

[1:58:22] rise as fast as residential. And in fact, the hotels collectively paid over $300,000 less in

[1:58:28] taxes that year because of the readjustment and the revaluation. So, the residents really got hit

[1:58:34] hard with the revaluation because the cost of residential relative to commercial changed so

[1:58:38] much. Now, albeit it went up a lot less on places like Peas than in our downtown commercial sector.

[1:58:43] And some places saw uh some of the downtown places saw evaluations rise as much as residential. But,

[1:58:50] you know, as a question of fairness, my job as a counselor, I have to think of residents first. And

[1:58:56] we're in a budget scenario because of downshifting everything else, inflationary pressures where

[1:59:00] we're reducing our headcounts in the schools. You know, I I've got to think of all of the competing

[1:59:06] things that happen as a city. And I think this is the right move. And yes, it's painful. And yes,

[1:59:10] it's going to cost people more money. But the people that live here that never go downtown,

[1:59:14] they are paying substantially more in taxes than they did prior to the re revaluation. And a lot of

[1:59:20] the commercial properties are either paying less in taxes or almost the same in taxes as they did

[1:59:25] prior to the re revaluation. So I I think there's a lot at play here and and I'll be supporting this

[1:59:31] because of that. Councelor Begley, any other uh discussion? Mayor, I'm sorry. Thank you,

[1:59:39] Counc. Um, you know, I agree that we heard from a lot of residents that are in support of this,

[1:59:46] particularly those residents that are in those neighborhoods, but I feel like coupled with

[1:59:51] some of those comments were like, and we are sympathetic and empathetic to what the workers

[1:59:59] in town, the people that I mean, I think it's fair to say that is why people go down, right? you got

[2:00:04] to have these places open and vibrant and you need workers and it's just this is you know it's just

[2:00:10] been another piling on of costs uh for people. So it's it is hard for me to think about saying yes

[2:00:19] to this even though I know that this is a part of the parking behaviors and that we need to do this

[2:00:25] to make it competitive but it's a tough um pill to swallow. You know, I heard from a lot of residents

[2:00:32] who were like, "Support the workers. This is like, [clears throat] you know, this is why we're going

[2:00:38] into town. This is a really, really tough thing." I know that there's a I mean, intellectually I

[2:00:42] understand it, but another part of me is like, uh, it doesn't feel like a good time to do it,

[2:00:48] you know, which is I think why you brought it up to begin with, council. You know, put

[2:00:52] the brakes on the last meeting. Um, I don't have a resolution, but Thank Council fun. Councelor Cook.

[2:01:00] Um your honor, I have a legal question. If we move to continue the continue um consideration until

[2:01:10] the September 14th meeting, um would that be too late to implement the changes um by October 1st?

[2:01:20] What are the changes again? the signage and the computers signage and messaging to folks and that

[2:01:26] grace period we typically give them where we don't enforce the increase in the fee. It's not really

[2:01:33] if that your question was about notice and public hearing. Yeah, we don't need to worry about that,

[2:01:40] but it's more the implementation issues about that hiring the purchase of signs installation.

[2:01:47] Assistant mayor, I feel like while I'm not in support of this, the the delay of it then somewhat

[2:01:58] feels I this is probably going to be the wrong word, but punitive towards residents as we're

[2:02:04] coming out of high tourist season that we are, you know, it's almost like the longer we wait,

[2:02:10] the worse it is because now it's say November when it's one of the lowest tourist months and we want

[2:02:16] residents to come back, you know, say like, "Hey, it's time to reclaim. We've we've kicked them out.

[2:02:21] Those 16 weeks are gone." And now we're like, "And you know, the res." Well, if I could Okay, if you

[2:02:31] haven't remembered to sign up, which we know that there are a lot of res residents who still don't

[2:02:35] do it, you know, it can be seen as it can be seen as a little punitive, but that's my only concern

[2:02:43] with pushing it or like now we're kicking it into the holiday season when we're asking people again.

[2:02:50] So, I I don't feel like there's any good time except there's never the now. Never a good time.

[2:02:55] Uh, councelor Cook, thank you, your honor. Um my my concern is I just want to make sure that we

[2:03:02] don't that we don't somehow fail to change income eligibility or something in September that we vote

[2:03:10] if we make vote to make this change. I don't want to be in a position that we turn around

[2:03:13] and we don't make some of the individuals who are ch are struggling with this eligible then for the

[2:03:20] program. So, um, without that kind of information tonight, I guess I feel kind of challenged,

[2:03:26] um, as to to make this decision without knowing what their eligibility will be. So,

[2:03:34] councelor Beagley, parliamentary question. If this was to fail tonight, how does it get brought back?

[2:03:41] Because we can't bring back something if it fails unless and I know there's like a certain Robert's

[2:03:45] rules of order of how you would it would be somebody that would have to have voted against it.

[2:03:49] would have to bring it back in the future. I believe it's somebody who voted for it would

[2:03:55] have to then move to reconsider and you do that at the time of the vote. You have to be somebody on

[2:04:04] the winning side of the vote. Not necessarily for against it, but the winning portion of the vote.

[2:04:08] Is that correct? Right. That's what I believe. If it didn't pass, it would be have to be somebody

[2:04:12] that voted no tonight. Sorry. To bring it back. Right. And The rule specifically is that you make

[2:04:20] that motion at the time the same night as the vote that you're going to move to reconsider it. Not at

[2:04:27] a subsequent meeting. Not at a subsequent meeting. So if we vote this down tonight,

[2:04:33] does that mean it doesn't buy us anymore? I'm confused about orderations. If it doesn't pass,

[2:04:38] can we not ever bring it back at $3? If it doesn't pass and you want to reconsider it at the next

[2:04:47] meeting, you would make the motion to reconsider it after it doesn't pass. Okay. Might be to reopen

[2:04:55] the public hearing and to continue this matter to table it. Yeah. So, okay, I'll um pass the gabble

[2:05:03] to so assistant mayor keeps me um on point. Um, I think that I don't I think it was Margot

[2:05:11] uh that was offering uh um some cervical collars uh when it comes to [laughter] uh to this and all

[2:05:19] of the things I think are are accurate. I think that everybody um that would come in would speak

[2:05:24] about wanting walkability. Um want to move us into a direction of less cars. Um at the same time

[2:05:31] there are some realities that exist for those uh workers that are commuting in um that don't have

[2:05:37] necessarily one the luxury to come to meetings uh and pay attention what city council does. I mean

[2:05:46] that it takes a lot of time. Um and it takes a lot of Yeah. It just simply takes time and

[2:05:51] so they could be working uh during this time and many I think when we were having a conversation

[2:05:57] um about this or it was being the conversation was happening was the feeling of parking right now is

[2:06:04] $2 an hour and it's going to $3 an hour. Um and more of our free parking is being taken

[2:06:09] away. And while that is accurate, it doesn't reflect that there is an extension and expansion

[2:06:14] of the downtown worker parker program that I I believe right now needs some tweaks um and

[2:06:22] needs some improvements. Ger Cook and others have spoken about the you know to include more people

[2:06:27] uh as a part of that. That's one I think the idea of making passes easier to get and

[2:06:32] potentially expanding what those passes uh would get you uh would be a second one. Um, you know,

[2:06:39] even things that are further a field of, you know, are we talking about using the app? Are

[2:06:44] we talking about using, you know, some sort of just uh, you know, you you buy a permit and,

[2:06:50] you know, that gets you into the system where you can just park at the resident rates, you know,

[2:06:54] regardless. But all of those things I feel as though need more time uh to discuss as a part

[2:07:01] of this program because simply the fact that we're going to change this is what will happen

[2:07:07] if we vote for this this evening according to me. Um the uh the res or the folks that came will uh

[2:07:14] feel as though uh we listened to them and then we simply changed uh the parking rate. Anyways,

[2:07:20] now I feel we have to change the parking rate. Like that is something that I've been, you know,

[2:07:26] like there is a a lot of people that come to to park here and you know, well, if you park in a

[2:07:32] private lot, we have no control over what rates they set. We've tried to be able to get them to

[2:07:38] uh at least sign the fact that it's not a city lot, but they're you're paying 10 bucks an hour

[2:07:43] to park in one of those rates um or park in one of those uh spots, you know, and we would be charging

[2:07:50] $3 and we can use that difference to fund more things like a transit loop or things like that.

