Search

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 10
city to deliver basic services, schools and everything else. | mean, it's just drives property taxes so high.

But let me let me ask this kind of basic question. Why does it matter so much that we go to 100%? And | pose the
question with this context. You know if GM has a, you know, a big pension system with a huge unfunded liability, |
believe, if they go bankrupt, which could happen, the pensioners don't get paid. | mean, that's a problem, obviously.
Now this New Hampshire retirement system has $11 billion in its coffers, so to speak but with the amount of money you
have coming in and with some degree of investment retum, it seems that you will always have enough to pay current
benefits. The situation | just suggested for GM is never likely going to happen. | mean, the State will never go bankrupt
or never end its existence. And therefore, will never be in a situation where it cannot - even if we just stayed at 61%,
we'll never be in a situation where it actually has to pay out everyone with nothing coming in because the only way that
this system would ever end is if the State ended, which means the United States ended, which means that there is no
pension. Pension assets are worth nothing. You know - stock market. If the country ends, none of this stuff is worth
anything. So aren't we sort of, you know, taking all this pain and all the money that we're putting in to achieve basically
when we're talking about a government entity such as this, a kind of an academic result, which is this idea that we have
to go to 100%. But is that really necessary in the context of a State that is, you know, one of the 50 that comprises the
United States?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

Yes Alderman, you are correct. We can continue to pay all of the benefits as they come due while being 80% funded.
However, that's not good fiduciary practice. The standard that any actuary will tell you is that you want to be 100%
funded. And one of the reasons why you want to be 100% funded is when you look at your own - the City of Nashua’s
financial statements, you have to pick up a proportion of the unfunded liability of NHRS on the face of your financial
statements. And...

Mayor Donchess

Well that's true but we can deal with that. | mean you're not ask, yeah okay there's this theory put forth by the actuaries
that we should be at 100%. Yes but they don't have to pay the money and they don't have to, you know, it's an
academic issue. That doesn't address the basic question | asked, which is the only way this system would ever end
even if we stayed at 60%, or 65, the only way that it would ever end is if the State went out of existence. | mean and
when that happens, it doesn't matter if we’re at 60% or 80, or at 100 because none of the assets will be worth anything.
So why is it So necessary in the context of a State? For the reasons that I've indicated, why is it so necessary to go to
100%? You'll always be able to pay the benefits as long as the country is still in existence.

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

Right that is correct. However, | would point out to you that one of the things that makes a difference is that the more
fully funded a pension fund is the better it can withstand market downturns. We know they're inevitable. Every few years
- every 10 or 15 years, there's a major correction in the market and the lower your funded ratio is when that financial
event happens, the greater the hit to your funded ratio.

Mayor Donchess
Well yes, that's certainly the case. Now, | think you said that the return for the year ended this past June 30 was 26%.

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

26.8% yes, that's correct.

Mayor Donchess

What impact did that have on the percentage funded, you know, did it drive that up or what happened?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

At this point, our actuaries are just beginning their work because our books are not yet closed for June 30 because we’re
still awaiting the results of the investments of some of our alternative investments. So those take a bit longer to come in

and so our actuaries are right now are working on assessing what additional liabilities were added during the past year
and the valuation of the assets.

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 11

Earlier, you asked what the contributions were that came in during the past year. There was a total of $722 million in
contributions. Yes this is less than the benefits that were paid and as Marty said, we are in a negative cash flow position.
But | would like you to know that this is very typical of what is referred to as a mature pension plan. That's why we have
the assets to pay the benefits.

Mayor Donchess

Just so I'm clear on this, so the 61% is as of June 30, 2020 as opposed to 21?
Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

That is correct.

Mayor Donchess

So you don't know yet whoever does this hasn't figured out yet what the percent funded is right now given a very strong
investment return for the last year?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

That's correct and | will remind you as we said earlier, our actuaries look at the value of the assets over the past five
years to average them rather than just look at the number for one year. As you can see on slide 19, the individual year’s
investment performance do vary a great deal. That's why they smooth them over time so that we can have a funded
ratio that reflects the past as well as the current.

Mayor Donchess

You know the most painful thing that has happened the last few years, this one was, you know, now and then that was
four years ago, | think, is the reduction in the assumed rate of return. Because that drives up the contributions without,
you know, the employer seeing really any benefit from it really.

