Search

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 12

So just to clarify that, there is nothing constitutionally in the NH State Constitution that they based their decision on. It
was purely Statutory?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Yes.

Alderman Clemons

Okay. | guess I’m going to limit my comments to this tonight but what | think here is | do believe that the grants, and
the enterprise funds, and those types of things should not be included. | would be in support of changing our Charter
to state such a thing because | have been on the Board of Aldermen when we have received income from a windfall
or from something else and we have had Aldermen who couldn’t see the forest for the trees and realized that yes
you’re overriding the spending cap. However, you're not affecting the taxes. This is money that you know in some
cases it was money that the City didn’t even foresee coming. Came into the coffers and when | say appropriate it, we
couldn’t put it to anything. It just went and sit in an account. Period end of story. You may think that’s okay and
maybe in some cases it is but when there are needs in this City, and we have multitudes of needs, that’s a problem.

Where | really see this being a problem and when | look at that difference on this sheet between almost $96 million
and $60 million dollars in one year, if that goes the other way, we can’t do anything about that and we’re going to have
to turn down grants because grants are meant to be appropriated. When we accept a grant, it doesn’t come in to just
sit in an account. It comes in to be spent. So if we have a year that’s like that under this Charter, that’s going to be a
major problem. We're going to have to turn around and tell the taxpayers of this City sorry we couldn't accept the $25
million that came from the federal government or the $10 million that came from the federal government that would
have helped supplement some of the things that you wanted to see happen in this City. We couldn’t do that because
we have a spending cap that’s so foolishly written that it doesn’t allow for exception. So | will be looking into putting
before the voters something to change this and to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Alderman Dowd

Yes, just a couple of things maybe for clarification. | spent a lot of time working on the bonding in the City and it is
true, the bonds are passed in this chamber by 10 votes. It immediately becomes an obligation. The City Treasurer
can go out the next day and sell the bonds if he wanted to. It doesn’t make sense but he could. We typically have -
there’s a lot of process in the bonding. The only thing to be concerned about is the debt service from the bond, which
is far, far including the bonded debt is far, far what is allowed by the State or even local ordinance. Not even close but
we do the bonding to keep the City where it should be relative to infrastructure and other things whether it’s paving,
new fire station, new DPW building, or whatever it is it’s justified and it’s passed by this Board.

The other thing is we heard about if we get a $1 million or $5 million grant from the federal government that we might
not be able to spend it. If we get a $5 million grant from the EPA to do something at the Wastewater Treatment Plant,
we don't have a choice. We have to do it. | don’t know how that factors into the spending cap but your hands are tied
because it’s a government mandate.

Having said that the other thing is that | was trying to point out but probably not too well since some people are
interpreting it the wrong way. This spending cap calculation and the spending cap itself has nothing to do with our
budget meetings other than we cannot have a budget that spent more than $113 million where it is today. Trust me,
no one is even going to try to do that. The budget that we’re trying to pass is based on what our Divisions need to
provide the services in a fundamental way for next year. There aren’t a lot of significant increases. So we’re going
through the budget, we’re listening to the Division Directors, we’re seeing where things make sense, and there may be
some things missing but | don’t see it changing significantly. In which case, it has nothing to do with the spending cap
because we aren't going to come even close. We're not even come within maybe $113 million of spending cap. |
think we’re in a position now where we have our trust in our financial experts, or legal experts, and the Mayor on how
the City Charter reads, and how the Court cases went, and how the State ruled. To me, that’s a solid argument for
the way we’ve calculated the spending cap but it shouldn’t be as big a concern because no matter how you figure it,
we aren't going to be close to it with our budget this year. Not within a $100 million, $113 million so it’s not something
we have to solve today or worry about today. People want to try and change the Charter, that is a huge, huge
undertaking but that’s not going to happen in the next few days. For one thing, it takes an election.

