Search

APPOINTMENT BY THE MAYOR

APRIL 25, 2017

Conservation Commission

Michael Reinke, Alternate (New Appointment)
2 Quincy Street
Nashua, NH 03061

Gene Porter (New Appointment)
77 Concord Street
Nashua, NH 03064

Cultural Connections Committee

Lauren Osowski (New Appointment)
14A Artillery Lane
Nashua, NH 03064

Nashua Arts Commission

Michael Joseph (New Appointment)
71 High Pine Avenue, #10
Nashua, NH 03063

Judith Carison (Reappointment)
15 Manchester Street
Nashua, NH 03064

Planning Board

Gerry Reppucci (Reappointment)
17 Badger Street, #1
Nashua, NH 03060

Zoning Board of Adjustment

James P. Welch, Alternate (New Appointment)
3 Greenwood Drive
Nashua, NH 03062

Efstathia Booras, Alternate (New Appointment)
44 Balcom Street
Nashua, NH 03062

Term to Expire:

Term to Expire:

Term to Expire:

Term to Expire:

Term to Expire:

Term to Expire:

Term to Expire:

Term to Expire:

| respectfully request that these appointments be confirmed.

Jim Donchess

Mayor

December 31, 2017

December 31, 2019

December 31, 2019

April 1, 2019

April 1, 2020

March 31, 2020

September 11, 2017

October 1, 2018

A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, April 11, 2017, at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic
Chamber.

President Brian S. McCarthy presided; City Clerk Patricia Piecuch recorded.
Prayer was offered by City Clerk Patricia Piecuch; Alderman Sean McGuinness led in the Pledge to the Flag.

President McCarthy

Before | ask the Clerk to take the roll, Alderman Cookson is participating by telephone and under the terms of
the state law that allows him to do that, he needs to explain why he can’t attend, if he can hear us, and who he
is with, if anyone.

Alderman Cookson stated the reason he could not attend, confirmed that he could hear the proceedings and
stated who was present with him.

President McCarthy

Acknowledged that those present could hear Alderman Cookson as well.

The roll call was taken with 15 members of the Board of Aldermen present.

Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson was not in attendance but participated in the meeting via telecommunication.
Mayor James W. Donchess and Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton were also in attendance.

President McCarthy

Before we begin | am going to recognize Alderman Wilshire to make a motion so we can accept procedural
motions without the roll call vote.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO
ALLOW FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF PROCEDURAL ACTIONS WITHOUT OBJECTION

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 15
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

REMARKS BY THE MAYOR

Mayor Donchess

First | wanted to extend my and the city’s condolences to the family of Selma Pastor. Selma passed away this
past week at the end of the week. Her husband, Bernie, died some years ago, but Selma and Bernie were
both leading citizens in Nashua. Bernie is on the mural across the way. He is pictured as one of the figures
next to the Yankee Flyer. Selma served on the school board for a number of years and was for decades on
the Nashua Housing Authority. She contributed a great deal to the community over a long period of time. |
think many people will regret her passing and will think back with fond memories on her life in Nashua.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 2

Also, Mr. President, | wanted to discuss one of the issues that is on for a vote tonight, a significant one, and
that is the proposed five-year paving plan that is set forth in R-17-92, which was recommended for final
passage by the budget committee. What this will do is enable us to improve our streets, which are
deteriorating, help with potholes which we see throughout the city at this time of year.

The value of our infrastructure, that is our streets, not including sidewalks, is estimated to be at $450 million.
It’s one of the city’s largest assets. We are attempting to undertake a problem that will enable us to maintain
the value of that very valuable asset.

In the past several years, | have, and | think all of us have, received complaints from many citizens regarding
the conditions of streets. Many streets need to be repaved, many have declined in character. A few years ago
we did increase the amount of the paving budget from approximately $1 million or $1.5 million, depending on
the year, up to $2.3 million. At that time, we moved the street paving revenue fund from within the combined
annual municipal budget to outside it, and we have maintained the funding of that program at about $2.3
million.

