Budget Review Committee

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE OCTOBER 2, 2014 A meeting of the Budget Review Committee was held Thursday, October 02, 2014, at 7:02 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane, Chair, presided. Members of Committee present: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire, Vice Chair Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman David Schoneman Members not in Attendance: Alderman Michael Soucy Also in Attendance: Attorney Dorothy Clarke, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mr. John L. Griffin, Chief Financial Officer PUBLIC COMMENT - None COMMUNICATIONS From: Stephen M. Bennett, Esq., Corporation Counsel Re: R-14-069 – Nashua Police Communications Collective Bargaining Agreement Cost Items and R-14-070 – Nashua Police Teamsters Collective Bargaining Agreement MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED From: Dorothy Clarke, Deputy Corporation Counsel Re: Summary of Cost Items in the Collective Bargaining Agreements for the UAW Clerical/Technical and Professional Units MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-14-069 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman-at-Large 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, 2016, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Attorney Clarke Deputy Chief Lavoie is also here on behalf of the police department and he probably is slightly more Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 2 familiar with these contracts than I am although I am also here for questions. Chairman Deane We received a communication that highlighted the changes to the contract which was the first communication, does everybody have that? I take it that you are going to walk us through that or who is going to do that? Deputy Chief Lavoie, Nashua Police Department Pertaining to the communications and collective bargaining agreement; if I could just cover the cost items and changes. This is a contract is, the first one is Article XVI – Insurances – Medical/Health Insurance. The union has agreed to contribute 20% to their healthcare costs. This union consists of the communications technicians and the dispatchers and they have been without a contract since July, 2011. They have agreed to the added healthcare costs and the added co-pays. The other item is sick leave. We have increased the sick leave accrual rate from 8 hours each month which is 12 days a year to 10 hours each month during the last two years of the contract and this is for people hired after July 1, 2000. All of our unions accrue 15 sick days per year. For some reason, Attorney Bennett, myself, and the Chief really don’t recall when this was negotiated downward to 12 for employees hired after July 1, 2000. This has been put back in and it’s been put in gradually for the last two years of the contract, 1 ½ days each year to bring those employees back up to the 15 days per year that every other union in the city accrues. Article XVIII is the Bereavement Leave item and adds to the definition of immediate family. Step-grandchildren are added and an additional day of bereavement leave is added for a total of 4 days for the death of a spouse, parent, or child. Article XXIII, Wages and Titles; this union due to the cost of the healthcare payback from 2011 has agreed to take 0% increase in their pay for FY 12’ and that’s a 0% increase to the payroll grid and step grid and no step on them as well. They have a step grid which I will go into when we get to increases. In FY 13’ they will once again take a 0% increase and will get no step on the grid at all. In FY 14’ they will once again take a 0% increase to the payroll grid but they will also receive a 2% step on the grid which is equivalent to a 2% for everyone except shift leaders. There are 3 shift leaders. Shift leaders’ step grid moves in 1% increments rather than in 2%; everyone else moves in 2%. This would be a 0% increase to the grid itself and they will move one step on the grid. The shift leaders will get a 1% and one step which is again, equivalent to 2% so they get the same. In FY 15’ there is a 1% increase to the payroll grid which is a cost of living increase across the board. The grid goes up 1% and again, except for shift leaders, they will receive a 2% increase to their grid and all employees will move one step on the grid. That comes out to for FY 15’ is a 3% total. For FY 14’, it’s a 2% total and for FY 16’, a .5% cost of living increase to the grid across the board except shift leaders will receive a 1.5% increase and all employees will move one step on the grid and again, that’s equivalent to a 2.5% increase for all across the board. Chairman Deane That’s a .5%. Deputy Chief Lavoie Correct, it’s a .5%. Then a .5% for everyone except shift leaders which is 1.5% so they both equal a 2% because they move one step on the grid. Moving a step on the grid is a 2% and then whatever cost of living increase was added to the grid first. Chairman Deane So we see a sum total of 3%? Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 3 Deputy Chief Lavoie No, it would be…it’s 1.5% for the shift leaders and then they move a step which is another 1% so that’s a 2.5%. It’s a .5% increase to everybody except the shift leaders and they move a step which is 2% so .5% and 2% is a total of 2.5%. For the shift leaders, 1.5% increase and then 1% for their move to the next step is also equivalent to 2.5%. It’s quite convoluted but that’s what it comes out to. Chairman Deane Mr. Griffin, what is the cash value of the zero’s in 2012 and 2013 as it pertains to retro that is being reimbursed by using no increases? Mr. Griffin There are so many certain percentages it would change. If you wanted to discuss a 1% increase. Chairman Deane Well, they are paying back retro, right? Mr. Griffin Right. Chairman Deane And, the way they are paying it back is by taking no pay increases. Mr. Griffin Correct. Chairman Deane So, there is not exchange of cash. Are all 21 people in this group? Deputy Chief Lavoie The max it can be is 21 and there are actually 19 currently because two are on probation so they are not part of the collective bargaining unit yet. Chairman Deane How many of those 19 are receiving these benefits? Deputy Chief Lavoie All of the 19. Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 4 Chairman Deane All of them have health? Deputy Chief Lavoie I shouldn’t say that, I don’t know their personal situation. Some may have their spouses plan and some may have a single plan rather than a family plan, I don’t know that. Mr. Griffin Subject to check I believe the 17 out of the 19 take health and to further discuss your question, Alderman Deane, the lack of any kind of percentage in year one, it lives forever; it’s compounded throughout the term of the contract unless there is an adjustment for that specific purpose. I would like to consider a 1% increase that was foregone in FY 12’ and a 1% increase in FY 13’ so those numbers are $8,000 year one compounded in year two so it would be $16,000 and then it would continue on until this contract is done. To look at the value of the healthcare, this group originally had 14 members in 2012 and then the police department recommended increasing the civilian force to do a couple of things. One was to mitigate the use of patrolmen overtime for this particular work as well as to have some sustainability in that group. Deputy Chief Lavoie That’s correct. We were three or four communications technician’s down and at times we were three dispatchers down so we have beefed it up and now we are full complement in the dispatch and communications. Chairman Deane I don’t think anyone here is going to argue that they would rather see a dispatcher doing a dispatch job and a police officer out on the street are doing something else rather than dispatching. That’s my thought anyway. Deputy Chief Lavoie It’s my thought as well. Chairman Deane Getting rid of the overtime for that makes it even better. So, the repay value is $24,000, is that what you are saying? Mr. Griffin That would be the value of the first two years and then that value keeps growing in perpetuity. Chairman Deane I’m not into perpetuity to the end of the contract because we don’t know what 2017 will bring. I’m kind of confused. What was the true cash value of what was owed in retro? If you take everyone else like say the patrolmen’s contract for instance and you want to understand what they owe and we were told it was about $80,000 that was coming out of the accrued and the rest of it was taken out of the negotiations Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 5 Mr. Griffin The easiest way to show that is if we look at line 31 which is the contribution attributable to these individuals subscribing to healthcare. Essentially, what would have happened is that they would have owed $24,000 in FY 12’ and slightly higher in FY 13’, about $50,000. Chairman Deane What multiplier was used on the increase? Mr. Griffin The first year, FY 12’ was an 11% increase and FY 13’ was a 6% increase. What the proposal before indicates is that for FY 12’, FY 13’, and FY 14’; the bargaining unit will not be paying that back. In lieu of that, they are taking 0% increases in the first two years of the contract. Chairman Deane I guess it’s kind of difficult to figure working rates going into the out years because you don’t know. Mr. Griffin Correct, there has to be an assumption. Chairman Deane It’s just an educated guess. Mr. Griffin Correct. Alderman Dowd The 3% that’s in there, by the way, is a percentage of the increase in total cost, not the wage increase itself. Alderman Siegel There is actually an in perpetuity effect if you consider that whatever the contract value is at any given point, it serves as a baseline for the next contracts. To the extent that there is a 0% in the prior years; that sets a baseline so there is a lot of value in that. The other thing is that the total bottom line cost it will see; a lot of that gets skewed because of the major effect we are going to see, which Mr. Griffin has been warning us about, the pension hit that we are going get in the next fiscal year. The actual in-pocket salary increase for these employees I think is pretty minimal and they have gone without an increase going on three years now. It’s kind of hard to imagine saying no on this one. The only provision I saw that was kind of a little bit annoying was that whole daylight savings time thing but I had a conversation about that and obviously it is four employees’ times an hour once a year which is next to nothing and I guess the problem is that it was getting grieved and so the second grievance is file and all that money is completely out the window so it’s probably worth-while to stick it in there and be done with it. I’m in favor of this contract. Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 6 Alderman Schoneman Mr. Griffin, what is the value in the buy back? If they are going to make this adjustment, what is the value of the healthcare buy back? Mr. Griffin Quick, simple math would be to add on line 31 the FY 12’, FY 13’, and FY 14’, it’s about $75,000. Alderman Schoneman Taking a look at the bottom line percentage increase over the course of five years, I know that there is no percent increase to the base salary in FY 12’ and FY 13’ and FY 14’ but that average over the 5 years is 2.24% if I did my math correctly and if we extrapolate that out to a 7-year contract, if this were a 7-year contract, that would be over 15%, which is the equivalent of what we saw for the patrolmen’s contract. It sounds like it’s the same number that we are working with from the other contract so I don’t sense that they are leaving stuff, leaving money on the table here if it’s the same as the other. My concern is once again, it looks like it’s too much money compared to the spending cap and if we increase this by this amount then we have to get that money somewhere else and that’s my concern because I don’t know where we are going to find it. Alderman Siegel I’m sensitive to Alderman Schoneman’s comments about the spending cap but the problem is the next fiscal year where these contracts are being measured through, there is a tremendous hit that weights the average upward because of the pension cost hit, that’s something we don’t control. You could put a 0% increase contract in here and you’ll still see numbers which look like they are bumping up against the cap and there would be no money in pocket, nothing that we could control. We can’t tell employees you need to take a pay cut. I looked at the same thing and I said where is this bump coming from when the actual salary numbers don’t look that bad and that’s where it actually comes from. If you look at that pension line for that next fiscal year, it’s pretty significant. Alderman Schoneman I recognize that it comes from something that we can’t control but we still have to get the money from somewhere and it’s going to end up coming from taxpayers who may not get the same pension, may not have an increase, or may not have anything to compensate for the cost rise that we are going to be seeing. I am sensitive to the fact that there are things that we can’t control but we still have to pay for it and that’s my concern. Alderman Siegel I just want to reiterate the point I made that again, I am sensitive but even if we flat lined the contract to zero across the board, it still wouldn’t matter. That would be the best we could possibly do and we would still be seeing that hit because that’s where the major contribution is coming from for a lot of these averages. That’s sad, I wish it weren’t so. MOTION CARRIED Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 7 R-14-070 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman Michael Soucy APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 633 FROM JULY 1, 2014, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Deputy Chief Lavoie This is our Teamsters’ Union and again, our Civilian Police Union and it currently consists of 29 members and these are secretaries and people that work in the finance division, records, booking officers, civilian booking officers, etc. Cost items, Article XIII, Vacations and this adds a provision for pro-rated vacation for part-time employees. Part-time employees get a percentage of benefits and for some reason in prior contracts, it had capped their vacation at 2 weeks and again, that was not a past practice and this is just language to clear that up. They accrue at a pro-rated rate based on the time that they work. It also adds an additional day of vacation for employees with 20 or more years of continued service. That right now is only one person in the union. The next Article XVIII, Bereavement Leave, it adds an additional day of bereavement leave for the loss of an employees’ parent, step-parent, spouse, child, or step-child. Article XXIII, Wages, in FY 15’ it adds a 2.5% wage increase, in FY 16’ it adds a 2.5% wage increase, and in FY 17’ it adds a 3% wage increase broken up; it is 2% from July 1, 2016; to December 31, 2016; and the January 1, 2017; it adds an additional 1%. Article XXV, Overtime, again that’s the seasonal adjustment and that’s to make all our civilian contracts compatible in that aspect. Chairman Deane Article XXIII is the term of the agreement. Deputy Chief Lavoie Yes, July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2017. Alderman Siegel I think most of the arguments are similar in this particular contract. It occurred to me that if there is sick leave balance that goes negative and an employee retires, do we recapture that or has this even ever happened? Deputy Chief Lavoie I guess I’m not sure, a sick leave balance that goes negative? Alderman Siegel Yes, because you can borrow ahead on a sick leave balance. Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 8 Deputy Chief Lavoie They have sick bank rules that they go by as well. Chairman Deane Can others contribute to that bank? Deputy Chief Lavoie Others in that union can contribute to that bank. No other union can contribute to a different union’s bank. Alderman Siegel So as a practical consideration, well it might be theoretical and interesting. Deputy Chief Lavoie I don’t know if anyone has left with no sick time, I don’t know. Mr. Griffin There is uniqueness about this particular union. They do not take the city’s healthcare; they take the healthcare through their Teamster organization. The other item on note is that this contract is a 3-year contract that begins in FY 15’. The increases to this union in FY 12’ and FY 13’ were 1.6% on the base so they came in at the time in FY 12’ and FY 13’ where most, if not all of the agreements were in the .5% to 1% to 1.5% range. Chairman Deane Minus the insurance. Mr. Griffin Correct. MOTION CARRIED R-14-071 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NASHUA AND U.A.W. LOCAL 2232, CLERICAL AND TECHNICAL UNIT FROM JULY 1, 2014, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017, AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 9 ON THE QUESTION Chairman Deane Does anybody want to go through the entire contract? Alderman Siegel No, I don’t however, I would like to go beyond what the memorandum that was provided and the items on them because I believe that some of the items that I would like to discuss are cost items although they are not contained in Counselor Clarke’s memorandum. Chairman Deane Attorney Clarke provides us with are the changes to the existing contract as negotiated. Alderman Siegel Understood. Attorney Dorothy Clarke Actually, although the motion on the floor is for the clerical technical CBA, the changes to both the Clerical, Technical, and Professional CBA’s are the same so this discussion probably only needs to happen one time and it would cover both contracts. Chairman Deane We will see how that goes. Attorney Dorothy Clarke In Article IV we added language to provide for a 3-hour minimum overtime pay for inspector’s in the Community Development Division if the overtime was for scheduled work during certain days and hours. In Article XV, it was more of a clarification. We don’t think it ever happened but we excluded holiday pay from unpaid leave. Article XX continues to fund the joint tuition account at an annual amount of $10,000 but also allows for $3,000 in additional funding to be available if the $10,000 does get used up within the fiscal year. Chairman Deane Does that cover any form of continuing education? Attorney Clarke I’m pretty sure and the UAW reps that are here can probably confirm that but I’m pretty sure. Chairman Deane If you are going to inspect gas fitters work do you need a gas fitters license? Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 10 UAW Rep Yes. Attorney Clarke I’m pretty sure the money for those certifications doesn’t come out of this tuition account. Alderman Siegel It’s 100% required licensing and it’s paid for by the city. Attorney Clarke Right but it does not come out of this tuition account. This is for employees’ voluntary enhancement of knowledge. Article XXXVII is the Wage article and for these contracts we have done – they do have grids so we have a step plus a .75% increase to the grid on July 1, 2014; a step on July 1, 2015; a step on July 1, 2016; and then at a slightly staggered .75% cost of living increase on the grid on September 1, 2016. We have also created a second set of grids that have become – we standardized the increase between steps to 2% and we are going to move the employees that are currently in grades 1-4, and I think there are only two or three of them, onto those new grids which is beneficial to them because they have percentages that are less than 2%. Any employees hired after August 31, 2014, are going to be on the new grids. Chairman Deane Were we having people falling off of the grid? Attorney Clarke That’s happening too and I’ll get to that in one minute. This was a way to basically make it easier for both the city and the union to negotiate the contract in the future given that we had steps with very different percentages on them in order to for example, guarantee a minimum percentage increase for all of the employees in the unit. Certain employees were getting much higher increase so by going to these new grids, in the future we will be able to negotiate a much more consistent percentage increase for the unit. Chairman Deane That’s what we found with the Merit Plan. That grid was all over the place. If you happen to land your lucky stars in one of those spots, in some cases, it was a significant difference of increase in those steps. Attorney Clarke This is true. Certain grades; and I think the reason for it is lost to history. What has happened over time, even in the existing grids which has been good, as we’ve dropped off the lower steps and added steps, we’ve added them at 2% so the second half, the entire right hand side of the current grid are at 2% standardized so it was really just in actuality, everybody is going to be moving to those standardized increases pretty quick because even the existing employees, as they get past the halfway mark on the existing grids, they get into that 2%. Chairman Deane It’s a