Search

Board of Aldermen
April 26, 2016

NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS

Appointments by the Mayor

The following Appointments by the Mayor were read into the record:

Arts Commission

Lindsay Rinaldi (New Appointment)
705 Belmont Street
Belmont, MA 02478

Roberta “Mitzi” Barrett (New Appointment)
52 Wood Street
Nashua, NH 03064

Bonnie Guerico (Reappointment)
66 Meadow Drive
Hollis, NH 03049

Business & Industrial Development Authority

Kim Reagan (New Appointment)
30 Temple Street, Suite 400
Nashua, NH 03060

Cultural Connections Committee

Bernadette Melton-Plante (Reappointment)
41 Parrish Hill Drive
Nashua, NH 03063

Economic Development Director

Timothy Cummings (New Appointment)
92 Russett Road, #1
West Roxbury, MA 02132

Personnel Advisory Board

Michelle O’Malley (New Appointment)
13 Gettysburg Drive
Nashua, NH 03064

Shelia J. Kabat (New Appointment)
5 Oldham Lane
Nashua, NH 03063

Carol Baldwin (New Appointment)
42 Diamondback Avenue
Nashua, NH 03062

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Mariellen MacKay

(Moving from Alternate Member to Full Member)
9 Webster Street

Nashua, NH 03064

For a Term to Expire:

For a Term to Expire:

For a Term to Expire:

For a Term to Expire:

For a Term to Expire:

Page 6

April 1, 2018

May 1, 2019

April 1, 2019

May 1, 2019

April 30, 2019

For an Indefinite Term at the Pleasure of the Mayor

For a Term to Expire

For a Term to Expire

For a Term to Expire

For a Term to Expire

- May 1, 2017

: May 1, 2018

- May 1, 2019

: September 11, 2018

Board of Aldermen Page 7
April 26, 2016

There being no objection, President McCarthy accepted the appointments by the Mayor as read
and referred them to the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE
Human Affairs COMMIttee....... oc cecccecccecece cece vecevecevereververeververeeeraees 04/11/16

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 11, 2016
Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file.

Pennichuck Water Special Committee ............. cece ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 04/19/16

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 19, 2016
Pennichuck Water Special Committee accepted and placed on file.

Substandard Living Conditions Special Committee..............0.. eee 04/14/16

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 14, 2016
Substandard Living Conditions Special Committee accepted and placed on file.

There being no objection, President McCarthy suspended the rules to allow Alderman Dowd to give an
Oral Report of the Public Hearing and Budget Review Committee meeting held April 25, 2016

Alderman Dowd

Last night, Treasurer Fredette was here. In 2006, the city sold an advanced refunding bond with payments in
the July of every single year. The city is allowed to advance the refunding of these bonds which were originally
bonds sold in 2006 at a mixture of old school bonds that were originally started in 1999 to 2002. The city is
allowed to call advanced refunding of these bonds 90 days prior to the 10" anniversary of the bond, which falls
on July 15, 2016. That was why the expediency of trying to move this forward, so Treasurer Fredette could act
on this. The bond sold in 2006 had rates of approximately 4%. The current refunding bond will have rates in
the 1.5% to 2.0% range over the remaining life of the bond, which is six years. The interest rate savings will be
approximately $1.5 million over the next 6 fiscal years. Thank you.

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the oral report of the April 25, 2016 Budget Review
Committee public hearing and regular meeting accepted and placed on file.

WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS — None

CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS — None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - RESOLUTIONS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE R-16-015
MOTION CARRIED

Board of Aldermen Page 8
April 26, 2016

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

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Cookson, 14
Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel,
Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja,
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty,
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

R-16-015
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
ESTABLISHING AN EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR STATE EMPLOYER PENSION COSTS
AND APPROPRIATING $2,230,000 FROM FUND BALANCE ASSIGNED FOR THIS PURPOSE
INTO THE EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND
Given its third reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-015 BY ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Siegel