As a result, we have been paving above four to six miles of streets every year. Now we have the opportunity
to do something more significant and take a big leap forward in improving the conditions of our streets. Over
the course of the last year or so Stantec, which is an engineering firm, has done a paving management study
which has estimated the PCI, or the paving condition index, of all of Nashua’s streets. There are about 1,200
streets in Nashua and about 300 miles of streets. They are recommending an ongoing pavement
management maintenance plan.

We talked through this in some detail with the Budget Committee. | know you have all received copies of the
report. It makes a number of, | think, very telling points as to why we should undertake an improvement in our
initiatives to pave more streets. The state near the beginning of the report that the goal is to save money in
both the short and long term by developing a good road repair program that minimizes expenditures. They
point out that a roadway, and | am quoting again, “A roadway worsens slowly at the beginning of its projected
life.” In other words, once it is paved the condition is maintained for some time and deteriorates very slowly.
“But this level of deterioration increases drastically as the pavement reaches near middle age.” As the surface
gets older, the rate of deterioration picks up. They make this the point, and this is kind of one of the
underlining points of the entire study: “The point where pavement approaches middle age is considered the
critical zone in the pavement’s life.” As the pavement approaches middle age that’s the critical zone. They say
it is relatively inexpensive to keep a roadway in good service up to the point where it reaches middle age but
then after the middle age point it becomes much more expensive to keep the roadway in good service
condition.

They rank the streets and allocate them into five different sort of zones or categories based upon their
condition. This is all based on the PCI, the paving condition index. The best streets are the so-called “do
nothing” streets meaning nothing needs to be done in the short term. The next category are streets which
require routine maintenance. The third category is our streets that require preventative maintenance. The
fourth category are those that require structural improvement, and the fifth category are those that require base
rehabilitation. In other words, almost complete rebuilding.

The report says a road in need of preventative maintenance is in the critical zone of the pavement deterioration
curve. In other words, those in kind of this middle category. It is in this range of the pavement life cycle that
the most cost effective repairs can be made. Further deterioration warrants a significantly more costly
response. They are saying when you get to the middle age, the preventive maintenance category, you really
need to do something right away if you want to prevent much larger expenditures in the future. Of the 300
miles of streets we have here in Nashua, 103 miles are in the preventative maintenance category. In other
words, a little over 1/3. The report says without a preemptive strike, the system will undoubtedly continue to
lose roads from the routine and preventative maintenance category into the structural improvement and base
rehabilitation bands. This very costly loss will present a challenge to Nashua officials if the city wants to retain
its roads in good condition. Again, they are saying that 103 miles, the largest category of streets are in this
preventive maintenance category.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 3

They recommend what they call a network priority ranking. In other words, based upon this analysis of the
condition of each street, the streets where the most significant improvement in terms of prevention of
deterioration be done first so we preserve the most value that we can regarding the maintenance often streets.
The report in conclusion says the overall roadway network in the city is currently in fair condition. The study
shows that the city is in a critical point from a pavement management perspective and future diligence will be
necessary to improve citywide pavement conditions.

It also points out that all of this is based upon a computer model and that the city, once it undertakes a
pavement improvement program, needs to re-evaluate the situation every year. Re-evaluate the streets, re-
evaluate the situation because the deterioration of the streets may not be as quick as the computer projects or
may curve more quickly. The idea is we need re-evaluate as time goes on. The report says it this way: “it is
recommended that roads be reviewed each year to confirm that deterioration is occurring at the expected
computer model rate. Based on these reviews and inspections, an update to the pavement management
software will provide the city with a better understanding of its roadway degradation and confirmation of
appropriate funding needs to prevent it.”

Then it again says that: “If preemptive action is not taken, the large mileage of streets currently in the need of
preservation maintenance will rapidly digress to poor conditions that would subject the city to far more
expensive roadway work.” What they recommend is that we undertake a paving program at the rate of $7.5
million per year which is what is proposed in the resolution.