Alderman Jette

Thank you Madam President. So | have several questions. First question to CFO Griffin. If | understand you

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 13

correctly, the number on your calculation on line item 14 if I’m reading this correctly, 14 total appropriations. That's
based upon the Charter provision of 56C which says total expenditures. Is that correct?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

Madam President - John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector. That’s correct.

Alderman Jette

And the number on line item 25 - total proposed appropriations for Fiscal Year 2023, does not include any - there
have been no exceptions. Charter Provision 56D allows for exceptions as Attorney Bolton pointed out, the principle
and interest on municipal bonds and capital expenditures, you haven’t deducted anything from that number by using
those exceptions. Is that also correct?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

That's correct. The first line item #2 general fund that includes all the debt service, the general fund. Line #3 -
enterprise funds, that’s including all the debt service. So it’s only when you get a tighter differential between the
allowable and the proposed would you ever even consider coming in with - you don’t need it. You don’t need to have
the Board of Aldermen exclude that debt.

| think if | may, just a little bit of history because | asked this question of Deputy Corporation Counsel Dorothy Clarke, |
asked did we ever come in and ask for an exclusion. And whoever was on the Board in ‘03, ‘04, ‘O05 where as you
recall a lot of inflation, the first thing that Administrative Services Director Maureen Lemieux did was ask for the
exclusion so you didn’t have to worry about it. As Alderman Clemons appropriately said about getting a windfall, it
was subject to check. The City received $20 million from it was called “a Claremont Decision — education”. Those
members who were staunch - I’m voting no on every exclusion, voted for it because they could see the benefits of
putting $20 million in an account or in a fund. | just wanted to share that because | waiting to say that, but you only
want to exclude if you’re close or think you’re close because subject to my understanding, you can only exclude once
and that’s why Director Lemieux took the whole thing. Let’s do the debt service, the capital, the bonding, let’s throw it
all in as an exclusion then you don’t have to worry about it.

Alderman Jette
So when you say you can only exclude it once per Fiscal Year?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

Correct.
Alderman Jette

Could | ask you, do you have any idea if we did exclude principle and interest for municipal bonds, which also includes
school bonds and capital expenditures, do you have any idea how much money that would be?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

The debt service on general funds is about $17 million. Debt service on Wastewater is about $4 million subject to
check. Solid Waste is another $2.3 or 4. The capital is interesting because we usually don’t budget for capital and |
was going to get into that in a minute other than the $1 million or so dollars that you see. Usually what we do during
the year is when we need to we introduce bonding legislation. So what I'd like to add is to the extent we need more
bonding in Fiscal ’23, that’s going to add to the supplemental appropriations and will subtract from the $113 million.
That’s how the math works. So henceforth every time there’s a bonding authorization, I’m going to explain it in my
fiscal note that you’re — actually I’m going to explain it in the submittal of the bonding resolution how much you're
under the cap because it just keeps subtracting from the capital - the difference between the available cap and what
we have.

Alderman Jette

Okay. So it sounds to me that given the constraints of our current spending cap of Charter provisions, there seems to

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 14

be even though we don’t have an override provision, there seems to be quite a bit of room there if we voted to exclude
principle and interest on bonds and capital expenditures. There seems to be quite a cushion there to me.

If | could ask another question of Attorney Bolton. The last paragraph of 56C in the Charter says “This provision shall
not prevent the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen from appropriately funding any programs or accounts mandated to
be paid from municipal funds by State and federal Law”. What do you think that would include?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Well there are plenty of things we’re required to do, mandated. One that we hear a lot is the payments to the State
pension system. That’s a payment we’re required by State law to make and it’s unfunded by the State. Municipalities
are required to make that payment. There are other things of similar nature. So we're required to do it. | think the
proponents of these cap limitations would say well you pay those first and then you have to make do with what’s left. |
don’t think that creates an exclusion by itself. So we’ve never had to argue that one way or the other. | think it was
put in there so they could say it didn’t affect our ability to make mandated payments. I’m not sure that is always going
to be true but | don’t think it’s affected it yet.