Here we are again, | appreciate the curtesy from the last meeting and unfortunately it was somewhat awkward.
| was thinking of myself of something like Prometheus bound where an eagle was going to come and peck my
liver out. Mr. Teeboom isn’t here so | will use a different analogy and perhaps | am Sisyphus rolling a stone up
the hill. | am going to break this down so everyone gets my perspective on this because we’ve been given a
lot of different perspectives and why | came up with this legislation and the thinking behind it. It’s no secret that
we have the state obligation and we needed some way to get to it in such a way that is constructive. So we
had this money set aside and at the last term the Mayor tried to construct some legislation which would allow
us to transfer similar to what we are doing now but there were a couple of flaws which prevented me from
supporting that legislation. The first flaw was that expendable trust fund had no lapse point so to me it was a
side door forever until our obligation was satisfied. Once that $2.3 million went away, and that’s the $2.3
million that has no effect on the taxpayer burden which | believe is the point of the spending cap. The last term
that burden, once that $2.3 million which was set aside for this purpose, went away then the burden was
change and | couldn’t support that. The other thing was that there was no notion of trying to solve the problem
which is ultimately the state pushing down the obligations to us and so there was no sense of okay we are
going to give ourselves a certain amount of time to solve the problem and it’s going to be finite and if we can’t
at the state level then we have to swallow our medicine and follow a different path. | spent a lot of time
thinking about this legislation because I’m concerned about the effect on the city. I’m not going to say the
world is going to fall apart but | think we are going to have real problems. Again, the money was set aside for a
purpose. You say to yourself what do | do if | set money aside for a purpose and there is no way to move it
across. That to me is more a flaw in the way that our spending cap is constructed. | am for the spending cap
but one of the ways that it is constructed is if you transfer money across you don’t legislatively have the
opportunity to say okay well | want this money to be used to this purpose but | want to still pin the cap number
at the same level. If | could have done that in this legislation | would have. That’s a flaw in the mechanisms by

Board of Aldermen Page 9
April 26, 2016

which the Charter reads right now. It is what it is but | still felt that this is something that is worth doing. We
have the money and | don’t think anyone that | have spoken to feels that the money wasn’t set aside; nobody
has said if we spend that money it’s going to have an effect such as that our bond rating will change. | am
going through each of the elements hopefully describing what | might view as the possible problems and how
to address those objections. We have this pool and we can use it but we won’t because we have this flaw in
the way the spending cap works. So if we decide to move it over we have this perceived problem that we
bump the cap number. We haven’t bumped what we are spending; we’ve bumped a virtual number. Imagine
the case where you wake up and you say to yourself, oh, low and behold, Visa has raised my spending limit. |
believe we are all relatively prudent and the fact that Visa allowed you a different number doesn’t mean that
you go out and spend the money. | certainly wouldn’t and | suspect that most people wouldn't. You didn’t ask
them to raise that number it just happened and that’s the way | view this. Again, the good part of saving that
money for the purpose can’t be satisfied because of this impediment due to a flaw in the legislation. We have
this problem and it seems to me that the people | have spoken to, this is the main sticking point; that somehow
this number goes up and what do we do about this virtual number going up? | would say to all of you in the
horseshoe that | don’t remember at what point we abdicated our ability or responsibility to make decisions that
were of sound fiscal decisions. We did that in a couple of terms, several of my colleagues that were on the
Board at the time rattled off a series of amendments or motions where we_ took the existing budget and
restored the POP unit and the principals and we still cut the budget by $550,000, again, acting responsibly and
prudently doing our homework. We still have that opportunity; | don’t think that anyone is any less talented in
this term to be able to do that. When | first discussed this legislation with Mayor Donchess | specifically said
this is not an enabling piece of legislation to allow us to run wild with spending so one of the consequences of
that, as much as | admire NFR and what they said is absolutely true, that doesn’t fit within the constraints of
this situation that we find ourselves in and that’s why | won’t support this because again, if | am going to
support a philosophy of changing this number and using that money to address a state mandated burden on us
| can’t then turn around and say we have more flexibility to do something we shouldn't be doing. It’s sad and |
wish we were not in this position but there we are. | don’t have any other solutions for this problem that we
face. We have the money set aside but we are artificially deciding that we aren’t going to use it and it is
artificial. The reason for some of this range from an understandable concern about the spending cap number
to flat out political posturing; I’ll be blunt, like oh good, | get to waive the flag of fiscal responsibility and yet be
inconsistent in some other issues and that’s going to potentially happen and that’s disappointing. Ultimately
you're out-of-pocket is exactly the same whether we vote for this or not except | walk out of the grocery store
with one less bag of groceries for the money that | have available in a sense. We do not have the ability to say
okay I’m going to use it for a different purpose, it’s in a pool and it’s stuck there. So, are you actually doing
taxpayer any good by creating the exact same burden no matter which way you vote but one way you vote is
going to cause some issues. The city is not going to fall apart but it will be demonstratively diminished in my
mind because it’s a fairly large number and that’s the argument that | have. It’s all well and good to play hero
but | think it’s my job to be brutally pragmatic no matter what the consequence is in a certain sense. | don't
personally care about higher office or any of that nonsense, that’s not my game here, | care about the city and |
do care about the spending cap and this does not affect the taxpayer burden. | appreciate your
accommodating my long-winded explanation.

