Search

Board of Aldermen 1-02-2020 Page 7
Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Back on the table is the wrong expression, it would be more proper to say “back on the floor” or “back
before the Board of Aldermen for its consideration”. Tabled is where things are put pending further action
at another time. So there was just a misuse of the phrase, but essentially the explanation was correct.

Alderman Jette

Ok thank you.

President Wilshire

Anyone else? The motion is to reconsider Resolution 18-102 amended by roll call.
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Gidge, Ald. Harriott-Gathright, Ald. Dowd
Ald. Klee, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez, Ald. Caron, Ald. Kelly,
Ald. Melizzi-Golja, Ald. Tencza, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Clemons
Ald. Wilshire 14

Nay: Ald. Jette 1
MOTION CARRIED

R-18-102, Amended
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND UFPO LOCAL 645 PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES OF THE NASHUA POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM JULY 1, 2018 THROUGH JUNE 30,
2022 AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS
e Mayor Vetoed — 12/30/19

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO OF R-18-102, AMENDED,
BY ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Jette

| voted in favor of this the last time we voted, the time before that | voted against it. And! voted against it
because at that time the contract provided for allowing employees who were hired after September 16,
2003 to have unlimited sick leave. If you may allow me to explain, my understanding is that prior to that,
back in 2003 as the Mayor had explained, the City was trying to reduce the amount of sick leave that
employees could cash out upon retirement or death. On other issues | think | have explained to you my
feeling about sick leave is that it is designed to allow employees to take time off when they are sick and to
be continued to be paid so that they and their families do not suffer financially because of their illness and |
fully support that.

Board of Aldermen 1-02-2020 Page 8

What | don’t support is the ability of employees to cash out that unused sick leave. | think if you are sick,
you should use the sick leave; if you are lucky enough not to be sick, | don’t think you should be able to
cash that out. It’s like an insurance policy, if your house burns down unfortunately the insurance comes in
and pays to rebuild the house. If your house doesn’t burn down, the insurance company doesn’t pay you a
bonus for your house not burning down. That’s the way | view this benefit for our employees.

The City had this policy where employees could accumulate a maximum of 135 days of sick leave and
upon death or retirement they could cash that out up to 90 days. So in 2003, the City made a change and
said for people who were hired before that time, that would stay the same. The people who were hired
after that the amount that they could cash out would be limited to 20% of their unused sick time, up to 90
days and in exchange for that, that limitation, they were given an unlimited amount of sick leave. They
could accumulate an unlimited amount of sick leave, so that if they became sick, as much sick leave as
they had, they could use, they were not limited. Not to introduce a volatile phrase but a quid pro quo, that
was the quid pro quo in exchange for limiting the amount that they could cash out, they would the ability to
use their sick leave in an unlimited fashion if they were sick.

This contract that came before us in September increased the amount from 20% to 35%; this is for the
employees hired after September of 2003. It increased the amount that they could cash out from 20% to
35% and that is why | was against it. And six others of you voted the same way and | am assuming that
you had the same reason.

So when this came back to us this time, | was under the impression that this had been fixed. My bad, |
didn’t really review the contract in detail, and | Know the Mayor talked about it but | really, | didn’t review it
myself, | wasn’t sure about it, so | voted with the rest of you to approve it. Now that the Mayor has vetoed
it, | have gone back and looked at this contract in detail and | see that what we have before us now, the
35% has been changed back to the 20% that existed before but it added not only can they cash out at
death or retirement, but they would be able to cash out if they resign after 15 years of employment, if they
choose to resign.

Now I’ve been, up until now, | won’t be any longer, | was the liaison to the Police Department and I’ve
heard them talk about how difficult the situation they find themselves in where they have got good people
that go through the excellent training that the State Police provides and we provide internally. After they
have had some experience with what is recognized as one of the best Police forces in the country; they
then find a better position somewhere else, they resign and leave. And to allow them to cash out their
unused sick time in that situation seems, you know, it seems like we are not doing ourselves a favor by
allowing people to resign and get this cash payout. | would think that we would want to discourage them
from resigning. So | don’t understand why we would be doing that.

As | look at this and | hear the Mayor talking about how if we sustain his Veto we will be continuing to
negotiate with the Police. You know I’ve heard the Police Chief talk in more detail than ever before about
the contract and the reasons that he has presented what he has presented. As the Mayor says, if we
sustain the Veto we will still have the opportunity to explore this in more detail, get more information and
not necessarily by sustaining the Veto, we are not necessarily rejecting the efforts of the Chief to try to
bring this to a resolution. | think it will keep the door open; | hear what the Mayor is saying about the
demands on our budget going forth, largely because of the health costs going up. | hope that we can come
up with some way of dealing with that.

Personally | have to take the side of the Mayor on this one and vote to sustain his Veto and keep the door
open for further negotiation.

