Budget Review Committee

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE April 22, 2013 A meeting of the Budget Review Committee was held Monday, April 22, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy, Chair, presided. Members of Committee present: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane, Vice Chair Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess, Arrived after Roll Call at 7:08 p.m. Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Richard A. Dowd Members not in Attendance: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Also Present: Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly Stephen M. Bennett, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel John Griffin, CFO/Comptroller Chief Seusing, Nashua Police Department Police Commissioner Pappas PUBLIC COMMENT COMMUNICATIONS From: Stephen M. Bennett, Esq., Deputy Corporation Counsel Re: R-13-101, R-13-102; R-13-103; and, R-13-104 MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-13-101 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA POLICE COMMISSION AND THE NASHUA POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF $26,602 FROM DEPARTMENT 194, CONTINGENCY, ACCOUNT #70150 “ CONTINGENCY FOR NEGOTIATIONS” INTO DEPARTMENT 150, POLICE, ACCOUNT #51900 “PAYROLL ADJUSTMENTS” MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-13-101 ON THE QUESTION Attorney Bennett My general practice is to go through the cost items separately. They are outlined or reflected in the summary that was presented in the communication. The first one is the vacation. There’s a single change to that vacation schedule which would entitle a member to receive 25 vacation days after 15 years. Previously, it was 16 years of service before they received 25 days’ vacation. The next article Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 2 would be Article 14, which is insurances. First and foremost the article amendment removes the insurance carriers. Up until currently there are named insures, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Harvard Pilgrim are in this contract. Those are removed. In addition the supervisors would contribute 30 percent of a point-of-service and 20 percent of a HMO plan premium effective October 1, 2011. They would be paying retro all the way back to October 1, 2011, which is consistent with the other contracts which have been approved. Effective July 1, all the members would switch to the current plan the city has which would include the increased co-pays and deductibles that are listed there and which are consistent with the other approved contracts. Finally there’s a re-definining of the term “comparable plan” which is consistent again with the previously approved contracts. Article 16, educational incentive. The officers received on an annual basis an incentive for holding associates, bachelors or advanced degrees. What they are proposing to do is to increase each incentive by the amount of $250. The amounts listed there are the amounts they would receive after the additional $250. The bereavement leave would increase by one day from three to four days. Bereavement for the death of an employee’s spouse, parent or child. It would go from three to four days. Article 21, personal days. Increasing the number of personal days from four to five calendar days. All calendar days coming out of the sick leave so if an officer does not have any accrued sick days, he would not receive a personal day. Article 28 is wages. These are three-year contracts we’re proposing. For FY12, of course, is entirely retro now, would be: lieutenants would receive a two percent wage increase while sergeants would receive a one percent wage increase. For FY13, which is almost all retro, both lieutenants and sergeants would receive a one percent increase. As of this July 1 for FY14, lieutenants and sergeants would receive a 2.2 percent wage increase. As I noted before there’s a three-year term on this contract. That’s the cost items reflected in this new proposed contract. Chairman McCarthy Mr. Griffin, would you like to run us through the cost analysis. Mr. Griffin The worksheet that’s entitled “City of Nashua Police Supervisors Contract Analysis” analyses from the base year, which was Fiscal 11 through the end of the contract year, Fiscal 14, in column fashion the various increases and decreases in the cost items associated with the police contract. Specifically those items include base wage increases, increases in other salary costs, increases or decreases in retirement costs, as well as insurance benefits to include health, dental and life insurance. You’re probably familiar with cost analysis before where the supervisors were included as one unit. Because of the increase of two percent to the lieutenants in Fiscal 12 and a one percent increase for the sergeants in Fiscal 12, I separated the sergeant costing from the lieutenant costing. On lines 1 and 2, it’s the number of officers in the unit. Lines 4 and 5 are the percentage base increases to their pay starting in Fiscal 12 and ending in Fiscal 14. Base pay calculations basically in the base pay period the sum of the salaries for the sergeants clearly shown as well as the base pay for the lieutenants. Lines 11 and 12 would be the respective increases for the sergeants and lieutenants based on the percentages that are shown on Lines 4 and 5 to get a total base pay on Lines 14 and 15, and a total base pay for this particular bargaining unit on Line 16. Basically taking the $2.3 million in salary, increasing it based on the percentages for each year. Line 17 is the change over the prior year and Line 18 is the percentage increase from the prior year. For the 1 percent increase to the sergeants and a 2 percent increase to the lieutenants translates to an overall average increase of 1.3 percent in Fiscal 12, a 1 percent increase in Fiscal 13 and a 2.2 percent increase in Fiscal 14. Lines 21 through 29 are the other salary costs. As Attorney Bennett indicated the only change in these from the base year would be either an increase in the base pay such that an overtime rate would be increased on Line 21 and 22 and the educational incentives on Line 26 would be increased based on the new collective bargaining agreement. Total other salary costs are shown on Line 29, percentage change over prior year on Line 31, and a total base and other salary costs, Line 33. Recognizing the increases in each year, Line 34 is the dollar value of Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 3 the increase, and Line 35 is the percentage increase. Proceeding down the page, the retirement costs, this particular union is in the New Hampshire Retirement System, Group II, police. Duly noted on Line 39 are the respective employee rates. The first two years, Fiscal 12 and 13, 19.95 percent per every dollar of pensionable wages. That, based on the new rates from New Hampshire Retirement System, that rate will increase to 25.30 in Fiscal 14. Medicare is a smaller amount. That goes up based on the salary increases. That’s on Line 40. Line 41 is the total retirement cost including the pension and Medicare. Change over to over prior year is shown. Generally we have increases every other year in this particular analysis when the New Hampshire Retirement System readjusts their employee rates. Then on Line 43 is the change over the prior year. Moving on to the insurance benefits, medical insurance costs called out in gross. This is the total amount of costs based on the working rates less the employee contributions assuming a 10 percent rate increase. As Attorney Bennett indicated retroactive, October 1, 2011. As you can see if we move from the base to the Fiscal 12, 13 and so on, those amounts increased because of the retroactive nature of the agreement. Line 48 is as the officers will be part of the new plan design effective July 1, 2013. We expect to achieve savings based on increases in co-pays deductibles and other medical items. That item is calculated at 6.8 percent of the total cost of the program. Further down the page is dental insurance costs. We’ve done fairly well in maintaining the same relative rates of dental insurance and life insurance costs. Again the analysis has the change over the prior year and the percentage change over the prior year on Line 54, for a total cost of compensation including base pay, other salary costs, retirement costs and employee benefit costs shown on Line 56 with the relative