City Council - Regular Meeting

good evening and welcome to tonight's city council meeting for monday august 3rd 2026 i will first await a motion to leave the non-public session and to seal the minutes of that session so moved second all in favor aye any opposed so we please take the role

Assistant Mayor Kelly. Here. Councillor Cook. Here. Councillor Tabor. Here. Councillor Blaylock. Present. Councillor Bagley. Here. Councillor Morrell. Here. Councillor Flynn. Here. Councillor Hawkins. Here. And Mayor.

here thanks sally um if uh if brian wazlaw is watching at home i just want to send our our uh our support um you know that you're uh you're you're you're uh fighting through something right now um and for those of you don't know brian uh if you've been at ward five uh as award moderator if you've ever come before the conservation commission use the commodification commissioner he was a state rep and i don't know if there was uh you know anybody in portsmouth's history that had a bigger smile than than brian and so you know i can't wait to see uh that that smile again smiling again but uh we're pulling for you and we you know appreciate all you've done uh for the city um please join me in the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united All right. Acceptance of minutes.

Your Honor, I move to accept and approve the minutes of the July 13th, 2026 City Council meeting. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Before public comment, and we don't have any recognitions in volunteer committee reports, but we do have a Little League team that won the state championship on Sunday, beating an impressive Bedford team. They can't be here tonight because all the coaches are getting ready to go to Bristol down in Connecticut for the regional championships. Their bus is going to be leaving between 7 and 8, trying to knock down that that time uh from the plains little league ball field uh on friday morning so i think we should all sell them a big portsmouth sendoff but here uh congrats again uh guys and we'll be congratulating when you guys get back um next on to public comment uh for uh the um we will start uh again uh first up uh kevin dwyer on rap pilot program

Hello. My name is Kevin Dwyer. I'm the owner of Dwyer's Pub in the press room in Portsmouth. I'm here to talk about the pilot program and the concerns of the hospitality workers in general. I understand that parking is a complicated issue in town and its tentacles touch other complex issues that you all must weigh and balance. But I just want to do my best to represent how the working class people of Portsmouth feel about the program with hospitality workers particularly in mind. Uh, we have appreciate the, uh, the intention behind the discounted rates on selected streets. Um, but I think the reason why. Restaurant workers might come across as ungrateful is the symbolism and fear of set precedent. Many enforcement restaurant workers often feel overlooked and unrepresented. I know that this council has worked hard to make strides for housing the housing crisis in town but the reality of where we are right now is most workers have been priced out of town which means they're not even eligible to vote in the very community they grow up in or grew up in and contribute to between the price of gas tolls and parking it is increasingly expensive to even show up to work as a business owner i have concerns that this could eventually induce a brain drain or even make it hard to staff restaurants at all while the change.org petition may not have taken all the facts and figures that the council is aware of into consideration i'd ask you to consider the raw motion from where it was born and why it received nearly 2 000 signatures Workers feel left out, and this feels like one more obstacle to work in town. I heard somebody say last week, if you can't afford to park in Portsmouth, then maybe you shouldn't work in Portsmouth. That tone-deaf sentiment is exactly what could lead to a brain drain and why hospitality workers feel discouraged. Additionally, the symbolism of losing a street like Parrot Ave is just a tough pill to swallow. The middle school is there, the library, Leary Field, the courthouse, paying to park to watch a baseball game at Leary is, again, a tough pill to swallow. While it may seem like an overreaction on our part, I think it's just the straw breaking the camel's back. Furthermore, the separate precedent of paid parking on streets, like Hancock can over repair to have concerns many of us for fear of the future. While we appreciate the discounted rate for workers, who's to say in the future another city council might abolish that, or keep expanding upon it, or let it creep elsewhere in town. I know that this is a complicated issue, and I'm sure that there are many facets that I'm ignorant of regarding this, but in my best effort to represent hospitality workers, we feel like we contribute to the local economy and culture, and we would like to extend an invitation to help bridge the gap between policymakers and ourselves.

Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. Next up, Eric Anderson on housing.

thank you mr mayor and council members um here this evening to to speak uh with regards to um what's on the agenda as far as the housing committee i'm not sure at least the packet that i read i'm not sure that this the housing plan right now has a has a final destination um at your disposal this evening and i think it i think it i think the packet indicated that it still has a For the process to go through the planning board and some other some other considerations I remember the housing committee, but my comments tonight are my own And I just want to say that the committee's done a great job with what it's had at hand for tools It hasn't had any extra extra city land to consider with tech perfect it hasn't had that much money outside the housing trust fund to even consider what to do with and that's still yet to be decided but um we seem to be going in the direction that um i think concerns a lot of people in the city right now the way i tabulated it some time ago and i think the numbers even grown there's been over been nearly 2 500 housing units added to the city of portsmouth either in construction completion or permitting and that's not to say that that that that type of number isn't to be ignored my issue is such a low percentage of that housing is destined for the missing middle or workforce um housing and that's my concern it would be it would be kind of a travesty with all the work that the city's doing to try and accomplish some action here that that we missed that mark and and i hope any final final report or final consideration the housing committee takes that into consideration um my involvement with the committee will still be to try and achieve that mark or some semblance of that mark. And I guess in closing, I've said it before, I'll say it again just for repetitiveness is I just don't understand why surrounding communities of this city do not engage in this issue as much as Portsmouth has. It's confusing to me that they have just as much stake in the housing issues this problem is not portsmouth's problem it's a regional problem and how we engage those surrounding communities to contribute to this issue and they have not come forward um really perfect you know raises some question in my mind thank you very much thank you eric uh next up is esther on public comment not allowed mr kennedy

we are on a first name basis um esther kennedy 41 pickering ave i want to just comment that i agree with um the first speaker i think the parking is a real hindrance i heard quite a few times this weekend we get quite a few people that'll go work and then come down and paddleboard a little bit and that was your number one complaint so i really would encourage you to think about that again I agree with Eric. I say I'm going to say it every time I come up here. Where can someone that makes $60,000 starting pay for our teachers live in the city? You haven't created it. But what I'm really here tonight for is. I watched the planning work session on Banfield Rd. And I was saddened to see and hear from the people that attended. That there was no public comment. They had no opportunity to speak. There were residents here that had no opportunity to speak. That is wrong. It's right in your council rules that if there's a public comment, it's at work sessions. Then I went to see Von Maul presentation, and I was saddened by what I saw. What I saw was people bringing forth ideas and being shot down in front of the crowd. Councilor Cook was there. One elderly gentleman wanted to add seating. Instead of saying, let's look into it, he was told he could bring his own chair by city people. Another nice young man said he wanted to think about the Wailing Wall. and he was told the art's not there. They were going to have it kind of mobile. Then we sit there and the person that's doing the designs, I brought up an idea about having ropes between the parking lot and Vaughn Mall instead of the metal because a nice elderly man said he was tired of paying all this money to the city because he's on a budget. And I was told that that will not happen because growth goes on the ropes. And if you know Newburyport and if you know Rockport, there's ropes that separate a lot of things and I don't see growth. I have ropes, not a lot of growth. But it was just sad that it was supposed to be a public comment. And then in the paper, it was said that the plans were already decided. So if we're going to have public comment, folks, let's have public comment. And you should be taking the citizens' ideas, or then stop lying to us. That's all I have to ask. And maybe we don't have public comment, and then we're a dictatorship. Thank you.

Thank you, Esther. Next, Linnea Grimm on the Daughters of the American Revolution historic plaque.

Hi, good evening, everyone. Linnea Grimm, 38 Marcy Street. I'm speaking this evening as president and CEO of Strawberry Bank Museum. I'm here to speak in favor of the Ranger Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, historic marker donation and placement request near Stoodley's Tavern, one of the museum's buildings on Hancock Street. It's 16C on your agenda. I'm not quite sure what hour you'll get to there, but hopefully you'll remember I'm in favor of it. We support sharing knowledge about the Revolutionary War period with the public. This plaque will mark a really interesting moment, an earlier ride of Paul Revere in 1774 and the preparation for the raid on Fort William and Mary. While stud leaves once stood on Daniel Street, where McIntyre is today, I'm not sure if everyone knew that, it is the right and visible symbol to use for this plaque, even though it's in a different location today. The museum is happy to support this donation and plan.

Thank you, Linnea. Next up, Tower Garzo on email correspondence.

Good evening, Tyler Garzo, 62 McKinley. So briefly on parking, keep enabling more housing as you have done and provide real bus service at the same time, but we can talk about it later. On email correspondence, I understand redacting contact info in email correspondence in the packet for privacy, but the current practice is creating an asymmetry and this started happening recently. The city keeps these addresses and can reply. You can all reply. While the public reading the packet cannot reply, I'd ask whether the senders could simply opt into having their contact info included in the packet. Thank you.

Thank you, Tyler. Beth, what's... Goddard...

Thank you my name is Beth I live at 112 Court Street I just want to make a comment about I think I dovetail with Esther a little bit my sentiment in that last I was aware through newspapers that we were trying to establish a new police station and there was a subcommittee established for that but the latest thing I read was that we're not just renovating the police station but also City Hall and I think Councilman Tabor was quoted as saying that we were doing that for the public that it was something they needed or wanted or that it would be easier for us to pay our taxes if City Hall was renovated I'm a little concerned that one project is dovetailed with the other without people's knowledge or consent, and this is the first time we've had a chance to say, wait, hold on, what are you doing? Which I'm thankful for. I would be happier if we could divide out the two projects, and I would be also happier if we could present each project in its entirety to vote on it as a project rather than piecemeal because once we start we're not going to stop i'm afraid that we're just going to be appropriating funds that we don't have i would prefer to look at the whole thing part and parcel and then divide it up into portions as we go along thank you thank you beth uh next francis cormier on the landfill did francis leave

I think he just left.

He just left.

OK. So anybody on Zoom?

No hands raised, Your Honor.

no hands on zoom um gonna pull a couple of things uh if uh council indulge uh first uh would love to be able to pull uh item 16c the ranger chapter daughters of the american revolution store marker donation and placement request to be followed by the presentation on the cochley landfill your honor i'm moved to suspend the rules and pull up item 16c and then the item on the cochley landfill second All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Uh, we have on our, um, and we have more information here, um, at the, uh, at the dais, but, um, the, uh, under grants and donations, we have the ranger chapter daughters of the American Russian revolution, historic marker donation and placement request.

Your honor. I would move to accept this historic marker and authorize the city manager to coordinate the installation.

based on the department of public works location recommendation near studley tavern on hancock street second and uh seeing that members of the organization are here tonight at us that uh motion to spend the rules uh if they would like to speak on the the uh the donation in particular so moved second all in favor aye any opposed over the floor is yours

Mayor McEachern and members of the City Council, good evening. My name is Barbara Pambukas and I reside at 91 Cut Street, Portsmouth. I come before you on behalf of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Portsmouth Ranger Chapter, DAR, and local historian Michael Janoulis. There. Together, we are seeking the City of Portsmouth authorization to have a historical educational marker placed at a public location nearest to Lee's Tavern. The purpose of the marker is to inform, educate, and commemorate contributions and actions of our New Hampshire and Maine patriots in 1774. DAR is a service organization that promotes historic preservation, patriotism, and education in communities throughout the United States and the world. Ranger is a very active New Hampshire chapter. We have researched the events and documentation from multiple The primary source of our collection of documents is the handwritten notes called the British Archives, written in 1774, 1775. which includes forgotten testimony about Paul Revere's 1774 mission to Portsmouth to alert, plan the siege, and effectively remove the gunpowder and cannons from the British-held Newcastle's Fort William and Mary. We started our research in April 2025. Ranger DAR completed the national DAR application for a commemorative marker, and then the next step would be to receive the approval of the city council. The marker is created by the Pomeroy Foundation. It's the same foundation that created the Lafayette marker that was recently posted in Portsmouth. There's no cost to the city of Portsmouth. We do understand that once the National DAR approves our application, the creation of the signage takes approximately six months to complete. Ranger DAR also understands that the process includes DAR gifting and transferring the ownership of the sign and its fold to the City Ports Map. We understand the city installs the sign in keeping with the city's ordinances for proper placement and maintenance thereafter. If approved by this council, Ranger DAR shall respectfully ask for a written statement authorizing installation of the marker. And that letter goes along with our application to the National DAR to finish the approval. a copy of the application is attached and we believe you all received a copy last week ranger dar is grateful for our partnership and the letters of support by four or five local historians it is this time the A signage would say, Stoodley's Tavern, 12 December 1774. Paul Revere and Samuel Cutts alerted New Hampshire Maine patriots and executed the seizure of gunpowder cannons from Fort William and Mary, December 1774. The one problem with the signage is there's a 20 word limit, so we couldn't go on to say more. At this time, I'd like the opportunity to introduce our partner, Michael Janoulis, a local historian and author on this subject. Michael is solely responsible for the research on the British archives and bringing a copy of that to New Hampshire. And a copy of the document is on file with the Newcastle Historical Society and Portsmouth Anthoneum. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you, Barbara. Michael.

Thank you for this opportunity, council members. My name is Michael Giannullis. According to the directions on the panel here, I need to state my name and where I live. I live in New Castle, New Hampshire. I need to pretty much put most of my notes here on the circular file based on what I've heard over the past 10 or 15 minutes. And I will re-approach you in writing. except for now i'd like to make sure that you you are aware that uh there is some misinformation going around the seacoast area if it's visible at all and that has to do with the uh plackets at uh jewelries the springer jewelries jewelry store. It's only about 18 inches in diameter. It's very difficult to read and one has to bend over and stoop down to digest what it says. The evidence that you have before you in the form of the deposition, the William Tory deposition, William Tory was a council member for Governor Wentworth. According to William Tory's testimony, Paul Revere met with Samuel Cutts in Stoodley's Tavern. but I think it's important that you realize the the difference between what's being portrayed at Springer's jewelry store and the little tiny plaque which I think in a way my heart says good nobody can see it because of the errors in it but I hope you will consider at some point in the future making a plaque aware that's visible. Let me give you what I wrote. To possibly create in the future a historically accurate eye level marker placed in a central visible location preferably in the center of Portsmouth, that reflects the facts established in the Tory deposition and corrects the long-standing error about Revere's timeline. Revere did not just write on the 13th. He wrote on the 12th and 13th. It was an all-night affair. It was a harrowing ordeal, and it was freezing in December temperatures. So I hope you'll reconsider the way his role in the history of New Hampshire is being portrayed and will properly portrayed in the future. Meanwhile, I want to thank you. I think it's awesome that you approved of what the Daughters of the American Revolution brought forward. That'll help shed more light on the history of the Seacoast area. You know, New Hampshire deserves better than the way its history has been portrayed. the the entire seacoast area deserves better than what's the way it's portrayed uh i i'm hearing starting to hear things about well you know do we need to put a sign on stoodley's well of course we need to put a steiner sign on two stoodleys we we need to put a sign on both the former and the present location but I don't want to risk ruining what you've already approved. Please don't misconstrue what I'm trying to say here. Just help me elevate the history of this area. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael. Thank you again to the Daughters of the American Revolution for the effort that has gone into this.

Thank you very much.

And the effort, Councillor Bagley.

If I could just ask a question, I don't, the 20 word limit for the sign, is that a city limit? Are we imposing that or is that a?

The 20 word limit.