Alderman Schoneman

| appreciate the arguments in favor and certainly Alderman Siegel does his homework all of the time.
Regarding the legislation that came up last term when Mayor Lozeau suggested it, the amount she wanted to
move was $2.7 million and this year it’s $2.23 million. That’s a reduction of $470,000 and | presume that went
to the purpose for the funds were earmarked which is to pay this excess burden, the pension fund liability that
the state has put upon us without effecting the tax rate. If this fund does not move the tax rate still will not be
affected and the money can still be spent just like it was last year; to take the balance from $2.7 million down to
$2.2 million. | asked Mr. Griffin what the amount of money for this year for the additional pension funding was
going to be. It looks like it’s going to be approximately $350,000. That’s a $350,000 problem with a $2.2
million solution. | don’t think that we need to move this money, which it really is an appropriation and while it’s
acknowledged that this does up the limit and theoretically we don’t have to spend to that limit, the likelinood is
that we are going to and it’s practically already spent. If we were to take the budget from last year and assume

Board of Aldermen Page 10
April 26, 2016

that the spending cap limit is 1.3% but give the police department 2.5% and the schools 2.0% we can pretty
quickly see and everyone else 1.3% that the fiscal 17 spending cannot be contained within the original fiscal
"16 appropriation plus the cap. It needs this in order to make those numbers work and to then try to reduce
that is going to be extremely difficult. | was against it before and I’m still against it now. | think that it
essentially allows more spending for a purpose that | don’t feel is necessary in order to accomplish the goal of
saving taxpayer money and still meet this pension fund obligation.

Alderman Dowd

| agree with everything that Alderman Siegel said. As Chair of budget and having looked at the numbers that
are coming in from the various units, we are going to have a problem but as Alderman Siegel said, if we
approve this legislation we don’t have to spend $2.3 million to increase our spending but it will certainly give us
a little cushion because we are going to have a very difficult time meeting our budget this year to the point of
I’m not sure how | can even see that passing. | haven’t got the budget from the Mayor yet and | know he has a
significant challenge in trying to meet numbers. | have been involved in the Board of Education budget and
they are struggling mightily, they just can’t come up with anything else to cut. If we get to that point in meeting
that arbitrary spending number we are going to have to take money away from the schools and that could
result in a number of things that | don’t think people with children in school are going to appreciate. | for one
also don’t want to take substantial monies from the police department or the fire department because that puts
us at risk. | appreciate people being concerned about the spending cap and | agree that we need to have
controls over the amount of spending every year but | think that we also need to use common sense. If the
arbitrary number that they came up with some number of years ago puts the city in an untenable position, |
think that we need to do whatever we can to try and solve the problem. People have said that they have taken
pledges not to override the cap. This isn’t an override of the spending cap; this is taking money that was
earmarked for a specific purpose and allocating it for that. The problem we have with the regular budget was
passed down to us from the state. The state, in the pension fund agreed years ago to pay 35% and all of a
sudden they said 0%. We are not the only city in New Hampshire that’s got a problem because the state
passes that down to us. We have to a) solve that problem and b) we need to make sure that things like that
don’t happen again coming from Concord. | am going to support this.