The resolution sponsored by myself, by Alderman Deane and by Alderman Siegel, and now endorsed by the
Budget Committee, proposes that for a period of five years we authorize the borrowing of $7.5 million in order
to improve the conditions of our streets in order to attack these preventive maintenance problems and in order
to save the requirement that we spend far more in the future.

Of course, the question is: how does this get paid for. For the past several years, we have appropriated into
the special road and highway fund $2.3 million as | said. Two-thirds of this approximately comes from the
revenue high block grant we receive from the State of New Hampshire. $700,000 is revenue that we have
directed from automobile registrations into this user fee based account. Now if we continue to do this, and if
we do the $7.5 million per year of paving, and if we accumulate money in the account when we do not require
it to meet the obligations under the bonds, the projections show that we will rise to a surplus in the account of
about $5 million in year four. Then we will see a declining surplus in the account, but the account will never go
below zero through a 20-year payment program. These will be 15 year bonds, but because the last of the
borrowing would occur in year five, full payment would not occur until year 20.

What we are proposing is a five year plan for various reasons. First of all because the consultant in the paving
study suggests to us that this is just a projection and that we need to re-evaluate the situation every year and
that the reality on the ground, so to speak, could be different than they project in the computer. Number two,
we may achieve additional revenue sources that we don’t have now. For example, the governor’s budget that
is pending now before the Senate, no budget passed the House as you know, so the governor’s budget is sort
of the prevailing document at this point, the default document, the governor’s budget proposes a 40 percent
increase in the revenue highway block grant. If that occurred, this fund would accumulate a much far greater
surplus and would pay for all this not for five years and beyond but for six or seven years and beyond. Also,
we have recommended in this projection that we increase the revenue from the motor vehicle registrations by
$400,000 in year four. In any event, | wanted to give the Board which has not had a chance or was not able at
the budget committee to see the presentation of the consultant, to give you some sense of what they are
saying. They are recommending that we take a preemptive strike, a big leap forward, that we invest now to
save in the future and that we spend money and evaluate the situation every year in order to make sure that
we do not let the value of a $450 million infrastructure decline further than it has so far.

With that, Mr. President, | am recommending that you follow the recommendation of the budget review
Committee that you answer the call of the citizenry and improve paving by adopting a reasonable,
commonsense paving program based upon the scientific analysis of our streets and the value of our
infrastructure.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 4

Secondly, Mr. President, | did want to mention again the wastewater fund. The ordinance in question here is
O-17-31. Under this ordinance which we have discussed before, so | won’t go on in great length, the
wastewater fund would be brought into compliance with the city charter. The city charter says that items need
to be in the combined annual municipal budget or not be in. We have many items that are in, obviously, but
some are items are out like paving.

Items that are out tend to be user based systems where the user, not property taxes, pays for the system. The
wastewater system is one of those systems. If you look at the budget that was passed last year, it is
expressed as a single standalone enterprise fund. But the ordinances don’t handle it that way. The
ordinances have half of it under the combined annual municipal budget and half of it outside. What O-17-31
proposes is that we rationalize the system, establish this as an actual enterprise fund, standalone outside the
combined annual municipal budget. This would also have the effect of increasing the cap space for this
coming year budget where we have all of the pension problems caused by the State of New Hampshire.

With that, Mr. President, | am concluding my remarks.

RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR -— None

RECOGNITION PERIOD — None

READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the minutes of the Board of Aldermen
meeting of March 21, 2017, and the Public Hearing conducted by the Budget Review Committee
of March 27, 2017, accepted, placed on file and the readings suspended.

COMMUNICATIONS

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared that all communications be read by title only.