That's not like a municipal limit, is it? it is a 20 word limit from where though who is it our limit pomeroy foundation oh okay okay i just want to make sure we weren't imposing that granting you're giving the grant and then just um i understand the gentleman's point about the sign uh located near springer's jewelers but they don't own that building so i don't think it's a springer's jeweler sign i think it's just

in that location actually it was a donation of the 100 club and the portsmouth trolley they're the ones that donated it okay so i'll see if we can get the the verbiage corrected i just didn't want to anybody think it was um them who put it up there

All right. It seems like a great idea. And again, thank you for coming out in support of that. Look forward to seeing the sign up. And again, to Michael's point of making sure that we have a right place in history all for that. You know, the history of great things allows us to think that we can do great things as well. So certainly look forward to being inspired, looking at that sign and bringing my daughters by it, too. So all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? passes thank you thank you very much um next up uh moved up the cochlea landfill presentation so that we can catch it a little earlier in the evening great i'll ask my colleague planning and sustainability director peter britts to come forward we have a brief presentation good evening mayor members of the city council so this presentation is really a general overview of the cochlea landfill

Super brunch project to update the council on the status and current activities of the site In the first slide, you'll see the Koki landfill is located in Northampton with a small portion in Greenland It was a privately owned landfill that accepted municipal industrial waste from the Portsmouth area from 1972 to 1982 specifically Portsmouth Newington and Northampton as well as waste from the Navy and Air Force and waste from commercial and industrial businesses in the area and The landfill was closed to accepting solid waste by 1982 and accepted incinerator waste from 1982 to 1985 from the City of Portsmouth Incinerator Recovery Plant that operated on leased property at the Pease Air Force Base, after which time the landfill was closed. Following the discovery of contaminated groundwater at the site, a municipal water supply line was expanded in Northampton to provide an alternate drinking water supply to replace many private water supply wells in the area, reducing the potential for exposure to groundwater contamination from the site. The primary source of contamination at the time was determined to be the site or the Coakley landfill. Next slide, please. Here is an image of the CAP landfill. After a lawsuit in federal court, it was determined that the Koku landfill would be a Superfund site, and a consent decree was signed which empowered EPA to oversee the cleanup and mitigation of the site, which began in the 90s. The Coakley Landfill Group was formed by the Potentially Responsible Parties, or PRPs as they're known, to work on cleaning up the site and implementing the remedy. Specifically, the Coakley Landfill Group is made up of the municipalities of Portsmouth, Newington, and Northampton, the solid waste generators, or commercial users of the landfill, and the transporters who brought solid waste to the site. The cleanup responsibility is also shared with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy who contribute to the cleanup costs through the Department of Justice. Volatile organic compounds and metals were the primary contaminants of concern after the initial investigation and the selection of a remedial action or cleanup program. The cleanup or remedial action undertaken at the site is at the direction of the United States EPA and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. It is important to note that EPA has oversight of all work at the site in accordance with Superfund law. implementation activities are divided into two areas or operable units operable unit one is the area of the closed landfill where the clg was directed to complete the following remedial actions according to the operable unit excuse me one consent decree signed in 1995 and that was consolidation of waste and capping of the landfill collection and venting of landfill gases long-term monitoring implementation of institutional institutional controls such as fencing deed restrictions and signage The initial remedial action also proposed an extraction and treatment or pump and treat system to remove VOCs from the groundwater. A second consent decree was signed in 1998 by the Koku Landfill Group and the work associated with it as known as Operable Unit 2. Next slide, please. this image shows the area of ou1 in purple which is the capped landfill and the larger area of ou2 which is also the state's groundwater management zone boundary but it's the operable unit 2 area of the superfund site as well ou2 is the area beyond the closed landfill and is intended to address the management of migration of contaminants away from the landfill in the groundwater OU2 includes the same potentially responsible parties who continue to investigate and perform remedial work at the site. The Koki Landfill Group or CLG meets regularly to implement both remedies as overseen by EPA. The engineering firm WSP currently conducts the site monitoring and consultants are hired on an as needed basis to comply with investigations as requested by EPA. Membership in the cuckoo landfill group includes a city of Portsmouth who represents the municipal members. The chair of the cuckoo landfill group is Portsmouth resident Glenn Normandote. Staff to the group is Susan Morrill, Suzanne Woodland, Barbara Zolkowicz, Jillian Harris, and myself. Jillian and Susan obviously are here tonight. The municipalities share 63.07% responsibility for the cleanup costs, a portion based on the calculation of their contribution to the landfill, with Portsmouth alone having 53.51 of that 63% of the responsibility. This also gives the municipalities the weight of two votes on the committee. The generator group is represented by attorney Seth Jaffe and Kevin Chen, both from Foley Hoag LLP. This group has one vote on the CLG with 20% responsibility and the transporter group represented by attorney Curtis Shipley of Ellison Winters LLP. This group has also has one vote on the CLG with 16.9% of the responsibility. The federal government paid to settle its share of the operable unit one expenses. And for the OU two operable unit two, the federal government pays its share in arrears or after the work is completed and is responsible for 20.08% of the cost of the work conducted on operable unit two. Since the completion of the landfill cap in 1998, the levels of contaminants of concern and groundwater have been significantly reduced, such as VOCs and metals. However, in 2016, the CLG was directed to sample for and monitor a new list of contaminants, which included 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS compounds. 1,4-Dioxane and PFAS was found at the site in both Operable Unit 1 and Operable Unit 2. The monitoring program has been expanded to include private water supply wells, and additional investigations have been initiated to determine the full extent of these contaminants. Next slide, please. Here's a map, I'm not expecting you'll be able to see it all, but it's just to show you the vast number of monitoring wells, both overburden in the above soil area and then bedrock wells, water sampling and soil sampling locations. EPA conducts five year reviews of the remedy at the site to ensure that public health and the environment are protected. The most recent five year review completed in 2021 determined that the remedy was still protective of public health, but that measures would need to be taken for the remedy to remain protective in the long term. Those measures included the completion of the investigation of the extent of contamination in bedrock groundwater in what was known as a deep bedrock study that was initiated in 2018 and completed in 2021 with a final report of the findings submitted in March of 2023. Next slide, please. Here's an image of one of the wells being installed as part of the deep bedrock study. Next slide, please. This is an image from the downhole geophysics analysis of the bedrock drill hole, which looks for fractures in the bedrock system and identifies fractures or water can move through the bedrock and also seeks to determine the direction of flow and if water is moving up toward the surface or down deeper in the ground. deep bedrock study was a very in-depth study looking at how groundwater moves below the site below the site and specifically in bedrock fractures deeper than have been considered previously the primary goal was to ensure that there were not deep bedrock pathways moving contaminated water away from the site in areas that were not currently understood next slide please Here's an image from a pump test where water is pumped from the deep bedrock over several days while other bedrock and overburden wells are monitored for changes, which will correlate with connections within the groundwater system.

Next slide, please.

Here's an image of a large carbon filtration of large carbon filtration vessels used to filter the pump water, not knowing what level of contaminants were in the water as it was pumped from the ground, it had to be filtered and then discharged onto the cap landfill. The cochlear landfill continues to implement recommendations from the deep bedrock investigation, including the completion and monitoring of new wells, the drilling of a new well along the primary groundwater flow path and bedrock south of the landfill, and installation of signage around the surface water adjacent to the new Seacoast Greenway. In addition to the bedrock study, twice a year the Koku Landfill Group conducts monitoring of groundwater, surface water and sediments in and around the Koku Landfill. There's 51 monitoring wells, 25 private drinking water sampling locations, 10 temporary monitoring wells, 8 surface water sampling locations and 7 sediment monitoring locations. This work provides up-to-date data on the conditions at and surrounding the site. There are several locations where private water supply wells exceeded regulatory standards for 1,4-dioxane and or PFAS. In these locations, filtration systems are provided to property owners to remove contaminants from the drinking water, or public water supply lines have been extended by the Koku Landfill Group to address these concerns. As a follow-up to the deep bedrock study, and as part of the ongoing work by the Koku Landfill Group, we are studying the surface water and groundwater interaction at and surrounding the site. Next slide, please. Here's an image of a site showing the northern part of the capped landfill where the surface water flows to detention ponds and then away from the site. It's important to note one key reason for the surface water groundwater interaction study is because when the landfill was capped, in order to help the grass grow, a layer of compost was added to the cap. That compost was intended to help the grass on the top grow better, but it was waste from a wastewater treatment plant or biosolids, as they're known, which was at the time an approved use. However, it was not known at the time that these biosolids contained PFAS. Therefore, it's important to understand the relative contribution of PFAS from the cap into the surface water, as well as the contribution from groundwater from the Cochlear landfill under the cap, which contains PFAS from the solid waste. Knowing these relative contributions, the Cocuy Landfill Group will better understand the relative contributions from surface water and groundwater to Barry's Brook and Little River systems as water moves away from the site. Next slide, please. Here's a drone image using infrared light to detect and understand where surface water was present beyond the landfill. Since the EPA has lowered its maximum contaminant level for PFAS substances, a new risk assessment was conducted at the site. A determination from that risk assessment triggered an order from EPA to work to remove contaminants from the Berries Brook system. Next slide, please. After that risk assessment was completed, the Coquitlam Group installed additional signage along the New Seacoast Greenway corridor to alert people of the presence of PFAS in the surface water wetland adjacent to the site. While the risk assessment did not suggest a risk when coming into contact with surface water, the assessment did contemplate an ingestion risk for anyone who may regularly be recreating in these wetland areas and ingesting waters from the headwater area of Barry's Brook near the site. Next slide, please. in the order triggered epa's risk assessment triggered by epa's risk assessment is known as a non-time critical removal action which is intended to address what epa has classified as unacceptable levels of pfas and surface waters near the site this nicra as they call it required a study to determine how best to proceed with removing the contaminants in barry's brook that study that is known as an engineering evaluation cost estimate or eka as they call it building on the understanding of the surface water groundwater interaction study the city will complete the eca or engineering evaluation cost analysis before it begins work on a pilot project to remove contaminants from barry's brook the cochlea landfill group was successful in securing securing funding through a grant from new hampshire des for 980 000 to initiate and pay for the pilot treatment project to remove pfas next slide please Here is a generic image showing one type of pump and treat system. A consultant will be selected to conduct an engineering analysis and develop a pilot treatment project to remove PFAS from groundwater and surface water before it enters the Berries Brook system. That project is currently out to bid on the city's website. While the bidding is being conducted through the city's purchasing department, the work on the project will be overseen by the Coquille Landfill Group. Hopefully that provides a useful background and update on the activities of the site. And I'm willing to entertain any questions.

Peter, any questions? Council book.

Thank you. Thank you Peter for this presentation. I'm just curious on the water that we're treating or extracting the contaminated water. Is there any? Are we measuring how many PFAS or PFOS and you know when it's gathered and then versus when after is treated?

Yes, that would be part of it. Yeah, the influence we measured and then the effluent be measured going out. OK, yeah. Thank you.

Assistant Mayor Council.

What is our timeline of trying to select a consultant and get this work started?

it's soon it's on the on the order of months probably a month or two because it's out to bid now we should be able to go through that list and come up with a selection

Council Cook.

Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you for the presentation. I'm wondering how much testing we've done outside of this specific testing area. I know that PFAS, PFOAs are pretty prevalent at this stage throughout our environment, so it's not just in sites like this. And how much of a comparison has there been done to this site versus other surrounding areas?

Yeah, that's a really good question. It's hard to get a handle on, but our starting point, obviously, was the landfill, but then the operable unit two is the area that we've detected it coming from the landfill and there's some sort of connection to the landfill and we've done a lot of residences and wells we've put in outside of the of the landfill itself and out in the ou1 ou2 area the state however has done testing throughout the state but even that isn't comprehensive so you don't know whether you know what the prevalence of septic systems impacting the groundwater could be and things like that so it's very expensive testing and it's not easy for them for anyone to really do a widespread testing but it's happening more and more and des has a really good database on it thank you

um thanks for the presentation peter um very informative and i'm glad to see that we're going to a pump and treat system which was the original 1994 epa recommendation what were the results of the the bedrock testing

were we seeing PFAS move down into a plume and move through the that rock layer so I'm not gonna get super technical on it but the idea was we hadn't tested that deep in the bedrock we had bedrock wells but they wanted us to check deeper to make sure there were no deep bedrock pathways that were missing and it turned out that we weren't our conceptual site model which was in place before the deep bedrock testing was accurate and showed the way water is moving and think overall the trend was more was more move moving towards upward levels than lower levels but that's you know different in every location and how do we if the PFAS is leaching out of this biosolid compost layer how do we remedy that so this this treatment is meant to a pilot treatment is meant to understand what to capture we know it's in both the surface water runoff from the landfill and we know it's in the groundwater under the landfill so the likely scenario is that we'd have a an intercept location where that water from the surface and the groundwater could be pumped into a treatment system and then pumped out into clean water or injected back into the ground got it thanks councillor bagler yeah thanks janitor and just a lot here in this presentation did i hear correctly

Over a decade ago, one of the caps we used had PFAS, but we weren't concerned with PFAS at the time because it was unknown contaminant. That kind of makes you think of Thomas Midley Jr. a bit. One of the things I think that before I was on the council and studying these types of things, you think, oh, there's a problem. Let's go fix it. But sometimes fixing a problem with today's technology is not aware of all the risks and dangers. So taking a slow, methodical approach and reducing the contamination, I think, has benefited us in a way, because now we know the PFAS needs to be removed as well. looks like we have a good plan i'm not going to pretend that i'm a hydrogeologist and understand all those graphs and designs they they're a little bit more technical than i am but i will make note you know tonight we're going to do probably a bond for 4.9 million on drinking water and 3.1 million on sewage which which all goes to the point of how important it is to protect our water source and our water supply and and as i always do i just want to give a shout out to al pratt who's always buying up land around our reservoir i see eric fiedler in the background there he'll probably speak later tonight but You know, we didn't know back in the 1980s that this was going to be a big problem We do now we're trying to address it and we're proactively trying to address making sure that we protect our drinking supply in our River and estuaries now in ways that we didn't do in the past and I know this is a Part of that and it's not as glamorous because you're fixing somebody else's mess But I'm glad we have people like you on the on the job and doing this detailed analysis. I

thank you and again it's it's at the at the direction of EPA and and we have made sure that everybody around the landfill is not drinking contaminated water so that's been a goal all along thank you Peter for the presentation I just add to the comments here so much as you know the decisions that were made many years ago felt like the right decisions at that time you know having the grass grow seemed like a reasonable thing to do but could have contaminated the cap that was put on further potentially contaminated would love to you know have these lessons learned as we as we come you know and make future decisions of the city in terms of doing the least amount of harm also you know want to thank the folks this this committee has gone or the the the correct the Coakley what's the the CLG CLG the Coakley landfill group these meetings are open to the public and noticed and you know folks can come not only ports with residents but any residents can go and speak to them one of the things that i that i have i guess over the last eight years noticed um has been the increased amount of funding um as we recognize the importance of pfas um this is certainly something that you know it was it was this councilman or the last we've recently appropriated more money uh to go towards um uh the effort here that there is more recognition of the problem that pfas presents to the community into the drinking water supply you know more specifically ask that we continue to do you know not you know all of the things that the EPA asked us to do but do them in a way as we have kind of started to do that that that leads more to public transparency and giving as much information to the public there's nothing as concert Bagley points out that's more important than drinking water and if it's a chemical that you accidentally feed your kids those are things that you know we've dealt with that at peas and the child care center and something that that nobody wants to have happened so the more information that we can get out and the opportunities for folks to be able to engage on this as you know there's certainly a lot of effort going in right now appreciate the update and the continued updates and works of the CLG group going forward to some public hearings public hearings vote on ordinance a public hearing and adoption of resolution 13-20 26 authoring a bond issue and or notes of the city under the Municipal Finance Act of up to six million five hundred thousand dollars Six point five million dollars for costs related to school facility capital improvements elementary school upgrades elementary school playground upgrade school facilities paving and roofing Do we have the presentation here? Was that part of the CFP?

We do not we have the element sheets in the packet and staff is available to answer questions your honor Any questions of the council?

Councilor Bagley just for a reminder sake which playground is is slated for next for the elementary schools. I

little little harbors under construction now and new franklin is next kenny so we'd be authorizing the new franklin tonight yes thank you um let's open up to the uh public hearing to speak t4 against uh this is the resolution 13 2026 school facilities elementary school upgrades playground upgrades and school facilities paving and roofing

Good evening. Tyler Garza, 62 McKinley. There's a pavement and roofing item within this. I'd ask that pavement and roofing be broken into separate line items, especially since there are different kinds of spending totaling over $2 million in the forecasted CIP. within the payment figure how much is parking lot resurfacing and where does the high school students 150 a year parking revenue go is it covering the lot or are taxpayers bonding for it i'll leave the question of whether we should be subsidizing student parking when so many students are well positioned to walk bike or bus for another time thank you thank you tyler

I'll throw that question to Peter. Is the revenue, or Ken, sorry, is there a understanding of how it separates in terms of something we take as a capital versus something that's, I guess, viewed as a revenue on the school side? so if i recall the rev the student parking pass offsets the bus contracts that's not a revenue that goes into towards the maintenance or the facility of the case like bonds okay so it goes into public transportation correct okay any other questions of this one there's two more uh i think two more uh no more than that um a little more than that um so anybody else speaking to for against the resolution on largely the schools seeing none closing the public hearing any other council questions or deliberations folks following home this is the first the bond authorization or the first was the capital improvement plan this is the bond authorization and then as they go out they will be if they come back to the council they will in terms of a upgrade they will come back to the council in terms of final design council boy

Thank you. No, I look forward to these upgrades. I think these are going to make our elementary schools a lot safer, and they're also going to make our playgrounds better. And we make our kid students go to those playgrounds. I think this will just these are necessary upgrades

yeah i think i mean the upgrades we've done so far on the the playgrounds have been um effective at least one south mill and love that when we do them um you know it's including everybody i know it costs more but it's also cost a lot to be left out as a kid that that can't participate so being able to enjoy what every other fourth grader fifth grader third grader does is great

All in favor? Aye. Oh, sorry, roll call vote.