[2:07:55] So, it's right now a couple of things I think need to happen in order for us to pass, which I think,

[2:08:02] you know, I agree with councelor Blew and you know, I I I don't want to put words in his mouth,

[2:08:07] but not right now. Meaning not before we have a better clarified plan of what is going to

[2:08:12] occur with the workers, which I, you know, would love for the landlords to take care of,

[2:08:17] but um it's not it's something that's currently um there right now. Um two,

[2:08:24] uh what we're going to use some of that um extra money that we will create as a part of, you know,

[2:08:30] doing this. Right now, it's going into the parking fund, you know, to creating a third

[2:08:33] garage. I would like to, you know, uh, have a better plan in terms of are we gonna fund a,

[2:08:39] uh, fund a shuttle loop or some of the other things that have come up, you know, uh,

[2:08:43] currently. But I just think that, you know, and it's literally the idea of thinking about parking

[2:08:49] for another two and a half weeks. Um, is not something that I want to do, but unfortunately,

[2:08:57] parking is something that everybody thinks about every single day. And we need to figure out I

[2:09:02] believe that we need to figure out a better uh worker parker program that would seem as though

[2:09:08] is an actual benefit even if it's not the you know even if it's not perfect. Heard some ideas that we

[2:09:14] could implement uh this evening and then come back as a way to fund some of those changes an increase

[2:09:20] of the parking uh rates for tourists and you know uh non-residents. um you know lost in this is

[2:09:27] the volunteers and I think there's been some work made on the volunteer uh you know lots that could

[2:09:32] be opened up to to that but I think that even though this is something that makes economic sense

[2:09:39] uh can certainly fund some of the things that we need to take down the problem put more people in

[2:09:44] the garages this is something that I will um eventually support but want to be able to have

[2:09:50] a better uh a better action action plan for the workers that are going to not have followed any

[2:09:58] of this, not signed up for any of E's petitions and, you know, will be surprised when they're late

[2:10:06] for work uh and have to park on the street and look at, okay, well, uh the first uh the first

[2:10:12] hour of my uh first hour of my day is going to to parking. So, I think we just need a little

[2:10:18] bit more time to figure out, you know, how do we extend the parking program to more people and

[2:10:22] then raise the rates in order to justify expending the additional money that we will spend on that.

[2:10:33] So, I think you have a motion second. We have a motion and a second to pass as presented. Um, I

[2:10:41] would uh I would support if um uh council moral I would like to float the idea of what if we amended

[2:10:51] the motion that it wouldn't take effect to a specific date. So that would give us time to look

[2:10:57] at, but we'd still have we'd be able to change some of the policies around the employee program,

[2:11:03] possibly even expand it, but at the same time, at least we would have this piece. I think we have

[2:11:09] one shot at this to be honest, and I don't know if it's passing the and I understand all the reason

[2:11:14] to do it. And I certainly understand the fact that this is going to be very painful going forward and

[2:11:19] having this conversation at a third or fourth council meeting after having this conversation

[2:11:24] for seven different uh council meetings before that. Uh my concern is that we don't control

[2:11:30] the conversation in Portsouth. Uh meaning that we can't talk to every individual and we can't have

[2:11:35] a conversation with hey we have a plan for this. What is going to come out of this I fear is going

[2:11:40] to be we had a work session council went forward with raising rates to $3 and what's going to be

[2:11:46] lost in that nuance is the efforts that we've made for the Parker programming just having one

[2:11:52] in general what we're trying to do to expand that and I think that if we do change the if we change

[2:11:58] the rates before we have a plan that at least is in the ether of hey this is like how we're going

[2:12:04] to use that money to expand access to what you have and ultimely ultimately some of the plans

[2:12:09] of how do we get more cars off the road, make it an easier way to get into Portsouth. You know,

[2:12:13] take, you know, the million dollars that we give to Coast and say we're going to generate another

[2:12:16] million from this. What can we do to reduce our dependence on, you know, cars commuting? If we

[2:12:21] have a credible story for that, it's a win. If we do this and then come and try to scribble

[2:12:26] out what we're going to figure out, I just don't see that is going to be the I just don't think

[2:12:32] that we're going to have the ability to control the conversation because we don't control any

[2:12:37] conversation that happens in Portsouth. I mean, this is the only room we control. Um, and even

[2:12:42] then, it's limited. Um, and so I would say that if we could come up with a more concrete plan of how

[2:12:48] we're going to expand the worker parker program and delay the increase in the on street rates,

[2:12:53] even though it doesn't affect residents right now and there's place for the workers to find parking,

[2:12:59] it's not going to be $3. I think we're going to lose out on an opportunity. Even though I know and

[2:13:04] like I I can't express how much I would like to, you know, have this kind of recede into, you know,

[2:13:12] uh just expect it. But we have a chance to do not business as normal and figure out a pathway to

[2:13:18] engage more citizens and more, you know, other folks uh that aren't citizens of Portsouth,

[2:13:23] but are part of our community. Councelor Bagley. Um I I tend to agree and I greatly respect your

[2:13:30] opinion may there but I tend to agree um with council Maro or passing it tonight and delaying

[2:13:37] it in a sense so there's a chance to make those modifications. We had a lot of people

[2:13:41] show up today. We have a lot of visibility. We don't pass it tonight and I think a lot

[2:13:46] of people are going to think okay we won that battle and three months from now we're going to

[2:13:50] raise prices a dollar in the middle of you know going into the winter season. And I I

[2:13:55] think we either pass it tonight or we put this on the shelf for a couple years. A couple years.

[2:14:04] Okay. So, um is there not a motion? Okay. Councelor Cook. Um thank you,

[2:14:09] your honor. Um this is a legal [clears throat] question. Um because this is raising revenue,

[2:14:14] what is the vote required? Is it just a majority or do we need a twothirds? I think it's for your

[2:14:19] fees. So, it would just be a majority. Okay. Thank you, councelor Bo. Thank you, honor. Um, so just

[2:14:27] to reiterate my perception of the situation right now, I feel like we've kind of kicked them on the

[2:14:33] ground, right? We've kicked the employees, the downtown workers on the ground. They're lying

[2:14:36] on the ground right now. We don't want to kick them again. All right. But if we could come up

[2:14:40] with a plan and say, "Hey, we're including you in this plan. We have a solution. Once we find that,

[2:14:46] then we can go back and take care of business and and make sure all the numbers work out and

[2:14:51] everything like that. But until you get there, you've kicked them down. You can't just be like,

[2:14:55] "Hey, sorry. This is, you know, we already just kick them." Um,

[2:14:59] that's that's going to be the perception. I promise you. So, let's just be sensitive. Like,

[2:15:07] they all came here. We had,900 signatures. U there's people that couldn't speak tonight because

[2:15:12] we spoke for 45 minutes of the work session. So, there's some people that were residents and

[2:15:17] business owners and they couldn't stay. They had to leave. Um, so there's no reason to rush this,

[2:15:21] but we got to do it right, guys. Thank the mayor. I have a parliamentary inquiry. [laughter] Um,

[2:15:30] and it's not it's directly but undirectly related to this. Um, for not a motion to be made tonight,

[2:15:38] but if we wanted to say at our next meeting, amend our pilot program to remove parrot a

[2:15:50] Is that something that could be done separating it apart from this? Correct. Yeah. This passes,

[2:15:58] this goes through. Is it possible for a counselor to make a motion for Well, I

[2:16:04] think your wrap program is a policy that you have currently. So, you have to be moving to amend your

[2:16:12] policy. I thought it was an ordinance. It's It's a policy. I think I'm looking for confirmation,

[2:16:21] but I think it was a pilot policy. Policy that kept following the packet as it went on. Yes.

[2:16:27] Right. Yeah. So to change it is not it would not be it would not be three readings all Okay.

[2:16:36] Right. Okay. So is that allows me to consider I'm looking for firm confirmation from Jane making

[2:16:46] moves? She said confirmation of the parrot listed in the ordinance. Great. I thought I knew some

[2:16:54] part of it was some part of it. So parrot lot versus a wrap. Yes, you are. Everyone's right.

[2:17:02] I'm a lawyer. Um the um the policy is um one that the council adopted and that is the rap program.