Alderman Schoneman

| want to address some of Alderman Dowd’s comments. It is most definitely a spending cap override for fiscal
"16. There’s not the room in the fiscal 16 appropriation limit based on fiscal 15 numbers to accommodate an
additional $2.2 million under the fiscal ’16 cap. It’s not a fiscal ’17 override but it is a fiscal ’16 spending cap
override. Regarding spending, it’s true that if this fund were established it would not need to be spent on day
one, it could be spent over the course of three years and in that sense, by appropriating it we are not spending
that money. As Alderman Dowd also eluded to, the school department and perhaps others are counting on the
$2.2 million increase in the fiscal ’16 appropriation number to give them the room they want to spend in fiscal
"17 so while the $2.23 million has moved over and won’t immediately be spent, this does create the room
within the fiscal 16 appropriation number to spend more in fiscal ’17 and that will effect taxpayers because
that’s spending an additional $2.23 million.

Alderman Clemons

As a taxpayer | have a couple of different perspectives on this legislation. They all have to do with the fact that
in the past the city at some point set aside this money for the purpose of using it for pension costs. | know that
a lot of us here talk about the spending cap and not overriding the spending cap. My prior four years on the
Board, from 2008 to 2011, | remember that all of those budgets under Mayor Lozeau were under the cap and
they came in; | think one of them was close, maybe $250,000, some of them were $500,000, maybe $1 million
under the cap. Subsequent to that we have always been under the cap. The city could have said, the Board
of Aldermen could have said the limit is $300 million and that’s what we are going to make the budget but we
didn’t do that. We looked at what was appropriate to spend that year and if it happened to be $500,000 or $1
million under the spending cap then that’s what it was. The point that | am trying to make is that there comes a

Board of Aldermen Page 11
April 26, 2016

time when we need to use the mechanisms that we have in place because things are at a point where we have
no control over them. This being the pension costs coming down to us from the State of New Hampshire. |
look back as a taxpayer who has owned property in Nashua since 2007; multiple properties, and | think to
myself that | have paid in to this pension cost, my tax paying has gone into this and the reason we have set it
aside is because we knew that some of these costs were going to be a burden to us later on down the road. |
also look at it from a taxpayer perspective as we have the spending cap and in years past we have not gone
over it but have been under it. When | combine the fact that we’ve had millions of dollars of savings over the
course of the last twenty years because this Board has done the prudent thing and kept the budget under the
spending cap, | look at this situation and | say to myself why wouldn’t we, at this point, spend the money that
we've put aside so that I, as a taxpayer, don’t have to worry about the fact that $350,000 extra is going to go
just to pensions instead of maybe going to the schools or the fire department or the police department or any
number of city services that we pay hard earned money for. | look at this situation as it’s been a long time
coming and we are now at the point where we need to say this is the year that the spending cap has to be
overridden because we have costs from the state that are mandated to us that we have no control over and we
have to pay. We can either pay the money from the taxpayer's money that we put aside or we can spend the
money from the taxpayers that we are going to collect from them next year and leave the money that we
already have aside. | think we ought to spend the money that we already have instead of taxing people in the
future for these costs.

Alderman Moriarty

We could debate whether this principle and interest exclusion is equivalent to a spending cap override. By
virtue of the fact that it requires ten votes, implies that it essentially has the same mathematical equivalent as a
spending cap override. To blame the financial challenges that we have on the existence of the spending cap is
somewhat like blaming the speed limit for being tardy to an appointment that we knew about well in advance.
Four years ago when | joined the Board of Aldermen | could foresee these challenges ahead of us and I’ve
been voting accordingly and tonight | am going to continue to vote the same way and vote no on this item.