Roll call vote. And a motion. Do we not have a motion? No. No, we do not.

All right. I'll move that we adopt resolution 13-2026 as presented. Second. Second.

okay we'll take a roll call vote assistant mayor kelly yes councillor cook yes councillor tabor yes councillor blaylock yes councillor bagley yes councillor moreau yes councillor flynn yes and councillor hopkins yes yes

all right um next up is public hearing and adoption of resolution 14-2026 authorizing a bond issue under notes of the city under the municipal finance act of up to six million four hundred and eighty five thousand dollars for costs related to ambulance replacement program municipal building audit implementation city-wide facilities capital improvement Hampton branch rail trail in New Hampshire Seacoast Greenway citywide storm drainage improvements the correct neighborhood reconstruction of on-mall restoration and police facility and municipal municipal complex design we do not have a presentation for this either questions before open it up to the public comment

Thanks, Aaron. And just a comment on the police municipal building committee. We did talk. We have a speaker tonight. We actually did talk a little bit at our last meeting this week about the importance and something we can do a better job of conveying that this is an old, tired, tired building that's reaching the end of its usable lifespan. And if we don't do anything to this building as a whole in the next 10 or 20 years, know it'll be pretty grim you know the buildings have a lifespan so we that's a have to do type thing that we have um the police station is probably the the worst part of the building and needs the upgrades the most uh so when the initial bite at the apple the the number for a separate standalone police station came back too high for the city to afford in my opinion we went back and looked at it aggressively and rolling the municipal building and the police building together saved a substantial amount of money i think the police portion is about 30 million now instead of in the neighborhood of 70 million but we still have to do the rest of the municipal building the reason we have to do the rest of municipal buildings because it's it's it's tired and it's broken and it needs to be improved what we're doing much like what we're doing in say vaughn mall is we we did vaughn mall because we had to replace all the sewer pipes underneath and the electric and the utilities and then when we put the top coat back on we can kind of put it back more or less however we want with the low extra cost because we've already dug it up the same thing's happening in this building we're doing all the stuff we have to do the bones of the building the the ventilation the electrical the the mold issues are going to be addressed with a different type of heating and cooling system. When we put all that back together, that's an opportunity for us to make it a little easier for residents to use this facility to come right in the front entrance in a little bit more convenient way and get to the things that they most often use. One of the proposals further down is these council chambers instead of them being so grandiose. We got this big space. Why don't we make it less grandiose and more functional during the daytime where we can break it into two separate trading rooms and things like that? Because this area is fairly underutilized during daytime hours and book just about every night of the week with planning board, HDC, council, school board, et cetera. So it's pretty complex, but I don't want to get lost in the fact and I was probably one of the biggest naysayers of spending this money. with the work that the committee's done over the last few years to really come up with a solution to an impending problem, which is this building just being very old and tired. I'm happy to support the monies tonight. I think we have a really good plan and a really good roadmap. I think everybody sacrificed a bit of what they wanted to come together, but I'm happy to support it, and I'll just leave it at that.

Council Bagley, Council Morrell.

i have a couple questions one is that the renovations that are on the list under the city-wide facilities that are going to happen to like this chamber and other renovations i just want to make sure that they're not going to be lost on the fact that we're now making this plan to possibly change everything like new windows are those going to be you know part incorporated part with the the future thoughts of the plan the idea would be to have no stranded costs okay if we had to make improvements immediately there would be improvements that would in order to the overall project and then my second question is I know some of this is talking about doing trying to finish the rail trail along North Mill Pond I'm just curious if we currently have all the rights to do that or is that still in the works hoping somebody has the answer

wait for an answer to come some rows question somebody asked that in the Municipal Building Committee and I believe it was Peter Rice explained there's a bunch of windows that we replaced in the last 10 years and we're gonna keep those and all the windows that have been around for 50 60 years we're gonna replace those I'm paraphrasing but roughly I just wanted to make sure so the the right-of-ways and the access at least along the North Mill Pond we have a

We have most of them figured out in terms of the 105 Bartlett projects being built. The section between 105 Bartlett and Maplewood are still in private hands, but have access components built into their properties. So I think we have to negotiate that one. And then as you go around the North Mill Pond and the north end of the cove there, you have the one rains project which has a trail on the water as a part of their approved plan as you know the city park is is moving along and going out to bid soon to build that project and then the ac hotel behind that you just quickly go into 53 green actually um and that is being built behind there so more or less there's uh the one short section before the cemetery okay thank you

Councillor Hopkins.

I just wanted to speak in support of the municipal building upgrades as well because as we talk about the building and the windows and the HVAC my point is to bring that back to the people that provide point of service to our public that is you know sometimes taken for granted and there's an inherent safety risk for that working in many hospitals working in many different places even taking a trip to manchester city hall within the past month there's a lot more security in place for the people that work in these public facing roles and i think that we owe that to our city workers here to have a building that has inherent security built in for the public facing roles before there is some tragedy so i am in support of these upgrades not only for the the environmental factors but for the safety of our staff as well

Council Hopkins, Council Cook.

Thank you, Your Honor. As one of the co-chairs of the Municipal Buildings Committee, I came in, I was very skeptical about the process of renovating the police facility mostly because we've been doing lots of work to maintain this building and that facility over many years which has cost us a significant amount of money but there was one elephant in the room if you want to say it that way the hvac for this entire complex has to be upgraded. It's not just the police facility that needs to be done. It's a system that is building wide. And so if we upgrade the police facility and we don't upgrade the HVAC building wide, we're gonna continue to have the same challenges that we've had over a long period of time in the police facility. now in order to provide the police with the space that they desire within this building and that they need for their detectives we also have to displace a lot of our city workers that are outside of the police department specifically planning department and our inspections department staff and that means that we will be taking their space away to provide additional space for the police department That necessitates renovation of additional space within this facility in order to bring them back into the facility and to make sure the facility functions for all staff. So it's not an either or. You don't get to do just the police facility because there's not enough space for the police without taking space away from municipal workers. and then you once you take the space away you have to do other parts of the building to accommodate them and also to address the hvac system which will be an ongoing problem for the city maintenance problem which costs us a significant amount every year if we don't fix it for the long term and we're doing all of that within the same budgetary constraints that we had just for the police facility before So this project, while it seems to have grown in scope, is actually reduced significantly in budget and has come in at the same budgetary numbers that we would have had essentially for just a police facility. And we will be doing the HVAC improvements, which will save us a considerable amount of money in the long term and maintenance on this facility and this whole building complex, but will also save us money in the long run on utilities costs. so i think that that's a long way to explain how we ended up here but we've had committee meetings for a considerable amount of time and if anybody's interested at this point in going back and reviewing those committee meetings they're all publicly available on the youtube channel for the city we have had regular public comment at those meetings we welcome public input and we were hoping we received more public input as we move forward this design money that is currently being approved hopefully tonight was approved several years ago by the city council it's not new tonight it was approved in our cip budget we are just going to bonding tonight on this funding so the council had already considered that funding a few years ago any other questions or comments before public comment or the public hearing

I'll just remind you this building is pretty old just for reference my father was actually born here in 1952 but just a reference and downstairs used to be the morgue so this building needs some work any we will now open up the public hearing to for against anything in front of us as resolution 13 14-2026

Hi, I'm Sue Sterry. I live on Broad Street here in Portsmouth, and I'm also on the Municipal Committee. I had the pleasure last Saturday of spending two hours with Carl Weber, our deputy city manager, and we talked to a lot of people. Carl talked more than I did because he was there earlier. However, I it was good the majority of people who stopped at the tent were actually interested in the project of the municipal building the signs that we had really drew a lot of attention and always made it the point to ask them what they physically or what they thought of the physical design and I didn't get any negative feedback about anything and I probably talked about ten different people more than five minutes at a time and At the end, Carl said pretty much the same thing, that he didn't get any negative feedback from everybody that he spoke to. I did have the pleasure of speaking to one woman who lives in the cottage. And I pointed out to her where this alley port is and the height and all of those things. And she was very positive. So if I know anything about older women, she spread that news around the building. So hopefully she'll have an impact on that. and the other thing that um a couple people asked me about were the finances they didn't ask me about taxes but they asked me where the money is going to come from so i was really glad that at our public hearing that nate had explained that we really could afford this i didn't get into this bond's going to drop and this is going to happen but i did say that finance department had really gone over and presented to everybody at the meeting that it's doable and it's not going to be outrageous or impact people as they immediately think like oh my gosh my taxes are going to go up so and I've been born in that building down there so I don't like all these terms of these old buildings that to be upgraded they're still standing thank you thank you sue peter huda 280 south street good evening mayor and council

Tonight's hearing is simply not about approving capital projects. You're being asked to authorize another 21.85 million in future borrowings. That does not mean borrowing the money tonight. It means giving the city the authority to borrow it later. A simple example, if you authorize a contractor to spend $100,000 at your home, you haven't written a check, but you've already committed yourself to future expense. That is exactly what this vote does. Since FY22, this council has authorized approximately $154.5 million in capital borrowing. Tonight's request increases that total to approximately $176 million. Even after the April 26 bond sale, the FY27 book still approximates approximately $116 million in authorized but unissued debt still available. But there is another transparency issue here. In April 2026, the city completed a bond sale that generated approximately 35.2 million in proceeds. Yet the council and the public were not provided with a consolidated report identifying exactly which authorized projects were funded from those proceeds and in what amounts. That information should accompany every bond sale. Without it, neither the consul nor the taxpayers can determine which projects have been funded, which remain unfunded, how much authorized borrowing remains for each project, or whether additional authorizations are actually necessary. So my first question is simple. Why is this council being asked to authorize another 21.6 million before receiving a complete accounting of what has already been authorized, what has been funded through prior bond sales, and what has actually been spent? fleet street perfect example the city's own capital improvement plan describes fleet street as a one comprehensive project including sewer separation water drainage street scape pedestrian improvements funded by the general water sewer and and uh and sort in general fund Phase 1, North Mill Pond. Phase 2, Vaughn Mall and Upper Congress Street. Phase 3, Fleet Street. Yet tonight, Vaughn Mall appears as a separate FY2027 project requesting another $1.5 million, $500 from each general water and sewer fund. but if you actually read the sheet it actually tells you they're not going to start this this is all surface so the question would be on this one specifically why are you asking for 1.5 million when the rest of the stuff you are telling us on the project sheet is already done so that's all 1.5 is all for surface but von maul has already been identified in phase two of fleet street if the von maul has already been part of fleet street Why is it now being funded separately? How has the total Fleet Street project been increased? If so, what is the new total project estimate? If not, why isn't Vaughn Mall included in the Fleet Street authorization? The city's project website report still continues to list Fleet Street at an estimated 11.2 million. while council authorizations and requests associated with this corridor approach now approach $20 million across multiple fiscal years and funding sources. Those numbers simply do not reconcile. If Bond Mall was always Phase 2 of Fleet Street, separating it into new bond requests makes it more difficult, not easier, for the council and taxpayers to track the true cost of this project. The Council deserves a reconciliation showing original cost estimate, every authorization to date, every bond issued, every dollar spent, and the current estimated cost to complete the entire project. Fleet Street's not the only example. City facilities continue to receive additional appropriations after multiple years of citywide facilities funding, while separate requests are also included for HVAC and, this year, municipal building audit implementation. The question would be if you're going to ask for another 58 or whatever you're asking for the police facility and this building, why would you ask for a total of another million dollars and not include this in that in that update? The police facility follows the same pattern. Previous appropriations funded repairs, deficiency, feasibility work, and initial facility funding. And tonight, another 2.8 is requested for design before the council has received a comprehensive financial plan. my concern is not with these projects my concern is accountability when projects are repeatedly expanded divided into separate requests or spread across multiple funds and fiscal years neither the council nor the taxpayer can easily determine the original cost of the project, the revised project cost, how much has all been authorized, how much has actually been bonded, how much has actually been spent, and how much remains, or why additional authorization is necessary. Before authorizing another $21.6 million, I respectfully ask the Council to require a project-by-project accountability report that identifies original authorization, additional authorizations, bond issues, dollars spent, remaining balances, percent complete. I've been asking for this for, oh, eight years. original estimated cost, and current estimated cost, and expected completion date. Transparency should not end when a project is authorized, and right now that's exactly what is happening. Transparency should continue through the bond sale, through construction, until every project is complete. Without that information, this Council is being asked to increase borrowing authority while approximately $116 million in previously authorized borrowing remains available. This is not about opposing capital improvements. It's about requiring the same level of financial accountability from city government that every taxpayer is expected to exercise with their own household budget. Before increasing the financial obligations that future councils and future taxpayers will inherit, first provide a complete accounting of the money already authorized, already borrowed, and already spent.

thank you thank you petra esther kennedy 41 pink green ave this council put together a budget of 158 million dollars you have 116 million sitting there that's been authorized and not spent You know, people, I was interested in when I went to the Vaughn Mall, one man spoke up and said, please just make this cheap so that I can afford to live here. You know, I've been to a lot of city halls. I've been to Dover. They have a very nice entrance, a very friendly entrance to come in. It's a very old building. They honor the old building. instead of saying it's crap um and you know i've been to summersworth still has rickety floors people do not complain about working there i have been to farmington same thing you know we honor our history we honor our buildings we don't have to have the taj mahal i ask you to go through these things and ask why we're getting another ambulance when we have four and we only have three stations. And we know that it's become a competitive business. So there's other entities out there that have ambulances. And as we look at this ambulance replacement, how much is Newcastle giving to it? How much is Greenland giving to it? All these places, Newington, that utilize our ambulances and our hospitals. So, you know, we go through, I can go through every one of these and pretty much say the same thing. You know, what are other communities contributing when they're utilizing it? And you have to ask yourselves, how much burden can we put on the Portsmouth taxpayer? How much burden can we put on the future taxpayers? You've all run on the fact you want housing for all. You keep going up in taxes and you keep going up in basically mortgages on things, to put it in layman's terms. With the bonds, you're not making it affordable. So I think Councilor Cook said our desires What is our needs? You know, we can't look at desires. We need to look at what do we need truly to make our city successful and what do we need to make our city so that we can do our daily business. That's all we're looking for. Thank you.

Thank you, Esther. Any other speakers to for or against on this public hearing? Seeing none rise, seeing none in Zoom, closing the public hearing. Any other council questions or deliberations? Councillor Begley. Thanks, Your Honor.