Alderman Jette

One more. | think this is the last. It may have been you said something about or | guess you didn’t disagree with
somebody’s statement that this is not the best written — these Charter provisions are not the best written legislation
you've even seen. |’m intrigued by the word “consider” - In establishing continued annual municipal budget for the
next fiscal year the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen shall consider total expenditures not to exceed an amount equal
to the combined annual budget of the current fiscal year increased by the ..... ” and it goes on. So that word “consider”
is an interesting choice. | looked up that word in the dictionary and it says “think carefully about something before
making a decision”. It doesn’t really say you can’t spend this money. It just says you have to think about it before you
do. So | don’t think that’s ever been considered by a court or ever been ruled by a court, but | think it’s an
interesting...

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

There were a couple arguments the other way. Again, | think it could have been better worded but | think the intention
of the author or authors was to require that provide a limitation. The last sentence of the first paragraph says “the
Board of Aldermen shall act upon budget proposals in accordance with this paragraph”. Well the requirements are in
the next paragraph but anyway. So to say what shall be considered might be interpreted to exclude the ability to
consider anything else. So | think that’s one argument that says when they say consider they mean that’s the only
thing that will be considered. Then later on, they go and say you can go below this but you can’t go above it.

The other thing someone might say is look this was a clear intent was to place a limit on expenditures. They didn’t go
through all this to come out with something that was meaningless. If you just say “considers”, then you may decide
not to do it. Essentially renders everything meaningless but anyway, I’ve never advised anyone to rely on the word
“consider” as giving them a choice to accept or reject but that’s just my opinion. So if you want to say that you can
consider other things, that’s up to you.

Alderman Jette

I’m just raising the possibility that we can consider the very things that are listed here but after having considered
them, someone could say that we could go ahead and do something differently after having considered them.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

If you want to do that, that’s up to you. | think you might end up talking to people in black robes about it eventually.
Alderman Jette

| think there’s plenty of room in the legislation. | don’t think it’s as dire as | among others have initially thought
because there are the exceptions in 56D. Then there’s that final paragraph of 56C that says you have to do what the

State and federal government mandates. Thank you Madam President.

Chairwoman Wilshire

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 15
You're welcome. Alderman Cathey?

Alderman Cathey

Thank you Madam Chair. | agree with Alderman Clemons. The grants should not be included. It does not make
sense to me that we would add them in as an expenditure and much to other Aldermen’s points about grants having
to be used. | know there is a lot of restrictions on a lot of grants. Some of them are time-based so we may lose it
after that year and never get it back. So to me, it doesn’t make any sense. If | had a house budget and then I’m
walking down the street and find a $100 bill, | could go home and add it to my budget if | want to and then spend it and
call it an expenditure or | can just take my wife out to dinner and my budget isn’t affected one bit at all. It just doesn’t
make any sense to me. So | would be in favor of at least taking care of the grant issue because it just makes no
sense to me.

In considering tonight’s meeting, I’m not really worried about solving the budget cap or worrying about the spending
cap. My main goal was to understand the cap because as an Alderman and a man who likes to do things correctly, |
don’t want to pass any budget without understanding everything | can about fiscal responsibilities of the City, and what
things our budget is subject to, and what things our budget is not subject to. Even if we’re 1000% under the cap, |
don’t care. | want to Know what the cap is, how it applies, how it does not apply because there is a lot of information
flying around. So if | call myself an Alderman who cares about the voters of this City, then I’m going to find out
everything | can about anything that has to do with the budget whether that’s spending cap, accounting Procedures. It
doesn’t matter so | can make the best decision come budget time. Yeah that might not have anything to do with the
cap, that’s fine. | still want to know what the cap is. | still want to know how it applies. Still helpful. So | think this
meeting is super beneficial at least to me. It was only beneficial to me. Sorry you're all here. | appreciate it.