So now you're at 6.75%. | noticed that Maine is at the same amount. The small pension that the Nashua runs - small
compared to yours for Public Works like, you know, they're 100 some employees now but, you know, they're more
beneficiaries. There’s actually 99%, funded as of June 30, 2021. And | sort of forgot where | was going with that, but we
are, you know, we are 99% funded and so we're happy about what has been achieved by the trustees of the Nashua
pension fund. Anyway, | will try to think of a few more questions, but I'm sure others have them.

President Wilshire

Yes. You stated in your presentation that you're very conservative and, you know, that's amicable. That's good as far as
the pension plan is concerned. But two things bother me. One is does the pension plan ever take into consideration
when they change the rules the impact that's having on the cities and towns of Nashua which may cause people to lose
their jobs that are part of the pension plan? You know, you said in one year, you get 1% on $11 million, right, billion?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System
11,038
Alderman Dowd

I'm retired and | have a retirement investment with a company and I've never get below 7% even in the down year. So |
don't know how we make 1% with that amount of money. | certainly don't have $11 billion in my account. So that's one
thing.

The other thing is that | have a pension from a major company and they are in about any high 80s, mid to high 80s all the
time and the end goal keeps getting moved out. Why are we so locked in on one certain year because that kills us as
well? So there's several points that that impact cities that | feel should be taken into account by the pension plan. It's a
State pension plan and the State doesn't contribute anything anymore. | Know that's a legislative thing but to me that's a
slap on the cities and towns in the State of New Hampshire. They started the plan with a high percentage and went to
zero. And | know you mentioned several times about mismanaging in Concord so | can understand that but a) the
percentage of monies that the State pays for the pension plan should be changed. | guess it just missed this past

WASH PRESS CHUTE MODIFICATIONS:

‘TASK DESCRIPTIONS Tr Jlsed
Principatin | Project Project Project Architectural) Structural | Structure! Electrical Admin, aajac SUBS Mark-
Charge Manager | Engineer | Engineer | Process CAD | Architect cap Engineer cap Engineer AD Engineer an Engineer Assistant | Manager |TOTALHOURS| NON-LABOR | SUBS COST LABOR TOTAL
Hourty $201.94 $187.53 $138.28 $105.49 $96.45 $150.70 $e7.al $158.24 $99.46 $138.66 $0.00 $261.25 $99.46 $19S.92 $99.46 $60.28 $204.95
A Preliminary Design WPC
1 Kk ot Meeting z a 4 10 $200 $1.35) $435:
E__ Wath Press Chute Tech Memo ‘ w fF Ea) «6 ’ 2 2 cy $9,531 99,5
| 3 Meet with Cry z 2 2 G $36
4 NUDES Coordination 2 2 2 €
a
Subtotals o a 20 20 24 16 8 2 ° ° Q ° 0 ° 0 a ° 102 $200) $0) $9 $12,361 $12,561)
B Final Design WPC
__—_—__
3__ 60% Design Oocuments & Cost Estimate i 4 D D 0 a OD D Ey $651] $6,71:
2 95% Design Documents & Cost Entimate 2 ‘ ; ‘ ‘ ‘ 6 ‘ 2 $5.13: $5,431
3 Final Plans, Tech Specs & Cost 2 2 5 a 4 4 4 4 R $3a65} $4s
o
°
Subtotals ° 6 10 Er] 16 a8 18 18 1B ° ° ° ° ° 0 ° ° 128 $400] $0) $o $15,509) $15;
2 Bidding WeC
“Allowance + 7 + 7 ry a 355: 355:
o
Subtotals ° o 1 t ° 1 a 1 ° ° 0 Q ° ° ° 0 ° ‘4 $9} $0) $583] $ssa]
TOTAL PROJECT HOURS o 1 aL as a 38 26 21 18 ° ° 0 ° 0 o 4 0 24 $600 $0 $0 $28,423] $29,023]
Total Labor $28,423
Nen-Labor $600
Subcontractor $0
Sub Markup $o
Total Fee $29,000
TOTAL ALL PROJECTS $78,300

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 12
season.

Also, it appears to me that the only reason you get to 100% funding is so you can close down the pension system. You
pay everybody off, and have a nice day, go another way. | don't see why anybody has to get to 100%. There's nothing
that | can see that drives that. So | think the investments are too conservative. The State's not paying their share and
the implications of the percentages that we have to pay as a city and town based on the fact that we're not making out
money and our investments which seem to be far too conservative even for a pension plan are costing cities and towns
significantly. | think someone needs to look at that and change it. For instance, you just said you made 26% this past
year. When is that going to be sent down to the city so we don't have to pay as much? Is that going to impact us in 22?
Are we gonna wait and see what happens in ‘23 and it's always way behind?