[2:17:15] However, you also adopted an ordinance on the wrap zone which includes and lists paradav. So

[2:17:24] that is in fact an ordinance. So it's in the it's paradaves baked in the ordinance

[2:17:31] and it's also I believe part of the uh part of the policy part of the policy as well.

[2:17:38] Just just a timeline question and I know this is throwing a wrench in people and I do apologize

[2:17:43] but I just want to put out the scenario. If this passed tonight and then it's September 17th 14th

[2:17:51] that meeting um a change to the RAP a potential change to the RAP pilot pro pilot program

[2:17:59] um was brought first for first reading then a second reading um it could fall within the same

[2:18:05] timeline of the implementation of the change of fees. It could if I could just address that. Um so

[2:18:12] if September 14th it was first reading to remove parrot then the first meeting in October would be

[2:18:23] public hearing second and if you suspended your rules to pass third and final it would be the

[2:18:30] first week in October that you could conceivably remove parrot through the ordinance and all you'd

[2:18:37] have to do is remove it from your policy once. you don't have to do the second and third. So

[2:18:43] conceivably it could time with early October and that's helpful. And I bring this up for for two

[2:18:49] two sides of the coin. Obviously we heard a lot from the workers of that space. We have had you

[2:18:55] know no movement of what we are really going to do for volunteers for library overflow. We're hearing

[2:19:02] from those other neighborhoods forward that they're seeing more overflow now. So in hindsight

[2:19:09] with obviously with and I part apologies Carl Ben and everyone that loves the data that even

[2:19:15] without the data we're we're already starting to see minor ripples and repercussions that

[2:19:20] are only going to potentially grow. So, I just want to put it out there timelinewise. If we're

[2:19:27] thinking that this if this passed tonight and we're thinking that it's Octoberish timeline

[2:19:33] um for um this to really be implemented, I just would wonder if that's the base that

[2:19:41] I'm wondering that in that same timeline, could we possibly amend the RAP program to remove what

[2:19:50] seems to be one of the artillery zones that have really triggered people, which is that paradise.

[2:19:58] That's all. Sorry guys. I just wanted to make sure I was Could we change it faster if we just

[2:20:03] change the fee on it? Like Yeah. This is just like on the parro a lot or the parrot a not

[2:20:12] the lot. Not the lot. Is if we just change the parrot a could we just remove the fee from that

[2:20:16] without three readings because fee is now moved. Right. I'd have to review the what we say in the

[2:20:24] ordinance. The paradav I believe is specifically called out for the worker parking program and the

[2:20:31] rates in the ordinance. Look at it again, but that's my recollection. You could pull it from

[2:20:39] from everything, you know, and you could again the timing of whatever ordinance you want to

[2:20:46] change could be done with um in early October if you did whatever you want. first reading in

[2:20:55] September 14th and then uh public hearing second early October meeting and then suspend rules third

[2:21:03] and final. But that would require consensus. Yes. And so that's what's tough with something like

[2:21:10] this with so many different elements. Yeah. That are just being brought to the council's

[2:21:16] attention. You know, how do we want to adjust and move forward? How do we amend these pilot

[2:21:22] this pilot over the next year? And do we do we amend it or do we just run the I just wanted

[2:21:28] to get clarification of timeline that if it's something that came up that we wanted to amend it

[2:21:34] um it could be potentially done within a period of time where these fees would be enacted. The

[2:21:42] the other issue is you know this is obviously a new process with fees being adopted by the by

[2:21:48] the council. Um I am trying to recall the what was in the actual budget for the for the wrap rate as

[2:21:58] well. I believe that came forward in in the budget approval if I'm not mistaken as as well. So again,

[2:22:06] you have a hearing, you can change your fees. Um but we wrapped an ordinance um prior to that

[2:22:17] change. You know what I mean? We we created that ordinance before uh it was determined

[2:22:23] that that you you guys would just pass parking fees as fees at one hearing as a post ordinance.

[2:22:34] Sorry, I just Well, we certainly had enough, you know, like we've extended the meetings on that

[2:22:39] and the that quick change, but uh councelor Cook and then council mor. Thank you, your honor. Thank

[2:22:43] you, Jane. Um I think it's important to remember that the reason that there's availability for the

[2:22:49] workforce parking program right now on Parrot A is that that is now metered. Whereas before, Paradav

[2:22:56] was always full almost 247, lots of long-term parkers. So we would be removing the availability

[2:23:04] of the workforce parking program there. So they might actually lose parking spots, not gain it by

[2:23:10] taking parrot away and making it available for everyone again because really there was a lot

[2:23:18] of long-term parking. Is there a timeline limit on par? What was that question? 72 hours have

[2:23:24] is also 72. Everywhere in the city is 72 hours everywhere. Um and So the parro aav lot um and

[2:23:33] parro a simply just have that 72-hour requirement everywhere um in the entire even in front of your

[2:23:40] house but we don't enforce it there. Councelor Bagley um council moral I mean we've received

[2:23:46] several emails from residents specifically about paradav and how they're coming downtown more to

[2:23:50] shop or coming downtown more to volunteer because they can find parking on paradav. I'd be against

[2:23:55] removing paradav because that seems to be the part that's working the best in the whole system.

[2:24:02] I mean, if we want people to be able to come downtown that live here in town and we've

[2:24:06] given them a opportunity to get downtown and have a decent chance of finding parking with

[2:24:11] a relatively easy walk into town, to me that looks like a win. I'm not saying it's not. I'm

[2:24:17] just council. I'm pretty sure I remember from fee study committee that we actually set the 30

[2:24:26] cent per hour plus transaction fee and the other fees. So we didn't actually put the fees in the

[2:24:32] ordinance. We actually put it up to the fee study committee. That's I remember because I remember

[2:24:38] at fees committee we actually set that. That makes sense. Yeah. I just because we were talking before

[2:24:44] that the fee was in the ordinance. I don't I think we pulled all these out and put it to the peakly

[2:24:50] for for precisely that reason to give flexibility. Correct. So that the council could make those

[2:24:55] changes with just one hearing in the middle of the program if we wanted to. Just wanted to remind

[2:25:01] everyone of that. Yeah. Because [clears throat] weren't we thinking about changing the wrap area

[2:25:07] program um as a part of the ordinance previously because it had been different than it was in the

[2:25:14] garages? Correct. because it had originally they were matching the garage and we wanted to match

[2:25:18] the on street parking. So we set the wrap period the wrap rate to equal whatever the on street

[2:25:25] downtown rate was without escalation. Okay. I mean, so conceivably we could amend this to say

[2:25:32] um you know, the uh the rate goes to uh zero dollars uh per hour uh provided you

[2:25:40] are a downtown employee on the Paradav and people Paradise Street. Parad Street. Yes. Oh my god. Do

[2:25:47] not say that. [laughter] We're gonna change the Yeah. So, but I'm just saying we could do that.

[2:25:54] Um still require workers to sign up. Uh uh to get the uh the pass and the parking. Um and

[2:26:02] conceivably the enforcement of that would be paid for by the increased parking rates that we would

[2:26:07] have otherwise supported, but we would need to renotice. That would be a substantial substantial

[2:26:14] change and would need to have this at the next meeting if that was the case. Right. Again,

[2:26:19] it's it's this is not an ordinance. It's a fee change and it's kind of a new process. But given

[2:26:25] that that would be a substantial change, I would suggest another public hearing. And let me just

[2:26:34] note if we do that, um, we are going to be pushing a lot of the workforce onto Parrot,

[2:26:39] who would normally be parking in Foundry. So, um, we're going to have to potentially expand

[2:26:46] that space to maybe even the Parrot lot. And I'm saying that because I know that our middle school

[2:26:52] workers will be coming back to work in this month and suddenly we're going to occupy a lot of Parrot

[2:26:59] Avenue with them parking in that zone. So, I'm sorry, Cook. I guess I would I would um we talk

[2:27:10] about this con continuously about the about the school teach school employees. I would have to be

[2:27:18] under the assumption or I am under the assumption that at some point someone from city hall as we've

[2:27:24] developed this project has talked to the school about and if they were they are not charged

[2:27:29] they're not charged they're not charged or white that is that is what I understood but I just want

[2:27:34] to make sure the library too substitute teachers charged no teachers are not charged substitute

[2:27:41] teachers I believe are charged or they're not charged are like little league volunteers and

[2:27:47] or umpires or I would like the makuda. I don't know if they are yet, Rich, but or council.