Alderman Tencza
Thank you. And so | too when this contract first came around was concerned about the payouts for the sick

leave bank and | don’t think that is a trend that is sustainable for the City. But as | look at this contract now,
first | think these are civilian employees. | think right now the Police Department has a tougher time training

Board of Aldermen 1-02-2020 Page 9

and retaining Police Officers who are not covered under this contract. But really for me the reason that |
think that we should just approve this tonight is because as | look at the numbers for what the salary
increases would be per year, the difference between a 2% increase for these 16 employees versus a 3%
increase for the employees which the contract offers them is about $10,000.00 per year, a little over
$10,000.00 per year.

The Police Department’s Budget is $31 million dollars per year; | think this can easily be absorbed within
the budget and | trust that the Commissioners and the Chief will find a way to do that without coming back
and increasing their budget more than what we are going to have to ask them, the small amount we are
going to have to ask them to increase their budget in the future.

The other thing | would say is that you know the healthcare costs are factored into that; the healthcare
costs are going to go up regardless of what this contract is. That is a much bigger issue that we need to
work on and tackle, but given the limited scope of this contract, | think it is fair based in, like we said, like
the Chief said, based on the benefits that other people within the Department receive. | am sympathetic to
the Department Heads who are in the process of negotiating with different Collective Bargaining Units. |
think that is something that we have also talked about at the Board of Aldermen as you know how we can
be more uniform across the board for folks. But again, this contract is not going to fix that. We are going to
have to, as Alderman Dowd always tells us, we are going to have to take a look at every contract as it
comes before us on whether we can afford it. Although | respect the Mayor’s position on everything, | will
support this contract moving forward.

Alderman Clemons

Thank you. This Resolution is R-18-102, R-18-102. This came to the Board in 2018. We are in 2020; to
say that there hasn’t been enough discussion on this contract is just plain false. How can that be? How
can something that has been on the table and back and forth in different reiterations, coming to us in
different forms and shapes and to the Budget Committee and everything else. How can we say that it
needs to be discussed more? It doesn’t need to be discussed more. We had a version of it which | actually
preferred and this Board made the decision to go along with the Mayor and not approve that version, which
is fine. We tabled this and they came back with a different version; and then even that version was
changed on the night that we took it up at the Budget Meeting.

As my colleague just stated, the difference in price or cost is $10,000.00. In the grand scheme of a $250
million dollar plus budget, if that is too much to ask, then we really shouldn’t soend money on anything
moving forward. Because if we can’t afford $10 grand, then we need to step back and we need to look and
really dig deep. But see | don’t think that that’s the case. | am saying this because why was one contract
which had a 3% raise not vetoed, but this one is? If the problem was cost, the both of those should have
been in front of us tonight. So | am not sure where the disconnect is but | am going to support these
employees because they deserve to have a contract. These are 16 men and women that serve this City
well, that have been doing their job without a contract since July of 2018. They’ve been numerous
iterations of this, it has been sitting, going back and forth between the Budget Committee and the Board of
Aldermen and the Mayor’s Office and a number of different places for years, literally years. Now is the time
to act and | hope you all support me in overriding the Mayor's Veto.

Alderman Klee

Thank you. | think | am just going to basically be saying me too. And | do want to echo what Alderman
Tencza and Alderman Clemons said and in some cases kind of what Alderman Jette said. | do agree with
what you said about the sick leave. That does bother me, | think it is time for us to kind of, if what we want
to do is go back to what they had said about the 2003, we do need to hold our feet to the fire. But when |
look at this contract and the previous contract for the Police, what Alderman Clemons said was the point
that | was going to make when | first raised my hand, and that this started in Fiscal Year 2018. We first
heard about this and the word “3% raise” my hackles went up and | went, “I’m Social Security and | got a
1.6% raise this year’ and that was a big one because we haven’t seen that big one in a long time.

Board of Aldermen 1-02-2020 Page 10

So part of my was like “Well I’m only getting 1.6 why should they get 3?” But just because | only get 1.6
doesn’t mean somebody else doesn’t deserve something better and more. They are hardworking
employees and there are 16 of them. And if it is $10,000.00 more, | think every penny counts. So | don’t
want to say $10,000.00 is only a little bit of money because it is $10,000.00 here and $10,000.00 there.

But | look at as that we have to do the right thing. For two years they haven’t had a contract and for two
years we have been going back and forth. And maybe it has only been this past year that we really have
been going back and forth, but | think it is time to do it. This contract ends in Fiscal Year 2022 and | think at
that point, then maybe we really do need to renegotiate all of these healthcare issues straight down the line
and stop playing this game of “Well this Union gets it, and this Union doesn't get it’.

