Aldermen, Board of

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, February 24, 2015, at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President David W. Deane presided; Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch recorded. Prayer was offered by Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch; Alderwoman Brown led in the Pledge to the Flag. President Deane Before I ask the Clerk to take the roll, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Siegel, and Alderman McGuinness are participating by telephone and under the terms of the state law that allows them to do that, they need to explain why they can’t attend, if they can hear us, and who they are with, if anyone. Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Siegel and Alderman McGuinness stated the reasons why they could not attend, confirmed that they could hear the proceedings and stated who was present with them. President Deane Acknowledged that those present could hear the Aldermen as well. The roll call was taken with 13 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman McGuinness, Alderman Siegel and were not in attendance but participated in the meeting via telecommunication; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja was recorded absent. Her Honor Donnalee Lozeau and Corporation Counsel Stephen M. Bennett were also in attendance. President Deane Before we begin I am going to recognize Alderman McCarthy to make a motion so we can accept procedural motions without the roll call vote. MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF PROCEDURAL ACTIONS WITHOUT OBJECTION A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED REMARKS BY THE MAYOR Mayor Lozeau I begin tonight with just a small housekeeping matter. There was an error; you have an error on your desks relating to R-15-111 that was intended to authorize another parcel along the Broad Street Parkway to be sold. We’ve actually already done that, there was a misunderstanding about addresses so I am hopeful that you wouldn’t mind indefinitely postponing that this evening, otherwise we would be authorized to sell someone else’s property and they would likely frown on that. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 2 The second item which I wanted to mention which was mentioned at the last Board meeting, and hopefully you will give it some consideration tonight, I have spoken with the Board President about the event for Sgt. Ryan Pitts conflicting with the Board of Aldermen meeting. I am hopeful that as many of us as possible can go to that. I would like to mention the AFSCME contract which is on your agenda tonight. I wanted to urge support of that contract. The Board of Public Works has supported that as has the Budget Committee. I believe that it is a reasonable contract. Its costs are within striking distance of the spending cap. I’ll point out that the Public Works Division always brings its budget in at or below my request which is always below the spending cap and so I have no reason to believe that won’t happen again. It’s clearly my expectation. I have actually asked them to come in below the spending cap. All departments other than school, police, and fire were asked to come in at 1%. Police, school, and fire were asked to come in at 1.5%. I have every hope that all of the divisions will do as I requested. As you know, the school department is trying diligently to figure out what they might be able to do as is our police and fire. That leads me to the expendable trust fund legislation that’s on your agenda this evening. Many of you have worked with me to successfully pass seven budgets, to manage to increase the city bond rating in 2010 at time when I think nobody thought we could do that. If you look collectively at the seven budgets that we have passed, collectively they are $7 million below the spending cap over that period of time. We have never had to override the spending cap to pass the city’s budget. The average of the seven years as you heard me say in my State-of-the-City of the tax increase was about 2% per year and all things considered with the loss of both local and state revenues on top of what was happening with pensions, I think that was quite an achievement that we have pulled off together and we have not had to see any major layoffs. We’ve kept our house in order, we have kept our trust funds in order, and we have kept our unassigned fund balance in order. We are currently at 12% of the budget for that purpose. We have acted with reasonable due diligence for everything that we have done over this period of time. We are now not surprised to know what has happened with the pensions. When we finish FY 16’ we will see an increase in pensions of almost 147%. That was not in any of our control so what could we do to manage that in a way that doesn’t impact our taxpayers or our budgets in a negative way. For the last few years I have warned of this coming. When the state reduced its share we talked about it and we budgeted accordingly. We are now faced with the lowest spending cap rate that we have had since I have taken office at 1.5%. I meant to go back and see when the last time that was. We went a few years back and haven’t seen it. I don’t think anybody expected to see it so low. In FY 17’ it will be 1.5% or potentially lower at 1.3%. When you see something like that coming what we have done together is plan accordingly and set up a trust fund when necessary, set up a special revenue account when necessary. Do those things to plan for what we know we are going to be faced with. As I have told you for the last few years we have put money aside for the pensions for when this day came. In the last three years we have put aside approximately $2.7 million which can be found in our annual audit, also known as the CAFR or the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report which shows that we have assigned for this purpose. We didn’t have to override the FY 15’ budget to pass it within the spending cap. We still brought in a tax rate of 2.3% and we shouldn’t have to override the FY 16’ budget but we do have to find a solution. This expendable trust fund that I have proposed to move our savings that we already have into a trust fund so that we can smooth those increases over the next however many years as we carry the extra unfunded liability costs in the city budget which you again saw in that slide that I presented, we