I think some of the speakers tonight brought up some good points, and that is our bond cycles are confusing. We have the CIP, but we really only authorize that fiscal year CIP. And it's not even really authorized at that point because, like we are tonight, we then have to authorize those bonds for the city. Now, we're not going to go down to the bank tomorrow and take out all this money, because we don't need it yet, because we're not going to start the project. And in some cases, that project may get delayed two or three years, such as Fleet Street. When we went to do that, we realized that the drainage lines downstream of it had to be improved. And I think it was the Maple Street Bridge had to be done. So everything ends up getting delayed for years. So we have $112 billion, I think it was said, in authorized but not bonded monies. And the reason we've authorized them is because we know those projects are coming. reason we haven't bonded them is we don't need the money yet because we haven't gotten to the point we're doing that construction i like to refer to our streets as kind of like when you own an old house which i think a lot of people in portsmouth either do or live in when you open up the wall you don't know what you're going to find but you know it's not going to be pleasant and it's going to cost more money in time and the same thing happens when we open up our streets we we find all sorts of things wooden pipes i think there was a giant telephone switchboard under von maul that nobody ever knew about and some of the wires might have still been live and doing things so we had to figure that out delay the project a week so we end up in a situation where we start a project to do something in the city and then it expands like an octopus and we have to bond for for other streets or other things that have to happen it's not bad accounting it's not bad management is the reality is until the shovels hit the ground and we start digging things up, we don't know what we don't know. And we're not going to take the money out of the bank until it's time to spend it. So you get three bites, I believe, at the Apple with every bond issue. We get the first bite when we approve it in the CIP. We get the second bite like we're doing tonight where we approve for the city to go out and do the bond. And then we get a last chance to say no when we actually issue the bond, which might be next month or it might be three years from now. I've been up here a long time now. I look at the finances. I'm very happy with the professional management of the city, the job they do. The banks give us a AAA bond rating, which the national government doesn't even get. I forget what our last bond came in. It was at 4% or thereabouts.

Yeah.

3.56 percent interest rate who else in the country is getting interest rates on bonding like that that speaks to the financial experts around the world trusting what the city is doing with its money and we're doing a great job in my opinion i'm biased because i'm up here i think we have a wonderful place to live albeit it's it costs money it costs a lot of money to provide clean water sewer fire police great education for our kids great recreation, great libraries. That's what we're doing tonight. We're approving these things, not because they're cheap, but because we need them to be a community that we want to be. And when it comes to spending money, that's where we're really saying these are our priorities. It's really easy to say that you believe in things. It's hard to put money behind it. And that's what we're doing tonight.

thank you Andrew anybody else Council we just like one add one thing a couple things first on the you know we're governed by the debt limit so the idea that we have 116 million dollars in authorized spending that exists out there it's we also the council policy that's going to limit how much we bond for in any calendar year to make sure that we were under a debt limit it's not like there's going to be uh projects that are coming back and 116 million dollars and we're going to go to 100 of our debt limit uh overnight but uh to counselor bagley's point those were approved uh but not yet started um i would like to talk about the the police station not just because it came up in public comment because but because of where we started this process. And I recall it was my first time on the council and got to tour the police station and got to see the rock closet for the first time. And for those that haven't had the chance to see the rock closet, it's a room with a door and it opens and there's just kind of earth. in there and rocks and not to say that anybody was working in there but speaks to the fact that this is a pretty i won't say old sue but it's a it's a nuanced uh building uh one of the things that we heard um and i'm apologizing for folks that have heard this before but i think it's worth telling uh when we first looked at going to other sites uh for the police station one of the drivers for that was that it was needed to be a category four building now without getting super into the weeds and the technical aspects of that that's a hardened building that can sustain you know hurricane uh force winds it's part of the building code and it's something that you don't build your house to and you don't build uh actual office buildings too And so, you know, the idea that we were going to necessarily be able to buy another office building so that we could then retrofit that, getting that up to a category four building was going to be a lot of effort in and of itself and is certainly a lot of cost. Heard a lot of folks talk about being able to just kind of buy this building or that building and make it to the police station. There's a lot of effort and we'll see how well Concord does in doing that exact path. where they spent upwards of $60 million on a project to do that for another police building. What we heard here in Portsmouth was two things at the same time, two facts that can be true at the exact same time. I think the community or the community believe that those members, men and women of the police force deserve to get out of the basement, out of conditions that were not conducive to police work, evidence collection, booking intake of suspects. and that Portsmouth was not going to be able to sustain $72 million estimate that we came back for the cheapest of the options that we had for a separate police building. At that point, it wasn't because we were looking to build taj mahal or any great wonder of the world that we included the municipal building but as was pointed out this room right here i've often said that this is the most expensive room in the city of portsmouth because it is heated and cooled every day of the year, but only occupied for fractions of the night, sometimes way too long into the night, but it's never open during the day. And one of the specific things that the police department was asking for was the ability to say, hey, can we get folks in here? Can we do trainings? We're going to trainings all around the state. If we could host, it would be better. The other thing we talked about is community policing facility. Could we have this? Could we have more room in a place where we could do some trainings? Could we welcome the public in? And to that point, we weren't welcoming the public into this giant room during the day. It's dark. It's not being used. And so being able to look at this in a different light allowed us to save some of the space, asking some folks to make some changes. And I'll get to that in one second. But first, Shanti Wolf came and looked at this in a different way in terms of we originally didn't talk about renovating this building. because in order to do so we were going to get category four having to do the whole building he looked at the building code slightly different and figured out a way for us to be able to say hey you know we don't actually have to renovate everything in this building to category four when we start to touch it that was a big change in how we were looking at this uh in the first place and then you know of all of these decisions this is the most impactful to staff it's gonna suck during this process and I don't want to sugarcoat that in terms of what is going to be asked of every employee here that has not been one thing that I've heard through this entire process and I and I haven't actually publicly stated this but I want to thank you know the staff for always putting their needs in terms of you know like their work life like being able to say we're going to be in a building we're going to be walking we're going to be in temporary locations you know their office is not going to be the office i think most of us have gone through that one time um or so in our life it's disruptive but that's you know what we're looking at to do when we got a 72 million dollar nut that we looked at and said this is too much when we had 12 million dollars still stated to be you know fixed in the hvac and to be able to bring that in you know in a phased approach uh maintaining the the debt limit you know I think is a is a worthy plan that we're going to continue to move forward with as a part of it tonight. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Would I like to spend the money on something else? Absolutely. Yes. But to be a 400 year old city means having, you know, looking at the needs not just of right now today but knowing what those needs are going to be in 10 years in 20 years and making sure that they are not unattainable when they come to be needs and be able to plan for that plan for that future so i want to thank the municipal building committee i want to thank the folks that asked to be on that that that served as uh as citizens on that to the staff you know there's a lot of work that's going to go into this but i appreciate looking at the um

looking at how do we make the the best situation out of a a tough situation to be able to spend money when there's not money uh laying around and be able to do so in a way that is going to stretch this as much as we can counselor hopkins i just feel like this might be a good time to plug the work session we did last month on this topic that should be available on youtube should people want more detail or to see the designs and to hear the discussion around that it was i it was probably my favorite work session to date

well uh counselor hopkins i don't know if it is i will say that's probably it was a good one uh too i was just happy that uh mr rice was out there spray painting on the street where uh the extension would go to um i don't know if that's still out there um or if you use temporary spray paint on that um but i encourage everybody to watch that and i encourage everybody to continue uh to to stay involved and going down the list ambulance replacement program until we change the staffing requirements if we were going to change that this is a part of the process that we know that it's very expensive to build and repair ambulances and so this is a part of the reason why we have that replacement the municipal building audit um just spoke to that in terms of city-wide facilities um hanson beach rail trail you know to be able to um invest a certain amount of money this has probably been been the surprise of my time on the council just how much people loved the rail trail and being able to invest in that the drainage allows us to use less water than we've used 10 years ago because we continue to separate that the creek is another area where that's going to be separating the storm drains the von maul restoration we have more to say about that later and today it's a long time coming for that it's not you know the final product of what we have right now with the Jersey Bears but look forward to doing that so I just you know there's a lot in here again I don't if this is your first time watching any of this or listening to this like it's not you know it's our job to make sure that we have this conversation over and over again and in fact the capital improvement plan will start up again this month at the end of this month is when we start the budget for next year so it encourage the citizens requests are open until september i encourage everybody to be a part of this this is what we do all year long and there's many times that we will have another chance to discuss this but it's always worth having the discussion all right with that your questions i move to adopt resolution number 14-2026 as presented

second require a roll call vote assistant mayor kelly yes council cook yes counselor tabor yes counselor blaylock yes counselor vagley yes counselor moreau yes counselor flynn yes counselor hopkins yes and mayor mckechern yes uh thanks sally uh next up public hearing and adoption of resolution 15-2026 authorizing a bond issue and or notes of the

of the city under the municipal finance act of up to six hundred thousand dollars for the cost related to the purchase of one fire apparatus that is a fire boat um do we have a presentation on this um any council questions or do you want to jump right into the public hearing council questions okay uh public hearing

Esther Kennedy, 41 Pickering Ave. I've been very vocal that we do not need a fire boat. And it was a prime example during the Parade of Sells. Parade of Sells, we had the state police boat, we had the des boat we had the port authority we had fishing game we had the navy yard and then you had two coast guards and we as eric always says we only have a mile when you're out there and i was thinking about at the time i actually ran into and saw the fire boat that we currently have um you know when i think about you're an emergency on your boat you're out there you're not going to call portsmouth fire the first thing you're going to do is call the rate use the radio and call the coast guard and that happened that night on the emergency line we were out there listening to the radio and all of a sudden someone's in trouble they did not call portsmouth fishing for smith fire so i really think that since we also don't keep it in all year round i really think you really need to think is this a want or really a need and just look at the proportions on the sales And I know the city manager said that the Coast Guard said they weren't going to come and they weren't going to come and do their duty. But I also know currently, unless it changed legislatively, that is their duty. They don't need to save your vessel. They need to help you get off and make sure you're safe. So as someone who sailed around the world, been boats all my life, I really would think twice, do we need to spend the $600,000? The other thing that I want to remind you is the last time we spoke about this, I heard about 150,000 that we put in the CIP and then maybe we try to find grants right from the mayor during that public or during that council meeting. And now we're back up to 600,000. So I guess you have to really ask with all the money going out. How are we going to be able to allow someone with $60,000 to live in our city? Thank you.

Thank you, Esther.

Good evening. Thank you very much. My name is Eric Anderson, 38 Georgia's Terrace, Portsmouth. i've been here before in public comment to express my thoughts and opinions on this on the city bonding and purchasing of the new fire boat i still stand by many of those thoughts in many respects but have come to the realization that this purchase will still proceed in some manner but now it's with specific detail on how it will be done at a previous council meeting There was some logic and some physical conscious consciousness on the matter it was proposed and approved by the council to authorize for bonding of a $150,000 which would represent 25% match for a $600,000 boat contingent on the city investigating applying and procuring available federal dollars. It made sense. But now it is mysteriously. Return before you to fully bond for 6 for a $600,000 vessel without proceeding with the council. Without proceeding. With the strategy of a 150,000 as a 25% match. This should be some explanation as to why this change took place without any council or public discussion. Chief Quillen put together a very informative packet on the fire boat issue which I've seen in which I'm sure you've read. There was one section that gathered my interest in hopefully yours it was providing explanation to the existence of the Piscataqua River emergency response. Within this group. It states, oh, there is no less than five state and federal agencies capable of emergency response under Piscataqua. A quote from this information packet states, through this collaboration, roles and capacities are clearly defined, and the city of Portsmouth is recognized as having primary responsibility for responding to accidents in and along the river. primary responsibility with that statement only prompts the question as to why the city of portsmouth take on the primary responsibility and expense at the cost of its taxpayers when other new hampshire communities east and west of portsmouth and also on me and also in me absorb no cost equipment personnel time or risk I think with confidence that when any accident takes place on the water in the Piscataqua and potentially extending to the Isles of Shoals, the first call that will be made will be to the City of Portsmouth because they have the best equipment. They get the best toys. Nobody else has anything like it. Rye has a jet ski. Newcastle has an aluminum boat. I don't know what Maine has, but we'll have a $600,000 vessel and you can be very confident that that's where the first call is going to be made when there's an accident or a need for response. I still would like some explanations how this mysteriously transformed itself from the $150 25% match to a fully bonded issue of $600,000. It's not the biggest ticket item, it's the principle. Well, I think there is a slim chance for you to change your position on this matter. The least you might do is recalibrate this bonding matter and rethink some type of strategy. or equitable solution for the taxpayers of portsmouth which might include other communities that have the same responsibilities to emergencies and accidents thank you thank you eric any other speakers

I'm Sue Sterry. I live on Broad Street in Portsmouth. I lived in Elliott briefly years ago, and while I was there, I was on the safety committee. And our biggest concern for the safety on the river were all those oil tanks that sit up there. But not only that, also the LPG boats that sit up in there. There's no one city that could handle anything even on a minor level of what might happen with those boats or those tanks. And the other concern was, even though it included Kittery, was any terrorist activity on the Piscataqua Bridge. and that is a prime place for many things to happen to be dropped on ships coming in bombs underneath what have you i mean this was years ago so i can imagine that there are probably even more issues that could happen with terrorism in the area. And I take it very seriously. We talked to Augusta and things like that. And again, it was years ago. So I'm really concerned about us not having a proper tool that could happen here, regardless of whether we want to go up into Great Bay or out to the Isles of Shoals somebody has to be aware and on top of what's going on with terrorism in this area and there are not anything that we need to worry about but the shipyard and the coast guard are are responsible for maintaining security along the the three bridges that we have i have no idea what their protocol is i don't know if they check once a month or once a year or what any anybody does at this point in time so yes i was at the meeting where they talked about 150 000 for a new boat which i think is great and again i'm really curious why all of a sudden it's going up to six hundred thousand dollars um But we need something, so this just needs to be a happy medium and an explanation why we should spend $600,000. If that's what we need to do, then so be it. But I'd want to know why first. Thank you.

Thank you, Sue.

Major Huda, Portsmouth. So no one's arguing against public safety, but when the council tells the taxpayers at a meeting that it's going to cost $150,000 and then you come back and ask for $600,000 without telling taxpayers how many actual calls this vessel responds to every year, what's the real cost to residents, and how many usual aid resources are available here and not sufficient. So the bigger issue to me here is when this was first discussed, it was told that we were going to share this, and it's only going to be 150. You took it down from 900 to 600, and then 150, just like Eric said. And you haven't answered any questions. And I know I put these questions forward. How much is it really costing us per call? The question is please, when you do that, include all the training and all the extra time that has to be put in to maintain this vessel and get it on the water. So I think the taxpayers deserve to know both sides of this, not just the cost, but how much it is costing them in total to do this. And why aren't we, why isn't the Coast Guard and only four other agencies supporting Portsmouth and everybody else who lives, who's on the Piscatica River? Thank you.

Thank you, Petra. Any other speakers, public comment? Any on Zoom? seeing none on zoom closing public comment easiest thing to clarify is I had a motion for to be 150,000 which represented what was under the represent the match under a federal grant that motion did not pass and the $600,000 is the cost that is approved as a part of the CIP that as a part of that what did pass was to and we will have the answer on our fate anywhere between the end of August and the end of September. as a 600 000 fire apparatus or fire boat and it was it was under under the agenda i'm sorry if it was confusing it was under the agenda with a motion but that did not my motion did not pass that evening and so it was down from 900 000 to 600 000 but it did not become a of the federal grant being successful. Councillor Boyle.

Thank you, Your Honor. I've kind of been against this, well, with the price tag, with the $900,000 and the $600,000 when we talked about it in the CIP and the budget. I look at it as a risk assessment, right? It's a cost benefit analysis. Our most important job up here is to keep everyone in Portsmouth safe. Our second most important job is to do it efficiently with your taxpayer dollars. i'm a boater i'm a paddleboarder i'm a swimmer i'm out of the water my family's got two properties on the water but i can't justify this cost for the residents of portsmouth and for my neighbors i understand the coast guard is understaffed but that that issue should not fall on the city of portsmouth I get it, trust me, I've lost a lot of sleep over this. Worrying about putting people in an unsafe position or leaving our swimmers or our waterfront or kids playing in the Prescott Park. I can think of all the possibilities. But at this point, from what I've been presented and what I've been told and everything, I cannot justify $600,000 to be put on our taxpayers for Firebolt.

Council Butler, Council Tabor.

This has been controversial from the start, but I think the council has gathered a lot of information. I know for me, people get hurt on boats. People get hurt near the river. People fall into the river. Tragically, some people jump into the river. And the only... that brings the paramedics to the scene of those incidents is the fire department. So I think it was clear to me when we are the medical aid, we are the paramedics among all these agencies, that we need the right tools to do the job. And compounding that, you know, if we were to have a fire break out on bow street on series street that could only be suppressed from the water just the amount of property damage i think justifies being able to attack a fire that way but primarily to me it's uh This is a very busy river. There's a lot of road traffic, there's a lot of things going on, summer and winter. Well, primarily summer, but even in winter. And we have to get paramedics there to save lives, and I think this is the tool to do it.