The last comment I'll make or | have a question. Have we ever been over the cap in a significant way? Grants
notwithstanding but just in a regular budgetary proceedings? Have we ever when we had the cap back in the day is
anyone familiar with like we ever had an issue where we were way over the cap and we had to cut jobs, or cut funding
to City thing, or have we always been pretty under the cap considerations?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

There have been years in the early 2000’s when the provisions to exclude principle and Interest on bonded debts
and/or capital expenditures. Those exclusions were applied in some years. Once those exclusions were applied, the
level of expenditures permitted is obviously higher. We've always been under that raised ceiling.

Alderman Cathey

So we've never really had a significant issue with the cap where we had to really rein in our spending as it were?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Well in order to get to that level that was under the cap, some hard choices occasionally had to be made. Some
employees went without an annual increase in compensation. Some desired expenditures were delayed. We got in
trouble one year with the Federal government over the number of English as a second language teachers was
inadequate. So there were struggles to meet those levels at times but no we were never over the resulting limitation
after exclusions were applied.

Alderman Cathey

Thank you.

Alderman Sullivan

Thank you Madam President. What would prevent us from just passing something on the Charter that would say that
the general fund could not be over a certain amount and just leave it to one line item and just be done with it?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Well you can’t pass amendments to the Charter. It has to be done by...

Alderman Sullivan

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 16

It was a hypothetical question just to try to make it easy because we’ve been dancing around this a lot about what to
exclude, what not to exclude.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Well then | don’t understand your question. (inaudible) you don’t have the authority to do it.

Alderman Sullivan

What | am saying is if you had the general fund to make it simple, you would just say the general fund cannot exceed
that 2.8% number year over year and that’s it just be done with it. That would be your spending cap.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

But that has to be done by a change to the Charter.

Alderman Sullivan

| understand that. | was asking what would be the down side of doing that my hypothetical question.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

| guess you could get into an argument about what should be included in the general fund or not. So you might have
to think about what kind of definition you apply to that. But if you wish to propose that as a Charter amendment, |
don’t see much of an impediment to that.

Alderman Sullivan

| don’t. | was just questioning why.

President Wilshire

All set Alderman Sullivan?

Alderman Sullivan

Yes.
Alderman Klee

Thank you Madam President. In 56C that last paragraph that was kind of bounced around that said, “This provision
shall not prevent the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen from appropriately funding any programs or accounts
mandated to be paid from municipal funds by State and federal law”, perhaps it’s just my interpretation but | feel that
this was put in so that the City can’t say well we spent all our money and now we can’t afford to do this otherwise it’s
going to put us over the spending cap. Therefore, this was put in there that says you basically will pay those bills first
and the rest of your bills last. Is that a correct interpretation Attorney Bolton?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

That is certainly one possible interpretation.
Alderman Klee

| feel that | take it that way. It’s kind of like we can’t go bankrupt on any kind of a — a person can’t go bankrupt in a
federal obligation so | take it in that respect that you pay your federal and State bills first.

The other comment that | kind of wanted to make. Two comments. One is when this was written, | understand that
there was some sitting Aldermen that wrote it but was it a citizens group that created this that went through the
Secretary of State or did it actually come from the Board of Aldermen?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 17
It was a citizens’ initiative that put this on the ballot, yes.
Alderman Klee

So the wording of it is how the citizens put it there not how it was necessarily worked appropriately and so on. | just
wanted to kind of get that — | thought that was the case but | didn’t want to make that statement without...

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

One of our frequent commentators claimed to have been the sole author. | have heard other people say they
contributed to the drafting of it. Frankly if | were in the room when it was drafted, | would not be taking credit at all.