Alderman Siegel

Nobody is blaming the spending cap on anything. None of the discussion blamed the spending cap. In fact,
my reference was a flaw in the way the spending cap Charter legislation works in that it doesn’t allow me to
ratchet back the number. The flaw is wooh’s me there’s a spending cap, the flaw is gee, it would be nice if
there was a tool that was even friendly to the taxpayer to allow me to do this and still ratchet it back. | think
that characterization is just false. | have an idea, my plan B, to hopefully address some of the concerns. It
seems to me that the biggest concern is the bump in the cap and the possibility of that being filled up by
promises made that have nothing to do with my purpose in this legislation. It’s so frustrating for me. | feel like
the intent of this has been diluted by this idea that somehow oh, we made all these promises and this is the
only way we can do this, like that was the intention. When | was thinking about this | didn’t hear about any
promises or anything. This is strictly intended to deal with the downshift in the pension cost. The plan B | have
is to take the effective problem which is to say we are taking that one lump money and we are putting it all at
once into the trust fund and that has the unfortunate side effect of bumping everything up by that amount. The
trust fund is set up right now to be available in thirds over three years so the plan B, and I’ve actually hand
changed the legislation but it wouldn’t be appropriate to have all of those legislation changes at the full Board,
is to say okay, how about we take the one third and set that aside as the kicker because it doesn’t have the
type of dramatic bump in the cap number and it hopefully reinforces the notion that this is not intended to be
everybody’s saving grace to get some magical contract approval, that’s not the point. This is a change that we
could actually fairly easily make. Again, | wouldn’t do it at the Board level, we would have to send it back to
budget where it could be properly vetted and I’d certainly like to pass it by CFO Griffin to see if | haven’t missed
anything while | was editing it today. | went over the legislation point by point to see if this was feasible and it
appeared to be. | am hoping that for those who have objected to the raise in the ceiling that this is something
that maybe would say okay, I’d be willing to consider that because it’s hopefully more clearly for a purpose.
These are not contracts you can slip in under that cap number and we could work with it that way. I’m not sure
that we have enough people comfortable with the arguments that were made to pass this and I’m concerned

Board of Aldermen Page 12
April 26, 2016

that if there is an alternative that might be acceptable | would like us to address it. | leave that out there as a
possibility.

Alderman Schoneman

| want to state again that | never thought that the legislation was done for the intent of bumping it up and | have
the utmost respect for Mayor Donchess and Alderman Siegel who put this legislation together. | expressed my
feelings that it was an inadvertent consequence of something that sounded noble and certainly had noble
intent. | think that the idea of shrinking this down to some other number, we can do it committee and we will
have plenty of discussion there, it could be palatable but | think we need to flush it out at the committee level
plus I’m not sure the $750 is the right number, maybe $350 is the right number if that is the amount for fiscal
"17 that is the amount to be impacted. Again, | think we should do it at the committee level and | would
certainly be amenable to have that conversation.

Alderman Lopez

If | understood Alderman Siegel’s presentation and Alderman Clemons’ we are not abdicating our right to be
pragmatic in making decisions about budgeting, this is just intended to solve a single issue so reducing the
amount of...instead of $22 million making it $700,000; we are still exercising the same authority aren’t we?

Alderman Siegel

To answer that, yes we still have an obligation to be prudent and we still have the issue of a number going up
but my sense in having spoken to people privately and my sense about the way the conversation is going is |
don’t get a feeling that the use of the money is the issue, it’s the consequences to the cap bump and so if that
cap bump consequence were contained and more palatable to those who object then | think that might be a
workable compromise where we can solve some of our problems without introducing side effects. Right now
the legislation transfers the entire amount in one bulk transfer which bumps it all the way up. Remember, as |
originally explained this, the whole point of this was to give us three years to solve a problem which hopefully if
we solve it in two years, the point is the expendable trust fund would lapse that money would go right back. If
we allocate it in thirds and we have to approve it every year then by definition we were given that decision up
front and again we don’t have that same gap where people can be concerned that we are going to be fitting all
sorts of magically additional spending. It’s all about solving the pension issue forced upon us by the state. |
am trying to work around that aberration in the way the cap is calculated. That’s why | introduced plan B and |
think it’s worth reasonably vetting at the committee level.

Alderman Cookson

| appreciate all of the comments this evening. I’ve had conversations with Alderman Siegel with regard to the
legislation and | think it’s a good idea. | am more palatable to plan B and | will state so this evening. | think
that we are also in a very unique position as a Board to have two members of it actually be state
representatives as well. | think we have a meeting with the State Delegation on the 5" of May. Alderman
LeBrun and Alderman O’Brien are in the enviable positon of hearing what are concerns are as a Board of
Aldermen and |’m hoping that you are able to represent that position as well to the State Delegation when we
are able to have communications and conversations with them. As Alderman Siegel said, we are not the only
city that is affected by this so | think there is a real opportunity to go back to the state and say zero is not the
answer. We, as a state, have to support more for our cities and I’m not sure that you can say that zero is going
to be your contribution to the cities any longer. This extends to Manchester, Concord and some of the larger
cities that are going to be impacted by the state’s decision not to contribute anything and while you may not
have influence over other city’s delegates, | think that you, as a representative of the State of New Hampshire
have an obligation to take our concerns and express them to our State Delegation as we will also and get that
seed growing so that hopefully we can take a multi-pronged approach to the problem. Hopefully the State
Delegation can address it in another capacity.