Thank you. Councilor Tabor, Councilor Bagley, and then Councilor Cook.

Thank you, Your Honor. You know, at 900,000, I couldn't support this. I thought it was too much money, so I voted against it. I am happy is probably not the right word, but I think it's appropriate to support it at $600,000 for the reasons Councillor Tabor just stated. Our men and women are out there. The boat that we have now is the wrong boat. Whose fault that is, it doesn't matter. The fact is that we're sending our men and women out in the wrong boat. There are towns, Newington, for example, they keep their boat in the water all year round. They've got a 2019... i don't know all the specifics on it but it's a it's a more robust boat um and it's in the water all year round as a fire boat should be in fact we uh they called us because their boat was in for service and they said can you put the boat in the water a month early this year and uh we ended up sending our fire team out into snow squall for uh i don't know if it was a rescue or a recovery operation but you know they're out there on the water We've also, the Isle of Shoals belongs to Rye and they've called us for service. And we said, no, we don't have the capability to go out seven miles offshore in our boat. And we probably still won't with this boat. We're talking about the coastline of the Piscataqua in Portsmouth and directly adjacent and across the river to our friends in Maine. There's enough going on there where we need paramedics, recovery operations, rescue operations. that if this is a service that we want to provide, and I think giving our history as a seagoing town, giving Prescott Park and the number of families that are there for different events, all the boaters on the water, all the fishermen, all the waterfront activities that we have, We got a water taxi now. I know that guy's pretty vocal. I love that we live in a marine time community. But with that comes risk, and there's going to be accidents, and there's going to be tragedies. And yeah, every boat with flashing lights was at the parade of sail. Accidents don't happen at the parade of sail. Accidents happen at 2 in the morning. And that's when our men and women respond, and they have to have the right equipment. And if we can get the right equipment for 600,000, which I think we can, then I think it's a worthwhile expenditure. You know, there's a cost benefit, and Councillor Blaylock and I, you know, we disagree on where that point is, but I think we're both making the same point. At some point, the cost is too much. For me, that was 900,000. At 600,000, I think it's an appropriate cost. At 125,000, it'd probably be unanimous. We're all gonna have different opinions and perspective on what we should spend on a fire vote. I think the chief has made a really good case for his team that this is what they need. There was, you know, we got the wrong vote, what eight nine years ago and and you know we can't we can't undo that we can't change that past but we can move forward with the right vote in the future so I'm going to support this and then just you know to the mayor's point where the motion didn't pass and that's why it came through here but one thing we did is we separated it out and it wasn't me somebody else smarter than me did this we're talking about this as an individual item because it is contentious and it gives us on the council It's not lumped in with six other things. We're all going to vote up or down on this one specific item because it is a controversial item. And I think that shows good government. We all get a chance to vote for that one specific thing. It's not lumped in with a playground or a school upgrade or an ambulance. We're just voting on the fire boat. And we're going to have to own that vote individually because it's a roll call vote.

Thank you, Councilor Bagley. Councilor Cook.

Thank you, Your Honor. Just a few weeks ago, my husband and I were walking down by the water, and we saw the current fire boat being operated by our fire department employees. And I turned to my husband, who happens to be a physician who's trained in advanced lifesaving and CPR and regularly has to resuscitate people. And I said, could you do CPR on that boat? And he wasn't terribly confident that he could on our existing fire boat. And I said, okay, so it would be challenging on the existing boat. What about in February? And he just was kind of shocked at the idea that our firefighters would be providing EMS service on the river in an open boat in February in the freezing cold and could potentially be rescuing somebody who needs CPR on that boat, needs lifesaving care on that boat. that is open air in the middle of the winter and that has always been my concern about our existing boat it would be very challenging to provide the care that we need to provide for somebody who's been in the water especially in really cold water unexpectedly early in spring on a boat in its current condition current size we do need a better fire boat if nothing else it's because of what councillor tabor said we provide that ems service on the river and we have one of the fastest currents in the world on that river it's very challenging to navigate people regularly get stuck on paddle boards or in kayaks in the wrong place at the wrong time going the wrong direction it could be very challenging for an individual to navigate and we as a result have accidents on the river i want to make sure that we're protecting our residents our citizens to the best of our abilities and that we'll be able to provide ems care on the river if needed and so that's why i will absolutely support this expenditure for the fire boat i think cancer cook any other comments

So it's difficult in that we're just before the window of which we're going to get an answer back on this. Ideally, it would be coming in the end of September after this, and I could easily support it then, likely would support it even if we didn't have the funding, but would like to wait until we have an answer on this. So I'd entertain a motion to push this until the September timeframe to see if we have funding on this or whether or not it is something that we would be funding ourselves.

So moved.

second second for discussion your honor could we and maybe this is a legal question but could we approve it tonight pending the outcome approve it but delay it until we hear the outcome of the grant application or does that if you just table it to and to pick a date off your calendar maybe an October date to be safe

If you voted to approve, you'd have to vote to rescind. Yes.

Is there a question to the chief? Would it impact the procurement process?

uh thank you for the question your honor uh no it wouldn't uh wouldn't impact that at all other than delivery time uh delivery time when would that is it an equal uh delivery time Again, we haven't gone through the procurement process, so not having put it out to bid, I wouldn't know who's bidding on it or who's providing the vessel, how long their delivery times would be, but it would be later than if you moved on it tonight, right? Just 30 days, right?

Any other, was there a question on this side? No? Okay. Thank you, Chief.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chief.

do we have a recommended date to table it to the grant tour is no later than the end of the federal fiscal year which is September 30th as I understand it so the media the meeting immediately after that is October 13th the maker of the motions agreement I demand it to table to October 13th City Council meeting yeah any further discussion

all in favor aye aye any opposed opposed thank you very much um the next um public hearing and adoption of resolution 16 dash 2026 authorizing a bond issue under notes of the city under the Municipal Finance Act and the participation in the state revolving fund loan program for up to four million nine hundred thousand dollars for costs related to annual water line replacement well stations improvements medbury water treatment plant facility repair and improvements portsmouth and collins walls treatment the creek neighborhood reconstruction vaughn mall restoration no presentation any council questions seeing none we'll open the public hearing speak to for against this specific resolution seeing no one rise no hands on zoom closing the public uh public hearing any additional council questions turner i move to adopt resolution number 16-2026 as presented second any further discussion

council book i'll just state that a lot of these improvements go to our safe drinking water um and keeping us healthy indeed uh roll call vote please assistant mayor kelly yes counselor cook yes counselor tabor yes counselor blaylock yes counselor bagley yes councilor moreau yes counselor flynn yes counselor hopkins yes mayor mckechnie yes

so um next up is public hearing and adoption of resolution 17-2026 authorizing a bond issue and or notes of the city under the municipal finance act and or participation in the state revolving loan fund srf program about to three million one hundred thousand dollars for the costs related to wastewater pumping station improvements pierce island wastewater treatment facility city-wide storm drainage improvements involved vaughn mall restoration no presentation any additional city council questions seeing none we'll open the public hearing no one rising no one on zoom closing the public hearing your honor i would move to adopt resolution 17-2026 as presented second Any questions now? Nope, roll call vote please.

Assistant Mayor Kelly? Yes. Councilor Cook? Yes. Councilor Tabor? Yes. Councilor Blaylock? Yes. Councilor Bagley? Yes. Councilor Moreau? Yes. Councilor Flynn? Yes. Councilor Hopkins? Yes. Mayor McEachern?

Yes. next is the off of the public hearings of adoptions of resolutions and bonds we are the first rating for annual on your bus ordinance amending chapter 7 vehicles traffic and parking

Your Honor, I move to pass first reading of the Annual Omnibus Ordinance amending Chapter 7, Vehicles, Traffic, and Parking, Article 3, Traffic Ordinance Section 7.326, Limited Parking-15 Minutes, Section 7.330A, No Parking, and Article 6, Loading Zones, Section 7.601, Limited Hour Loading Zones and Scheduled Public Hearing. And second reading at the August 17, 2026 City Council Meeting.

Second.

any discussion any discussion on this this is again uh counselor cook is there i'm just trying to determine exactly where these the changes are taking place um because it's measured in in feet not in low like we're not given um kind of a location that people would understand say say in front of in front of moe's sandwich shop so tell me um where exactly the daniel street change is looking i could tell you in front of motion your honor it's um it's the northerly side two spaces beginning 159 feet from the westerly curb line of ben hallow

continuing 38 feet in a westerly direction so yes these were 15 minutes parking spaces that were across the street for three or four years ago got moved in front of Moe's and it just takes a long time to make things final in Portsmouth and this is scheduling the final reading probably on these parking spaces for quite some time I hope there will be a presentation okay so there's gonna be a presentation and folks are gonna know that the parking is

already there already there and this is the omnibus that and just to the omnibus again I'm sure that there's somebody's tuning into the council for the first time on August 3rd Joshua was not there so they're at home and so the omnibus is when changes are made to parking and traffic safety they go into effect upon accepting the action sheets in the minutes of the meeting in case they are issues that are of safety or life safety etc the omnibus is when we actually clean up all those those action item minutes and make them into a change the ordinance all at once instead of doing that individually This is the first reading will be the second reading and then likely a third reading. All in favor? Aye.

Any opposed?

All right. Now we have public hearing and second reading of ordinance amending chapter six licenses and encumbrances article one encumbrance permits and licenses for the use of public property relative to section 6.111 fees. your honor we don't have a presentation per se there's notes in the city manager's comments and senior assistant city attorney Jane Farini is here to answer any questions okay any questions for Jane before we have a public hearing it might be since Jane is here helpful to explain what this is, again, for the public in case they do have a question.

Thank you, Mary. This is basically a housekeeping measure for Chapter 6. As you all may remember, there was a lot of work amending the Chapter 6 in November to pull all the encumbrance references in many chapters in the ordinance to one what was not included was the fee provision in the revision to article one and the part of that was based on the discussion when this came forward that those fees would be looked at again and in fact they were they were looked at by the fees study committee and the fee study committee recommended with their last budget, that those fees associated with the conferences be changed. So the council voted to approve the changes to those fees. And so what this little amendment does, it just adds at the end of article one in chapter six, that the fees are going to be adopted consistent with chapter one the administrative code article 16 adoption of fees section it actually should be 1.1601 which is either through the budget resolution or this council can also adopt fees under the amendments to chapter one so that's the purpose of this amendment thank you jane you're welcome

any additional or any questions before public hearing seeing none we'll open the public hearing since jane did such a good job i see none no one rise and no one on zoom closing the public hearing now would wait a motion

i move to pass second reading and schedule a third and final reading on august 17 2026 on the amendment to chapter six licenses and encumbrances article one encumbrance permits and licenses for use of public property section 6.111 fees as presented second any further discussion all in favor aye any opposed counselor cook

Your Honor, I move to suspend the rules and schedule third and final reading. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Your Honor, I move to pass third and final reading.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Your Honor, if we, having done that, we now need to rescind the old policy.

isn't that correct we will do that at the next meeting is that correct jane we will take that at the august 17th okay thank you yeah we're ready to do it in case you know it's third uh is that 17 but it seems in opposition there all right um public hearing and second reading of ordinance amended to chapter 12 city of portsmouth building code section uh 1201 through 1209 by deleting and replacing the entire chapter your honor we have chief building inspector shanti wolf ready to present

uh good evening mayor system mayor councilor city manager city staff so i think the last time i was here for a building code amendment we got rid of probably 30 or 40 pages and now we're getting rid of a lot more pages and our entire code will fit on two sheets of paper so this essentially has happened historically we've maintained the local building code as an add-on to the state code um to address what we figured were you know specific local gaps that in our opinion the state code really didn't cover but year after year the building code review board responsible for adopting our codes every three years as well as our amendments to the codes they've done a really good job incorporating feedback from all the different towns and cities around the state from from builders developers different organizations and largely this evolution has eliminated the need for standalone local technical versions we still have administrative changes that we can make so so essentially this proposed chapter 12 ordinance aligns the municipal regulations with the New Hampshire state law which is which is a new law while preserving our authority over administrative matters this update ensures consistency for contractors and homeowners operating across municipal lines so now if a builder goes from one town or city to another he doesn't have he or she doesn't have to look up the codes and sit down with the building inspector's office and find out how they need to bid their jobs differently or what they're looking for consistent across the board you have no opportunity to make any more local technical amendments can't be done um so and that's specifically uh the next slide um kind of shows the timeline of the progression of our state codes and then more recently um 2025 hp 244 administrative reorganization into 155a which is kind of a big deal so now all of our administrative for all the codes is is under our state building code um and then our hb 1159 will update all of our monocles every three years we're in a new cycle we're now on the 24 as of july 1st and then um sp 437 updates the fire code but back to the uh specific ordinance that we're on right now um just so that you know we do have the ability to adopt alternative model codes such as the green building code the property maintenance code we can adopt those codes in their entirety or some some you know revised version of those they do have to be confirmed by the building code review board but we we still have that we can do that we just can't take the state building code that's consistent and go in and start changing things that we feel should be or need to be specific for our for our for our city our municipality if we feel that important Then we should go to the BCRB and we should explain our concerns, and then we would adopt those in the next code cycle. So that's really what's happened here. And then any of our, and also the administrative amendments, like I said, what is an administrative amendment? It means that if we want to align maybe our local, our fence height with the zoning, we can do that. That's administrative. If we want to adjust our fees, that's administrative. We can do that as long as it's not any less restrictive than the state code. so essentially that's uh that's what this is um yeah any questions thanks shanti um counselor cook

Thank you for the presentation and thank you for confirming that we can actually come back with green building codes. I understand that we need to get through this process and get this adopted so that we're in compliance with state code. After that happens, then at that stage, can we work on a green building incentive code i know it's something that we'd already started the process for and we already had a placeholder in the code but we hadn't developed it and i'm hoping that we can develop that in more in in a greater effort later

sure whatever direction you know this council you know once wants us to go and that's that's the route that we'll take it was a placeholder as you pointed out so we really didn't have any mandatory you know green building codes other than I think for city projects right but but absolutely yeah that's there and that's an option so you know whatever we want to do I'm there to help

Any other?

uh thanks and just one final is that even even if even if you wanted to do a third and final tonight we couldn't so what has to happen the process is that if if tonight's reading is agreed upon and there will be no more changes then this version goes to the building code view board for confirmation and and which is i believe within the next week and a half so it's just pretty tight time frame here and then they would confirm it and then we could have our third reading after that after they've confirmed it making sure that they don't need to make any changes yeah so that's it okay that saves us a motion tonight um thank you again uh shanti for the work that you've done not only in the department uh but

certainly on this I imagine that it's it's not it's not easy work to do but I appreciate especially as the state is has changed the direction on this you know fully and engaging that to the best of our abilities to make sure that you know the code is as good as it can get homeowners are protected and builders have a predictable way to do business in the city I think all of those things aligned to a better experience and appreciate you know again the effort your department makes to make sure that there's getting more to yes especially as as you know a lot of times it's the first time somebody's doing a project you know versus you know maybe there's 17th so appreciate the effort that you're doing and again plugging the office hours that people can come in and ask you any question under the Sun that is again when is it Tuesdays or Thursdays uh every actually every day they can every day okay every day is open for questions so sir until 10 a.m so um getting in there uh well they got to go out and you know look at stuff um but appreciate making yourself available uh to that and you know just um demystifying some of the process when people are going through this process this is further doing that and i'm sure you guys are going to continue to do that but i want to plug the fact that you've brought back office hours again thank you mayor your honor i moved to pass second reading to of the amendment to chapter 12 city of portsmouth building code sections we didn't have a public hearing yeah we got out the public hearing i guess but i totally forgot all right opening the public hearing just like stop before you go for against on the updates uh to this uh building code replacing it with the state building code seeing no one rise

new one on zoom uh closing the public hearing it's basically mine reader your honor i'm going to pass second reading of the amendment to chapter 12 city of portsmouth building code sections 1201 through 1209 and schedule third and final reading at the august 17th city council meeting uh should we have the date on that or we

where um we will have to have the the state building code it's our understanding that the state will meet on august 12th so this should be fine as written thank you okay second any further discussion all in favor aye any opposed all right public hearing regarding chapter one administrative code article 16 adoption of fees section 1.601 procedure

Your Honor, this is the, there can be a verbal presentation. We have Parking Division Director Ben Fletcher here along with Jane Perini, but this is the mechanism whereby the on-street rates would move from $2 per hour to $3 per hour, and this would not take effect for residents.