From: Jeffrey L. Snow, Superintendent, Edgewood Cemetery
Re: Request for Joint Convention with Edgewood Cemetery Board of Trustees

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the communication accepted, placed on file and that
the Board of Aldermen meet in Joint Convention with the Edgewood Cemetery Board of Trustees on Tuesday,
April 25, 2017, at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber

From: Arthur L. Barrett, Jr., Chairman, Board of Library Trustees
Re: Request for Joint Convention with Nashua Public Library Board of Trustees

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the communication accepted, placed on file and that
the Board of Aldermen meet in Joint Convention with the Nashua Public Library Board of Trustees on Tuesday,
April 25, 2017, at 7:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber

From: Celia K. Leonard, Esq., Office of Corporation Counsel
Re: Petition for Street Acceptance: Northwest Boulevard Extension

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the communication accepted, placed on file and
referred to the Committee on Infrastructure

From: Larry D. Goodhue, CEO/CFO & Treasurer, Pennichuck Corporation
Re: Annual Meeting of Sole Shareholder — May 6, 2017

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 5

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the communication accepted, placed on file and
referred to the Pennichuck Water Special Committee.

From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Re: Notification of Entry into Contract for Invasive Species Control and Management

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
SOLITUDE LAKE MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,728

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 15

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Re: Award of 2017 Paving Program

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
E.J. PAVING COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,729,148

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 15

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Re: Notification of Entry into Contract for FY18-FY20 USDA Wildlife Management Service
Agreement
MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,103 FOR FY18

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 15

Nay: 0

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 6
MOTION CARRIED

PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING
Tracy Pappas, 12 Swart Terrace, Nashua

I’m here regarding O-17-31, relative to taking the wastewater fund out from under the Cap. It says all in or all
out. | grabbed the wrong pad of paper, but there is a state law that does not allow cities and towns to comingle
positions. In Manchester, they have a Spending Cap as we do. Although the director of public works and
other folks within that division do indeed perform tasks for the wastewater division, they do not charge for that
because it is not allowed under state law. As such, just as that ordinance states, all in or all out. | suggest that
we either send this back to committee or someone have the guts to say we will no longer have shared
employees. We have a city engineer, we have a construction and inspection engineering assistant, we have

deputy treasury/tax collector, we have deputy manager of engineering, director of public works, DPW billing
accountant, DPW collection specialists.

Alderman Siegel

You're a BPW Commissioner. That’s a personnel matter not in the purview of the Board of Aldermen.

Ms. Pappas

Am | out of order?

President McCarthy

Not yet.

Ms. Pappas

| am reading from a public document.

President McCarthy

Proceed, Ms. Pappas.

Ms. Pappas

Executive Assistant, Finance Administrator, Fleet Manager, Public Relations Administrator, which by the way in
the past, we’ve never had to have which is going to be charged 20 percent, Senior Manager of Accounting &
Financial Reporting. | think those are items that should be placed under the Cap.

As | have said before, I’m not saying there is anything nefarious going on, but there is a state law.

President McCarthy

| would ask you not to repeat that again because by saying I’m not saying there’s anything nefarious going on,
you're implying that there is something. | don’t want to hear ...

Alderman Moriarty

| disagree.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 7

President McCarthy

... trial by innuendos so please keep your remarks to the piece of legislation that is in front of us.

Ms. Pappas

Okay, you know the day that | ever am so disrespectful to members of the public to come to speak, | will never
run for office. | will quit. And, thank you, Alderman Moriarty for speaking out. | appreciate that. What do | get
for coming here? A lot of guff. | am here because | take very seriously my oath of office to represent the
people of Nashua. And it is not allowed under state law that we comingle funds. That’s why Manchester does
not charge their funds for the director of public works under their wastewater fund.

Perhaps we should have engineers that are 100 percent under the purview of wastewater. Perhaps we should
do the same as other municipalities and require our director and assistant director of public works to have an
engineering degree. For that matter, | think we have too many shared positions.

And frankly, | think the Board President should rule someone out of order by interrupting people all the time.
It’s done very regularly, and it is not right.

President McCarthy

And | will ask that it not happen again.

Ms. Pappas

Thank you.
Fred Teeboom, 25 Cheyenne Drive

I'd like to address two items from the agenda. The first is R-17-092, and the other is O-17-031. The Mayor
addressed both of those. Now | need to give you the rest of the story.