Alderman Klee

| completely understand that. And then to the comment about we’ve never really gone over the spending cap. Would
it be fair to say we don’t go over the spending cap because when we do our budgeting we’re keeping that in mind? In
other words, we didn’t take care of necessarily the streets, or the paving, and so on. That was something that
happened after this kind of got lifted because we knew it didn’t fall within the spending cap. So to say that we did not
hit the spending cap is probably kind of an unfair. We went forward with knowing the spending cap was there. Would
you feel comfortable saying that Mr. Griffin?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

Yes Madam President and members of the Committee. Having presided kind of when the recession of the second
great recession was mid-way 2011, 2012, 2013, inflation was very low, cost of living wasn’t as high. Clearly the first
thing | do for the Mayor is calculate the spending cap because | knew what the numbers were. | kept track of it so |
could definitely provide how tight the submittals were. | think one was under $1,000 one year. So if you start with the
spending cap, you reduce spending to get there.

Tax cap on the other hand, you know what your revenue is to be able to spend. Spending caps are a little bit
problematic and decide as Attorney Bolton says, deciding what’s in and out of the general fund is going to be a
challenge but that is okay. You start with that. So when | first came here, | advised the Mayor this is the total amount
and we had to work with the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works and there really wasn’t
a lot of money available to do anything material. As you’ve heard, we used to have a $2 million capital improvement
budget where $1 million was given to pave roads. Just not effective. The other million — well what you see now, we
don’t have a robust capital improvement program. That’s why you get a lot of bonding authorizations. It was tight. It
was tight. We were fiscally constrained because as you know, the CPIU at the time that was changed to the S&LIPD.
It really kind of chocked the ability to add to the budget.

Alderman Klee

So just for clarification, basically we backed into the budget and said this is all we can spend, not necessarily this is all
we have without going up on taxes, but all we can spend based on these constraints. Is that correct?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

There was a significant limitation on the ability to spend on things that were needed.

Alderman Klee

Again, that is what makes the difference between a tax cap versus a spending cap. They are not the same thing. A
tax cap, we could stay within the tax cap if we have increased revenue and that would not affect the people. A

spending cap actually can affect how we can do our job to keep our infrastructure straight. Is that correct?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

Correct. Both are challenging — tax caps. There are several individuals that love to come in and add revenue streams
and then you find out early it costs you more to get the revenue that what is intended. But they’re both very
challenging having like | said, resided in 2-1/2 in Massachusetts it’s challenging. But | do have that information and |
see some folks that wouldn’t mind sharing it because it’s literally lifting the information off all these budgets ona
spreadsheet and you can see. It’s very challenging to do supplement appropriations when you don’t have any room

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 18

left under the cap. In my tenure here, the exclusions were looked at more of an override. So there was kind of a
challenge to not want override and not want to exclude. So that’s what | lived with from ‘13 to ‘17 and then the
spending cap was deemed unenforceable by the courts. Thank you.

Alderman Lopez

If (inaudible) be present, Attorney Bolton. Earlier we were talking about has the City ever actually exceeded the
spending cap and it was sort of described that previously there were ordinances put in place to kind of dodge the
spending cap by redefining what went under it, but | also believe that | understand that we can’t do that now. Is that
the case?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Yes.

Alderman Lopez

So we can’t take the short cuts that the previous Boards took and we probably shouldn’t have in the first place.

But then my second question was, | think to Attorney Bolton but maybe to CFO Griffin, we were talking about
overrides with regards to Infrastructure or maybe exclusions with regard to infrastructure improvements. So if we
build a fire station, then we could potentially get ten votes and do that but what about personnel expenses? Would
those be considered part of the budget that can’t be removed from the spending cap so would we be able to afford to
staff those firefighters?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

That might be a problem. Now right now we’re $113 million away from hitting the cap. So right now you might be able
to squeeze it in but we may not always be in the same fiscal circumstances. So yes, personnel expenses are not
capital. They’re ordinary expenditures and there’s no exclusion for that.

Alderman Lopez

Thanks for clarifying.
Alderman Dowd

Just a couple of things. | think every cities in New Hampshire their Charters are different. They’re not all identical,
correct?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

That is correct.
Alderman Dowd

In Manchester, this is the first year in a number of years where they haven't overridden whatever cap they have. So
their cap isn’t working too well either.