increases shown on Line 57 and the percentage increases on Line 58. The derivation of Line 60, which is the average annual total compensation package, is taking the total cost on Line 56 and dividing it by the members in the bargaining unit. In this case, 32 members, to derive what’s shown on Line 60. Line 61 is the increase or decrease in the prior year and Line 62 is the average percentage increase in compensation. I know I went through that pretty quick. If there’s any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Alderman Deane I had a question on the retro activity under 28, wages. That’s Article 28, not Line 28. The resolution shows that there’s a $26,602 transfer from contingency in Dept. 194, contingency-negotiations into the police department. I may be wrong, but I thought I heard from Attorney Bennett that FY12 would be retro and FY13, which we’re approaching a little over 9 months now, would also be retro. If I took the $26,602 and these 32 employees with 21 months of retro activity, is that $26,602? The right figure to cover that? Mr. Griffin That particular amount is the amount that the city put in the contingency for negotiations in Fiscal 13 only, earmarked for the supervisory union. That amount is what will be transferred from the contingency for negotiations in Fiscal 13 into the police department budget for wages. There is an amount that has been escrowed for contingency-negotiations for Fiscal 12 into Fiscal 13 that will be working with our accounting department. That would be a charge from that particular account. That’s already been budgeted so there was no need of transferring that anywhere. Alderman Deane Is that transfer done internally? When we passed the escrow legislation that was a like-to-like, I believe, how did that money come about? Mr. Griffin That particular money, and I can tell you what the number is. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 4 Alderman Deane Were there transfers from other accounts during the escrow process to put into that or was it budgeted in FY12 and then just escrowed as that line? Mr. Griffin It was the latter, it was budgeted by the police department in Fiscal 12, carried over as an escrow in Fiscal 13. Alderman Deane So who has authority over that money right now? If you have to make up the difference of the $26,602 how does that work? Does it have to be done legislatively? I know the escrow brought the impact of allowing it to be carried over. It would have been part of the legislation that could have been approved by the administration because it was a like-to-like purpose and it wasn’t a change in purpose. So how does that happen? Do you know do that or? Mr. Griffin Basically if we didn’t make the escrow from contingency for negotiations from Fiscal 12 into Fiscal 13 that money would have lapsed into surplus. Once we made the recommendation and approval of the escrows from Fiscal 12 into 13, that money is there in Fiscal 13 ready for what our accounting manger describes as expense transfers. What will happen is there will be money paid to the officers. There will be roughly $13,000 ready to help out that expenditure. Chairman McCarthy Was the escrow from payroll to payroll or from contingency-negotiations to payroll? Mr. Griffin It was contingency for negotiations. It’s in an account that can be used through the approval of the escrow to pay salaries once there’s an agreement and approval of the contract. Chairman McCarthy I don’t understand that. The purpose was contingency. It should have required a transfer. I do not consider that a like-for-like escrow. That should either have come to us in the escrow legislation or that money is escrowed like-for-like into contingency and we should see a transfer resolution for it. Mr. Griffin It was escrowed from Account 194 into a prior year obligation account, 194, contingency. Chairman McCarthy In all likelihood that should require a transfer resolution to move to the department budget. Is that where you were going with that, Alderman Deane? Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 5 Alderman Deane Ya. I was just looking at the past. We’ve had other contract issues which have gone out on a considerable period of time but it just seems like things got a little jumbled up, and I wanted to see, better understand how the administration thought the process worked. Just looking at the total number of sergeants and lieutenants combined and 21 months of proposed retro activity that number just didn’t add up. The sum on the insurance line, the insurance benefits, when we look at Line 47, that’s the retro activity line associated with the increase in contributions? Mr. Griffin That’s actually composed of two items. One is 10 percent of the number of the total cost as well as the more detailed calculation of the retro activity within that year based on the working rates. The two numbers taken together would be the amount. Alderman Deane So that would be Line 47 and 48? Mr. Griffin If I may, Line 48 is prospective. That’s the estimated savings of the officers going to the plan design in Fiscal 14. Alderman Deane When I go to FY 11 on the base of the $64,262 what does that number represent? Mr. Griffin That is the current rate of contribution. Making it relatively straightforward, it takes the number above and multiplies by ten percent. Alderman Deane And the next $119,528, what is that? Does that do the same thing? Mr. Griffin That would be ten percent of the line above it plus, as I mentioned, the detailed calculation of the retroactive amount back to October 1, 2011. Alderman Deane And then as you go out into FY 13, that’s still ten percent and 14 would be the 6.8? Mr. Griffin The line associated under the Column Fiscal 13, again, would be ten percent of the line above it, plus the detailed calculation of the retroactivity that’s owed for the complete fiscal year. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 6 Alderman Deane And the detailed calculation is what line? Mr. Griffin It’s included in that number. Alderman Deane How did you come up with that number? Mr. Griffin I took the officers that are subscribers to the health program, took the program that they are on, whether it be single, two-person or family, whether they were in the HMO, Point of Service for Anthem or Harvard HMO, I had the working rate. Took ten percent of that working rate, which is what the retro activity would result in, and then multiplied the number of subscribers for each plan times the monthly rate increase times the number of months to get the detailed calculation of the retroactive pay. Alderman Deane So that ten percent, that’s not an assumption. Wasn’t that an actual? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Given a certain level of cost for the working rate, working rate is like a premium, taking that number and multiplying it by ten percent, that’s what the officers are paying right now per plan basis. In some cases, very minimal cases, they’re paying 20 percent if they’re on a point of service. But for the purposes of this analysis, it’s a minor amount. Alderman Deane But we didn’t have to assume that. We knew that, right? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Ten percent is an actual. Alderman Deane So it’s an actual, not an assumption. We only have authority over cost items associated with collective bargaining agreements. There were times when we were challenged by the Public Employee Labor Relation Board on an item that we prevailed on, but when I look at this letter that we got from the Mayor, it kind of looks like it’s over the line in my opinion. I think we understand where she’s coming from, but I just look at the potential unfair labor practices actually coming out. I don’t know whether the administration under the Charter has a different authority than we do, but we can accept or reject cost items, vote the thing up or down and move on. We can’t alter it in any other way or discuss any other parts of a collective bargaining agreement that does not have some sort of cost related to it. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 7 Chairman McCarthy I’m not sure what you’re talking about in the memo. Alderman Deane This memo? Chairman McCarthy Ya. Alderman Deane There’s comparisons to other collective bargaining agreements. There’s comparisons to other negotiations that went on. There were things that other people settled for. It’s just my opinion, but it just seems a little, I don’t know. I don’t know what word to use, but those are my questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Alderman Donchess Could you please ask the minutes to reflect that I came in around 7:05 p.m. Chairman McCarthy 7:08 p.m. by my count. Alderman Donchess 7:08 p.m. I was out at a meeting at the high school regarding changes to the Dublin Avenue/Pine Hill Road intersection so I waited a little longer than I should have. Anyway, I do have a few questions for Mr. Griffin regarding the cost items. I want to see if I understand the numbers. As I look at Fiscal 12, the total compensation increase in terms of dollar amounts is around $43,000 reflective on Line 34. Is that correct? Mr. Griffin The increase in base pay and other salary related costs, that is correct. Alderman Donchess In terms of what the officers getting in their paycheck, as a group, based upon the raise given in Fiscal Year, they would get around $43,000 of additional compensation? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Alderman Donchess And the officers have made the concession that was requested by the city concerning health care costs, even retroactive back to the date when the city was demanding it. Isn’t that right? Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 8 Attorney Bennett You weren’t here but we went through it. The changes that they have proposed would make their insurance article consistent with what this board has passed previously in that they have removed the name carriers, which I believe they and perhaps the patrol are the last two unions that had name carriers. Those were out and they would be contributing 20 or 30 percent depending what plan they are on. The only difference would be that the plan change would not occur until July 1st. Alderman Donchess Of what year? Attorney Bennett Of this year. It’s impossible to change the plan until you’ve made the other changes. Alderman Donchess In terms of retroactivity? Attorney Bennett Consistent with the other unions, October 1, 2011. Alderman Donchess So they have agreed to make the concession and pay the concession retroactively back to October of 2011, right? Attorney Bennett Yes, they have. Alderman Donchess I guess back to Mr. Griffin, because of the health care concession, and now I’m looking at Line 47, because of the health care concession, as a group these employees are going to be increasing their contribution as I look at it by $55,000 from $64,000 up to $119,000. Is that a correct interpretation? Mr. Griffin How this works is the column labeled Fiscal 12, Line 46, the cost increased from $642,000 to $713,000. As indicated earlier the officers would be paying ten percent of the $713,312 and have in fact paid that. The difference between the $119,528 and ten percent for the most part of $713,312 is the retroactive payment that this bargaining unit would pay if they are subscribers to the health care plan. Alderman Donchess As I read this in Fiscal 11 these officers were contributing for health care costs as a group $64,000. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 9 Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Alderman Donchess In Fiscal 12 under this contract the officers as a group would be contributing $119,000. Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Alderman Donchess And then in Fiscal 13, they would be contributing $143,000. Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Alderman Donchess As I look at it, in the first year of the contract in terms of what these officers are getting, in terms of their paychecks, their pay is going up $43,000 but they are contributing 55,000 additional dollars for their health care. Isn’t that accurate? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Alderman Donchess And then that trend continues throughout the next couple of years. The amount of their health care contributions go up, in terms of gross dollars. Mr. Griffin Right. In Fiscal 14 how this works is not only is there the additional contribution per the contract, there’s savings to the health care fund based on the new plan design that the officers will have on July 1 of 2013. Alderman Donchess Looking to Line 42, in Fiscal 12 there is a $175,000 increase in the pension contribution that the city has to make. Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 10 Alderman Donchess Is that due to the state law change where more of the cost is imposed on the city than was previously? In other words, the state used to contribute part of this and now they are withdrawing their support. Isn’t that what happened? Mr. Griffin In this particular year, as indicated previously, the New Hampshire Retirement System changes their employer rates every other year. In Fiscal 12, there was an increase. I don’t recall the exact percentage but it went from that percentage to 19.95 percent which is shown on Line 39. There was at one time an amount contributed by the state that was beginning to be eroded a few years ago and totally eliminated in Fiscal 12. Alderman Donchess And that’s why you see the $175,000 right there. Isn’t that where that comes from? Mr. Griffin If I recall subject to check the Fiscal 11 rate was in the vicinity of 14 percent per dollar of payroll, increased to 19.95 percent last fiscal year. This fiscal year it is going up 25.30 next year. As part of their rates, they had here’s the gross rate, employer rate and here’s the amount the state contributed. That was totally eliminated as you mentioned. Alderman Donchess So this doesn’t represent an increase in what an officer gets for a pension. It’s just a cost shifting from the state to the city. Isn’t that fair to say? Mr. Griffin I’m not an expert with NH Retirement System, but I can tell you that the rates that we get from NH Retirement System are based on pensionable wages times a rate. Chairman McCarthy It represents both, does it not? Basically we have a percentage that will go up which we multiply by a base salary number which also goes up. Some of the difference in cost is based on the changes to the state law. Some of it is based on the fact that we’re paying employees more and therefore we’re paying more into the pension plan. Alderman Donchess That is true, Mr. Chair, but the compensation cost is only going up 1.4 percent so that is the degree to which the pension contribution would be increased in wages. While the pension contribution to the city is going up 34 percent. I think the difference is the imposition by the State of New Hampshire of additional costs on the city. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 11 Chairman McCarthy I would agree with that because it only goes up by one percent in the second year where there is no change to the rate. The bottom line in the analysis which it says additional items, 25 days vacation accrued after 15 years, is there supposed to be a cost analysis associated with that? Mr. Griffin That was for the purposes of this analysis. It was difficult to quantify what the value of that would be. It’s a cost item to the extent somebody would be replacing the officer that took the extra vacation on their 15th anniversary instead of their 16th. It was difficult to quantify. Chairman McCarthy Before 15 years, what’s the number? The accrual number, number of days? Mr. Griffin 20 days, I believe. Chairman McCarthy The change basically represents five vacation days over somebody’s career in terms of cost, correct? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Chairman McCarthy How do the salary adjustments compare to what we’ve been doing in general? Attorney Bennett In general if you back to the approved contracts, library was .5, .5. It was only a two-year contract. We have several two-year contracts. Firefighters was .5 and .5. They did get steps. They have one percent steps. However it only impacts, I think, one year it was 17 members and one year it was 20 over their contract. UAW, there’s two units in the city. They received .5 for FY12 and .1 for FY13. For 14, they would get a step on the grid assuming a positive evaluation and the average for that for all UAW is 2.1 that year. AFSCME was similar. They were .5 for FY12, .1 for FY13 and .2 for FY14. Alderman Deane Mine says 2.0 for FY14. Attorney Bennett I’m sorry. It’s 2.0. Then if you go to the school district, it’s a little bit more difficult to compare. The teachers received cash payments, lump sums of $250 on September 1, 2011, $375 on August 31, 2012 and $250 on February 1 of this year. There were no step increases. The other unions schools, food services was .5 and .5 for FY12 and 13 plus increases at two steps, five and nine. School secretaries got .25 in 12 and .25 in FY13 and they were built an increase for employees at Year 6, 11 and 16. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 12 Paraprofessionals got 2 percent for FY13 and 2 percent for FY14. They do have a considerably different health plan arrangement with the city than any other unions. They contribute a much larger percentage. School custodians got a .6 and a .6 for FY12 and FY13. There was a lump sum payment of $250 on July 1, 2011 and $250 on July 1, 2012. Essentially those are all the unions in the city. Alderman Dowd Alderman Donchess was pointing out that there was a cost to the union members in the first year of $55,266 for the difference in concessions for health care as opposed to the percent increase to total salary, $43,763. Does that $43,000 include the $10,000 for other salary costs? Mr. Griffin Yes. Chairman McCarthy Which line item are you looking at, Alderman Dowd? Alderman Dowd I was looking at Line 29, increase in salary versus the employee contributions for health insurance, but that comparison of $55,266 to $43,763 was correct. Mr. Griffin I’m not sure it was clear when I described how the $119,000 was calculated. If we take ten percent of $713,312 and get roughly $71,000 and subtract that from the $119,000. The retroactivity period in Fiscal 12 for this particular unit is $48,197. That would be the amount that would be collected from the union on a retroactive basis. As the costs go up as noted on Line 46, there was 11 percent increase in the working rates in Fiscal 12 from Fiscal 11. That’s why their contributions that they paid were still ten percent but it was on a higher cost. The working rates went up 11 percent. Alderman Dowd Relative to the percentages that I just heard mentioned in all the other contracts versus the bottom line percentage increase here for salary, do you feel that this is in line with all the other unions? Mr. Griffin Would this be the percentage shown on Line 18? Alderman Dowd Strictly salary increases. Mr. Griffin Working with Mr. Bennett, subject to check, most of the first year FY12 increases were between .5 and maybe I’ve seen some .8. The Fiscal 13 is pretty much for the most recent contracts 1 percent. As Mr. Bennett indicated some of the prior contracts were around .5 as well. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 13 Alderman Deane Did you say .5 or .25? Attorney Bennett There was one that was .25. Alderman Deane That was the lunch ladies or the secretaries? Attorney Bennett Secretaries. Alderman Deane The percentages that were read out when you go some, like the AFSCME contract that was approved by the Mayor and the Board of Public Works, has an increase of 2 percent out in FY14. The UAW contract has a step on grid with a positive evaluation, step average of 2.1 percent. That’s the same with the UAW clerical which is 2.1 with a positive evaluation. I don’t know how you would average all of this out especially when you look at the school district. I didn’t quite follow what you said about the firefighters. There was like only 17 firefighters that were affected by this 1 percent step on years 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 15, 20 and 25. That’s just what? A percentage of the firemen, I guess? Chairman McCarthy The firemen get a .5 percent increase but 17 of them because of their time in service during that year also got a step increase of 1 percent. Alderman Deane So that would be 1.5 percent. Chairman McCarthy For 17. Alderman Deane And that was only 17 employees. Chairman McCarthy Right. Alderman Deane That was in 12 and in 13. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 14 Chairman McCarthy Attorney Bennett says yes. MOTION CARRIED Alderman Deane That was unanimous, Mr. Chairman? Chairman McCarthy I believe it was. Alderman Deane Thank you. R-13-102 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND NASHUA POLICE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES N.E.P.B.A. LOCAL 125, I.U.P.A., AFL-CIO FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-13-102 ON THE QUESTION Attorney Bennett There were three changes to this contract. First in insurance. The communications union would begin contributing at the rate of 20 percent for an HMO plan and 30 percent for point of service plan as of July 1 of this year. Also as of July 1, the members of this union would also be on the same plan as the rest of the city employees which would include increased co-pays and deductibles consistent with the other contracts which have been approved. Again they also have a change in the definition of the comparable plan to make it consistent with the other approved contracts. There is no retro connected with this contract. Wages, Article 23. For FY12 and FY13 there would be no increase in wages for these members. There would be a zero increase and no step on the grid. As of FY14, there would be 1.5 percent increase to the payroll and step grid and each employee who was entitled to a step would then move one step. It’s roughly two percent per step so it’s overall roughly a 3.5 percent increase in FY14, and it’s a three-year contract. Alderman Deane The change would be $24,515 in the payroll line. Is that correct? Mr. Griffin I’m not sure what line? Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 15 Alderman Deane I’m looking at Line 21. The salary changes that would need to be budgeted would be $24,515 for FY14? Is that correct? Line 20. See that $24,515? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. $24,515. Alderman Deane If I take the total number of employees of 14 and divide that into that number, I come with $17,051. Or if I want to work it down to a weekly, it’s a weekly increase of $33.67 per employee. That’s using a 52 week pay period which may be a little different. There may be an extra pay day in there or pay week. I don’t know. That’s all I have for right now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman McCarthy Why does this one not have the retro health care? Attorney Bennett Why does it not have it? Ultimately when the negotiating team this was a proposal that was acceptable to both negotiating teams. It was a different approach than the retro. There was a very large amount of retro building up and the employees did not feel that they were capable of making those repayments based on their salaries. I guess that was their logic. It was going to be taking too much of a hit on their weekly salaries. This was an alternative way of attempting to address the concern of the city which was to get the unions on health care. Chairman McCarthy The videographer is signaling that can’t hear you. Attorney Bennett The members of the union felt that based on their pay they weren’t capable of making both the retro pay at the same time they were doing their increased contributions. So we looked for an alternative solution to the problem and that was to zero out any retro wages or zero out wages for two years to try to make up for that retro payments that the other employees in the city had made. Chairman McCarthy How long has this contract in negotiations? Attorney Bennett It’s been two years now, prior to the termination of the last contract. I think we started in March. Chairman McCarthy Prior to the date that the health care would have been retro to? Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 16 Attorney Bennett Yes. All these contracts started prior to that. Alderman Donchess I believe based on what someone said there are 14 employees in this unit rather than 18, but I did have a couple of questions. To the department, what is the average tenure of these 14 employees? In other words, is the average one have five years or ten years or 20 years? Do you have a sense of that? Commissioner Pappas Let me tell you first there are 18 members of this union, not 14. I think Alderman Deane thought 14, but my count is 18. Alderman Deane Mr. Chairman, point of clarification. My cost analysis says 14. The cost analysis is predicated on a total number of 14. How did that happen? Commissioner Pappas I didn’t do the cost analysis. I’m looking at the list of employees. Alderman Deane I’m looking at the legislation that has a cost analysis which shows 14 which changes the sum total by four. Mr. Griffin As we discussed this particular analysis has been in the works for awhile. As you recall there were dollars put into the police budget for what’s shown on the books as probationary employees. In regards to this contract so we could have some stability in the base year and the future years, I used the long term employees, the 14 of them. The eight I believe in CommTech and six in Dispatch to make this an oranges and oranges comparison. That’s the purpose of it. The increases would be for the 14 individuals that were there in Fiscal 12 and most of Fiscal 13. I think there’s been some recent hires. I just wanted to clear that up. Commissioner Pappas Mr. Griffin is correct. There were two probationary dispatchers that were recently hired, and two probationary CT, communications techs were hired. That’s the additional four people. In terms of tenure, my correct read looks like the most tenured employee dates back to 1989 as a dispatcher. There’s a couple of employees, one from the early 90s, a couple in the mid-90s and then several in the early 2002. One in 2004 and then 2010. So I think other than the new four probationary folks and one person in 2010, everybody is at least 2007 and several tenure is much longer than that. By and large they’ve been around for awhile. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 17 Alderman Donchess I did have a question about the cost analysis just to make sure I understand it. I think it would be directed to Mr. Griffin. There is no wage increase until Fiscal 14, the third of the contract. Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Alderman Donchess At that point, looking at Line 21, as a group these employees, these communication employees and dispatchers, will receive at that point an increase of $24,000 of compensation? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Alderman Donchess They will increase in that same year their health care costs by about $25,000, right? Looking at Line 34? Mr. Griffin If I could go through the math on that. There’s a three percent increase from Fiscal 13 to Fiscal 14, $248,578 is the total cost of the program. They would have paid $24,000. They will pay an extra ten percent. It brings it up to $49,716. Alderman Donchess So the increase is about $25,000? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. Alderman Donchess In dollar terms. And then looking to Line 39, why does the cost of total insurance benefits decline from 231 to 196? Does that reflect the additional contribution from the employees? Mr. Griffin That’s correct. There’s a few items going on there. One is on Line 34, the $49,716 contributions, the projected $16,903 in lower costs due to the plan design and a slight increase in dental insurance and life insurance. All those numbers together derived at $34,821 reduction from the prior year. Chairman McCarthy I hate to do this, but I have a problem with this one. We’ve gone through the entirety of the rest of the city and I have no objection to the bottom line compensation changes, but I think the structure of the way Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 18 this stuff is done which causes no end to problems with the contracts we’ve already negotiated. We told the employees in this building retro or nothing. It’s fundamentally unfair to do it this way. The numbers are okay at the bottom, but it’s really difficult to explain to the rest of our employees that they took a pay cut and somebody else didn’t. Now the numbers don’t actually work out that way maybe but I would love to have seen these contracts structured differently so we had consistently in the health care cost distribution. Alderman Dowd I concur. I was involved before in the teacher negotiations and the custodians. The custodians were much in the same position, and we made them do the concessions back to the original date. As you said just the way it’s structured it will be intrinsically unfair to the other unions, I think just based on the structure. Again when you look at the bottom line it’s not that bad, but I just think this is going to cause problems across the board. Alderman Wilshire So why aren’t we looking at the bottom line? That’s what’s not fair, that we’re not looking at the bottom line. We’ve kind of painted ourselves into a corner by saying all or nothing. You either have to pay it or we’re not going to approve your contracts. But when you look at the bottom line, I think they’ve made concessions and I think this is a good contract. Alderman Deane When you look at reoccurring costs like increases for instance. Unless something drastic happens, it never goes away. It’s there for eternity or whatever changes. So if you look at these, you have two years of zeros and then you have the retro. Here you have years of half a percent or one percent increases that are now entering their third year but that half of a percent is still on that hourly rate. The big picture is when you look out and you look at those two years of nothing and then an increase at the end of it, how does that equate to some of these if you compound that amount every year? I understand and I raised the issue especially with the school administrators. You’re paying all them people over $100,000 a year and you’re making the janitors and the custodians and those guys and girls pay retro and the school district finally stepped up. I had asked them, I believe Alderman Dowd you were on the board then, about where’s your merit plan. That whole thing just seemed kind of helter skelter and a couple years, you guys, the school board ended up doing it which I think they should have. We don’t have any control over that, but I guess long term when you look at this, people did make concession and people did pay retro. They were given retro and in the end, it ended up costing them. But I guess if you look at a comparison then you have the argument, we work for lower wages when health insurance was cheap. So you can’t use that as a point of reason now that in the private sector health insurance has escalated to the point of no return where it’s basically unaffordable for a lot of people and it’s going to get even worse. To have these people pay it retro back, I looked at it as a fairness issue. But then I also have to look at the fact that I’m not on an employer board. I don’t negotiate and I certainly do not dictate terms to any union or any employer board. That I would find would be in violation of law. You can go sit down with people and chit chat with them all you want, but I tend to agree with you, Alderman McCarthy. It’s not the bottom line, it’s the process. I’m not going to bother asking why it was negotiated like that. It’s none of my business. I’m not on the employer board. But I’m looking at those two double zeros and what that means running out. Chairman McCarthy Given that there’s the increase in health care costs, if there were numbers in there, they would be offset by what was given out. Frankly, I want to see people get better compensation and saying well we’ll do Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 19 something different with the benefits and not do the compensation, in this particular bargaining unit as you know and we have talked about communication workers in last year’s budget, I suggested that we need to do better in terms of compensation to make sure we keep these positions filled. Alderman Deane The alternative of filling these was with what? What was the alternative of filling these positions? Chairman McCarthy Overtime, basically. I would like to see us fix the compensation package not delay it and make that problem worse and cause this fundamental unfairness problem at the same time. Alderman Deane I agree with you. I don’t spend a lot of time at the police department, but with the times that we have been invited over there to walk through the place. You go down into that dispatch room, I wouldn’t want to do that for a living. I just wouldn’t. For anybody to sit there and say well there’s a million people looking for work, they have no idea what those folks go through down there. And I agree that when you look at now we’re taking professional law enforcement off the streets or whatever to fill positions down there that have to be filled with overtime, that doesn’t make any sense. Alderman Donchess I look at what’s been negotiated and what I see is an employee group that’s important to the city, important to law enforcement who in terms of their take home pay over three years is getting zero and we’re