should not be punished for that in a way that has people feel like I can’t override the spending cap. I certainly don’t want to override the spending cap and we didn’t have to do it to pass our budget but to override it and move these savings into another location, it’s just the fiscally prudent thing to do. We have saved for it, the day is here and I purposefully made sure that it wasn’t during the budget cycle so that we could clearly talk to our community and not have it get lost in all of the other budget discussions that we need to set up this fund in order to mitigate those costs. That’s what I am asking you to do tonight. That requires ten votes and I don’t know that I have the ten votes; I probably do not but I think it’s important that we have this discussion and we take this action. It will make a very big difference. I am not proposing that we spend all of that money in one shot but I am proposing that we put that money in place. Think about FY 16’, we’ve talked about it; with the 1.5% spending cap we are looking at an allowable spend of $3.6 million. If you take out the $1.9 million in pension costs that we can’t cut that leaves $1.7 million for the entire city budget for an increase. At 1.5% for the school alone that’s $1.5 million so that leaves $200,000 for the rest of the budget. For those of you who have been on the Budget Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 3 Committee and/or on the Board of Aldermen for these past seven budgets you know that our budgets are not wasteful and we shouldn’t be looking at other accounts that we can use towards our operating expenses. The policy of the city long before I got here was trust funds for those things that we see coming or we have had a bad experience with – welfare trust fund, snow trust fund, we have a fire emergency account, we have a lot of those accounts that were set up because of things that occurred or things that the city thought would occur. Pensions is no different and that’s what I am asking you to consider tonight and again, outside of the budget process in a way that talks about specifically this issue, this cost, and this solution. Year after year I have tried to bring you something creative that makes that work and to find a way to do that not so that we can overspend but so that we can be responsible and when you look at what our rating agencies have said about what we have done, they say that we have done that. Our CFO recommended that we do this. Our Treasurer has been on board with this. All of the people that we work with to put our budget together have said let’s put this money aside in this way and assign it for this purpose so that when we need it, it’s available. We need it and we need to make it available. We need to do the right thing for the right reason. We need not to get caught up in how it may play out in people’s perception that we are overspending because we are not doing that. We are managing a cost that is not in our control in a way that makes sense and in a way that we have planned for. I wish and I said this to former Alderman Teeboom, I wish the City of Nashua had a tax cap instead of a spending cap because we have managed all of these years to be under what would be a tax cap but to move money that we have saved into a trust fund, it’s almost like being punished for good behavior. We’ve made good choices and we should be able to continue to do that and I ask you to consider that this evening. As always, I thank you for your very kind attention tonight. RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR Alderman Chasse Is the event for Sgt. Pitts, is it a definite that we are going to move the Board of Aldermen meeting? President Deane I think it’s a good thing to do but I think it’s a decision that the Board should make, not me and we will take that up at the end of the meeting. RECOGNITION PERIOD - None READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS There being no objection, President Deane declared the minutes of the Board of Aldermen meetings of February 10 and February 17, 2015, accepted, placed on file and the readings suspended. COMMUNICATIONS There being no objection, President Deane declared that all communications be read by title only. From: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk Re: Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND THAT ALDERMAN-AT- LARGE DIANE SHEEHAN RECEIVE A PRO-RATED STIPEND FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF CALENDAR YEAR 2015 Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 4 A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED From: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane, President, Board of Aldermen Re: Vice Chairmen of Human Affairs Committee & Committee on Infrastructure MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND CONCUR WITH THE APPOINTMENTS OF ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI GOLJA AND ALDERMAN DOWD AS VICE CHAIRMEN OF THE HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE, RESPECTIVELY A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED There being no objection, President Deane declared the rules suspended to accept and place on file communications received this evening from Mayor Donnalee Lozeau regarding Resolution R- 15-111 and Jim and Mary Cutter regarding 86 Palm Street PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING - None PETITIONS – None NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS Appointments by the Mayor The following Appointments by the Mayor were read into the record: Cultural Connections Commission Maria Bola-Ferriero (New Appointment) Term to Expire: February 28, 2018 35 Indian Rock Road Nashua, NH 03063 Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 5 Dominique Boutaud (New Appointment) Term to Expire: February 28, 2018 91 Bartemus Trail Nashua, NH 03063 There being no objection, President Deane accepted the Appointments by the Mayor as read and referred them to the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee. Appointment of Timothy Lavoie to the Capital Equipment Reserve Fund  Tabled 8/12/14 REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Budget Review Committee ................................................................. 