R-17-092. Before you is a basically 20 years of payments on $37.5 million borrowed at a cost of $11.1 million,
30 percent of principal. If all assumptions are made about grants from the state highway fund and motor
vehicle revenues, yes, it just pays for that bond. The fund goes down as low as $140,000 but builds back up to
about $5 or $6 million. However, that is not the full story.

| was the only person at the public hearing. It’s not look at as a five-year program at $7.5 million a year for a
$37.5 million bond. What’s looked at is a ten-year program at $7.5 million a year for a $75 million bond. That
in fact is implied in the amendment that’s before you that says this is the first part, five years of a multi-year
program, meaning five years of a ten-year program. Who is going to authorize the other five years of the
remaining $7.5 million per year? You are dealing with a $75 million program as proposed. There’s really no
answer to that.

| worked out a spreadsheet. The first five years for $37.5 million and then the next five years for $37.5 million
using the same scenario that Fredette proposed. Five one-years, $7.5 million bonds and then staggered one
year apart. | took 25 years and then 20 years and then you have another 20 years of program staggered. The
total takes 25 years to pay off, to pay the bond.

However, if you now look at the cost and what is going into that reserve fund, you know see there’s a deficit of
$26.6 million. To prove that , | sent to the entire Board at the Public Works my spreadsheet, and to Fredette
and to CFO Griffin my spreadsheet. And that’s still not the full story. In addition to 10 years at $75 million,
after 11 years you have to start maintaining what you have already done, and that is proposed at another $3.5
million a year. The consultant said it would be between 3.2 and 3.8 million dollars.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 8

| put that number into the equation in my spreadsheet and now at the end of 25 years, there’s a $79.1 million
deficit. How is that going to get paid? This Board cannot commit to any future Board to authorize a bond
payment. Every board is acting on its own, unless you, yourself, have another $37.5 million in bonds
authorized after the current $37.5 million that is before you. So this is serious business. How is this going to
get paid? You don’t believe me? | gave you the spreadsheet. If you find an error, let me know.

That is the financial part of the problem. Now let’s look at the technical problem. The consultant, Stantec,
made this presentation on the PCI, pavement condition index, 100 percent to zero. One hundred percent is
perfect, percent is, | guess, you can’t walk or drive on.

| put up this one chart. | hope you can see it, I'll be happy to point out where it is in the presentation. The top
is the PCI curve, starting around 80 for the aerial and collector streets, the major thoroughfares. They go up
fast. This is not ten years. | asked the consultant. The scale is 20 years. In about 8 years, you build up to
about 97 percent on the aerial arterial streets. Perfect. You spend almost $23 million on the arterial streets. It
doesn’t matter if you have a $75 million program or a $59 million program. If you look at page 3 of the
consultant’s presentation, you will see $23 million.

But the local streets which seems to be the attention of your sponsoring aldermen who had great pictures
when Mayor Lozeau, they wanted to concentration the local streets. But the local streets actually go from 77,
the PCI goes down. It degrades. We spend all this money and we’re getting degradation of the local streets.
Why is that? The money that they use goes to arterial streets. It favors arterial streets because the model
looks at the number of the drivers on those streets. Obviously you’ve got more drivers on arterial streets than
local streets. The model favors spending more money early on on the arterial streets. If the objective of the
sponsoring aldermen who criticized Mayor Lozeau for not paying attention for your local streets, who wants to
pay attention to local streets, this model doesn’t do it. This model isn’t doing it.

Clearly the arterial streets are being paid attention to and local streets degrade until about 8-10 years. That’s
on page 13 of the consultant’s report. | asked him those questions. I’m not against paving. | think we need to
pave. I’m against $75 million worth of bonding. |’m against this model. | think this hasn’t been thought
through very well. It hasn’t been discussed very much. The only budget meeting | was in, | was the only
private person there. This model isn’t doing it, not if you don’t pay attention to local streets.