Having been around for a while, | can tell you that the road structure in Nashua - let me use a different term - went
downstream severely and that’s why we have spent | think it’s $75 million to bring the roads back up to speed. We
have sort of promised that we would allocate enough money after this bond is done to stay ahead of the roads
because because of the cap, we weren’t able to do the road paving that we were supposed to do. Other infrastructure
failed. When we replaced Nashua High with the current Nashua High South, | can tell you from personal observation
that building was in terrible, terrible shape. The only thing that we were able to survive for the new buildings was one
wall and the stairwells. | don’t need to go in a lot of detail.

The other thing it hurt was CERF. They had developed this CERF program because our vehicle replacement under
former Mayors because of the spending cap went to hell in a handbasket. Even the CERF isn’t up to where it should
as we've explained several times. So the cap has not been a friend to anyone. It boils down to pay me now or pay
me a lot more later. When we built the two high schools, we built them to last. If you go in the high schools now, they

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 19

look brand new and they are functioning perfectly well but they’re 20 years old. The high school before that didn’t
even last 15. So you have to spend your money wisely and having that constraint on it that was opposed didn’t do the
City any favors and it didn’t do any taxpayers any favors either.

Alderman Cathey

Thank you Madam Chairwoman. | just noticed that there was no public comment tonight. Can | motion for public
comment before we adjourn?

President Wilshire

You can.

Alderman Cathey

I'd like to make a Motion to add Public Comment.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CATHEY TO ADD PUBLIC COMMENT
MOTION CARRIED

Alderman Cathey

Thank you.

President Wilshire

You're welcome. Any further discussion, any further questions, clarifications, anything? Okay. | will open the floor for
public comment. 3 minutes, name and address for the record. Anyone that wishes to give public comment regarding
the spending cap.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mike Ortolano

Mike Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. This whole issue has been really interesting and kind of enlightening to listen to
what’s going on with this spending cap versus tax cap. You know sometimes it’s best to simplify as much as possible
up front. | mean it was kind of hard to determine that, in fact, we’re not really - this is an issue that doesn’t appear to
be affecting the budget this year, right? The spending cap as | understand it there’s such a large gap between what
would be possible and where you hit a limitation. If | understand it right, the interpretation of the Board or at least
Attorney Bolton and the CFO is that we have no problems. If that’s the case, that’s kind of nice because it doesn’t
make a lot of sense to me that grant money which if you get $50,000 and then you're supposed to spend $50,000 but
you're allowed to go like 3% above the $50,000, you know, are you permitted to? It’s just kind of the math of it. It
doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

The other thing that | see is sometimes there are alternative interpretations. One of the nice things about public
comment and being able to bring other people in is that you can get these alternative interpretations put on the table
so that everybody can see where the differences are. A lot of times it ends up the same place, but it makes you feel
like the process is a lot more transparent, you know, it’s other than it’s my way or the highway sort of dialogue. My
understanding would be and I'd like confirmation...

Alderman O’Brien

One minute.

Mike Ortolano

...I'd like confirmation that | have it right is that this is kind of an irrelevant issue to this specific budget cycle and if it
isn’t, then it would be nice to see the alternative interpretation so at least the Board is acting with full knowledge of

there are different ways to look at this thing and maybe the Board would consider alternatives. I'll go 30 second short.

Laurie Ortolano

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 20

Laurie Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. | want to thank the Board for holding this meeting. It was very informative,
interesting to hear the perspective, and | appreciate the questions everyone brought to the table. | would have liked to
have heard some of the people who worked on the spending cap speak and have an opportunity to have a little bit of
time to present their positions because | think interpretation is always a little complicated and it’s not a black and white
issue. | hate to see things come down to arguments that are we’re going to court on it, we’re going to sue on it, we’re
force it through that hole. I'd like to see more consensus building done so that is not the case. It’s not often
productive and these are complex issues.

| tend to agree that | do not think the grant money belongs in the calculation. | think grants are different. They really
are different. There’s the money you're appropriating for departments to run and operate and then grants come in and
it's not money that you are necessarily in need of appropriating. When | looked up “expenditure”, the term “total
expenditure”, and “municipal expenditure”, GAL, or any type of organization, accounting organization, it really talks
about the monies required by schools, police, fire, all your departments. No language that | reviewed it for definitions
on my phone came up with grant money included. So | do think that’s separate and | think that’s a legitimate point.