complaining that they’re not giving enough. What we’ve got it an employee group which is at zero percent in the first year, zero percent in the second year and then in the third year, they get a raise but that is entirely more offset by an increase in insurance. So they aren’t getting any raise so take home which is what people look at, we’re not increasing their pay at all. Secondly, they’re making a significant concession to the city which goes into infinity. They’re making a concession regarding the cost of health care that will proceed for 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years and yet we’re going to say but we’re not going to take that because they haven’t done it early enough. They didn’t do it for a 1 ½ ago so over a year and a half of retro, we’re going to reject a concession that could last a 100 years? Third, this contract is for relatively, these are the lowest paid city employees, but as I heard from the commission, kind of the average tenure, the average person here is making in the middle 30s. And just having been down there and seeing the people, there’s a lot of people who I’m sure have kids and maybe even single parents and whatever, and they are making $35,000, $36,000, $34,000, $37,000. A retroactive payment is six percent of their pay. For a time they would be taking a major cut in pay. There’s so many ways you can look at fairness. How about people at the top of the scale making $120,000 have to make a $2,000. That is not the same for the people who make $35,000 and who are living probably pay check to pay check. Looking at this whole thing, the importance of the employees, the fact that they are making the concession just not in the year that we have tried to insist that they make it, but they are still making it and they are taking two years of no pay. What are we going to do, send them back and negotiate for another two years over this? Finally as again, fairness depends upon where you look. I, for the sake of comparison, looked up the benefits of Pennichuck, employees which our now a company that we own. The benefits makes this look ridiculously low. They don’t contribute 20 percent or 30 percent. They contribute 12 ½. Their pension is not paid for partially by the city. Their pension is paid for 100 percent by the employer as I understand it. They receive 401K matches and we’re talking some of these employees making $190,000. Are they being asked to make concessions? I think the answer is no. When I look at fairness, I see the kind of sacrifice that these people are making, modest level employees, and yet other people are not even being asked to make that concession. So why turn it Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 20 down? Why turn down a concession that they have agreed to? That is my perspective. Therefore for all the reasons that I’ve expressed, I think we should approve this contract and get on with life. Chairman McCarthy I guess you didn’t hear half of what I said which was I don’t like the two zeros in the first two years at the top of the salary analysis either. I don’t think they should have taken zero for two years. I don’t think that’s in the best interest of the city, and I think this contract could have been negotiated differently to get better results of the employees and better results in terms of our overall position with labor in the city. Alderman Donchess I don’t disagree with that thought. As you said that, and I was thinking about it, but the only way to correct that would be to give the 3 ½ percent raise in the beginning of the contract and to get that concession that year. But are we in a position to bring about that change? I’m not sure we are. Chairman McCarthy I don’t know that we’re aren’t until we see the cost analysis of that. Alderman Donchess If we had that choice, I might side with the chair on that. At least from what I understand what we have before us is we don’t have that choice. We have either an up or down on a choice which may be the two of us and maybe others would consider less desirable, but here’s what we got. That’s why I’m saying what I am. Alderman Deane If you put that 3 ½ in the frontend and carried it through in the wages through 12 and 13 and then looked for the retro on the health insurance, how would that equate to the total retro amount du when you have that 19 months or 20 months of 3 ½ retro? Then again, we didn’t negotiate the contract. This is how it was delivered to us. I guess it could be from Mr. Chairman’s point of view, a case in point if maybe somebody will listen to. Maybe somebody won’t but we can’t go and change any of this. We can only accept or reject. I understand what Alderman McCarthy is saying. I don’t know how that would have worked out if you took that 3 ½ and you brought it out that 20 months and then you looked at 6.8 and your 10 percent on your contributions and what those dollar amounts were compared to the 3 ½ percent increases on the salaries over the 20 months. I don’t know whether it would have been a wash. It probably wouldn’t have been. Chairman McCarthy I can’t tell you what it is tonight, but if you gave me two years to figure it out, I’m pretty sure I could. Alderman Deane Well it sounds to me like you’re looking for a job on the employer board somewhere. Chairman McCarthy I don’t think so. I’m not that good of a friend of the Governor’s. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 21 Alderman Donchess Looking at the math, I think it would be basically a wash and here’s why I say that. The concession on an annual basis, if you look at the figures we have for 2014 is $24,000. The increase they are getting in 2014 is $25,000. If you were to adjust both those changes to 2012, make the concession in 2012 and then two zeros, each year, in other words in 2013 and in 2012, we would see the same picture as we see in 2014, which is that the increase offsets the concession. Therefore the take home pay goes down slightly. In terms of take home pay because of the increase and the concession, you would achieve basically the same result for take home pay for 2012 and 2013 as you see in this contract. That would be my take on the math. Chairman McCarthy I think that’s probably about right. The difference being there’s 1700 other people whose contracts include the retroactive portion. The impact on what 1700 of employees think of their employment with the city is important to me. Alderman Dowd Just a couple of points. I concur that this group is in a stressful job position, and they should be compensated. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the fact that they work extremely hard and provide a vital interest to the city. The thing that I have a problem with is consistency in the negotiations. The more consistency we have across our union base, the easier the negotiations would be and the less interactions that we’ll have between groups. The other contracts found ways to minimize or equalize the impact from the health care concession in the previous years. I don’t see any reason why this couldn’t have been done here. If I don’t support this it’s not because of the end amount, I just have this issue with consistency across our contracts. The other thing I think it’s intrinsically unfair to make any comparison with any of the city unions with Pennichuck. That was a private corporation with a whole different set of rules on negotiating with their employees. It’s not a city entity now. It’s owned by the city but it’s a privately run corporation. I don’t think we ought to be making comparisons with their compensation and their benefits as opposed to city employees. That’s probably not fair. I wish that this had come in and they had found ways to minimize or equalize any compensation but had the same structure as the other contracts. Commissioner Pappas Let me just address the issue of the structure. I recognize that in the ideal world it would be nice to have all of the unions perhaps more homogeneous but the is, each one is unique and different. Each one has it’s own history of negotiations and each one has different dynamics and I think you have to take those into account when you negotiate with them. We’ve negotiated with five unions in the city and I can tell you that each of them have their own issues and their own unique history and dynamics. We arrived at a contract that the employees could accept and I think the city can accept because I agree with the Alderman Wilshire. At the end of the day, dollar wise it’s fine for the city. It’s better to get a contract than have continued no contracts. It’s better for these folks to be under contract and to move forward. I think this accomplishes this. I also note that there are other unions within the city that were able to offset the cost of health care from different ways. There were several that had funds that were available to provide to the employees to offset the healthcare cost. This union and the ext one you’re going to see in terms of the structure did not. That’s a dynamic you have to recognize. That dynamic existed for those other unions so they could help buffer the cost of the health care. If you look at the chart you can see that. In the chart that was provided there are a couple of unions that had $50,000 or $60,000 available to their employee group that helped buffer them in terms of the cost. This union did not and the next one did not as well. That’s just a dynamic that you face when you negotiate with collective bargaining agreements. Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 22 Although certainly it would be ideal and preferable for each collective bargaining group to be more homogenous because it would be better for the employer, the fact is that they are not. They are not homogenous, they are not all the same, they don’t have same working conditions, they don’t have same history of negotiating, they don’t have the same dynamic. We felt at the end of the day a structure that the city could live with that would at the end of the day put everybody on the same health care plan moving forward together was the ultimate goal. If you look at the bottom line cost we get there in a little different way with this union and the other unions, but we get there. I think that is the more important goal than having every single union be an identical structure because sometimes that’s just not achievable. We’ve been at it for awhile and it’s just not achievable. I think at the end of the day this achieves where we want to be going forward. Thank you. Alderman Wilshire I agree with that 100 percent because not all these unions are the same. They’re not all the same. If they were all the same, we would have one union in the city and they’d all get the same thing. I completely agree with what Commissioner Pappas said, and I have to say I don’t agree with what Alderman Donchess said about Pennichuck and their benefits. I think that’s a totally different structure and not something we should compare these 15 collective bargaining agreements with. I do think that this contract is good. When you look at the bottom line, we get to where we need to be. Whether they made the concession to pay back the retro doesn’t come into this contract, if you look at the bottom line we get to where we want to be with this union. And I’m going to support it. Alderman Pressly I wanted to come tonight. Since I’m not a member of the committee I cannot vote, but I was really interested because I think this is a philosophically an interesting dilemma. I really admired the mayor when she first came out about negotiating all the contracts and that she had worked out something and she was asking everybody to do the same thing. She worked hard at that and all the city groups did come in. The one group that did not was the police department. One thing that I value and I think all of us value is the arms length that we have with our police department and rightly so. Anybody including the mayor and any of us that do anything wrong, they have to be the ones to come and police us. We rely on them in ways we do not any other department. Before I came tonight I was thinking how am I going to deal with this because you want to be fair but yet you want to respect the uniqueness of the police and their various unions. Before I came here, I had decided it seemed to me the fair thing to do was if they want to maintain a special way of dealing with their finances that is different from what the mayor and the city had asked for, I think it’s almost a year and a half, two years, but the bottom line that they end up with the same benefit, just a different package, that that would be fair. I think you can give an explanation of that to the other departments that took a different route. To me I came tonight to make sure that in my mind, although they are unique and different and they’ve come about their decision in a different way, if the impact for them is the same at the end of the day, I thought that would be fair, and I think we can logically explain it to the other unions that did go along with the mayor’s plan. I think they were all treated pretty fairly. They had a chance to find a unique way to get there and they chose not to. Some time has elapsed also which makes anything that’s retroactive more difficult. I think I’m going to, depending on these two and the next two, if the bottom line is the same if they’ve chosen are our police department, because they are unique and we respect their uniqueness, if they want to do it a little bit differently, if the bottom line is the same, I think we should also respect that. I will be supporting I will be supporting any of the contract that have taken a different route but get to the end result. That’s where I’m coming from. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 23 R-13-103 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE NASHUA POLICE DEPART- MENT, LOCAL #2232, FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-13-103 ON THE QUESTION Attorney Bennett For UAW Article 16, insurances, this union would begin paying an increased 10 percent toward the POS plan and the HMO plan as July 1 of this year. Again they would also be placed on the same plan as the other city employees which would include the increased co-pays and deductibles and they had a change in their definition for comparable plan. This would make this union’s health plan as of July 1 of this year consistent with the other contracts which have been approved. The difference being that there is no retro payment again for this union. Again the premium increase in the plan is July 1, 2013. Article 20, Personal Days. There was an increase of personal days from four to five. This additional day comes out of their accrued sick leave. If they don’t have any accrued sick leave, they do not get the additional personal day. Wages, Article 21. Like the communications union, this union would receive zero increases for FY12 and 13 and a 3.5 percent pay increase in FY14. Overtime, flex time. For employees who are brought in on the weekend, vacation, holidays, could receive a per diem rate for being brought in. It’s generally for emergencies. There are a couple of events where they have to man the mobile communication center. It’s a pretty limited situation where that would occur. The term of this agreement is three years. MOTION CARRIED R-13-104 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 633 FROM JULY 1, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $10,652 FROM DEPARTMENT 194, CONTINGENCY, ACCOUNT #70150 “CONTINGENCY FOR NEGOTIATIONS” INTO DEPARTMENT 150, POLICE, ACCOUNT #51900 “PAYROLL ADJUSTMENTS” MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF R-13-104 ON THE QUESTION Attorney Bennett There’s one major difference with this union than the other three we discussed, and that is they are on a different health plan the other three unions. In fact many of the unions in the city. Northern New England Benefit Trust is the healthcare provider for this group. They have been with them now for I want to say probably six, seven years. Up until recently the cost of their plan to the city, the full cost of Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 24 the premium was less expensive than what we were paying for our other employees on their plans. The city had through FY11 had covered the full cost of this healthcare plan because in fact it was cheaper than the plans that we were providing to our other employees. That changed and they had a cost increase. As of May of 2012, they began paying towards, contributing towards their premium. With this contract, the change in this contract, what the city would be doing is contributing towards this plan in the same amount as we contribute towards those employees on the Harvard HMO plan plus what we pay towards the dental plans for our employees, either one or two-person. That’s the total amount we pay towards their plan. They are responsible for