In the meantime, let’s just move this forward, keep our word and we said a couple a days ago. And | agree
with what Alderman Clemons said, | respect the Mayor and | don’t disagree with some of the issues he is
saying. At first | did say, maybe we should hold off on this and speak to others, what harm would it do?
But these people have been waiting a long time and | think it is time to move forward so thank you.
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Gidge, Ald. Harriott-Gathright, Ald. Dowd
Ald. Klee, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez, Ald. Caron, Ald. Kelly,
Ald. Melizzi-Golja, Ald. Tencza, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Clemons
Ald. Wilshire 14
Nay: Ald. Jette, 1
MOTION CARRIED TO OVERRIDE THE MAYOR’S VETO
Mayor's Veto of R-18-102, Amended, declared overridden.
Resolution R-18-102, Amended, declared duly adopted

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN THAT THE JANUARY 2, 2020, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED BY ROLL CALL

A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Ald. O’Brien, Ald. Gidge, Ald. Harriott-Gathright, Ald. Dowd

Ald. Klee, Ald. Laws, Ald. Lopez, Ald. Caron, Ald. Kelly,

Ald. Jette, Ald. Melizzi-Golja, Ald. Tencza, Ald. Schmidt, Ald. Clemons

Ald. Wilshire 15
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 7:51 p.m.

Attest: Susan K. Lovering, City Clerk

IB I

IBI GROUP

21 Custom House Street, 3% Floor
Boston, MA 02110 USA

tel +1 617 896 2500

February 7, 2020

Brian R. Colburn, P.E.
Senior Transportation Manager
McFarland Johnson

53 Regional Drive
Concord, NH 03301

RE: Proposal for the East Hollis Street Project in Nashua, NH.
Dear Brian,

Thank you for including IB] Placemaking as part of your team for the continuation of the East Hollis
Street project. We are thrilled to be continuing our streetscape projects with McFarland Johnson (MFJ).

It is our understanding that we will use the preferred alternative selected by NHDOT to produce a set
of construction bid ready documents for landscape scope items only. We will not be providing
construction administration services at this time.

PROPOSAL TEAM

Our team will include myself as the Project Manager and in-house professional staff for the
preparation of graphics, drafting and documentation, and/or other deliverables to ensure successful
and timely delivery of our work.

SCOPE OF SERVICE

This proposal is specifically for the Landscape Architectural scope associated with the approved
preferred alternative supplied by you on February 3, 2020. These services include:

e — Lighting design - Includes locating to meet minimum lumens values, fixture selection, and
specifications

Street furniture design — Assume some benches, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks
Landscaping design for softscape areas only

Specifications for landscape related scope items

Two submissions at 60% and 100%

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE (August 2020 — May 2021)

We will prepare one Construction Document package with submissions at 60% and 100%. These
documents will be produced in AutoCAD and will be augmented by specifications in Word format.

Formerly CRJA-IBI Group. IB] Placemaking is a member of the IBI Group of companies.

SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMEN
JANUARY 2, 2020

7:00 p.m. Aldermanic Chamber

PRESIDENT LORI WILSHIRE CALLS ASSEMBLY TO ORDER

PRAYER OFFERED BY CITY CLERK SUSAN K. LOVERING

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG LED BY ALDERMAN-AT-LARGE DAVID C. TENCZA

ROLL CALL

COMMUNICATIONS

From: Lori Wilshire, President, Board of Aldermen
Re: Special Board of Aldermen Meeting

From: Jim Donchess, Mayor
Re: Veto of R-18-102

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-18-102, Amended
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND UFPO LOCAL
645 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE NASHUA POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM
JULY 1, 2018 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022 AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS
e Mayor Vetoed — 12/30/19

ADJOURNMENT

Board of Aldermen
City of Nashua
229 Main Street

Nashua, NH 03061-2019
(603) 589-3030

Lori Wilshire
President, Board of Aldermen

December 30, 2019

Susan K. Lovering, City Clerk
City of Nashua ;

229 Main Street

Nashua, NH 03061-2019

Dear Ms. Lovering:

CEES erry 3 Ce rece

RP ey te “=
vo SOLE pao

Please be advised | am hereby calling a Special Meeting of the Board of Aldermen for Thursday,
January 2, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber relative to a communication received from

Mayor Donchess vetoing R-18-102.

Thank you.
a, W.

Lori Wilshire

President

cc: Mayor Jim Donchess

Steven A. Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Police Chief Michael Carignan

VETO MESSAGE

I have vetoed R-18-102, which is a union contract covering about 16 civilian
employees submitted by the Police Commission to the Board of Aldermen. J will
call R-18-102 the “Civilian Contract”. It was approved by the Board of Aldermen
on December 23, 2019.

To begin, I want to emphasize that in the combined 11 years I have served as
Nashua’s Mayor I have previously vetoed only two actions by the Board of
Aldermen. When we have been in disagreement, my approach has always been to
discuss issues and to try to reach mutually acceptable compromise. My aim has
always been to work with the Board unless the action taken is not in my analysis in
the best interests of our taxpayers or our citizens.