You know as Chair of Budget, | can tell you that hugely impacts when we start looking at city spending. Quite frankly if it
hadn't been for the pension plan and something else, we probably wouldn't have had a tax increase this year in property
taxes. It's all being driven from Concord, which I'm including a pension plan. Those are questions | have | have others
but I'll just go with that one.

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

| just like to add another reason to get to 100% funding is that we no longer will have to pay off the unfunded liability at
that time and at that point, the total contributions for the employer and the members can be closer to the normal cost
which is significantly less than what they are now. The normal cost for the different plans is shown on page 20.

Mayor Donchess

| remembered what | was going to ask you which is very related to the assumed rate of return. Do you anticipate another
reduction? | mean, it's 6.75%. Isn't that good enough? | mean it seems to be what Maine is doing. It's close to what
we're doing. | mean do you really anticipate a drop to six and a quarter or do you think we can stay at six and three
quarters?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

That's hard to say. It depends on what happens. Our actuaries go through a very detailed process of assessing what
they think our assumed rate of return is. The first thing that they do is they look at what are the expectations for inflation
in the future. And once they do that, then they also look at what they think the different elements of our portfolio will
eam. So they come up with a number for what percent return will US stocks have. What percent will US bonds have?
International stocks? International bonds? Real estate? Private equity? And they come up with a weighted average
that reflects our portfolio and that's how they come up with 6.75%.

So if there are changes in the expectations in the next few years over where inflation is going or what the expected rates
of return for different investments if that changes, then the actuary will develop a recommendation for the Board to
consider and the Board members are fiduciaries and they have to do what is the right thing for the pension plan and its
members. That's their sole responsibility as fiduciaries. Did you want to add anything?

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

If | can sort of address somewhat Alderman Dowd's question and kind of loop back to the Mayor's question as well about
the 100% funding, and | think it's a very reasonable question to ask us that okay, we're going to be paying, you know,
15% of the city budget until 2039, and then we're going to be paying 2%. How is that, you know, make any sense? And
that question did come up during the Decennial Commission back in 2017. That's where the layered amortization that |
mentioned earlier in brief, you Know, came into account and what that is, is, you Know, the Commission looked at it from
the perspective of, you know, we're reaching, you know, if we get to our 100% funding target, you know, that's, you
know, all fall steam ahead. The rates are gonna be what the rates are going to be get there. Then they're going to be
extremely low, you know, going forward when we reached that funding level and they felt that well what happens after
2039? What if we have another downturn? What if we are over 100% funded? The rates could, you know, become
extremely low. So in the 10 years since 2007 when they put in the 30 year amortization and 30 years seem like a long
time to, you know, people 30 years in the past, they, you know, actuarially this concept of layered amortization has come
into favor and a lot of States have done this where you freeze the lot - your old liabilities and you pay those off by a hard
stop.

They passed the layered amortization language in 2018. So the liability as of July 1° of 2017, which is 5 of the 6 billion,
so it's not a small number, that's going to be paid off by 2039 under the current funding plan but the additional billion in

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 13

liabilities we've added since then primarily due to the rate decrease. To the Mayor's point is going to be paid off in a 20
year layer between 2023 and 2043. So basically we won't be 100% funded by 2039. We don't have to ever be 100%
funded again unless the markets, you know, put us over the top, but this layered amortization sort of creates a future
buffer so that, you know, the liabilities can't grow to the extent that they have that you all are having to pay for in this
moment in time.

Taking 20 year layers of two year, you know, funding return increments going forward - and that includes gains - so this
2021 is going to probably be a gain that we'll be recognizing over 20 years as well. Some of that 26.8%. So it has
smoothed it out. It doesn't take away any of the short term pain, you know. We're not saying that but it was a
recognition, you Know, by the Commission, and legislators, and our Board supported the idea as well that this is a way to
get closer to 100% funded but not having to have this, you know, audit, this holy grail of 100% you know I'm July 1* of
39 or June 30" of ‘39 | should say. So you know there is a little more wiggle room in that now because future gains and
losses are going to be spread out. This will be the fourth year since 2017. So it’s not smoothing anything much out yet.
Most of that debt is still being paid off on top of the existing debt. But the layered amortization, again, it's a very good
circuit breaker to keep the liabilities and the funding from getting to where they were in the past. So you know if we can
get into a 90 plus percent funded, as Jim pointed out, it's a lot easier to withstand a market downturn. In that case, you
know, we lost probably 8 to 10% of our funding ratio and from the low 60s to the lower 50s back in 2009.