[2:27:55] Okay. I I just wanted to clarify that because I feel like that has been a big conversation of of

[2:27:59] where are they going to park. I would I would assume that the staff has has addressed that,

[2:28:03] handled that, and we So, I mean, the cause it's always kind of been a cluster down there, and

[2:28:10] it will always making it worse be a cluster. Um, and there's always been for people to park. So, I

[2:28:18] think we should just call this vote and then we'll go to the next story issue. [laughter] Um, so if

[2:28:28] the vote fails, uh, and there's no amendment to the vote on the table or consider at the moment,

[2:28:35] um, what would the uh what occurs uh after? If the vote fails and no one makes a motion to reconsider

[2:28:46] the vote and reconsider at a future meeting or reconsider just again right now you'd have to

[2:28:52] make a motion to consider at the next reconsider at the next meeting. Um and at it's rule 16 for

[2:29:02] your rules and um you can only have one motion to reconsider any vote during your term. still

[2:29:11] like during our two years. Mhm. Yeah. Per issue. Not just not like a per issue. It's like per It's

[2:29:20] not It's not a mulligan. It's not like something motion for that vote. Motion to reconsider any

[2:29:29] particular vote. I definitely heard that wrong. I did. All right. You have one challenge. Um yes. I

[2:29:38] would much prefer that uh we have I prefer it that way. Yeah. Um a way uh to tie this to something

[2:29:47] that seemed more of a benefit. Uh I understand the point of trying to uh trying to rightsize

[2:29:54] the rates. Uh but I just don't think that the our ability to get information out is as fast as

[2:30:01] uh this will feel. Um and I think that there's an opportunity to engage more people. So, um I would

[2:30:06] like to see this uh at the next council meeting when we have a plan for the uh the worker parker

[2:30:12] program that seems a little bit more thought out. Um but at the moment it doesn't seem like we have

[2:30:17] that. So, we'll do a roll call vote uh on this and we'll see what happens if it ends in a tie.

[2:30:33] Roll call. Roll call. Okay. Don't know if I should

[2:30:38] start or not. [laughter] Assistant Mayor Kelly. No. [clears throat] Councelor Cook,

[2:30:44] no. Councelor Bllelock, no. Councelor Baggley, yes. Uh, Councelor Moro, yes. Councelor Flynn,

[2:30:54] no. Councelor Hopkins, sucks being last. No, the mayor's last. the mayor's last.

[2:31:03] I'm voting yes, Mayor McCern. Oh, where are we at now? Um, we're at four. Three yeses. Three yeses,

[2:31:12] four nos. Correct. What happens if it fails anyway? You have to pass it by a majority.

[2:31:20] Okay. Uh, no. So, it fails uh because it's tied anyways. Okay. Um, your honor, I would It's not

[2:31:27] tied though. It was to three. Correct. Five to three. No. No. Five nos, three yeses. Oh, okay.

[2:31:34] So, all right, your honor, I would make the motion motion to reconsider this at the next city council

[2:31:41] meeting on October 14th. September. September 14th. September. Wow. Is there a second? Second.

[2:31:52] And if I can speak on it, y I think that hopefully we can have a little bit more of the information

[2:31:58] back and some ideas from staff of um potential workforce um downtown worker um ideas and and and

[2:32:09] besides ideas just some of the requests for data that we asked for at the work session by then.

[2:32:15] So there can be um things like when we talk about foundry we you know we ask for data on the usage

[2:32:22] of that the how full that is getting all of those things. So if we can have some of that data back

[2:32:27] by that meeting I think that will help at least myself be able to support um this adoption.

[2:32:39] Councelor Cook. Uh thank you honor. Yes. Um, I echo what the assistant mayor says

[2:32:44] and also I would love to see what um, parameters the staff thinks we should set

[2:32:51] um, as far as qualification for the program and how people can prove that they qualify

[2:32:56] for the program, especially someone who is a business owner and doesn't necessarily

[2:33:00] take a paycheck like a an is kind of essentially an independent contractor.

[2:33:07] Uh, councelor Begman. Yeah, thanks. I won't be supporting the motion tonight. I think we had a

[2:33:12] lot of people show up. We had a lot of attention. That's the time to make unpopular decisions. Um

[2:33:16] I will not support any motion to increase street parking for the rest of this council term. Okay.

[2:33:23] Uh all in favor? I. Any opposed? Opposed. Can I second? Opposed. Okay. Thank you.

[2:33:35] It's not often I agree with Andrew. Well, that's good. [laughter] We can bring you

[2:33:40] two together then. Who knows what's possible. All right. Uh we'll take a five minute recess.

[2:42:50] Good evening and welcome back um on to the city manager's items which require action. Thank you

[2:42:54] your honor. First up is a request to hold a work session solely for the topic of rolling

[2:43:01] stock and historically it's really almost served as a footnote in and around the CIP process and

[2:43:07] um we're going to have the kickoff for the CIP coming up this evening.

[2:43:11] Um, but what we'd like to do because we've gotten some qu questions in the past about

[2:43:15] how rolling stock is comprised and and can you explain more about the replacement schedule,

[2:43:20] we thought it would be helpful to give it its own work session. So, we would propose to do that in

[2:43:24] and around the uh the formation of the CIP. So, we would propose to hold that right before the

[2:43:30] council meeting on October 26 of this year. You I move to schedule rolling stock work session at

[2:43:36] 6 p.m. on October 26, 2026. Second. Any further discussion? Yes, I have a question. Sorry. Um,

[2:43:45] when would be a good time to bring up something like bofuels since the electrification of the

[2:43:51] city fleet has been, you know, put to the side? What else? What other options could we explore

[2:43:57] and when would be the best time to explore them as far as sustainable transportation options?

[2:44:05] I think it'd be great to to know now that we can provide that as part of I would request the

[2:44:11] work session. I would request that for this work session. Then what what the you know the landscape

[2:44:17] is with um biodeiesel and alternative fuels um since electrification has been

[2:44:24] um pushed to the side for now. Happy to do that. Thank you. All in favor? I I.

[2:44:33] Any opposed? All right. Item B would be a request to rescend city council policy uh number 2018-02,

[2:44:42] the license fee for the incumbrance of city property. As you will recall at the last meeting,

[2:44:47] we now have that incorporated into chapter 6. So, the policy is essentially rendered no longer

[2:44:53] applicable. So, we're looking to resend that policy tonight. and move to resend city council

[2:45:00] policy number 2018-02 license fee for encumbrance of city property. Second. Any further discussion?

[2:45:13] All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Item C is a request to hold first reading of

[2:45:22] uh amendment to chapter 1 administrative code article 3 boards section 1.302D at

[2:45:28] the September 14th city council meeting. And this is relative to appointments, tenure, and removal.

[2:45:34] And in the same way that we have recently updated procurement notification, we would

[2:45:40] look to make that same modification here to remove the requirement of a newspaper publication and to

[2:45:46] rework notice provisions to be more flexible such as um on the city website and through the city's

[2:45:52] um means and methods of channeling information. So, um, for your review and consideration in

[2:45:59] advance of the filing for first reading, um, we would have Suzanne Woodland, Regulatory Council,

[2:46:05] come to present on that matter. Your honor, I move to schedule first reading, uh, amendments to

[2:46:12] chapter 1, administrative code, article 3, boards section 1302D, appointments, tenure, and removal

[2:46:20] at the September 14th, 2026 meeting. Second, councelor Cook. Thank you, your honor. Um, I just

[2:46:28] wanted to thank the city manager for bringing this change forward. This is probably long overdue.

[2:46:38] Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any oppose? Thank you. Item D is a request to

[2:46:46] establish polling hours for both the New Hampshire state primary and the general

[2:46:50] election. And in accordance with RSA 659 col4, the council does determine those polling hours.

[2:46:57] And based on past midterm election years, we would request that the polling hours

[2:47:01] for the primary election on September 8th and the general election on November 3rd

[2:47:05] of this year be established from 8:00 a.m. to 700 p.m. I move to set the polling hours

[2:47:11] for the New Hampshire state primary election on September 8th, 2026 and the New Hampshire

[2:47:15] general election on November 3rd, 2026 from 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. Second. Any discussion?