fair and rational way to do it on the grid as compared to what used to happen on the Merit Plan where Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 11 people would get bumps and double and triple bumps and the next thing you know they would be bumped off of the grid. There was no consistency in the way that was being done and I think that was part of the problem. Attorney Clarke To address your other point, as there are people that are hitting the tops of the steps so we have here in these contracts that each year of the contract we are removing the lowest step for each grade and adding a new 2% step to the top of each grade. Finally, the term of these is they are 3-year contracts from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. Chairman Deane So you only added one new column? You took the lower end out? Are there people on the second step of the grid still? Attorney Clarke Each year we drop one and add one so those people down at the very bottom are moving up at the same time as we are dropping them so we should be okay. Chairman Deane My question is how many people were on the second step? Attorney Clarke I don’t know but they would go to the third step. Alderman Siegel It was one person. I think it was a janitor. Attorney Clarke It does get tricky to remember that steps are the ones that go across and the grades are the ones that go down. The four lower grades are where we only had a couple of employees. Alderman Siegel I’m sorry, that’s my error because that was the lowest grade. Attorney Clarke Yes. Chairman Deane Is that it? Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 12 Attorney Clarke Yes. Alderman Siegel I am going to go outside of the scope of what the cost items were that you outlined which were really are differences. On page 12 of the contract, it talks about the overtime allocations and the reason that this is a cost item and I understand that we are only allowed to talk about cost items, we are not going into any of the specifics, is because it mandates the most expensive possible scenario for any time overtime is required typically because it is strict seniority based which is typically the most expensive. I have a huge problem with that just philosophically. I’ll say right now that I will never vote for a contract that has this mandated fixed way of doing overtime allocation. I don’t think it works for the city at all. It makes it almost impossible to use a carrot of overtime for management purposes separate from the cost of the city. Again, the carrot but it’s a reality. I don’t that I would agree with just because you are on the on-call list that you get overtime rate pay. I found it curious that the Mayor sort of talked about percent increases across various units in the city and a lot of this stuff that’s in the background, completely got lost and these are the items that in aggregate, can really kill a budget. It’s all well and good to talk about percent increases but when you have these kinds of restrictive clauses in, I think it ends up being very expensive. The non-work related educational expense, I understand for licensing that absolutely has to be paid by the city and I have no problem with that. But, why is the city paying any money for a non-work related course? To me, there is no benefit to the city. This is fairly unique and I know that it’s been done before but I don’t understand the value there. Those are the main items that I have. There’s dental insurance, life insurance here that is also a benefit. Great benefits but once again, when you compare it to other units the city has these are fairly significant and it’s not fair to say well let’s just look at the salary increase which is unfortunately, what the Mayor has seemed to have focused on. What we really want to look at is what is the overall weighted cost of having an employee base. It’s not to knock any of the employees, I think they are wonderful. One of the problems I have with the overtime structure is that I think it unfairly penalizes some of the less senior people whether they are motivated or not, they don’t get the benefit from being motivated, they are at the mercy of a list. I am very much against this contract and because the other contract is modeled on it, I’m against that one also. Alderman Dowd Was that a portion of the contract that changed from the last contract? Chairman Deane No. Alderman Dowd Attorney Clarke, we can only approve or disapprove of cost items that have changed on the contract or disapprove the entire contract but we can’t change any of the wording of things that weren’t negotiated because we are not allowed to do that, is that correct? Attorney Clarke Almost. The contract is full of cost items. We only identify the ones that have changed since the last one. You could reject a cost item in the contract even though it hasn’t been changed. You can’t amend language, you would have to just basically, if the language can be removed you would be withholding the Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 13 approval of funding for that portion of the contract. Alderman Dowd Then we would have to go back to the bargaining unit? Attorney Clarke Yes. Chairman Deane We’ve done that and we got brought before the Public Employee Labor Relation Board and we prevailed. We approved a contract, we