I’m not certain we’re at that $113 million under the cap. | think there is some skew there that | don’t fully understand
and I'd like to understand that a little bit more. Yeah I'd like to see us work together more with the public and gather
the views of those that have been around longer...

Alderman O’Brien

One minute.

Laurie Ortolano

..-and value the input that they have because there is perspective there. For whatever reason in 2017, 2018, 2019,
we went along with the calculation done this way. We had virtually the same management leadership team here that
applied it that way and then it changed in 2023 and for somebody looking in from outside, it’s a red flag. It’s a little bit
of a hey what’s going on here? Why the need for the switch?

Alderman O’Brien

30 seconds.
Laurie Ortolano

So again, thank you very much for holding this. | think it was informative for everyone. Appreciate the time you all
gave this. Thank you.

Scott McCullough

Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Scott McCullough, 49 Congress Street, Apt. 6. I'd like to say thank you to the
Board of Aldermen who showed up - Lopez and Kelly | think it was. Thank you very much. My goal is if you guys can
help, if Lopez can help, | need to raise — I'd like to raise $1,500 to get these awesome Best Buddies shoes. The ear
piece is probably not this time because they are $2,500 that | have to raise. | think he can help me. | greatly
appreciate it and I'd like to come to the chamber maybe sometime in September. Miss Co-Chair if that’s alright with
you Lori. | called you and left you a message. If you could check your schedule and let me know what the best time
to come to the Chambers and present an award. I'd like to present an award and do a thing on the big screen and
show you what Best Buddies is all about. When is a good time? Maybe some time in September if you could let me
know please. Thank you.

Matthew Gouthro

Matthew Gouthro, 104 Fawn Lane in Nashua. | really want to thank you guys for hosting this opportunity to listen to
how the spending cap is being put together. | agree with many of the Aldermen who spoke up concerning grant
funding. | think anytime we can offset the tax payer dollars with grant funds, | think it’s an optimal solution that we
should all be in favor of. | think that this is a great opportunity for us to look at doing stuff like that. | came from a City
four years ago in Florida. It’s about the same size as Nashua and we had a full time staffer that was looking for these
grant fund opportunities. So | think if we can find opportunities to offset taxpayer dollar with grant funds, | think it
would be beneficial for us and for our budget, especially if we’re looking at the cost of living increases and everything

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 21

that we’re seeing right now in today’s economy. | think we should definitely dig deeper into grant funding for these
expenditures. Thank you.

Fred Teeboom

Yes Madam. | did not prepare in the chamber because | did not know that you’d allow comment. | asked to attend
this meeting and present the spending cap as it has always been intended. That is a control of taxes and fees.
Grants have nothing to do with taxes and fees. The thing about gross budgeting from CFO Griffin is a farce, is false,
is misleading, is untrue.

| presented to this Board in writing the spending cap calculations should be about $5.7 million over the cap. As far as
putting in projects that haven’t even been bonded yet and make it part of the spending calculation is absolutely
insane. It’s ridiculous. What you’re doing is a gross injustice for what has been a cap for many, many years. | resent
it. | resent what you’re doing. | think we’re going to be heading straight to court and this time if we do go to Court, I’m
going to ask for a fine for every Aldermen that participates in this discussion and adheres to this farce presented by
CFO Griffin. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Okay. Seeing no one else, | have Alderman O’Brien.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN THAT THE JUNE 13, 2022, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:54 p.m.

Attest: Tara King, Interim Deputy City Clerk