[2:47:26] Council. Um, no. I think this these hours give everyone an opportunity to vote. Um,

[2:47:31] but I also feel like we don't, you know, that is a long day for anyone working the polls

[2:47:36] um working the um election insights, but um you know it's it's reasonable.

[2:47:44] All in favor? Any opposed? Item E is a request to approve the custodial

[2:47:50] supervisor tenative agreement in your packet. It is a three-year agreement which uh grants

[2:47:56] us increased flexibility on health and dental insurance plan and carrier considerations and

[2:48:02] uh includes an annual one-year percent increase in the contribution of health

[2:48:06] insurance on the part of employees and a cola increase in wages based on the 10-year rolling

[2:48:12] average of the CPI at 3.03 retro to July 1st of this year. Your honor, I move to

[2:48:18] approve the proposed custodial supervisors tenative agreement as presented. Second.

[2:48:25] Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Next up is approval of

[2:48:32] the tenative agreement with ASME 1386A. And I'm pleased to see uh one of the union reps,

[2:48:37] Andrew Holdsworth on Zoom. Thanks for joining us, Andrew. Um very similar to

[2:48:43] provisions in the custodial supervisors along with some others specific to the uh

[2:48:47] the ASME 1386A folks. And just as a point of reference, all members fall under DPW across

[2:48:53] all divisions. That's the group that makes up this union. [clears throat] Move to approve

[2:48:59] the proposed ASME 1386A tentative agreement as presented. Second.

[2:49:08] Further discussion? All in favor? I. Any oppose? Thank you. Item G is my last item and is a request

[2:49:18] um relative to a donation of a memorial bench at Boheno Gateway Park in honor of Sue Warner Thor.

[2:49:24] Typically, a donation in and of itself would come under grants and donations. This one is a little

[2:49:29] different in that um uh we are receiving a check uh that would should cover most of the event uh

[2:49:36] most of the costs but in the event that donations do not cover fully all the costs related to this

[2:49:41] bench there are funds available in the public art trust and therefore the the second part of this

[2:49:47] um it's a two-part motion would be to allow the city uh for the release of funds from

[2:49:52] the public art trust and in and in this way we have satisfied the requirements of the put forth

[2:49:58] by the trustees of trust funds in how we direct the funds. So there are two specific motions

[2:50:02] here tonight. But I would I would like to add that Sue Thor was able to see the completion

[2:50:07] of the wonderful work of the endeavor as part of the 400th and noted that there would the

[2:50:12] absence of benches with back support. So that's what Bob's trying to do tonight.

[2:50:17] Your honor, I move to request the city council accept a $10,000 donation to the city from Bo

[2:50:23] Bob Bob Thorson to be used towards the towards the bench and vote to accept any additional financial

[2:50:29] contri contributions towards the bench from Bob Thorson [clears throat] the Thorson family or

[2:50:36] other private donors. Second. Councelor Blewock. Thank you. Um I'm very happy we can um help honor

[2:50:44] the Thor family. Um they've been such generous members of our community. Um just selfless,

[2:50:49] just outstanding. Um but yeah, my heart goes out to the Thor family. Thank you, Councelor Block.

[2:50:58] Agreed. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Your honor, I move to authorize and direct the trustees of

[2:51:07] the trust funds to disperse such sums from the city of Portsmith public art trust as directed

[2:51:13] and certified by the city manager that such funds are needed to complete the design, fabrication,

[2:51:19] and installation of a sculpture memorial bench to be installed in Bohenko Park not otherwise

[2:51:25] paid by private donations. Such sums may include without limitation payments due or obligations

[2:51:32] satisfied under a contract with CJ sorry CJ Chen and any incidentals that might fall outside of

[2:51:41] said contract fund shall come from the capital improvement program contributions to the public

[2:51:46] art trust. No further approvals of the city council is required. Second was a long one.

[2:51:54] Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. [clears throat and cough]

[2:52:06] Oh, we're through your All right. Now we have the

[2:52:08] consent agenda. I move to adopt the consent agenda as presented. Second.

[2:52:15] Any further discussion?

[2:52:18] All in favor? I. Any opposed?

[2:52:23] Next we have the uh CIP kickoff presentation. City manager finance administr

[2:52:36] good evening folks. Uh as the city manager pulls up my uh 75 slides I'll I warn you

[2:52:46] I warn you that uh that this could run long and I apologize for that. Actually,

[2:52:51] you've seen all of this before. It's an important part of our CIP. We talked a month ago about the

[2:52:57] CIP U citizen portal being open uh early in July. It remains open. Uh we'll reference the dates in

[2:53:05] a moment. Our committees uh have opportunity to kick in suggestions and our citizens as well.

[2:53:12] uh our CIP capital improvement plan in earnest for fiscal years 28 through 33 kicks off now

[2:53:21] uh which is really a signal as much as anything to staff as the departments begin to work on

[2:53:26] bringing together their their submissions tonight. Uh we just have a few slides to remind you and the

[2:53:33] public about the the capital improvement plan. Uh first slide up is uh a definition. Uh next

[2:53:41] slide. Thank you. First slide up is a a definition about the CIP and what it is and why we have it.

[2:53:46] It is for us a long-term multi-year financial and infrastructure planning tool and it helps serve

[2:53:54] uh serve the purpose of helping us maintain saferu uh infrastructure in the city,

[2:53:59] help us coordinate financial strategies for the capital projects that uh that we undertake and

[2:54:05] uh assist in the achievement of citywide goals. the CIP process and the document that we create

[2:54:11] at the end communicate to our residents about capital needs uh that contribute information to

[2:54:16] the development of the annual budget each year and promote maintenance of safe maintenance of

[2:54:21] and safe access to our city infrastructure. Next up uh is just a quick definition. What is it that

[2:54:28] qualifies as a CIP project? There are a handful of categories of six a half dozen actually.

[2:54:34] First the construction or expansion of uh public infrastructure in general major rehabilitation of

[2:54:40] of of a public infrastructure planning or design related to a capital project. So the early effort

[2:54:47] uh uh any significant non-vehicular equipment purchase [clears throat] large vehicle purchases

[2:54:54] generally with a 10 or more year lifespan and the acquisition of land when appropriate.

[2:55:02] Uh over the over the last couple of years we worked really to refine the rubric with which

[2:55:07] uh proposed projects are evaluated and our priorities considered. The capital

[2:55:12] improvement plus pro process considers three core strategies. The first of those does the

[2:55:17] project fulfill a core function of the city that may be regulatory expectation,

[2:55:22] public health and safety needs or addressing something substandard in conditions throughout

[2:55:27] city infrastructure. The second category is does [clears throat] the project achieve a

[2:55:32] financial benefit to the city? That may be uh matching funds being available or efficiencies

[2:55:38] uh being achievable through synergies with other projects or maybe reductions to operating costs

[2:55:44] that we seek as a part of our budgeting process. The third is does this project address a community

[2:55:50] plan or some service improvement? Maybe will satisfy the objectives identified in our planning

[2:55:56] study that we've worked on. It'll improve or add capacity to some existing city service. Maybe it

[2:56:02] drives further economic development or it responds to a request of our residents. So what are they?

[2:56:09] How are they judged? How then do we fund them? First up is uh well, let me say we we we lean

[2:56:18] on two major funding streams. Uh in in addition to and beyond state and federal and private funding,

[2:56:27] we have our local capital outlay and we have borrowing through municipal bonding. The first of

[2:56:33] those capital outlay is our pay as you go funding option. Capital outlay represents dollars that we

[2:56:40] appropriate every year as a part of the general fund annual budget. And the target for our capital

[2:56:46] outlay is to invest at a level of up to 2% of the priory year budget. That's one of our financial

[2:56:53] policies. You'll read about that in the financial policy section of the annual uh budget document.