rejected a cost item, approved the contract, sent it forward with the rejected cost item and went back to the bargaining unit and they went before the Public Employee Labor Relation Board and then they ruled and I believe the unit accepted the contract with the rejected cost item in it. Alderman Dowd I am familiar with the contracts that were negotiated by the Board of Education which you can’t change without going back. Chairman Deane We are not changing anything. We can accept it or reject it. We can’t amend any language. You can either accept it in its entirety or reject certain Articles and then approve it with that rejected article and then it would go back to the full Board. Alderman Siegel I was absolutely not suggesting changing any wording. I’m not negotiating here on the fly, that’s not my place; I’m only stating my belief on certain cost items. Alderwoman Brown I do understand…many jobs that I have had have had tuition reimbursement and depending upon what company I worked at, some are more flexible than others. Attorney Clarke, do you have any idea of how long this seniority based overtime has been utilized with this group? Attorney Clarke I can’t say with certainty but I am betting that it’s been in there since the inception of the contract. It tends to be a very common item in almost every union contract. Chairman Deane But they do have a call in list, right? They go through seniority on a call in list. AFSCME has that as well. Mr. Griffin For the purpose of history, this bargaining unit negotiated a .5% increase with no step in FY 12’; a 1% Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 14 increase with no step in FY 13’; and one step in FY 14’ which is equivalent to that 2.1%. Alderman Wilshire I think this is a decent contract. I know the practice of seniority has been going on in this city as long as I have been on this Board. I don’t see it as a problem. Alderman Schoneman I agree with Alderman Siegel’s assessment of the overtime. I think that there are ways that we can…we have to find money somewhere and I think that finding a better way to do the overtime call in would contribute to that. I am not happy with the contract for that provision. I recognize that it’s been there for a long time but at some stage we need to start making some changes and this might be a good opportunity. Furthermore, the percentage increases, once again, I feel are too large. Alderman Siegel I would like a roll call on this. I’d like to say that I have no problem with the percent increases that I saw, I think those are okay. It’s the rest of the stuff that I have a problem with. A viva voce roll call was taken on the motion to recommend final passage which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Deane; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Dowd; 4 Alderwoman Brown Nay: Alderman Siegel; Alderman Schoneman 2 MOTION CARRIED R-14-072 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NASHUA AND U.A.W. LOCAL 2232, PROFESSIONAL UNIT FROM JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE A viva voce roll call was taken on the motion to recommend final passage which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Deane; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Dowd; 4 Alderwoman Brown Nay: Alderman Siegel; Alderman Schoneman 2 MOTION CARRIED - Budget Review – 10/02/14 Page 15 GENERAL DISCUSSION Chairman Deane These collective bargaining agreements will appear on our next regularly scheduled Board of Aldermen on October 14, 2014, so they will be on the agenda. I spoke with Attorney Bennett and Scott and Don about it as well. Alderman Dowd There is going to be legislation coming to the next full Board meeting relative to the two bonding issues. One is for the Sunset Heights School which is part of the plan that was adopted by the Board of Aldermen when the initial study of all of the schools was done and I will have the detailed information on it. Also, the other one addresses the consolidation of replacing the roofs on some of the schools that were taken out of deferred maintenance and put forward for bonding as a suggestion from the Mayor along with the re- flooring of the two middle school gymnasiums and the high school which are A – worn; and B – one of the schools has a leak under the floor that had to be dug up and the floor has to be replaced. It’s not the hardwood floors. Chairman Deane The promises that were made to the school district from the Mayor, I guess we can discuss those when the legislation comes in. We also have a…I’ve been looking at the CERF list and I’ve been looking at the Compactor we have to replace and I’m going to try to see if we can somehow…I believe the highlighted areas are more bonding but I think we need to figure out a way to finagle the cost of the replacement of that piece of equipment by doing a little maneuvering in the out years without creating a lot of mechanical chaos with some of the equipment. We need to have the Board of Public Works approve it. Alderman Schoneman I have a Ward meeting on Monday at the Amherst Street School at 7:00 p.m. in the Media Center. PUBLIC COMMENT - None REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN - None POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 7:56 p.m. Alderman Ken Siegel Committee Clerk