the remainder. Depending on whether it’s a single or a family or a two-person, they pay somewhat less than a 20 percent contribution for their plan. But again that’s due more to the fact that their plan is somewhat cheaper than the ones the city has for its employees. Article 23, wages, this union would receive just a flat increases of $600 and $600 for FY12 and 13, and $925 for FY14. In addition their longevity payments would be increased, doubled in amount. It starts at five years and then the term of the agreement is three years. Alderman Deane Mr. Chairman, I would ask if you could find out what the deal is with the transfers on all of these with the prior years if you could do that and let us know. Chairman McCarthy Yup. Alderman Deane Maybe one of the police commissioners could tell me. Is there 31 people in this group or has that changed? Commissioner Pappas Thirty-one. Alderman Deane In the prior, how many folks? Commissioner Pappas UAW, 14. Alderman Deane So there were 14 and in the one prior to that there were 18? Commissioner Pappas Correct when you count the four probation. MOTION CARRIED Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 25 GENERAL DISCUSSION Alderman Deane I had kind of liked a law enforcement question seeing that we have all the heavy hitters in the room, if you don’t mind. Chairman McCarthy Sure. Alderman Deane By the way, Mr. Chairman, I was going down Main Street, when I got to the East Dunstable Road the snow emergency light was going off. I didn’t know if somebody knew something that the rest of us didn’t know about. I was hoping it was a malfunction of sorts. But when I look under 320-3 in traffic signals, if we put a traffic signal, and this is our NRO’s, it lists all the intersections which we have traffic signals, if we have an advanced left turn at Main and Prospect Street and all of a sudden it goes away and there’s a sign hanging up there that says “yield to green” does that have to be done legislatively? Chairman McCarthy I think we have a memo from Attorney Clarke on that that says no. The authority that we grant is the authority to put a signal up, but the actual control of the signal, itself, is under the jurisdiction of the department. Alderman Deane The department of? Chairman McCarthy The traffic department Alderman Deane Public Works? Chairman McCarthy The Department of Public Works. Alderman Deane So we legislative the advanced left turn signal at Medical Center Drive. There was one that worked perfectly fine at Prospect Street. Chairman McCarthy I think what we were told is we have no authority to do that. The authority that is granted to us by the state is to determine what intersections are signalized. The signalization, itself, is done in keeping with Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 26 the provisions of the MUTCD which, by the way, are no advisory for traffic signals as they are for stop signs. They are mandatory. Alderman Deane I notice you’re putting an exclamation point on the stop sign part of that. Chairman McCarthy Ya. Alderman Deane I just find it interesting that I took months to get that advanced left turn arrow onto Medical Center Drive and the one at Prospect Street worked fully well and then someone just took the other arrow down. If they’re going to mess around with intersections, why don’t they start on library hill? There’s an intersection where my son even complains about and he doesn’t complain about anything. Chairman McCarthy We needed an arrow from somewhere to put at Medical Center Drive. Alderman Deane Well that must be too complicated for people to figure out. So once we approve it, the administration can do whatever they want with traffic signals. Chairman McCarthy Attorney Bennett can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that was the crux of the memo we received from Attorney Clarke. Attorney Bennett I believe you’re correct. I don’t think it said the administration could do anything they wanted. Alderman Deane Well they did. Alderman Donchess My question to the department is: how is the hiring going? We talked in the budget season about trying to get a full complement and maybe a little bit more. What’s going on on that front? Chief Seusing As far as sworn officers, April 1st we just swore in five new officers, three of them were due to vacancies because of retirements. The other two were the two additional officers that the commission had authorized to go from one 177 to 179. As we sit here today, we are at full strength at 179 officers. As far as the civilian staff, I know when we met here before during our budget discussions we had approval to increase our CT and dispatchers. We have hired three of those total, two dispatchers and a CT, I Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 27 believe. We actually have two other CTs, our last two CTs that we’re actually getting ready to hire now. I know Deputy Lavoie is waiting to get final approval from the Mayor so we can actually offer them a position. The lone dispatcher that we have not hired, we’ve reposted. I’m not sure of the status but we’ll be interviewing for that final position very soon. Commissioner Pappas Let me add in addition to that we’re adding to the pool. The first time in a long time we think fairly soon we’ll actually have a pool of candidates that we have looked at and done the background checks and so forth. If there are additional vacancies, we won’t have the lag time that we’ve suffered in the past. Chief Seusing In fact as we sit now, we have 179 sworn strength. I believe we have two officers that are already in the th pool from our previous test. We just gave a test, I believe it was April 15 , and we’re in the process of doing those interviews now. I anticipate probably within a few weeks our pool could be maybe upwards of ten officers. Chairman McCarthy I have a question which Alderman Pressly had asked me last week to look into. Did we provide assistance to Boston and its environs last week and if so what was it? Chief Seusing We did. We were speaking with Boston the morning of Friday. They had requested some assistance in Watertown. We had certainly agreed to that. We went down our entire tactical team as well as our hazardous device unit to assist the other law enforcement agencies down there in searching the Town of Watertown for the second suspect in the Marathon Bombing. We had actually responded there sometime mid-morning on Friday. The tactical team and the hazardous device unit returned back to the city around 10 o’clock that evening after the suspect had been located. Chairman McCarthy Is that our robot? Chief Seusing Our robot was down there. I don’t think it was used but it was there and available if need be. Alderman Pressly I would like to ask if you’re having any luck in finding another location for your training center in the Millyard. I don’t need to know any details other than are you having any luck in finding another building. Chief Seusing There is one location the mayor and I have talked about briefly. We will be going down to take a look at the location that she has in mind. We have not done that as of yet, but there is a location that we are looking . Budget Review – 04/22/13 Page 28 Alderman Dowd In response to what went on in Boston, I want to thank the police department especially the officers that went down there. I know I was watching CNN and they mentioned the actual officers from the Nashua force and what they were doing in Watertown. A very dangerous assignment and I think you guys ought to be congratulated for the assistance you provided. Chief Seusing Thank you very much. I will add that when our tactical team arrived in Watertown, they pretty much immediately were assigned to a specific section of the City of Watertown. From what I was told they actually had searched upwards of 50, 60, 709 homes for the suspect with other tactical teams in the city. They were very busy while they were done there. Alderman Pressly I would like to echo that comment. Thank you for the service that you did to Boston. I think we all have very fond feelings towards that city. I also heard on the news that the National Guard was deployed immediately. If there’s any other services from Nashua that did participate, I hope we’ll be informed about it, but thank you very much. Chief Seusing You’re very welcome. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 8:55 p.m. Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Committee Clerk