I am issuing this veto to protect the citizens of Nashua from tax increase while I
am mindful and appreciative of the outstanding service that all employees of the
Nashua Police Department provide to our great City.

As I expressed to the Board of Aldermen, I also opposed R-19-194 covering police
supervisors, which IJ will call the “Supervisors Contract”. Both contracts include
multiple 3% raises - which exceed the 2% cost of living - at a time when City
health care costs are rising rapidly. In addition, agreeing to a series of 3% raises
for two unions creates a troublesome precedent for other City negotiations.
Increasing wages by 3% year after year will build budgets which are not
sustainable.

The Board of Aldermen passed both contracts on 15-0 votes.

I am vetoing the Civilian Contract because in my opinion it is the more
objectionable of the two contracts. First, the amended version of the Civilian
Contract has upped total raises to 11.25% over 4 years while the original version
submitted to the Board of Aldermen included raises of only 9.5%. Second, the
Civilian Contract expands the City’s unused sick leave obligation. Additionally,
the Police Department has said it is down uniformed police officers and has
suggested that pay may be part of the reason. I have let the Supervisors Contract
become law without my signature.

In vetoing only one of the two contracts, I hope the Board of Aldermen will
consider my rationale for vetoing the Civilian Contract.

Nashua’s Health Care Costs Are Rising 20%, or $6 Million Over Just 2 years

We are in a time when health care costs are a state of instability across the nation.
Nashua is not immune from this instability.

Nashua’s health care costs for City employees are rising 20% - or $6 million - over
just 2 years. The increase this year (Fiscal 2020) is a $3.3 million increase or 11%
for a total health care budget of $33 million. Our experts project that health care
costs for next year (Fiscal Year 2021) will rise another 8.6% which will amount to
an almost $2.9 budget million increase — raising the City’s total health care budget
to about $36 million.

As a result, I believe City government must take the rising costs of health care into
account in considering long-term union contracts in order to keep tax rate increases
to a level that Nashuans can afford. As approved by the Board of Aldermen, R-18-
102 is multi-year contract which commits the City to significant additional costs
before we know what will be happening with health care costs 2, 3, or 4 years from
now.

To put this in perspective, a $6 million increase in health care costs equates to a
3% increase in the City’s tax rate.

In Order to Keep Tax Increases to a Minimum, I Have Urged that
Annual Raises be Limited to the 2% Cost of Living

The Civilian Contract is a long-term 4-year agreement which grants a series of
above the cost of living 3% annual raises at the same time when health care costs
are rising rapidly. I asked the Board to consider under current conditions limiting
raises to the cost of living or 2% per year.

Under the Nashua City Charter the primary responsibility of the Mayor is to
propose an annual City budget. I take this responsibility to mean that I must strike
the right balance between spending on quality services for our citizens plus fair
wages for our city employees, on the one hand, and arriving at a tax rate that our
citizens can afford, on the other hand.

The Need for More Uniformed Police Officers
Does Not Justify Giving Big Raises to Civilians

If inadequate pay for uniformed police officers is a reason that the Police
Department is not at full complement, then providing above the cost of living
wages to civilian employees does not help, but hurts in solving this problem.

Under current conditions we should be careful about how new funds are spent by
the Police Department. Every dollar directed to big raises for civilian employees is
one less dollar that can be deployed to hire keep uniformed police officers.

Over the course of the 4 years of the contract with the civilian employees, the
Police Department will need to pay a total of about $325,000 for the increase
wages included in the contract. Some or all of those funds could better be directed
to hiring additional uniformed officers.

The Police Commission Did Not Act Responsibly in Upping
The Total Raises for Civilian Employees from 9.5% to 11.25%

The Civilian Contract covers lawyers, information technology staff, and others.
When the Police Commission first submitted this contract to the Board of
Aldermen the contract included wage increases of 9.5% over 4 years. The union
had agreed to this 9.5% increase.

The original version of the contract also expanded the City’s potential unfunded
obligation to pay cash for unused sick time to the civilian employees to about
$350,000. Second, for the first time it obligated the City to pay for unused sick
time upon resignation, rather than just retirement. I have made my opposition to
any expansion of this unfunded liability very clear for a long time.

When the Board of Aldermen first voted on the Civilian Contract just before the
November city election, I asked that the Board to reject the contract because it
included an expansion of the unfunded obligation to pay cash for unused sick time.
On a divided vote the Board did not approve the contract.

When the Police Commission resubmitted the contract to the Board of Aldermen a
few weeks ago, the Commission did not simply remove the unused sick time
buyout provisions as requested. Instead the Commission upped the total wage
package increase from 9.5% to 11.25% including 3% wage increases in years 2, 3,