Okay. Any further question? Council Member?

so when the fee committee met they actually wanted the wrap on street parking to equal all of the downtown parking so i just want to make sure because i think in our sample motion it says to keep the wrap at the two dollars but that wasn't what we had voted at fee committee or was part of our fee so i'm just yeah you can start can we can we fix that tonight

looking at staff some direction here can we fix the motion yeah Thanks for letting us put you on the spot, Jane.

No problem. If the amount is different, then I will defer to the city attorney to see whether that is a substantial change that might need to re notice this hearing. But if it's a dollar amount rate one versus rate two, she can opine as to whether she thinks that that's a substantial change.

we did discuss this earlier so we're we're in agreement that if you change the amount from the three dollars for the first three hours as listed in the motion no my issue is two dollars for the maintaining wrap and it's not the three dollars we wanted when we had this discussion originally and sent it to the fee committee it was to make sure that all our on-street parking was the same costs per hour because if we take the wrap program and we charge them less everyone's going to want to go to there and that was our concern over having different prices which is what started this conversation many months ago so my concern is if we're going up on street downtown that should automatically then increase the on street because what we voted on at fee committee was it would equal on street for the first three hours it wouldn't have the acceleration after that but it would stay at whatever the initial rate was

i think regardless if you're going to change the amounts that are noticed and in the motion here it's going to require a second second reading

two comments to I'm sorry to interrupt one is that the I believe that was probably coming back as a staff recommendation if I recall deputy city manager Carl Weber mentioned that keeping the the wrap at two given two dollars given some comments and feedback on on that and i think that probably is where that that issue arose um so that may be something the council wants to consider and the other thing is the reference is um the the fees section is again um not 1.601 but 1.1601 But at any rate, this is a unique process because I think this is the first public hearing that the council has had to adopt a fee. And it is, you know, so it is up to you guys to discuss. If you want to make the change to the amounts, then probably the best practice would be to do another public hearing, or if you think the motion should move forward as presented, then that would be your choice.

your honor jane is correct staff are looking to keep the the current two dollars per hour uh during the pilot of rap so the motion is worded correctly and we would we would match the garage when the when the rap is yeah i thought we were doing it for matching the garage no that's not what we the fee committee actually put it to match the on-street parking for the first three hours that was what we voted on

also as a member of the fee committee the rap was originally proposed at a dollar an hour i thought it made sense to go to two dollars an hour because a dollar an hour seemed like a too low a price um in my opinion i think

matching the wrap to the garage makes sense and the on street should be a premium so i might disagree with counselor moreau on that and and i agree with this fundamentally as presented the real concern i have and we should do it in my opinion because you want your on street parking to be the highest price because that's where you want the most turnover for the most economic vitality The concern I have is we have heard so much about parking over the last three weeks. There is not a person aware in the city that we're about to raise on street parking by a dollar. And if we vote tonight to raise on street parking by a dollar and nobody in the community is aware of it, I think that, I think we need to get the word out and then have the vote, if that makes sense.

Sure.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to how it's written tonight. I'm just concerned that if we vote to go forward tonight, we haven't really given the community a chance to come yell at us.

Anything on the side of the aisle? Councillor Tabor?

I think Councillor Bagley's got some common sense here. I mean it's kind of a perfect storm. The implementation of the RAP program is happening at the same time we're raising the garage rates and because we raised the garage rates and realized that we had to have the street parking rates in sync, those would go up too. So it's all happening at once.

If you change too many variables, you don't know which variable made the change Just saying from a scientific point of view, you know I mean, I've seen I'm not really I'm obviously against the rap and you know We've heard from the restaurant workers and stuff and it's only been 30 days But I worried that we're confusing the public where yeah, we're doing too much on parking too without enough information out there and everything but That's just me

jane process question so would there be a motion to amend the amounts and then that would move forward for public hearing at the next meeting because the motion as presented has the two dollar route

have a suspicion we might have some public hearing speakers tonight we may not but i don't know if we want to get too far down the road making changes unless we hear yeah okay why don't we uh listen we'll open the public right can you open it and continue it yep yeah we could continue it yeah um why don't we open the public hearing and then we'll uh come back to it Opening the public hearing on the number I, public hearing regarding Chapter 1 Administrative Code, Article 16, Adoption of Fees, Section 1.601.

good evening tyler garza 62 mckinley i'm not quite sure what we're working with at this point but i just wanted to say that i'd normally support these fee increases uh we're below hampton at three dollars an hour and york at four dollars an hour uh so rates uh rate itself is not really my concern it needs to be higher uh However, on May 4th, Colin Scholar, who happened to show up, we didn't plan this, he stood here and said that raising parking fees without offering an alternative is unfair and a wasted opportunity, and that any increase should go to funding alternatives, ideally Coast. Counselors Moreau, Blaylock, and Hopkins all spoke in agreement. At the May 13th work session, our DPW director explained what is actually being done. We're building up the parking fund balance to, quote, reduce the bonding required, end quote, to build the third garage. In his words, increased parking fund balance would give more flexibility when it comes to microtransit discounts and periods of free. So alternatives aren't the priority. They're what we might get after we financed more parking with these increased fees. At that same session on May 13th, the mayor and counselors Moreau and Tabor were already pressing on why parking's transfer to the general fund has stayed flat for years while revenue keeps growing. if we're raising fees on drivers however we end up doing it shouldn't that revenue go first to getting people out of cars before it goes to financing the next garage thank you tyler

hi uh yeah i'm colin schoeller from 30 chauncey street um yeah i mean i'm glad that tyler reiterated what i was saying um but i'm here to say the same thing i you know i support raising our street parking fees um it's you know exactly in line with our objectives of going from the garage being the longest term then down to the street um and you know it's proven to work and it's successful so I think raising them to keep that system that we've tested and proven makes sense. However, yes, to simply absorb those extra funds from this rate increase into our general fund I do believe is unfair to everyone who's a part of this city. You know, this council's heard many times the virtues of providing alternative transits. I think I had a pretty good speech last time, but I don't think that I need to do that again tonight. so yeah long story short i think that this additional revenue that we're increasing that we're going to be increasing from street parking should go towards funding this very convenient this accessible and this functional asset that we're very lucky to have um which is our buses it's ghost thank you hey colin um

We'll put a thought out there. Council Bagley, you might be thinking the same thing, but I would like to see if there's an opportunity to try to make a through line here in terms of some of the feedback that the RAP and the downtown worker Parker program specifically has received in the last week or so and so if there is a an opportunity and put it to the council to figure opportunity opportunity to either move to PTS the idea of some shuttle loops or a way to use these funds to get some of the cars out of the downtown with an increased rate i think it would go a lot it would be a more effective way to to use the increase at this moment especially given the fact that you know we had a lot of conversations on the rap people are busy not focused on this, are now paying attention. There's now an opportunity to do something that could be seen more as a benefit to the downtown workers and to also lessen the intensity of the cars in the downtown. So I would welcome a motion that took, I guess, the spirit to move something towards PTS with a report back. And I'll go to Councillor Hopkins.

I just wanted a quick clarification before we move on to that. With the $2 and $3, if the fee committee is recommending to increase to $3, but staff is saying, no, we should keep it at $2, isn't fee committee setting rates? Or how does that work? I guess just a procedural question of if we do change a number, why are we changing it? Because I agree with the fee committee that if we have a lower rate in a certain zone, people will find that out and park there. And that is, you know, counter to the spirit of resident access parking program. So I just would like some clarification there on who's making the fee calls here. And then I think we absolutely should be happy to support the next motion coming.

Councilor Bagley and Councilor Kerr. Two things. One, I think when I first joined the council, we have about half a million a year to coast. I think we're going to need to break a million this year. already have broken a million so we we are a big supporter of coast we could always be a bigger supporter but you know and that all is funded with parking revenue so not that we can't do more but all of our public transport supporting funds come from parking revenue the having been on pts and lived through some neighborhood pilot parking programs i almost feel that we should have a council work session and i say that for two reasons one whatever we decide it's not gonna be popular so I feel like we as a council should decide it and to the visibility of having a council work session on parking and if we raise fees do we is it legal can we put some towards housing can we put some towards expanding the worker Parker program and I know that there's been some good ideas floated i think we need to have visibility and we need to have participation by the community and i think that needs to happen in council chambers with the council not at bts at 8 30 in the morning that's fair so motion to schedule a work session for the august 17th before that council meeting so moved second uh counselor cook

Thank you, Your Honor. We had a fairly robust discussion as a council when we were talking about microtransit, which was in the CIP budget this year. And while it's labeled microtransit, what that CIP item really is is a shuttle loop examination, which was included and passed in our CIP budget. I think it's absolutely logical to say this is an opportunity to use existing incoming revenue or increases in incoming revenue to fund that rather than having to fund it out of other parking revenues. So we're not looking for other parking revenues to help fund that item. And we tied that item, unfortunately, against my wishes, to new garage funding or looking for new garage funding. but I think the realities have changed a little bit between then and now, and I think that's why it is important to have a work session to discuss this a little bit further, because with the institution of the RAP program, we are hearing more concerns from residents, and I think that moving forward more quickly with the shuttle loop program would be very important at this stage, and thinking about that, a little bit quicker than we need to be thinking about a new garage so i would absolutely support having a work session but i i want a work session where we have some kind of idea of what outcome we could have coming out of that even though the council doesn't vote during work sessions so that we can take action fairly quickly on reserving revenues for our shuttle loop council tabor assistant mayor

um i'm in violent violent agreement with counselor cook on that i was speaking with bill lyons who's head of our sustainability committee and as you know is a transportation expert that consults all over the world and he's been very much in favor of a shuttle loop and he was saying why do another study why not just start a pilot let's do it do a test proof of concept and if we could use some of the estimated two million dollars that's supposed to come in from these new rates to fund that pilot and perhaps even bring in some of the rest the the hotels as partners in it um you know that that really was the the germ of the idea of when we set a strategic goal of being a multi-multimodal transportation city so i would love to see the work session push on that idea of a pilot a shuttle loop pilot and i also think the work session needs to have some input from from finance we were told in some of our work sessions that we're drawing down parking fund fund balance right now we're spending more than we're taking in and i don't understand that i'd like to understand that more and and lastly there were other projects in the Desmond study for example if we're getting a additional parking revenue why not look at that electronic sign that shows how many spaces are available in each of the garages and street parking so that we could even we could manage our downtown inventory even better So I think there's a lot to open up and explore as well as the concern that we're moving very quickly on a lot of parking initiatives.

I think it's also important that we include our biggest transportation partner which is coast in on this discussion um I know that they've internally looked at smaller more independent routes looked at rider usage because you know it is one thing for the city to put in all this energy on and I agree that we don't need a study I think we we figure out the funding mechanism for a pilot program and we shoot for it, but they have actual data of smaller shuttles, of smaller routes, of ridership, of where we're seeing the need. Because I think it's important to remember the last time we did some type of micro loop, shuttle, we had parking. We were over near the Connect Church and we were shuttling people from spots. So when we're talking about a microtransit loop, we have to figure out where people are needed, especially if we are trying to do it so that we are not incentivizing more cars on the road. So that means, is there a demand over in my neighborhood, over on Route 1? Is there demand over in Maple Haven? Is there demand in the Meadows? Where is the demand? And also, we have to make sure we're not undercutting coast. So that is a concern of mine. and why i think that any type of long-term shuttle program needs to be in partnership with them because one of the things we want to make sure that we're not doing is like robbing peter to pay paul we want to make sure we're doing some type of subsidized or affordable shuttle micro shuttle loop that we're not then taking ridership from coast as we know that they are Considerably losing funding, they're losing federal funding state funding. They're cutting as we just talked about. We've increased our funding, you know, almost 100% in the last decade. Um, so making sure that we bring them as a partner into any type of. shuttle service to me has to be a priority because we want to make sure that we are also not negatively impacting the largest regional affordable transportation partnership that we have throughout this area. So I think for me just making sure that they are in at this work session and when staff is looking at options and ideas, we are also making sure that we're looking at a partnership with them.

Thank you, Assistant Mayor. Councillor Hopkins.

In the microtransit discussions, we always mention pulling in the hotels and stuff. Who does that? Who's going to sit down and welcome them? How are we going to actually talk to them about that?

I think we also have to be very realistic when we say pull in the hotels. They charge for parking. It is a huge revenue stream for them internally for a lot of these hotels. So, you know, I think a lot of times too when we talk about we have to pull in the businesses, we have to pull in things. Where are we saying, like what threshold are we saying? Are we saying we have to pull in the larger employers downtown? Are we saying that you're going to tell every small business that has eight employees, hey, you're a business, so you have to contribute X amount of dollars. But I agree with you that we need to bring people to the table. And I think the Chamber is a good liaison with them because I think they have a lot of, and I think we should have the Chamber involved in this, but they have a lot of connections. But I think we also have to be realistic that a hotel like the AC charges $45 a night.

Well, yeah, and we keep mentioning them as a resource, but if zero of them are interested, then we need to actually... So who has the task of having these real discussions today so that we can have that hypothetical confirmed or not and move forward with current data, information, not just postulating that the hotels would think it's a good idea. So that's my question. Who is tasked with this discussion?

so i think that would come out of the work session i don't i guess like trying to um be a good question out of it and we're getting into the the sasha side of this um in terms of that but i think that we have an opportunity there's more people paying attention to parking over the last week than we're previously paying attention over the last three months That's a positive thing, and I want to look at it as a positive thing that people are focused on this. Some are very upset. Some are indifferent. A few are happy about more easily accessing their neighborhood, maybe more than a few. What I think is maybe missing from the initial is every idea is great until it gets auctioned or as Mike Tyson would say, you get punched in the face. Being able to get the feedback that we've gotten for this and then come back and then after we've gotten the feedback and have a plan of a pilot to you know uh talk about raising rates to fund that pilot and give a benefit and i love coast and i appreciate the effort that we need to maintain in terms of long-term at coast but from a worker standpoint we might not be able to get that you know it might have to be closer to portsmouth and a higher frequency because at the current frequency is not a commuting bus line for many people that we have right now. But if we can find a place in Portsmouth as we used to have at the church and have a shuttle, to that place you know that's one place that we can then get you know coast to and then you know shuttles in from there and i'd like to be able to use the work session to discuss what we could do for the additional revenue that we would gain by charging non-residents to use to fund a larger workforce parking program that would involve a shuttle loop to an off-site that could reduce the number of cars which is the you know the whole program behind rap and potentially increase their satisfaction with what we're doing. Councilor Bagley.

Thank you, Your Honor. Maybe Director Rice has some comments. But we took a pretty deep dive into the hotel shuttle thing. I think it went to the EDC. We did have some initial conversations. We also took a deep dive with a company called Via, who does ride sharing and micro transit. We took a deep dive into shuttles. can't remember the numbers off the top of my head if we have two million to work with some of these things all of a sudden become possible that weren't possible we kind of abandoned a couple years ago but i think it's important that we don't message at least in my opinion this is a work session of should we increase parking so we can have a shuttle because the shuttle may not be something that we end up i think we should go into the work session with there are good reasons for us to increase parking prices on the street that have to do with turnover the vitality of the downtown everybody hates it when you increase parking but this is the tool that we should use to keep the vitality of our downtown and for people being able to shop in stores and we should go into this with open eyes and listen to the community because there's some really smart people out there like bill who who know stuff that you know those of us up here probably won't come up with and we listen to all the ideas And then we go back and we say, OK, out of all the ideas, these two or three rows to the top and we kind of flush them out a little bit and then we go forward with them. But I don't want to go into it thinking, OK, we're going to do this so we can do that. I think we should say the strong likelihood is we're going to have to increase on street parking because that's where we're at. But what we want to do is we want to involve the community in the decision. And with those increased funds or half of those increased funds, what is something tangible that residents and downtown workers and people that can't afford to live in Portsmouth come away feeling like, at least I got something out of this. I mean, nobody's gonna like that we raised the price of parking, but if you've got shuttles now that work for a component of the downtown workforce, I think that's a win. If we can put some money into an affordable housing trust and we can get some people some housing, I think that's a win. If we raise a bunch of money, it disappears into the general fund. I don't think anybody comes away feeling like that was a win.