02/18/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the February 18, 2015 Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee............................................................................. 02/04/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the February 4, 2015 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Finance Committee............................................................................. 02/18/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the February 18, 2015 Finance Committee accepted and placed on file. Committee on Infrastructure .............................................................. 02/11/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the February 11, 2015 Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file. Planning & Economic Development Committee .................................. 02/03/15 There being no objection, President Deane declared the report of the February 3, 2015 Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file. WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS – None CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-094 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman Sean M. McGuinness RELATIVE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE NASHUA ARTS AND CULTURAL PLAN Given its second reading; Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 6 MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO AMEND R-14-094 BY INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDED IN THE GOLDEN ROD COPY ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse Can Alderman Donchess give us a synopsis of what changed from the original? Alderman Donchess The changed language is in italics on the golden rod copy. There are a lot of changes so it would take a long time to go through all of it but here is a change with respect to strategy pertaining to education. There are related changes to the educational section under policies and initiatives in three of the paragraphs. There are two changes concerning the sale of alcohol at the Keefe Auditorium. Those changes delete the recommendation that alcohol be sold at Keefe to conform to the decision of the school board to continue with its policy of no alcohol sales. There is a reference at the end, the last amendment, that they agreed to leave something as is and you can see the explanation at the end of the second page. Alderman Chasse So if this gets approved you will be able to serve alcohol at events? President Deane No. Alderman Donchess The bold is the existing language and the italics is the substituted language. The language being substituted is “investigate making performance venues more patron friendly.” There is no reference to alcohol. Alderman Moriarty We discussed this on the Planning and Economic Development Committee. Even if the language was in there, there is no mandate by law that the Board of Education has control over that anyway but I sympathize with your concerns. The third sentence that mentions the sale of alcohol at Keefe Auditorium is left in because it was a comment from someone in the public that submitted it and if we edited that out we would essentially be saying that individual did not say that. The first two are recommendations by the committee, the recommendation by the Art’s Commission and they agreed to pull those out. I’ll offer my support of the first section by saying that it is my feeling that a lot can be done regarding the strategy and the tactics moving forward and encouraging arts and culture in Nashua by incorporating the public at large, the adults in particular and how to engage them and get them identified. I like the new wording of the education portion because it made a point of not just mentioning kids but adults as well. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 7 A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-094 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Wilshire I’d like to say how much I appreciate the work that went into this plan. It took well over 1 ½ years to put it together and I think they did a good job. Alderman Donchess I would like to agree with that as one of the liaisons to the commission and I think they should be congratulated for coming up with what I think is a very forward looking and thoughtful plan. A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-094 declared duly adopted as amended. R-14-100 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja ESTABLISHING AN EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR ACCEPTING A CONTRIBUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,991 FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ALONG A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF AMHERST STREET AS RELATED TO THE SOMERSET PLAZA RENOVATIONS (PHASE 2) Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-14-100 Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 8 A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 11 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-14-100 declared duly adopted. Recorder’s note: Alderman McGuinness and Alderman Siegel’s vote were not included in the vote for R-14-100 as telecommunications were temporarily interrupted. President Deane declared a break at 8:00 p.m.; declaring the meeting back to order at 8:05 p.m. R-15-102 Endorsers: Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman June M. Caron Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF UP TO $650,000 FROM THE SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND INTO CAPITAL PROJECT ACTIVITY “SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS” FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE HIGH SCHOOLS’ RUBBERIZED GYM FLOORS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-102 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Dowd Originally these floors were in the bonding project and we were asked to ask the Board of Education to take this funding out of the school capital reserve and this motion allows them to do that. A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-102 declared duly adopted. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 9 R-15-104 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ESTABLISHING AN EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING THE JACKSON MILLS DAM AND APPROPRIATING $240,000 FROM UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE INTO THE EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO AMEND R-15-104 BY REPLACING IT IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman The only change is in the last paragraph and this is just a recalculation to correct a previously incorrectly stated number for the municipal budget for 2015 and the amount remaining. Now the paragraph reads “prior to passage of this legislation the accumulated sum of all appropriations of the FY 15’ combined in the annual municipal budget is $259,986,003. The FY 15’ dollar amount under the limit established by City Charter §56-C is $760,945.” A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-104 AS AMENDED A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-104 declared duly adopted as amended. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 10 R-15-107 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF NASHUA AND LOCAL 365 OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), AFL-CIO FROM JULY 1, 2014, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-107 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse The only thing I missed on that was the final vote in the Budget Committee, was it unanimous? President Deane I believe it was 6-1, is that right Alderman Siegel? Alderman Siegel Yes, it was 6-1. Alderman Moriarty Is this the discussion on the motion for final passage? President Deane Yes, it is. Alderman Moriarty I am going to vote against it because of math. The inflation rate this past year was 0.8%, the CPIU was 0.8% this past year. The spending cap this year is going to be 1.5% and although the total base pay and other salary costs increases for this particular contract are some of the lowest that I’ve seen in a long time by any salary contract that have come through here at 2.1% per year. It’s still way over the inflation rate that the rest of the country is abiding by and way over the spending cap. We have got to get these contracts below the spending cap. In addition we have the retirement costs and insurance which adds on top of that which makes the net cost 2.2%, 2.6%, and 2.3% which are small numbers compared to some of the contracts that have come here in the past year. You simply cannot have $3 million of spend in a spending cap and spend more than that in salary contracts, it does not add up. Alderman Siegel I was in the Budget Committee discussion about this contract and I had some initial trepidations. There is the shotgun provision in there and we talked about the cost of the extra shotgun person. As it turns out, for practical purposes there is not a tremendous amount of money associated with that extra wingman. As far as total loaded cost to the contract, I understand Alderman Moriarty’s concern however the major concern is whether or not the department is able to keep its overall costs in line. The problem with renegotiating this contract if we reject it is that it’s been a full year and there’s been a concession which is extremely important which is to have a snow plan. That is something that provides a level of flexibility which could Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 11 save costs and make the snow plowing much more efficient and overall improve the experience for we in city government and our citizens. I believe the total cost for this contract is fairly small, the increase, because there’s not that many people governed by this contract. To throw this back in and spend an extra year negotiating with the vague hope that we will get a better outcome is I think wishful thinking so I would urge that we pass this contract. Alderman Chasse Isn’t this the last one of all of the contracts? President Deane There is a principal’s contract and that’s it. Alderman Chasse That’s new, they never had a union before but from all of the previous contracts, this is the last one before we start over again? President Deane I was told by the Mayor that the principal’s contract and this one were the last two contracts. Alderman Chasse So again I say that the principal’s contract is new. This is the first contract that they have every brought in front of us since they re-unionized. Alderman Siegel The principals were unionized in 2004 and they discontinued until this year so it’s not the first unionized contract they have submitted. President Deane I think those who attended the Budget Committee meeting should get a good grasp of getting them to come to the table to discuss the snow plan. It’s going to have some significant value to it. Alderman Moriarty I watched the meeting and I understand about negotiating about the snow plan. When it comes to negotiating contracts if the people on the other side know that the Board of Aldermen is just going to pass it then the strength in negotiation becomes on the people on the other side. If the Board of Aldermen were to consistently turn down contracts strength in the negotiating process would change and then we would be able to get the concessions that we want. The argument that if we turn it down then we are going to lose the ability to negotiate is the complete opposite of the truth in my opinion. President Deane If we had done that when we were negotiating out the healthcare, just think of the millions of dollars we would have kept on spending during that timeframe. I guess it works both ways. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 12 A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Chasse; 10 Alderman Caron; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: Alderman Schoneman; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Moriarty 3 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-107 declared duly adopted. R-15-109 Endorser: Alderman June M. Caron AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF $730.00 TO CORPORATE INTERIORS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE FEES PAID FOR 620 SOUTH MAIN STREET Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-109 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Caron The request came in because Corporate Interiors was looking to go before the Zoning and Planning Boards to get a Variance to put in an in-law apartment. Prior to that happening, the person that would be occupying that facility passed away. They went back to the Planning Board and asked for a refund. We had to do legislation for this and this is the payment less administrative fees. Alderman McCarthy Was the Variance required granted? Alderman Caron No, they did not even get to that point. A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-109 declared duly adopted. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 13 R-15-110 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ESTABLISHING AN EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR STATE EMPLOYER PENSION COSTS AND APPROPRIATING $2,730,000 FROM FUND BALANCE ASSIGNED FOR THIS PURPOSE INTO THE EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY TO AMEND R-15-110 BY REPLACING IT IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Mayor Lozeau There is just the mathematical ones similar to the Jackson Falls where the equation just had to change based on carrying the wrong number forward. President Deane He used the fiscal year, right? Mayor Lozeau He just carried the wrong number. A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN McCARTHY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-15-110 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy This is money that we put aside for this problem. It’s a rainy day fund and this year it’s pouring. Alderman Soucy I really don’t want to do this but I think we need to but this money was put away for this purpose and I think it’s time to break open the piggy bank and use it. I think the consequences are going to be far greater if we don’t. We will see a significant decrease in services. The schools are talking about laying off 12 people and cutting hockey programs. The police department has come in here possibly at $300,000 over budget with the overtime. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 14 Alderman Siegel I appreciate the Mayor’s efforts and it’s the state that has created a problem for us. We do have a variety of trust funds however they are often accounted for in the cap calculation. This is a pension expense that was hoisted upon us but it’s not a one-time expense. The pension obligations are an obligation of the city whether we like it or not and this transfer of money into a fund that will not be subject to cap calculations is a problem. We are a city that has a charter in place which was just changed and the people that changed it did change the calculation of the cap but they didn’t change anything about the number of people required to override it or get rid of it itself. Ironically, it’s worse than it was before as far as ability for money. The legislation also assumes that we are going to have a problem that has to be addressed by an override. I understand that we are very tight but right up front we are saying let’s throw our hands up in the air and deal with it now. We always have the ability to come back and change our minds about whether or not we want to override a cap for certain items. I suspect this budget season will be tough because I think there will be things that we want to shift around. We may be in the same situation last year where we have to get 10 votes of the Board of Aldermen. The other thing is the potential effect on bond rating. The CAFR is very clear in that we have these funds set aside and we were told that the bond rating agencies are aware of this, however the bond rating agencies are also aware that we have a cap and that we are subject to it. To the extent that we have a cap but routinely ignore it, we don’t have a cap and that could affect our bond rating. I asked our CFO, Mr. Griffin, for a cost estimate on what would happen if our bond rating dropped by one rating point or two and the rating agencies came back with an idea that it would be about 25 basis points which is a ¼% for a bond rating that’s not quite where we are at, from AAA to AA+ and if we slip two rungs it’s between 40 and 50 basis points. For every million dollars that we bond for a 20-year timeframe that’s about $26,000 and according to Mr. Griffin if we issue about $90 million in bonds during a six-year period between 2012 and 2017, and I’m reading directly from his e-mail, that we are anywhere between $2.34 million for a single point downgrade, a 25 basis point to $4.68 million for between 40 and 50 basis points. That’s the additional borrowing cost we would face because we would be looked on as less prudent financially and there is a higher risk. I’m not saying this will actually happen but it is a possibility. I think it’s important to be mindful as to how we spend our money and how we decide whether or not to override the cap. To me the cap gets overridden in the event you have an emergency situation or an unanticipated expense that you have to deal with and this certainly isn’t the case with the pension expense. It’s painful but not unanticipated. Alderman Soucy I appreciate Alderman Siegel’s concerns but I think the purpose of a cap is the impact on the taxpayer. In doing it this way there will be no impact on our taxpayers. This money has been put aside for this purpose. There will be a significant amount of decreases in services if we don’t do this. Alderman Chasse This thing has been eating me alive. When I came on the Board of Aldermen I said I would never override the spending cap. If I vote yes I will turn in my resignation immediately. If I vote no it means there could be layoffs. Big companies go through this all of the time and if means cutting services then that’s what we are going to have to do. This is what budgets are. If I do say yes on this I will be walking out of here immediately. Alderman McCarthy The difference here is that the money has been put aside for this purpose. It’s simply a technicality that needs to be done to be able to spend it because of the way the spending cap is worded. I hardly think that any company that had $1 million set aside for an expense and the expense came along, would lay off people instead. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 15 Alderman Moriarty I am going to vote no on this for one main reason – because it will establish accountability. The idea of saving money for this purpose, I agree with the Mayor’s intentions and in fact I understand her math and agree with her that it doesn’t impact the tax rate by itself. The question I ask you is do we really that we were saving for the pension? Did we really acknowledge all of these issues when we voted on those salary contracts that put us in this problem? Yes, we were saving money on the side but I want to remind you that last year during the budget when Alderman Siegel ended up cutting a bunch of items out of the budgets and one of the items that he cut out was $400,000 that was going to fund the pension. It was essentially intended to save for the future which was an indication that some of us in the Chamber were not aware we were saving this money. Aside from that, my point is you have heard me say more than once that we cannot pass this salary contract because we can’t afford it in the future and I’ve been outvoted time and time again. For once, everything that I’ve been saying that is going to happen is going to happen in the budget season. If I had seen my colleagues actually planning well and keeping the contracts under control and acknowledging in saving this money I would gladly vote for this because I wouldn’t have to worry about the future of us continuing to “I promise not to drive off the cliff but I’m going to keep my foot on the accelerator as much as possible.” We need to take our foot off of the accelerator. I’m going to vote no because it’s going to force an acknowledgment, it’s going to force recourse by the members of this Board of Aldermen this coming budget season when they finally see the implications of their prior votes. I want to watch the individuals in here and see how they are going to put it together and I suspect some will find that the only answer is to override the spending cap and I will vote no on that and I am going to vote no to force the issue. Alderwoman Brown This is a very complicated and difficult situation for the city but I have full confidence in our CFO and our Treasurer who have recommended this and I will support this because of that. Alderman Schoneman I will not support this. I think if we need to override in FY 16’ that option does not go away if we say no to this and I think that would be a cleaner way to do it. My understanding is that by moving this money over we are actually expanding the amount of money that can be spent in FY 16’ by a considerable sum. I think that’s an accountability issue. I would rather deal with 2016 as 2016. Alderman McCarthy The long-term effect is quite the opposite. If we approve this then the action takes place in the 2015 budget year. The base budget for future budgets is set by what we set the FY 16’ budget at when we deliberate that. If the override takes place in the FY 16’ budget the number that’s allowed in the FY 17’ budget is then millions of dollars higher than it would otherwise be if we simply took action. If your goal is to simply preserve the cap in the long-term, this is the better way to do it. Alderman Caron I have to agree with Alderman Soucy, I don’t think we ever want to spend this money but we did put this money aside for a purpose and we do have other trusts that we have used over time and we were happy that we had them there. I think that the state legislature isn’t going to change anything concerning pensions. If you don’t take the bull by the horns and try to do something now, even if it’s a little bit, down the road it’s going to be worse. It is always what we want but sometimes you have to do what you feel is the right thing to do at this point in time that will help us manage our tax dollars in the future. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 16 Alderman Siegel I want to reiterate that yes, this money was set aside but this is a recurring expense. The pension contribution is adjusted bi-annually and it’s not like this is a one-time hit because under those circumstances it probably makes a lot more sense but that’s not the case. This is the world that we live in until the next bi-annual investment and it’s possible we will be at the same level, we might be lucky and be lower but we might also be unlucky and be higher. There is no recurring savings; there is only a recurring expense. Alderman Dowd I am pretty sure that everyone that voted for the budget was aware that the money we put into this account was for the pension just based on the name of it alone. The problem isn’t driven by the contracts as much as it is by the amount of the share of the pensions that we have been forced to pay by the state. The state is imposing that $2 million problem; the pensions haven’t changed at all. I think that we are all looking at pension reform because pensions are causing issues across the board. We had planned for the cost of those pensions and the state added to our cost. Alderman Soucy I run my house under a budget too but I also have a piggy bank that I have saved for things. This money was set aside for the pension and we have a way to spend it without impact on our taxpayers and not significantly decreasing services. Alderman Chasse, I hope I can change your mind but I really don’t want to see your resignation either. Alderman Chasse I took a pledge when I decided to run for this office and I am a man of my word so if I go against that pledge I don’t deserve to be here. President Deane Mayor, what are the administration’s plans – if this were to pass, how much of this money would you be using this current fiscal year? Mayor Lozeau We would be looking at between $750,000 up to $1 million. It’s not meant to pay that whole $1.9 million this year, it’s meant to smooth out those increases over two years and the unfunded liability portion that we pick up from the state which is in addition to our share of the employees which was the second line in that slide I provided, at some point has to go down because they are collecting – when the municipal association was here doing the presentation, at some they have collected enough money to offset some of that unfunded liability. Our two year increase the last time was greater than it is this time so it’s a smoothing out is what this is prepared to do and it’s also from the assigned not the unassigned which is why the bond rating wouldn’t have an adverse impact. President Deane I met today with the wealth advisors for the Public Works Pension System and our city’s Public Works Pension Plan is funded at 80%. The question I asked them was where do we stand on this planet with an 80% funded pension plan? He said it was unheard of. Then we went on to discuss what the state is trying to do to everybody and Alderman Schoneman did send me an e-mail from Representative Ohm that had some data associated with that but it seems a little far-fetched and we are not the only municipality dealing with the problem. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 17 A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Caron; 7 Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire Nay: Alderman Schoneman; Alderman Chasse; Alderman McGuinness; 6 Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderman Deane MOTION FAILED MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO TABLE R-15-110 A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Caron; 7 Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire Nay: Alderman Schoneman; Alderman Chasse; Alderman McGuinness; 6 Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderman Deane MOTION CARRIED R-15-111 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SURPLUS BROAD STREET PARKWAY PROPERTY Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF R-15-111 A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-15-111 declared indefinitely postponed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES – None Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 18 NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-15-114 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane APPROVING THE PROPOSAL OF PENNICHUCK CORPORATION TO GIVE PENNICHUCK WATER WORKS, INC., PENNICHUCK EAST UTILITY, INC., AND PITTSFIELD AQUEDUCT COMPANY, INC. AUTHORITY TO BORROW FUNDS FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND Given its first reading; assigned to the PENNICHUCK WATER SPECIAL COMMITTEE by President Deane R-15-115 Endorser: Alderman Michael Soucy AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY- FOUR DOLLARS AND NINETEEN CENTS ($5,494.19) FROM THE CONSERVATION FUND FOR NORTHWEST BOULEVARD RAILROAD CROSSING FEES Given its first reading; assigned to the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE by President Deane NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-15-043 Endorser: Alderman David Schoneman Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy ESTABLISHING NASHVILLE STREET AS A ONE-WAY STREET IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION AND PERMITTING PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President Deane PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Jim Cutter – 86 Palm Street Dear President Deane, Our permanent ordinance O-00-024 called for a no parking sign in front of 85-87 Palm Street to help prevent someone from blocking our driveway with free movement going to and from it and is similar to O-320-56 Parking in Front of Private Driveways. The DPW removed the sign for Broad Street Parkway construction and it should have been returned. It has not been returned because of a careless mistake of not asking why our sign and taking it for granted that a no parking sign would not be on the west side per Broad Street Parkway plans. There should be no concern our no parking sign will cause the loss of two parking spaces to comply with our O-00-24 because preventing the blocking of a driveway is more important. It needs to be told that we are in a highly populated area with numerous parking spaces a short walk away on nearby streets during the workday. There have been no changes in buildings, our driveway, and street since O-00-24 became law. Because there cannot be a reason why it was revoked we would like it reinstated. See RSA 626:3, Effect of Ignorance or Mistake. Sincerely, Jim. REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN Alderman McCarthy Do we have a plan for a special election to fill Alderman Sheehan’s seat? Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 19 President Deane The Clerk has been working with the police department and the school district. With the concern over snow days and the Smart Balance Testing as well as the police department requirement for overtime, the school superintendent didn’t want a lot of commotion going on during the testing. The school superintendent recommended waiting until the 24th of June. Alderman McCarthy June? President Deane If you would like to bring a resolution in it’s fine by me. Alderman McCarthy I had heard there was some discussion about having it over April vacation. Mayor Lozeau That is something that I believe the Mayor wants to do, that’s what I have been told. Alderman McCarthy That would seem to be reasonable. President Deane Last time I did something on April vacation, Alderman McCarthy, I got my head handed to me. Alderman McCarthy I can understand that for holding meetings but I would point out that with regard to elections we do offer absentee ballots so holding the election during that week is not a hardship to anyone. President Deane Okay, you can bring a resolution in and do whatever you care to do. It’s not up to me. I would check with the police department first. Alderman McCarthy If we do it over vacation week then I don’t think we have the issue of police staffing at the polls at the schools. Alderman Chasse That was a tough one tonight. Is there some way that they can work out a payment plan with the state? We are funded at 80%. I am sure other cities are feeling the same pain. President Deane When they send us the bill we have to pay it, it’s not negotiable. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 20 Alderman Chasse It’s not like they need the money in the pension, it’s 80% funded right now. President Deane No, it’s more like about 53%. Public Works is 80%. Alderman Caron On a happier note, 23 days until spring! Alderman Soucy If we were to make payments on the pension plan, when the next payment is due we are just adding more to the next payment. Mr. President, regarding the election, what are the parameters for the earliest and the latest? President Deane There’s the 180 days but we are well within that. We are not in default of the legislation. We can talk about it when the legislation comes in. My last conversation with the City Clerk was to look at the end of March to bring something in and then we would have a better idea of the make-up days with the school. Alderman Soucy I would concur. Alderman Donchess I think the Charter says that the election has to be between 40 and 180 days from the occurrence of the vacancy. President Deane The June 23rd date would fall within that deadline. Alderman Donchess Correct. Alderman Moriarty I’d like to point something out regarding the pensions and our view of the state and how the state is involved here. Some of us have said that the state is imposing a hardship on us and in some sense that’s true but the whole purpose of the pension is that it is part of a compensation package for that bargaining unit. If you consider that bargaining unit being the people who currently work there or used to work there or going to work