[2:56:59] and and this I changed the language just to just because I thought it was important as you look at

[2:57:05] the graph uh our goal is that we move this in the direction of 2% and as we are able and can afford

[2:57:12] to we're using these general appropriations to invest in capital infrastructure. You can see

[2:57:18] uh from the graph that we we got close in FY18 to 2% certainly through the pandemic

[2:57:25] uh we backed off on some of that cash infusion of capital projects. This last cycle after the

[2:57:32] amendments that we made to the budget which were in the area of capital outlay our FY27 capital

[2:57:38] outlay is 96% of the prior year's appropriation. The second then of those funding alternatives or

[2:57:46] funding streams is municipal borrowing and uh and we do this with multi-year repayment plans through

[2:57:55] municipal bonding. Annual payment of principal and interest we refer to as debt service. And our

[2:58:02] policy is that the target for net debt service is to remain below 10% of each year's annual budget.

[2:58:10] This last year, uh, FY27 stands at 7.64%. And the chart shows you the 10% bar, but it also gives you

[2:58:21] a sense of what the outy years of our most recent six-year CIP looked like. I think it's important

[2:58:27] for us to call out that every year in uh the last I think the analysis that we did was 15 years.

[2:58:35] Every year we come in in the seven and a half eight% range. Generally the outy years often

[2:58:42] look larger. Not because not because they will be when we get there, but because as we go through

[2:58:48] the management exercise of deferring things that can be deferred and trying to limit the scope

[2:58:54] of our net debt service year-over-year, we push projects into the outy years so as not to leave

[2:59:00] them behind or forget them, but to defer them. Uh if we look at the next slide which considers

[2:59:06] a 10-year run and looks just beyond the out the the six-year outlook again only based on what we

[2:59:13] have and what we know. This includes our net debt service. This includes all of our ongoing projects

[2:59:20] or past projects for which we are continuing to make principal and interest payments against

[2:59:25] municipal borrowing. uh you you should not walk away concerned that if you look in year five,

[2:59:32] six, seven, eight, those numbers are up near 10% or over 10%. Because our exercise has been that

[2:59:39] by the time that becomes the year that we're making decisions on that will have fallen back

[2:59:45] into the 7 and a half to 8 and a half% range. Uh it's important to note that these are all based

[2:59:51] on last year's CP CIP. They do not include any projections of anything new we've been discussing.

[2:59:57] All of the project information behind this graph is based on June 30 of 26, the end of fiscal 26.

[3:00:03] No new projects added and uh um no new projects added and and we look forward this year to trying

[3:00:11] to put a little more substance into the 10-year cycle. The CIP will continue to be a six-year,

[3:00:16] but the departments are working to make sure that we at least identify projects that reasonably are

[3:00:21] in the 10-year horizon. Nathan, I think before you leave this slide, it's important to note

[3:00:26] that this includes the initial debt amount for the municipal complex project of 42.2. The 42.2

[3:00:33] initially envisioned. Absolutely. Thank you for that. uh and I I won't read to you but there's

[3:00:39] a number of additional comments here about our CIP CIP uh process. Uh these are excellent for

[3:00:46] posterity and for those who will download this as a resource later. I it's important I think I

[3:00:50] want to emphasize uh as we often do that capital project approval has really three steps. This CIP

[3:00:57] plan is the first step. We consider through the development of this with the council and

[3:01:02] the planning board's participation and that of our public uh a plan for six years of capital

[3:01:10] uh capital investment. Uh the plan is recommended ultimately by the planning board and then adopted

[3:01:15] by the city council. Your timeline has included that happening in December in most recent years.

[3:01:21] The second step the is that the first year of the of the approved CIP as it's finalized

[3:01:28] it's in December becomes a part of the proposed budget that you'll see in the spring. Doesn't

[3:01:33] mean that it all stays in that proposed budget but the first year of the adopted

[3:01:39] uh CIP plan becomes uh a foundational block in the budget that we present in the spring. And finally,

[3:01:46] any long-term borrowing that is in the approved CIP that works its way through the second step

[3:01:52] of the budget comes back to the council as we did a month ago for the consideration of

[3:01:58] uh bonding authorization. So the council and the public all see any of these projects at

[3:02:03] least three times for very formal discussion. The timeline is here so that you can refer back to it.

[3:02:10] I would call out all of the all of the uh little human figurines represent uh opportunities for

[3:02:16] public input. [clears throat and cough] We are tonight here the kickoff of the council uh the

[3:02:21] kickoff of the of the CIP. I mentioned the citizen submissions of uh citizen portal submissions of

[3:02:28] citizens requests. Those due on Friday the 18th of September. Your departments will make their

[3:02:34] final submissions on the 20 by the 25th and then we will have a citizen request subcommittee of

[3:02:41] the council that will review those projects that have been requested by citizens. That is scheduled

[3:02:46] now for 8th of October 6:00 I believe will be in conference room A. And then we start in earnest

[3:02:53] with the council and the planning board with a joint work session November 12th. You'll have

[3:02:58] a public hearing at your November 16th um council meeting. Uh the planning board will be invited to

[3:03:04] attend to hear the public's input. The planning board will consider it in November and you'll be

[3:03:09] hopefully uh adopting the CIP in December. Uh only to make sure that the public has access.

[3:03:18] Citizens requests are uh available for submission through the portal which is at the link at the

[3:03:24] bottom of this screen. Uh all of the submissions that come in will be reviewed by uh staff to put

[3:03:31] some substance to them and help us to delineate those that are potentially already CIP projects,

[3:03:39] those that are uh not eligible by definition to be part of the CIP and those that are uh and and

[3:03:48] may become CIP projects. And then we also have to address that in some cases the requests that

[3:03:54] are made are better served alternatively and we work with the residents to make sure they

[3:03:58] understand what those are so that we can pursue them in that direction. Uh the meeting I mentioned

[3:04:03] again October 8th uh I commend that to you. Our CIP process that kicks off now with the staff any

[3:04:10] questions certainly would be happy to try to address those. Councelor Buck. Thank you. Um,

[3:04:17] will the CIP subcommittee get to see these um, resident requests before the meeting?

[3:04:25] I just know in the past I've been on that committee and I kind of get blindsided. Did

[3:04:29] you get blindsided with it? Yeah. You just, you know what I mean? And then I have to make all my

[3:04:32] analysis and I think it's I think it's quite reasonable you want to see those in advance.

[3:04:36] Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, Councelor Hopkins. Um, thank you. Nathan,

[3:04:46] could you go into a little bit more? Because to me, as someone new to engaging with city

[3:04:52] government, submitting a request for CIP sounds kind of scary. Can you talk a little bit about

[3:04:58] what that would look like? Can I just write down anything? Does it have to be in a certain format?

[3:05:02] Do I have to site have citations? Like what what what are we asking the public for in the simplest

[3:05:09] terms? Uh so the the best answer I can give you is that the portal is pretty intuitive and that

[3:05:15] when you kick to that link and log in, it'll ask you for contact information. It'll ask you

[3:05:21] uh to describe the location or facility. It'll ask you and prompt you for some elements and

[3:05:27] then it provides you a fairly open narrative and all of the suggestions or the comments

[3:05:32] that you made have been among the you know the submissions that we've received. Some of them

[3:05:37] are very straightforward. They're very succinct. I when I need a sidewalk on XYZ Street and some

[3:05:44] of them are some of them are much longer in terms of the detail that is provided references and the

[3:05:50] like. Uh no expectation really. This is uh your community and uh and your process as residents

[3:05:56] as well as council. And so for residents uh once you've identified yourself and to the best of your

[3:06:02] ability the location or nature of your need and then describe it narratively uh that moves forward

[3:06:09] in the process. Staff will do their best without without changing the scope or trying to amend the

[3:06:15] request. Staff will work to try to wrap that with uh explanation about um facility expectations,

[3:06:22] needs, legal requirements, and the like uh and flesh that out in our process. So,

[3:06:27] we're really looking for for residents to provide us with the pain points that they think need to be

[3:06:33] addressed. Uh, and we'll do as much of the leg work as we can. Thank you, uh, Councelor Cook.