The answer is send it back to committee. It’s going to take ten votes to approve this bond. Don’t vote for this
at this point. Go back. Mayor Lozeau, by the way, had a $17 million program. Nowhere near $37 million,
nowhere near $75 million. Take a look at that program again. I’m not sure why she got shot down. The
criticism was she didn’t pay attention to the local streets. This isn’t paying attention to the local streets, not for
the first 8-10 year period.

The next thing | want to talk about is O-17-031. That’s the famous sewer fund. I’m not going to talk about
comingling which is a state concern. Tracy Pappas addressed that. This isn’t the Board of Public Works.
What | would like to address is the misinformation in the budget committees. Let me not go over all the
arguments again, but let me briefly review Nashua’s Spending Cap. What is it?

The bond ratings agencies consistently mention the spending cap every year in assigning AAA ratings to the
City of Nashua. We don’t over bond. We try to constrain spending. That’s how you get AAA ratings. You
want to spend a lot of money, you want to bond a lot, you are going to be like Detroit or a country like
Venezuela. Bankrupt.

The Nashua spending cap, described in Nashua Charter par. 56-c, places a limit on spending, not a limit on
taxes. Both taxes and fees fall under the Nashua spending cap; there is no exclusion for fees. State law does
not have exclusion fees. You can exclude state law certain accounts, but there is no exclusion for fees .
Certainly Nashua does not have an exclusion for fees. Taxes and fees fall under the Spending Cap. You can
laugh and smile, aldermen, but that’s the fact. It is.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 9

There are no exemptions stated in Nashua charter, 56-c. Zip. Not a single exemption. The only exemption
under the Cap, to get out of the Cap, are ten affirmative votes by the Board of Aldermen. It used to be 2/3 but
referendum made it ten votes. | think in 2005. That’s the only exemption. There is no other exemption. The
Nashua charter par. 56-c is crystal clear in what comprises the Combined Annual Municipal Budget subject to
the cap. You know what it is? This is what itis. It is all in the white pages, the yellow pages, the green pages,
and the pink pages. All adopted by the Board of Aldermen. The only thing that is not part of the combined
annual municipal budget are in the blue pages. That’s because there is no department request. They are trust
funds, CERF, fund balance. Only the blue pages are not part of the combined annual budget. Everything else
is. Anybody who says it is not, is wrong.

A city ordinance cannot conflict with the city charter. The city charter is clear and unambiguous. On the
question by the Mayor Donchess repeatedly: “should the sewer fund be ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the budget cap,”
there can be only one answer. The entire sewer fund is subject to the Cap. There is no other answer.

We all understand the real purpose for O-17-31. It’s not to set up a new fund. It is to contrive an end-run
around the Cap to make a $9.1 million space under the Cap without 10 required votes. It’s an end-run. It’s an
illegal end-run. It's an improper end-run. | urge, in conclusion, to amend O-17-031 to strike the entire Section
2. It’s really irrelevant to the sewer fund. It’s just a discussion about the Spending Cap. Strike the entire
Section 2, and | urge you to do it to avoid possible legal action against the city. And when you do take this
vote, please take a roll call vote so we know who votes which way. Thank you.

PETITIONS — None
NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS
Joint Convention with Woodlawn Cemetery Board of Trustees

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared that the Board of Aldermen meet in Joint Convention
with the Woodlawn Cemetery Board of Trustees for the purpose of electing two trustees.

President McCarthy called for nominations.

Trustee Niles Jensen nominated Michael McLaughlin and Dana Farwell for five-year terms to expire
March 31, 2022

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the nominations closed.

A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was taken on the appointment of Michael McLaughlin and Dana Farwell to the
Woodlawn Cemetery Board of Trustees for terms to expire March 31, 2022, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy
Daniel Buslovich, Dana Farwell, Niles Jensen, Jr.,
Mayor Donchess 19

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Michael McLaughlin and Dana Farwell duly appointed to the Woodlawn
Cemetery Board of Trustees for terms to expire March 31, 2022.