Any other, Councillor Hopkins?

I just wanted to point out that as I've been having these discussions, about parking and workforce parking and the RAP and such. We're one of just three communities in New Hampshire who have any dedicated focus on reducing the expense of workforce parking. It's Hanover, Durham, and Portsmouth. So I think we are creating something new and meaningful, and I'm looking forward to engaging with the public to really build something that works for everyone. But I did just want to point out, as a kudos to this city, we're one of three in New Hampshire who are even doing this at all.

I am just curious if the existing motion that we have in front of us should be amended tonight to reflect the changes some of the changes that have been discussed and if so I know that we would need a continuance to our next meeting, which I think would be logical, given that we're discussing having a work session at that point. But I would suggest, based upon Councilor Moreau's comments earlier and Councilor Hopkins' comments, that rather than changing that $2 to $3, that we just drop the last phrase after the word rate.

We do have to change the section to 1.1601, right? Correct?

Exactly. And change the section to 1.1601.

I'm making my corrections.

I guess that would be my motion move to drop the last phrase so just to clarify it would be a continuance and yes that change of language and no change to resident parking rates period and drop the last phrase

Council, thank you.

I just want to remind everyone. Is that the motion you make a motion? Okay. I'll second it. I'm saying it just for discussion purposes. I just want to remind everyone. We did have a restaurant owner here tonight with 2000 signatures on a petition saying that. the restaurant workers the downtown workers that feel like they've had the last straw in the camel's back um so we're adding another straw to their back you know we're trying we're upping you know upping the fees um yeah so i'll be voting against this i just think we're making way too many changes we're not considering the people that work downtown at all or the small businesses

I would point out the original motion was to raise parking from $2 an hour to $3 an hour, and we're changing it to have a work session.

That was my understanding. That was not the motion, just me.

The original motion we started on. So we have a motion to have a work session, and this is to change the language in anticipation of that work session? Is that, because we'd have to re-notice this?

Okay, I'd support a work session, but I'm just... Yeah, we keep attacking the same person that just says they felt attacked. You know what I mean? So I just want us to all be aware of that.

Well, I think just in terms of... I think it's worthy to have more of a conversation of this. I do want to...

If somebody's... Will there be public comment at the... Yeah.

Okay. But there's also, I think, the idea of the... I think the... pushback in terms of wrap and closing down free parking i don't know of is this related to the on street as much i think it'll be conflated and there's the risk of conflating these that we're increasing parking rates but um this is separate from the wrap i know oh yeah yeah i'm just i'm talking about if you go work downtown and you live in greenland you know what i mean we're making it even harder right we're making it more expensive for you

if you're parking on the on street yeah yeah i'm just you're making your options more expensive you know what i mean sometimes you don't have all the choice when you're trying to get to work on time yep cancer cook thank your honor the reason i'm making this motion is that making this change is a substantial one and it pushes second reading off to august 17th after our work session where we can take input from the public and then if we decide at that stage we need additional changes we can do so um i just think it's important to to tee this up so that it is still at second reading but we can have take input at the work session that we can take additional input at the continued public hearing on that night and then we can make any additional changes as necessary and this change just reflects what came back to us from fee study committee i think i'm a little bit lost on are we on the amendment are

I agree with Councillor Cook on just taking the $2 wrap out of this because I think they are being conflated. But I guess I'm just not sure.

So that would be a substantial change if we change that, necessitating a second second reading. That second reading would happen after the work session that we will have the Monday or that the 17th meeting. We haven't voted on any of that yet. We have two motions. The second motion on the table was to change the language. We can change the language on that to remove RAP from this.

and just um you know as a downtown worker a lot of time when you go in for the afternoon shift or the pm shift dinner shift the foundry garage is already full so you can't you don't have a choice you know what i mean the garages both garages are full now you have to go to on street now we've removed you you know you have to go up by leary but i'm just i just want everyone to know that yeah i don't think everyone here is aware of the challenges trying to get downtown to work but

certainly more aware now thank you just practically speaking i think we also had a non-public on the 17th for the city manager's evaluation discussion so that would mean we'd have to have a 5 p.m non-public and a 6 p.m okay

if I can just clarify this is not through the readings this is just adoption of fees so it's a public hearing but it is not second reading oh yeah that's right we are not bound by that so we can continue the public hearing if we wish to correct

Councilor Bagley your honor and that's that's why I started this because the way the motion was tonight if it had passed tomorrow morning parking on the street would have cost three dollars and there has not been enough community discussion about that I don't think there's been any so that's why I was like we need to delay and have a work session

so work session on the increase we will have a conversation about all things parking i'm sure and the the enjoyment you had at pts will be brought back to you at a night time and with you know potentially some more participants you want to see if director rice has oh yeah peter shut up peter anything to add

evening peter rice director of public works um as part of your cip last year you approved fifty thousand dollars to evaluate microtransit options and i just wanted to inform you that that is moving forward that it's not you know not stalled uh it's you know we're just last month it was approved so now we're in the process of negotiating scope of services to move forward so you know we understand the desire just to try it and see how it works we did have a successful well we did have a pilot that we did down at the church lot and we learned a lot from that effort um so i think the question about how we get the different partners together apart as part of that evaluation so i applaud you for you know wanting to sit down and have a working session work session for the race and things like that it's awesome it's really important topic i mean it's important for everyone to understand residents working you know folks work downtown visitors that we understand the challenges associated with parking and that you know we recently completed a master plan associated with parking utilization and it identified a number of areas of challenge and the ability to provide both additional capacity and alternatives for folks are both equal and that you know we we need to continue to work on these things and that i just wanted to say that's moving forward so that helped inform the decisions for a work session

Thanks Peter. Any other comments? So we have a motion first to amend.

I think the motion first is for the work session.

well we have a set yeah we had that motion but then there was another motion made um to amend this motion that has been made this motion um so is that incorporated into one motion because we've got to take up the second motion two separate motions what's that two separate motions right so we have to take up the last motion that was the amendment the amendment first um and that amendment is to remove the So that's to remove the rap and to have as a part of this a yes to remove the rap and to correct language. Remove the rap language. Don't get people's. Yeah. So remove the rap language as a part of this and to have as a part of this a yes to remove the rap and to correct language. update the order to fix the the error in the section okay so that's the motion on the floor right now all in favor someone please just read what the motion is when you remove the wrap I moved to remove

Are you gonna still set the parking fees, the first part of that motion?

Yes, I moved to remove the last phrase of the existing motion so that it reads. Move to set the parking fees for on-street and lot parking for fiscal year 2027, colon, $3 per hour for the first three hours and $6 per hour thereafter, pursuant to Chapter 1 Administrative Code, Article 16, Adoption of Fees, Section 1.1601, Procedure, and no change to resident parking rates, period.

Okay. Did who seconded that?

Any other discussion on that? That will be taken up at the August 17th because it has to be re-noticed for the public hearing.

We never closed the public hearing so I think we can change this motion and then continue the public hearing with the existing amended motion is what I understand.

We will do that then. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? and now i think we need to vote on the work session yes and the work session um is to uh on um can i just can i just add that since you're not in the ordinance

framework you could give yourself a little more time if you needed to you could push out you know your work session or and or yeah your conversation on this so I think nation I think the the

happy to have it I would say the case that it would make to have the work session at August 17th is that the amount of people that are focused on this right now you know it can be viewed as negative view it in the opposite way you know we have people that are passionate about parking there are people that are thinking about parking more than they've thought about it in the last certainly when we're going through the the readings and would like to make sure that we at least get as much information out to the public when they are ready to hear it versus you know at another time when they've kind of moved past customer

the also issue of why we don't want to delay this much farther is the fact that we have already raised the rates in the garage and now on street parking is less expensive so we don't want to delay that hugely because that will become then an imbalance and i think our parking director would tell us that's not what we want to do we have to keep things so that we encourage people into the garage and not on street agreed

I mean, the garage doesn't escalate though, but yes, it does.

Jan July 1st. It already did.

No, no, no.

It doesn't.

Oh, after three hours, it does. So it's still even after three hours, it becomes less still.

Okay. Our counselor or assistant mayor.

I just, um, well, I support the work session. I have a concern of time that evening. in the sense of where we are inviting vigorously the public to come to this work session to discuss this, to make sure they're informed about this. I just worry, and I guess just think we should be mindful that an hour is not a lot of time when there's feedback given and then open conversation. just being mindful of that you know we may see a longer work session in a later council start time um because we want to make sure that we

Certainly, and understand, again, I would say the alternative is to wait, but I think that getting this for the reasons Council Morales stated, but also just the reasons to get as much information to folks as possible ahead of this would be the reason to hold it faster and sooner rather than later on this. Councilor Hopkins?

I have a question about the, so the work session is gonna be on RAP and fees and the microtransit or what?

just parking on street just parking on the parking on street rate and if we raise additional funds what are good things the city should do with them okay roughly speaking we've talked about a lot of things yeah just narrowing the book yeah well I think we're gonna get whatever the public brings so I think we're gonna get whatever comments or questions that the public has it might be about rap it might be about I think you know we've opened up this parking pin doors blocks and I think they're coming

Oh, I know that. Yeah. And just while we're I don't know, I have I had a question back to Director Rice about the micro transit. Is that only designed to look at motorized like shuttle routes or other vehicular traffic? and what could be looked at in a more sustainable could we look at you know all of our shuttles are electric vehicles or can we put some bike banks somewhere other the things that you know move towards the climate action plan that we have set um as we're looking at this micro transit so just as part of whatever you know if there's a report or any any data or information that you're bringing forward i'm curious about what other you know types of transit would be included other than just a diesel or a gas run shuttle?

We can make sure the consultant includes that in the evaluation.

Thank you. Sorry to hijack the motion yet again.

so I think the work session still is the same yeah it's just the the discussion of increasing parking rights and then potential things that that could be spent on and we will definitely hear about the wrap and we will hear about the the worker Parker program and we will hear about but I think to the idea that without having further discussion, so I guess, Councilor Bagley raises a point that I think is similar to you know what Councilor Blaylock is raising and many of us up here that there's been a significant amount of change at least appreciated or felt by many and you know in the downtown specifically the rest of Portsmouth you know not as much but the downtown specifically if we had changed parking rates this evening without further engagement of the public I think it would have it would have we would have not had the best potential outcome of what that could go towards. And so being able to delay this and have a work session where we're here and invite the public, regardless, it's hard to get the public involved. The public is very engaged now. We will have engagement as a part of this. And here, potentially, ideas that make whatever we come to a better solution and it the very least a more informed solution all right motion on the table work session six o'clock 17th all in favor I'm sorry can I just say one thing I agree with everything everyone said I think it would use it particularly that this is an opportunity because people are upset so with the work session

any abstentions okay now we need a motion to continue oh yeah we'll take a to continue the public hearing on on the motion as amended motion is amended so moved second

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. We'll take a five-minute recess. I will first await a motion to go past 10.30.

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Opposed. All right.

Already 10.30. City Manager's doing her bit to keep this shorter. Yes, thank you. No items under her name. The consent agenda. Your Honor, I move to adopt the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

all in favor aye aye any opposed uh we've had the cochlea uh presentation uh ppm tv fund request move to authorize a city manager to exercise authority under paragraph three of the cable television public access charitable trust direct the trustees of the trust funds to release the remaining funds to portsmouth public media television inc for purposes consistent with the trust second

I just wanted to make sure, so these are, I guess I'm just a little confused on, because we've had, you know, a year ago when there was this whole PPMTV of looking to get more funding. Is this the amount that is the normal amount that the city collects and distributes, or is this an additional funds that PPMTV are looking for from this trust?

what they're trying to do is if I may your honor what they're trying to do is understand what remains in the trust okay and by way of background and in the packet through a council policy adopted back in 2009 the city has historically recorded the first 360,000 that comes to the city by virtue of the franchise agreement with Comcast Xfinity and Comcast and the practice has been to provide to ppmtv what remains and we had been messaging that we understood that cable subscriptions were were decreasing at a rapid rate that we did not anticipate being able to meet any obligations beyond the 360 and what remains fast forward what remains to date in the trust is the small amount of eight thousand six hundred thirty eight dollars and eighty seven cents so if the council were to take up this motion and support the motion it would be to release that amount of funds to ppm tv and regulatory council suzanne woodland is on zoom if anyone has any more specific questions but i know she's briefed the cable and internet broadband commission thank you

Thanks, Your Honor. I guess I have a couple questions. One, is it theoretically possible to use the money in any other way than releasing it to PPMTV?

Not that we're aware of. Not that we would use.

It's binded to them regardless.

is in Suzanne might be able to speak to the language in the trust which is in the packet so I can certainly pull that out it looks like the trust was established specifically to support the development of a public access channel so the access to

corporation that is mentioned in the trust instrument is effectively PPMTB. So right now there is no other alternative once money is in the trust to dispose it in any other way other than to release it to PPMTV, which is trying to satisfy some existing obligations and to take reasonable steps to consider how to either further wind down or to find another path forward without the kind of public support that they have gotten in the past through the excess fees.

I guess my follow-up is I feel like we talked about this last year or two years ago and I kind of thought we had said we're done funding PPM TV that you know the time for the city to fund something like this has passed and my concern is you know it's $8,000 which is enough for at least a mailer and a half which I think would be to better use is there gonna be continuing to be potentially money going to this trust if there continues to be this enough cable subscribers

let me speak to that i think we have budgeted and nathan can correct me a lower amount of 340 000 in a more conservative attempt to recognize what is actually going on with uh what is being paid into comcast so it it is likely that no additional funds will come into this trust there was a discussion and suzanne had talked about whether to close the trust now but i think the idea is to see if if in fact there are any more monies that come in over the coming year.

Okay.

If we close the trust now, wouldn't the monies just be retained by the city?

But still only be able to be used. Suzanne, do you want to speak to that?

Sure. If we were to close the trust now, you're effectively changing the policy that you adopted as part of the budget because the budget still, as I recall, had the little line in it that said, you know, the first 360 goes into the general fund and any amounts over that. Now technically it's, you know, within your ability as the city council to decide to end that policy now and take steps to, you know, finish and wind down the trust with this last distribution and that's certainly within your purview.

i guess i guess the problem i have with this is like i said you know we can't afford 5 000 for a mailer but we're giving 8600 to a public television network that is not that widespread among our citizens anymore because of the way technology has evolved and people don't watch public tv quite like they used to it seems like we're winding down our last obligation and changing the policy going forward so that there's

i thought we did that two years ago though but it sounds like we didn't no if i remember correctly two years ago they came asking for additional funds correct they wanted more taxpayer money they wanted more of the three hundred and sixty thousand dollars we said no and we said no that's what was happening two years ago when they moved from the mall to the high school and they were asking for a bigger chunk of the 360 the cable franchise

I would I would suggest it was not that long ago this is the this is the cycle that follows the decision or the non decision that the council made not to reverse or amend your 2009 policy we anticipated that there might be less than 360 in the year just finished FY 26 there was in fact three hundred and sixty seven sixty seven thousand and some some change and there was maybe some accumulated interest of a hundred or two in the trust remaining so now that balance is what we're acting on we certainly do not expect that there will be anything close to three hundred and sixty thousand received this cycle uh when we discussed it we debated the merits and thought that the council might be happier if they waited to see a whole cycle go by and only 320 or 330 or 340 be received in order to feel justified publicly before you i wish i hadn't said all out loud but so you could feel comfortable that you were ending the trust and finishing all of that without having left on the table some opportunity that somehow the cable franchise fee might reverse itself okay thank you

any further discussion all in favor aye any opposed opposed next up uh letter from attorney colby t gamester regarding zero elm street uh your honor i moved drew for the letter from attorney gamester regarding zero m street to the legal department and to the planning board for report back second any discussion

I'll just say it was interesting to see these old housing plans with these old lots all, you know, underneath 95, but yeah.

Yeah, the time before the highway. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Email correspondence.