Board of Aldermen Page 13
April 26, 2016

Alderman O’Brien

| think most of us in the city delegation as far as state do take this very seriously but you must keep in mind
that when this originally occurred, the money was supposed to be put back and it never did. This is what
happens when you have an ultra-conservative opinion. What is unique to Nashua is that we have a spending
cap and not all communities that are affected by this...yes, globally in the state, many cities and towns have
this very same problem but they do not have a spending cap. Because of the spending cap this makes
Nashua’s situation extremely unique.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RE-REFER TO THE BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Cookson, 12
Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel,
Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja.
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman McCarthy

Nay: Alderman McGuinness, Alderman Moriarty 2
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-16-015 re-referred to the Budget Review Committee

R-16-022
Endorsers: Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Don LeBrun
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO APPLY FOR AND EXPEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (“CDBG”) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GRANT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2017
Given its second reading;

Alderman Wilshire
| will be recusing myself from this vote as my employer is an applicant for these funds in this resolution.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO AMEND R-16-022 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH
THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Siegel

In honor of former Alderman Chasse, | would assume that Alderman Caron or some other appropriate person
would be willing to discuss the changes in the golden rod copy.

Alderman Caron

| don’t have my notes. We made some changes to some of the amounts that we had originally given out to the
agencies. One was to Labine Park. The other was to give back to the Housing Improvement and the Project

Board of Aldermen Page 14
April 26, 2016

Delivery. We didn’t realize we had some extra money. When they tallied it up, we had some money left over
so we wanted to come to a zero balance.

Alderman Lopez

There was $10,000 left over from last year. $4,000 or around that went to the Emergency Resilience Planning.
Then we put money back into the grant administration and grant delivery.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Alderman Lopez is correct. We originally cut the emergency management proposed program. We put some of
that money back in. We realized that some of the money that had been cut from the funds that were used to
actually administer the office, we put money back in there. Alderman Lopez is correct.

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

Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, 13
Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman,
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman McGuinness,
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: 0
Abstained: Alderman Wilshire 1

MOTION CARRIED
MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-022 AS AMENDED

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

Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, 13
Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman,
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman McGuinness,
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: 0
Abstained: Alderman Wilshire 1
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-022 declared duly adopted as amended.

R-16-023
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $28,600 FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
HIGHWAY SAFETY AGENCY INTO POLICE GRANT ACTIVITY “FY16 SUSTAINED TRAFFIC
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP)”
Given its second reading;

Board of Aldermen Page 15
April 26, 2016

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-023
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Cookson, 14
Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel,
Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja,
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty,
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-16-023 declared duly adopted.

R-16-026
Endorsers: Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja

Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire

Alderman Benjamin M. Clemons

Alderman Richard A. Dowd

Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty
APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MAYOR
AND THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS AND LOCAL #789, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS FROM JULY 1, 2015, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019, AND RELATED TRANSFER FROM
CONTINGENCY
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-026
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman O’Brien

| would like to recuse myself at this time due to a conflict.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

I’m not going to repeat the points from last night’s discussion. I’m sure for those who were not there, if you
looked at the minutes or talked to others. Just a few points for those who may not be aware, the negotiations
for this contract have been going on for about a year. Part of that negotiation also included mediation. This is
not something that was arrived at lightly and without much work. The other point | think we need to think about
is we all know, and one of us is an example of that, there has been retirements within the fire department. As
we have heard from other people within the city, it’s important that we keep our services in our divisions in a
position where they can attract the best possible candidates to do the job. | think when we look at firefighting
in the City of Nashua; we all realize that we have a variety of structures and a variety of businesses. From
home fires to possible fires involving chemicals and gases, we need a bright, smart, well-educated group of
firefighters. | think we need to think about what we’re doing when we pass this contract or consider this
contract in terms of our ability to continue getting the quality that our citizens deserve. Finally in thinking about
the budget, | don’t think any of us take the budget and the budget Cap lightly. Just as we have a responsibility
to maintain a livable tax rate within the city, | think we also have the responsibility to make sure that we provide
our residents and our businesses with safety and protection for their property. | would just ask you to consider
that as you vote tonight.