there they have long histories of being with a comradery of that bargaining unit. The fact that what we as the people that employ them, who negotiate with that bargaining unit, we have something that we get in our legislation which is in two sheets of paper on the front side and it summarizes what the current individuals are getting in their compensation package and how much their pay raise is. On the back side it adds the additional costs that are part of their compensation package and in many cases it’s the insurance and the pension. We have seen with every single resolution that’s come through to pass a negotiated contract – the numbers are all here. The state isn’t suddenly taxing us and giving the money to somebody else. The state is saying that the people that we are agreeing to negotiate with are getting paid Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 21 this pension and it’s costing us money to pay for that. All of us here on the Board of Aldermen saw those numbers. That police supervisor’s contract, it was a 6% single year increase and it was in black and white on a piece of paper that every single person on this Board saw. It’s not the state’s fault, they are contending with their own financial issues. There is going to be a problem this budgeting period and we saw it coming and some of use voted yes for it. I just wanted to make that clear. Alderman Siegel I’d like to give my condolences to the Perry Family, they lost Karen a couple of days ago after a long fight and I hope she is in a better place. To address Alderman Moriarty’s remarks about the contracts, I am certainly aware of what I am looking at. I am one of the people who actually reads them. At the Budget Committee meetings, with all due respect, I don’t recall Alderman Moriarty ever attending one so if he has something to say I would welcome him to bring his comments to the Budget Committee meetings where these contracts are discussed. I evaluate them on an individual basis and yes there are percentages associated with them but there are also trade- offs associated with those percentages and ultimately what matters is whether a department can keep itself under budget or not and what is the cost of losing appropriate people compared to the outside forces that govern what the attrition rates are. It’s a lot more complicated than staring at a number and saying its 1% or 2% or 0%. Alderman Wilshire I agree with Alderman Siegel’s comments. We see what’s on the contracts but we see the trade-offs too and to say that we have been irresponsible and not aware of it, we were aware of it, we put money aside for it and when we tried to get the money to be there, it failed and that’s disappointing. On another note, I would like to urge us as a Board to upgrade our lighting, our sound, and our technology in our Chamber. Alderman Donchess One reason the pensions have gone up so much and so rapidly is that for a period of time the state reduced the contributions required by municipalities to such a low level that the pension fund was depleted and at one point it hit below 50% funded. Now we are paying for decisions that were made in the past to underfund the pension system. It’s a complicated picture. Alderman McCarthy I wouldn’t want the public to get the wrong impression about the pension problem. The amount of pension impact from the raises that we give in contracts pales in comparison to the impact of the state just unilaterally saying we are not going to fund the pension system anymore, you do it. It’s 10% of 6% of some number is a lot smaller than several percent of $150 million which is basically what we are being asked for. President Deane I agree with Alderman Donchess and Alderman McCarthy said. This didn’t just happen overnight. They had those years where they set their return on investment at 7.5% and anything that came in above that through their investment policies was put into a special fund and they wrote out special checks for special things whereas that money probably should have been left in there to help with some of those years where they wouldn’t be making that rate of return. The meeting of the Board of Aldermen on March 10th is the same date as the celebration being held for Sgt. Ryan Pitts in Concord. I just wanted to ask the Board if you want to move the meeting to Monday, March 9th so people can attend. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 22 Alderman McCarthy I think we have to change it at least two weeks in advance so we would have to postpone it to Wednesday, March 11th. I’m not sure if that is part of the ordinance or the Charter. Alderman Chasse There is a get together for Sgt. Ryan Pitts on Tuesday, March 10th at 6:30 p.m. at the Red Blazer Restaurant in Concord. The states reps are also being invited. I was asked to give a special invitation to the Board of Aldermen. President Deane It’s an ordinance and not in the Charter. MOTION BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY TO RESCHEDULE THE TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015, BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING TO MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2015, AT 7:30PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER. A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED Committee announcements: Alderman Donchess Infrastructure meets tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. Alderman Dowd Thursday night is School Construction at 7:00 p.m. and Joint Special at 8:00 p.m. in the Nashua High School North Board Room. President Deane I have a tentative date for NFR to come in here on March 31 but I need to firm that up with them. Alderman Chasse The Personnel & Administrative Affairs Committee meeting on March 9th is now moved to March 16th. Alderman Moriarty We have Planning & Economic Development next Tuesday, one week from today and Finance the day after that. Bd. of Aldermen – 02/24/15 Page 23 ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE FEBRUARY 24, 2015, MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman McCarthy; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Schoneman; 13 Alderman Chasse; Alderman Caron; Alderman McGuinness; Alderman Soucy; Alderman Donchess; Alderman Moriarty; Alderman Siegel; Alderwoman Brown; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Deane Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Attest: Patricia Piecuch, Deputy City Clerk