Move to accept and place on file, Your Honor. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? next we're on to the council appointments to be considered the appointment of Wendy left to the sustainability committee and then appointments to be voted the reappointment of Steven buzzle to the Cemetery Committee you are I move to appoint even buzzle to the Cemetery Committee second all in favor aye any opposed uh thank you stephen for your continued interest in serving our city and on the cemetery committee um and then the resignation of paul mannell to the zoning board of adjustment effective july 1st of 2026. move to accept that with regret the resignation of paul manley from the zoning board of adjustment and send a letter of thanks to paul for his service to the city second any discussion We'll say that Paul was a, well he remains to be, he's moving out of town, an interesting guy, always good for conversation, ran for council, and was one that I, you know, not everybody changes their mind, but he changed his mind on single family zoning. at one point i don't know if he uh wants me saying this story but i was always impressed uh that he looked at the uh data and i enjoyed the conversations and good luck paul on your next adventure all in favor aye any opposed uh we have the resignation of heather kranz of the public art review committee effective august 15th of 2026. your honor i move to accept with regret the resignation of heather kranz from the public art review committee and send a letter to letter thanking heather for her service to the city second

Thank you, Your Honor. And Heather has done a wonderful job on the Public Art Review Committee, even assisting with our beautiful exhibit that we have here at City Hall. So she is somebody who's definitely going to be missed.

all in favor aye any opposed and I'm gonna punch this one to the next one just to keep us moving tonight but in anticipation this would be an effort to bring a working group together of citizens focused on technology with a with a report and due back by January 15th in terms of things that we could be doing more efficiently through technology both you know things that you know citizens may or may not see and then finding some of the most repeatable tasks that we have knowing that we continue to grow as a as a city continue to have a need more services but the pressure on our employees to provide those services continues to grow and giving the tools they need to be able to meet that demand without growing headcount but we'll have a memo in the packet for for next week and can discuss it but look to tie to the budget City Council members assistant mayor Kelly and councillor Tabor I think there's only four

Peter Britz is going to give us a short presentation.

This will be a lot shorter than the last one, I promise. okay so the housing action plan you've had it in your packet you had a notice last meeting and really we're here just to quickly go over what what's happened to date the housing the next slide talks about the housing actions to date it builds on years of research public engagement policy development implementation efforts such as the final report of the housing committee in 2016 housing development trends in 2020 reports of market study in 2022 housing navigator program includes inclusionary zoning analysis in 2024 places to live dialogue in 24 the blue ribbon housing committee and the below below market rate housing trust fund so those actions are what's taken place so far and i i'd be remiss not to talk about the work of the portsmouth advocates and supporting all this and moving things forward with the housing committee's action plan and why this plan so It meets the City Council's goals, increase housing supply, reduce housing costs, simplify the development process, and expand below market rate housing. the only thing I'd say is or you know the the plan is before you hopefully the public supports it as well at the two public hearings planned and there's housing committee is going to start already on some of the actions in the plan like the 790 housing Opportunity Zone will be taken up at their next meeting there's a lot of work to do on the zoning when the master plan is done to rewrite zoning looking at in lieu of fees for workforce housing and looking at zoning changes that would be specific to multifamily zoning so I don't know if you want anymore but that's basically the overview and you have everything else is a very brief cover to the plan and then the actions are really the heart of the plan right so the next step is to refer the housing action plan to the planning board so they can they can have a crack at it give their input and feedback and then a public meeting on september 23rd and another one on september 28th and then hopefully city council adoption comes next and it will implement the plan which we'll probably begin implementing ahead of time but i think a lot of the actions are already supported

Before we make that motion, are there questions that the councilors have on the action plan that we gave you?

Councillor Cook I just wanted to say thank you so much to the committee for all the work that you've done in collaboration with the planning a sustainable sustainability department and with all the advocates in the city that have been assisting with this process I'm thrilled to see that that we have a housing action plan now moving forward to the planning board

okay your honor i moved to refer to the august 20th 2026 planning board meeting for review and comment and schedule public information and input sessions on september 23rd 2026 in the levinson room at the portsmouth public library and on september 28 2026 as part of the regular city council meeting second any further discussion

Well, be interested to hear what the planning board says and where it fits in in terms of the master plan. I feel like there's a good opportunity like a lot of the ideas that are in there. I appreciate the effort that went into this. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thanks, Peter.

Next. Councillor Cook.

thank you your honor um the first thing i would like to do is suspend the rules and bring up item 17c under city manager's informational items which is the status of the von maul restoration design second all in favor aye any opposed

Thanks, Your Honor. And with thanks to Councillor Cook, what I wanted to point out is that there was a request for a report back and we provided the last public information session on July 22nd. where we spoke with stakeholders at that meeting and in advance to include the public art review committee and we wanted to make sure that input from the previous outreach efforts and I know counselor invested in that as well to what we provide as a blank canvas or a backdrop to the work that will be performed So we did have that public information session on July 22nd, and the report is attached to my report as well as on the city website. So I think I'll stop there and turn it back to you, Councillor Cook.

Thank you. Thank you to the city manager for the update and the packet. And the presentation was actually very well attended, I thought, mostly by people who work either on Vaughan Mall or live adjacent to Vaughan Mall. so I think it was really important to take in their feedback and I was there for the entirety of the meeting and I believe the staff did a very good job of answering questions and taking valuable input from residents so I think that we are definitely moving in the right direction but tonight I have a motion to accept that plan so that they can move forward and the reason I'm bringing that motion to you tonight is that much like having plans for prescott park we have plans from 2017 for von maul but also that address the worth lot and bridge street lot and i want to make sure that there are no questions about whether or not the staff can move forward with a plan on Vaughn Mall and go ahead and go out to bid for restoration of Vaughn Mall, much like making improvements to Prescott Park, which we also discussed earlier this year. We had to have a separate motion to make sure that we could move forward with those plans because it isn't actually what we had already in our planning documents. So that is my motion tonight. I would like to move to accept the Vaughn Mall redesign plan in substantially similar form as presented to the city council tonight in your packet noting that any changes made it on the vaughn mall do not preclude later implementation of the 2017 plans for vaughn mall worth lot in bridge street lot second any discussion counselor cook I just also wanted to say I think it's important to note that the the planning occurred for in 2017 we have diagrams if you want to go look at the existing plans for Bridge Street Worth and Vaughn Mall however those plans were extremely ambitious and very expensive they would require quite a bit of planning work down the road so um but we did have a blue ribbon committee that met over a period of time to talk about how we should implement those plans and i want to honor the work of that committee and that group and those that went through the effort to do this plan and put this plan in place and hopefully down the road we will be in a position as a community to fund that plan

I just, Councillor Cook, Councillor Tabor.

some of the description said that we would remove a bunch of trees and we would replace some trees do we net out losing a lot of trees or come out we will have to i'm looking for peter to help me uh confirm peter were there the question was relative to trees i know some of the big trees do need to come out and uh we will replace trees i believe it is a net loss of trees but i don't want to misspeak yeah i want peter to confirm

i'm sorry the question was whether it was a net loss of trees yes yes there is net loss of trees the and the shade structures would be installed to help offset that uh the trees that are have been removed are the ones that have been lost

okay so they're already gone oh yeah and yeah okay so i was just i did want to the trees are already gone we're not taking are we taking more trees down more trees so every tree that you see there okay will be there without an act of god in the immediate future okay just so thank you so the net is already realized we love our trees tree city usa all right counselor

thank you and and also if you look back at the diagrams and and peter rice can can verify this we're actually adding some more trees back and also some more planting beds so there will be more greenery in the space in addition to what is existing all right so a chalk line right now more trees net positive to the trees

all right thank you for that uh so yep um so that was that the full motion yeah okay i need a second though all in favor aye any opposed okay counselor cook

I have a second motion and the reason this dovetails with Vaughn Mall is this motion is related to public art at Vaughn Mall. At the presentation last week, the Department of Public Works specifically spoke about the the space on Vaughn Mall being available for public art. And the Public Art Review Committee has discussed this for the last few years around specifically a project that there's information in your packet about. um to address uh what we experienced in the community kind of is a hate experience several years ago in 2021 and there was a fundraising effort in the community to raise some funds for public art around the lgbtq community A group of stakeholders got together and started meeting and discussing what we could do for public art because there are challenges around crosswalks because they're hard to maintain and you would not want them to look as if they weren't being maintained on a regular basis. You want a public art piece that is more permanent and easier to maintain. And so this group started discussing that concept. The concept is presented in your packet as a piece of public art around the idea of the city of the open door. That means it addresses everyone in our community, anyone who's welcome. And so they would like to move forward with that concept, noting that this is not a project of the Public Art Review Committee. it's not funded with city funds it's a an outside group of individuals who are raising funds for this piece of art that would be donated to the city and they just wanted the council to give the blessing of on the concept moving forward so that they will then initiate that process and then they would come back to us at a later date to ask to donate the piece of art to us But the reason that they're presenting the concept now is because they're an outside group, and they're seeking to put that piece of public art, hopefully, to donate it to us for a space on Vaughan Mall.

thank you councillor cook any discussion counselor i'll go councilman because concert baggers kind of in between um i guess i like the concept of the city of the open door i guess i'm having because i'm not a very um artist type person how i i guess i was seeing this as we're looking to reserve space but how do we know what space to reserve when we don't know what's going to be there

I'll make the motion and then I'll explain I'd move to support the recommendation of the public art review committee for the concept of a donated city of the open door art piece in the Vaughn Mall second for discussion

Okay, would you like to speak more to that?

Yes, so this group is just they're moving forward with fundraising and They just want confirmation that the city would be open to accepting a piece of public art around this concept before they issue an RFP and and then they bring in um they will issue their own rfp and have a call for artists and then they'll you'll have a more developed plan for that piece of art once you have that plan for police right then it'll come back to the council for the council to approve acceptance of that piece of art but they would like some assurance they're going out to to raise money for a project and to issue an rfp they don't want to they don't want to think that they're going in the wrong direction

and that it's it's not something the council would entertain thank you councillor cook councillor bagley yeah thank you councillor cluck and i'm glad it's coming to the council i do have a concern not necessarily with the the group or the artwork um but if my memory is not incorrect we just got a significant donation from our city sister santi conchiego for a piece of public art on vaughn mall I would not be supportive of having two simultaneous competing pieces of public art in the same spot. I feel like we should do one and then maybe the next one, but having them both go concurrently feels weird to me.

i don't know if well okay counselor cook um thank you your honor um this is something the public art review committee of course has considered because the public art review committee has discussed the santa arcangelo pieces of public art and exactly where those will be placed on von maul this would not conflict in any way with the overhead lighting feature that's a gift from san arcangelo in fact Von Moll is quite extensive. When you go looking at it, we've done walkthroughs with the Department of Public Works and with this subcommittee as well to discuss what makes sense as far as space and what would not cause any conflict or challenge to existing planning on the part of the Department of Public Works for Von Moll or for the art pieces that will be placed there.

maybe I didn't really express myself clearly we're getting a gift from our sister city and there's gonna be talk about it it's gonna get developed and installed and it's gonna be going on for the next year I think it's in poor taste to have a second group fundraising for public art in the exact same space at the same time because as a layperson I would potentially get confused

It's my understanding that you could take this donated art as a gateway treatment at either one end of the walkway or the other, whereas the lighting is going to be up and sort of offset of one another. So the Vaughan Mall will be designed to accept and make room for lots of art, lots of different pieces of art.

I guess the sequencing field. I mean, it's going to be Vaughn Mall and Art, and then somebody like me, that's what I hear. I don't differentiate between surface or lighting or entryway. And maybe I'm completely wrong, but that's how I feel about it.

I guess I appreciate, obviously, the donation of Santa Arcangelo to the city of Portsmouth, and especially as it relates to the north end and as a gateway into the city. I think it's fantastic. I also know that we have changed the... the von maul from being a a fully fleshed out very expensive project to something that is akin to a canvas i think the canvas is what davey d had said at some point and while i appreciate that we could sing sequence uh you know the implementation of these canvases or these art pieces on the canvas we have not yet received even the rfp or the timeline for when this is going to be it's very possible that we at that point say yes this is fantastic and we would like to wait you know you know six months from the time of this to make sure that we have the proper you know engagement or not but like I guess like what I think we're voting on tonight is whether or not a outside organization uh hold an rfp to at one point in the future deliver an art in some thematic resemblance to the city of the open door in a new area of a gateway where people are walking into the town which i don't see an issue i originally read this and had an issue with the idea of accepting art before we saw it but then spoke to counselor cook and it's accepting the concept of so that they can move forward with an rfp which i feel much more comfortable and i think it aligns to what we had previously done for the 2023, you know, 400th anniversary of Su Yun Chuen, is that? Was it?

Yeah, for C.J. Chen's sculpture.

C.J. Chen's piece of artwork, or the concept that became C.J. Chen's piece of artwork, and then came back as a final gift, because I remember that gift, because the RFP process was somewhat contentious in terms of people coming back. So this is very early on in that. And I think we have to speak not to the timing of this, but to speak to the merits of when this would go forward if we want an outside group to fundraise for something like this.

And I just want to remind everyone, Vaughn Wall is named after William Vaughn. It's not named after Mo Vaughn, like a lot of my baseball players thought it was.

Or Charlie Vaughn.

But he was part of the Royal Council of New Hampshire in 1679. Wow.

Mo Vaughn was the first poster I had in my room.

You met Mo Vaughn? What? Wow.

Yeah, that's Cynthia Vaughn. All right. any further discussion understand i do think that um this possibility to make sure that um you know and i think that i guess in terms of um artwork especially being able to um it lifts all boats you know as we add more things i do think that uh with the seizure churn um artwork it was made better by the codfish uh there and to create you know a destination so i understand the point um but i do think that it's possible to do them both tastefully and respect you know um you know the gifts of both organizations especially your sister city so i will be supporting this

right all in favor aye any opposed opposed next up counselor hopkins city councilors i present to you the parkinson traffic and safety committee action sheet in minutes and i would move to approve and accept the action sheet in minutes of the july 2nd 2026 parking and traffic safety committee meeting second any discussion I think we've talked about parking enough.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Next, approval of grants and donations. The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Opioid Abatement Program, City of Portsmouth, in the amount of $776,653 for an additional police department social worker, an additional school department social worker, and housing funds for the welfare department.

Your Honor, I move to accept the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Opioid Abatement Program City of Fort Smith in the amount of $776,653 as presented. Second.

I just want to thank all of the city staff including the chief who is here Carl Weber our school social worker our police department social worker our welfare social worker they've spent many hours writing and fighting for this and when we went to Concord those testimonies really put our application high above other communities and the proven track record that our community has of spending these resources wisely and building up programs that can be imitated and replicated in other communities. So I just wanted to give a big shout out to the team who drove to Concord, fought for this money, and really works hard. And I'm very happy that we are adding another social worker to our team.

and your honor this is uh one uh a two-year grant um amazing all in favor aye any opposed nathan's bar to clap is 775 000.

All right, New Hampshire Highway Safety Grant, Police Commission in the amount of $24,100 to support six highway safety initiatives.

I move to accept the terms of the Highway Safety Grant as presented in the amount of $24,100. Second. Any discussion?

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Next up, one we've already done, the Ranger Chapter Daughters. On to donation for Portsmouth Lodge of Elks, number 97, in the amount of $4,500 to cover fees associated with training American Red Cross lifeguards for the Portsmouth indoor pool.

Your Honor, I move to accept the Portsmouth Lodge of Elks, number 97, donation in the amount of $4,500 as presented. Second. Second.

any discussion no i just thank the yelks for this donation um you know as we all know it's hard to hire lifeguards and any you know covering any expense that helps do that we're very grateful and then we're allowed to keep our pools open and keep all our summers safe so thank you indeed all in favor aye

Any opposed? Next, city manager's informational items.

We still have two to discuss. I'll be really brief. The first is thank you to Monty Bohannon and the communication team along with our IT team. They've been working for the past several months to overhaul the project's dashboard, which is part of this DPW web page. So please check it out if you haven't. And we look forward to providing this kind of innovation to future departments within our website overall. So we're excited to bring changes in that regard. And the second one, and I think it was a request of Councillor Bagley not too long ago, was to provide online guides to help residents navigate land use boards. so we have the guide we have one pagers uh for uh all five uh guides they're on the city website and thanks for the um the reminder that that was something important to do and do quickly they went up really fast anything under miscellaneous all right i'd wait a motion to adjourn so moved