[3:06:42] And thank you, your honor, and thank you for the presentation tonight. I just wanted to encourage

[3:06:46] our residents to submit requests for the CIP if you see something that needs to happen in

[3:06:52] the community. Um this year we're completing uh the Little Harbor School playground project and

[3:06:59] that was brought to our attention from parents um in the Little Harbor School um letting us know

[3:07:06] that that project absolutely needed to be done and needed to be done sooner rather than later. And so

[3:07:11] um it's because of residents who bring issues forward to us that we see the things that need

[3:07:17] to be improved. And I'm I'm very excited to um for our new playground at Little Harbor,

[3:07:21] which is the first of three playgrounds at all of our elementary schools. Absolutely. And that

[3:07:27] all started with a conversation that parents brought to to the process. I guess I would

[3:07:31] offer one clarification. If it's if it's broken and it's dangerous and you identify something,

[3:07:37] we have click and fix and you should let us know. This is this is not for acute care.

[3:07:42] This is these capital requests are for things that you would prefer to see uh that would

[3:07:48] make your life in the city and the lives of your your neighbors better. Uh if you see something

[3:07:54] that is of critical mass or of acute nature, obviously we have a mechanism for that as well.

[3:08:02] Thank you very much, Nathan. Looking forward to this process once again. All right, next up,

[3:08:09] email correspondence. Your honor, I move to accept and place on file. Second. All in favor? I. Any

[3:08:16] opposed? Um, an appointment to be considered is the appointment of uh Jack Hollesman, John Jack

[3:08:22] Hollesman, uh to the zoning board of adjustment. This took a little bit longer because we had to

[3:08:26] notice the uh the vacancy and he will be uh being appointed uh if he is successful uh to the full

[3:08:34] um member uh vacancy that was created. uh and with the departure of Paul Manel serving out

[3:08:42] the rest of his term and we'll have a vote again um in January. [snorts] They

[3:08:48] their terms end I think the end of November. End of November. So very quickly thereafter

[3:08:54] um and then um so that's just appointment to be considered. A appointment to be voted

[3:08:59] would be the appointment of Wendy Ellip to the sustainability committee. I move to appoint

[3:09:04] Wendy Ellip to the sustainability committee. Second. Any further discussion? Thank you,

[3:09:10] Wendy, for stepping up to serve again. Uh, all in favor? I. Any opposed? Councelor Cook. Uh,

[3:09:18] thank you, your honor. Um, I am just reporting out on the legislative subcommittee meeting um that we

[3:09:26] had this last week. Um we will be attending the New Hampshire Municipal Association's

[3:09:33] um annual discussion to uh adopt their proposed legislative policies and the committee met and

[3:09:42] registered our views on the policies to be discussed at that meeting. Um you'll note in

[3:09:48] the packet that there is a memo that outlines the policies with which we had questions in which we

[3:09:55] decided to register our opposition. Um, so I think it's important to note that we don't always agree

[3:10:00] with all of the policies, but when we do attend, we register our opposition or um choose to not

[3:10:08] express an opinion on on items that we think are nebulous or um confusing and don't would not make

[3:10:16] sense to for the city of Portsouth to support. So you will see that in your packet. I'm happy

[3:10:21] to answer any questions as I'm sure the other committee members are as well. So I would move

[3:10:26] to approve New Hampshire Municipal Association's 2027 to 2028 proposed legislative policies and

[3:10:32] principles as recommended by the legislative subcommittee. Second. Thank you, Councelor

[3:10:39] Cook. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Uh, councelor Bagley. Thanks, honor. Um,

[3:10:53] my motion. Uh, I move to direct the city attorney to review the attached proposed ordinance language

[3:10:58] regarding automated license plate reader systems and return a final draft ordinance

[3:11:03] to the city council for first reading. I got a second. I'll speak to it. A second. Um, yeah,

[3:11:09] as as Commissioner Sher uh mentioned earlier tonight, um they're commonly known as uh Flock

[3:11:16] cameras. That's really just a brand name. Um believe the cameras that we use currently are

[3:11:21] not Flock brand. They're a different brand. Um, but what's happened with the acceleration of uh

[3:11:26] license plate reader cameras and the combination of AI and and video is uh we've seen it in states

[3:11:35] outside of New Hampshire that it becomes a a surveillance tool that can be abused. Uh right

[3:11:40] now we have RSAs in place u thanks to Commissioner Sher as in his state rep role uh preventing the

[3:11:47] sunsetting of the existing law. Um however, it's not to say that that law is not overturned at

[3:11:52] some point in the future. So, I think uh it'd be worthwhile to investigate if we can pass municipal

[3:11:58] um ordinance that takes advantage of that law just in case it is sunset in the future. It adds a an

[3:12:04] extra point of friction and an extra chance for the public to come and express their opinion. Um

[3:12:09] I think generally the public sentiment is is we don't like being tracked. Thank councelor Bagley.

[3:12:16] Council moro. Um, I'm just wondering if we could also um amend the motion to also send back for a

[3:12:24] um feedback after it's drafted from the police commission. I would accept that. Oh, what I guess

[3:12:32] 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

[3:12:38] was surprised to hear uh the police commission uh members concern around erecting fixed cameras on

[3:12:47] uh city land. Why there would be any jurisdiction for the police to do anything like that without

[3:12:53] the express written permission of the city of Portsouth. I understand they could use these in

[3:12:58] their cars or mobile units, but a way I understood that the uh the draft ordinance was written was

[3:13:03] that it would be uh preventing any kind of fixed camera on uh city land or buildings and I don't

[3:13:12] believe that that would run to the uh the ability or run a foul of the separation of powers within

[3:13:21] our charter. Um thanks. I I agree with your opinion. I am not a 100% sure that uh based

[3:13:27] on emails I receive that the commission or one of the commissioners at least agrees and thinks that

[3:13:33] the maybe the council's overstepping its bounds by having this discussion which to me means all the

[3:13:38] more reason to have the discussion in public. Certainly. Yeah. I guess I'm happy to I guess

[3:13:44] it would be a a question for the city attorney on and we'll get maybe it's easier to have her

[3:13:52] draft something that comes back to us. you know, for discussion around this. I can do that. And I

[3:13:57] can also share that um the chief of police and the commission, at least commissioner Shure,

[3:14:04] have significant concerns about the proposal and we'll probably want to address those with

[3:14:10] with the council at the appropriate time. Okay. Uh Councelor Cook, thank you, your honor. Um,

[3:14:16] I'm happy to discuss the delineation between whose roles um, this falls under, whose role this falls

[3:14:23] under, but I would note that these cameras have not just been used for law enforcement purpose

[3:14:28] purposes, they've also been used for insurance enforcement purposes um, and general tracking

[3:14:35] beyond law enforcement. So, um, this is not just a law enforcement function that we are discussing.

[3:14:42] Can I just clarify that that that might be true in around the rest of the country. Um

[3:14:49] but in New Hampshire um the use of these types of reader license plate reader systems is only

[3:14:57] authorized to law enforcement and under very strict controls. The statutes very um detailed

[3:15:05] in terms of how they can be used. They have to be registered. They have to be policies that

[3:15:11] etc. And the information can only be held for a certain period of time, like three minutes. So,

[3:15:18] um, other states, however, do not regulate them. So, what you're hearing from

[3:15:24] other states around the country and how they've been abused, um, these types of,

[3:15:31] uh, equipment cannot be used outside of law enforcement legally in New Hampshire.

[3:15:46] So, um, and sorry to jump in on Council Maro's, uh, jumped all over. Did [laughter] you guys were

[3:15:54] agreeing so well? Um, um, I guess in terms of the, uh, this would come back at first reading. I don't

[3:16:03] uh I mean again I think that the um the effort to have the conversations in public on this would not

[3:16:11] be prohibited um in terms of first reading or second reading on this to be able to speak to

[3:16:17] um at after first reading and once we see what is um what's before us um I mean I think maybe

[3:16:27] a way to thread the needle would be to uh send them a draft of what is going to come back for

[3:16:34] first reading so that they're prepared to speak, you know, um, ahead of, you know,

[3:16:38] public comment before we have first reading and then, um, certainly they'd have the opportunity

[3:16:43] to speak at at second reading. Um, but, you know, I I think it's pretty clear in terms of the city

[3:16:50] buildings and what we would do and the feelings of many in Portsouth and New Hampshire that want

[3:16:56] to make sure that, you know, while the police have every ability to enforce, you know, in their cars,

[3:17:01] I think there was draft for temporary um you know uh temporary uh locations to be used or

[3:17:07] in the event of a an emergency. Um but I think the permanent affiction of these cameras to

[3:17:16] uh to buildings or public lands in the city of Portsouth is something that a lot of people would

[3:17:20] have or at least want their uh voices um heard on through the council vote. Councelor Bwood.

[3:17:27] Yeah. I would just say, your honor, and I'm not going to bore everybody reading it tonight, but

[3:17:30] I did put in the packet. It's about a page long. It's fairly technical and [clears throat] uses,

[3:17:36] you know, the technical terms, but it does have a lot of carveouts um for different types of uses,

[3:17:42] but all with a caveat of oversight. Um, as I never get tired of saying, but I wish I didn't

[3:17:47] have to. We're Dylan's rule state. We can only do things when we have enabling legislation.

[3:17:51] This legislation was due to sunset this year, but Commissioner Sher as a state ref uh eliminated the

[3:17:58] sunset uh provision. But that's not to say next year it gets overturned. As we know,

[3:18:05] the state house makes uh new laws and regulations every year. And if we have something in the books

[3:18:10] now, when we have the ability to put something on the books now, I think it serves us well

[3:18:14] in the future. And that's the reason for my bringing it forward because of that sunset p

[3:18:19] uh provision. I'm worried that it will be forced out in the next couple years. So, I'll just add

[3:18:26] to the conversation for, you know, I've been looking at where this could go in our in our

[3:18:32] ordinances and looking at the law. I mean, there are and looking at the charter issues. There are

[3:18:38] potential charter issues here. there are potential issues that the state has preempted this field

[3:18:46] um in terms of trying to regulate it um in any way. But on on the other hand, I've also looked

[3:18:54] at the council's authority and your main authority is your control over city property and the use of

[3:19:03] city property. So, um I'm still trying to balance all those concerns. They haven't come to a a final

[3:19:11] legal opinion on all of that, but there are a lot of issues at play and um and certainly I

[3:19:17] think that the police commission would welcome the opportunity to have an opportunity to contribute.

[3:19:28] Sister Mayor, um and I don't know if this would have to be uh um sorry within an added motion,

[3:19:39] but I would certainly like to see a memo back from the city legal department outlining kind of

[3:19:46] all of the things that um the city attorney just mentioned ideally prior to or in conjunction with

[3:19:57] um a proposed ordinance language. Um because I think an ordinance can read one way but without

[3:20:02] the backstory of why it's written a certain way. Um, I think it can, you know, I think it's good

[3:20:10] for the public to be able to see the memo and the council to be able to see the memo. Uh, and all

[3:20:15] of the different uh touch points that have to go into considering if we can even write an ordinance

[3:20:22] or if that needs to come again from a charter department or not. I So, I don't I don't know if

[3:20:29] I can just request that or if that has to be added as an amendment to the motion. Well, would it So,

[3:20:36] I guess um maybe city attorney, would you be writing this like this? Would you be writing an

[3:20:42] ordinance that conflicted with their charter? So, there are questions about, you know, who controls,

[3:20:50] you know, the operations of the police department and their, you know, investigative abilities

[3:20:56] abilities and the equipment that they use to conduct their investigations. So,

[3:21:00] as long as they're in compliance with state law, um to have the city council chime in at those are

[3:21:07] the concerns that the commissioners raised um in the first instance. So,

[3:21:13] um I'm happy to do a report back um prior to any final draft or a draft for first reading um if

[3:21:22] that's what the council would prefer. I guess the question is would you be able to create a chart

[3:21:28] uh an ordinance that um um could we just change the rule slightly to say or um a draft summary of

[3:21:37] the uh ordinance as presented or uh a report back saying why it can't be completed? I guess that's

[3:21:45] what I was trying to get to. Is that like is that possible like because we're not going to be able

[3:21:48] to pass an ordinance that you deem [clears throat] as illegal. So if in the process of finding this

[3:21:55] um you find that it is illegal. Yeah. So either or is that possible to do, would that satisfy the

[3:22:01] maker of the motion? I I think yeah, if the city attorney comes back and says that the council has

[3:22:08] no authority on block cameras, then that's the city attorney's opinion. Okay. Um so do you amend

[3:22:15] your motion? I I think the motion is suitable for my request. Okay. So then I guess I would make an

[3:22:23] I would make an amendment to your motion to Well, I guess like the request is like I guess like I

[3:22:29] don't so I don't know how uh councelor Bagley can request something that's illegal. So if it comes

[3:22:35] back and the report back is stated this is you know um like we can't make this then that's the

[3:22:41] end of that and we have a conversation uh on the what would need to change you know and if there's

[3:22:47] a willingness to look at the charter uh to prevent um the uh the installation of uh uh surveillance

[3:22:55] cameras on city buildings and property um you know further down the field but like so like if we

[3:23:02] can't come back we'll come back a different, you know, conversation. But I feel like the motion as

[3:23:06] it's presented allows the city attorney to make an opinion u make that opinion known. And sometimes

[3:23:12] it come back and says we can't do this because x, y, and z. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh I'll

[3:23:21] make a motion to go past 10:30. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, that's only three. Um

[3:23:30] uh all in, uh the motion on the table as presented by councelor Bagley. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

[3:23:37] All right. Now we're on to uh councelor Hopkins. Your honor, I move to approve and accept the

[3:23:46] action sheet and minutes of the August 6, 2026 parking, traffic, and safety committee meeting.

[3:23:51] So moved. No. Second. Second. [laughter] I love your enthusias. I said not past 10:30.

[3:23:59] All right. Any discussion on this? All in favor? We have something about minutes. Hold on. Oh,

[3:24:05] wait. [laughter] Minutes related to parking and traffic safety. But um I would ask if Jane

[3:24:12] could come and explain what she's Oh, okay. what she's trying to tell us. Yes. [laughter]

[3:24:21] Just to clarify the um city council, it was almost like a report back for parking, traffic and safety

[3:24:26] on those two elements and on those two specific motions. So the actions is the action is PTS

[3:24:34] uh recommends the two motions as you may remember from the last bike lane issue. um when we accept

[3:24:42] the minutes of uh the PTS and their actions, it's being endorsed by the council. But I just want

[3:24:48] to clarify that because it just says recommend um the motion that that these can move forward

[3:24:56] without binding the council um on those specific motions on Fleet Street. just just just to remind

[3:25:04] you all that that because it was really basically a report back from you mayor to say, "Hey, did did

[3:25:10] PTS actually address, you know, the the parking the lane and and the parking on one side of the

[3:25:17] street?" And they went back and they did, but it isn't binding the council by accepting the action.

[3:25:25] That is great. Thank you, J. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. City manager'sformational

[3:25:36] items. I have a quick one, your honor, and it's a a report uh back request that you made at a recent

[3:25:41] meeting. staff has discussed ways to balance the priorities of those private land owners,

[3:25:47] particularly working in the downtown, needing to perform work with those who seek to move

[3:25:51] safely through the city, such as um workers and tourists and shoppers to limit the obstacles and

[3:25:59] opportunities which can negatively impact the livelihood of our small business community who

[3:26:03] depend on that foot traffic to move about safely. So, what is under discussion is a a different set

[3:26:09] of rules. I'll say during peak season versus non- peak season as a means to hopefully incentivize

[3:26:15] non- peak activities wherever possible and um we appreciate the needs of business owners and

[3:26:20] yet recognize the need to limit the negative impacts during the peak season. So if we were

[3:26:24] to define the peak season it would roughly be June 15th or right after mark right around

[3:26:28] market square day through Columbus Day weekend. And um in the same vein that we talk about this,

[3:26:34] the city was mindful to take up many of the very disruptive improvements on Congress Street in a

[3:26:40] non- peak manner. And um so we the same way we are trying to do this, we want to be we want

[3:26:48] private developers, private land owners, private property owners to do the same. So more to come,

[3:26:53] but that's u that's the report back for now. Thank you. Thank you so much. You Thank you,

[3:26:57] city manager. I know it doesn't always feel like we're not doing it during the peak, but you guys

[3:27:02] buttoned it up and I ran down market square day, you know, um and you guys are going to have to or

[3:27:06] we are going to have to pull it back up, you know, uh to finish it before, uh next year,

[3:27:12] but it is something that hopefully will will give some relief to some business owners. Anything

[3:27:18] under miscellaneous and wait a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I. Good night, Portsmith.

8.17.2026 City Council

Transcript