State of Wisconsin, which is one of the sort of gold standard plans out there, they were 100% funded in 07. They went
down to like 94, you know, and then they got back to full funding fairly quickly in the early 2010. So, you know, the closer
you are to full funding, the easier it is to absorb those market swings.

President Wilshire

Attorney Bolton.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Is it possible to do more layers and extend things out further? And what | mean is, you started you had a 6 billion
unfunded mandate. And you say, okay in 30 years, we're going to take care of 5 billion of that and then we're going to
give ourselves another four years to deal with that last 1 billion. Could you said okay in 30 years, we'll take care of the
first half - 3 billion - and then over the next 10 years, we’ll take care of the next 1 billion, and then 10 years further to take
care of another billion, and then 10 years further, another billion? So it will take 60 years instead of 30 years but it
spreads it out further. You're always making progress and you don't get these big hits and then dramatic drop off at
some point. Maybe at 60 years you get a drop off but the drop off is being gradual and presumably the increases to
municipalities would be more gradual than there they are under the current plan. So would that work?

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

From perspective of actuarial standards, you know, and accounting standards, they promote this theory of generational
equity so that the debts that are accrued, you know, the same generation of taxpayers is paying for it as, you know, who
were there at the time that the liabilities were accrued. Standards are like 15 to 20 years is what they would consider a
generation for the purpose of funding liability. So it would be...

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

It would be certainly not what's happening under the present plan.

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

Absolutely. You folks in New Hampshire are the poster child for what happens when there isn't generational equity
because honestly, you know, anybody who, you know, bought a house 10 years ago, the person who was living there 20
years ago had a pretty sweet deal and you're paying for it now. We need to get away from that.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

But stretching it out over time seems to be fair in other circumstances. But anyway, so it could be done. You're just
saying it would deviate from the principle of generational equity.

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 14

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

The auditors may have an issue with it as well.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

It seems like there's a willingness to deviate from that principle in the other direction. Thank you.

Alderman Dowd

Yes. | could be wrong and correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me like you're making your investment decisions on
a very short term basis and because of a downturn in the market. The other thing that happens over that period of time
is spikes in the market. And if you look at the Standard and Poors the stock market over the last 40 - 50 years, it's ona
pretty even growth. | mean there are spikes one way or the other but it's growing. Same thing with the bond market. So
why are you not using the average return? You know, like 1% last year, 26% this year, somewhere in between because
the numbers that you're using and the goals that you're shooting for are hurting cities and towns. We can't take any
more hits like we've had in the last four years. | don't know if you have any plan but, you know, I'm hoping that things are
going to either stay the same or get better as far as the pensions concerned going forward.

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

Mr. Alderman, | can assure you that NHRS is a long-term investor. We have a very long-term horizon for our
investments. And because we are a long-term investor rather than a short term investor, we can invest in assets like real
estate and private equity which have a long-term horizon so that we can get the excess returns that those investments
have. Stocks - you are correct. They have done very well over time, but they have had, as you noted, significant peaks
and valleys. That's why we are committed at NHRS to have a diversified portfolio so that when one type of investment
doesn't do well, another type typically does so we can have good risk adjusted returns over time.

Alderman Dowd

But across the board, how can you with $11 billion come up with 1%? To me that your investments should be drawing
far more than that. You can get 1% on a savings account. | mean, so why are we reflecting the 1% back on the cities
and towns for that year? And why aren't we now saying we got 26% in this past year, let's change with the cities and
towns owe now because we've made a lot more money?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

Well this year's valuation will be part of the next rate setting process. And so it will be included in that.

Alderman Dowd

But not til ‘23.

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

Correct because we set rates on a two-year basis.

Alderman Dowd

That's one of the things that servings and...

Mayor Donchess

Do you adjust the assumed rate of return every two years or every four?

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

If it's going to change, it's part of an experience study which would be every four years. So we're not going to look at that
again short of, you know, major economic disruptions before Fiscal ’23 and the actuarial would make recommendations

in early ‘24 on any changes to assumptions they would recommend based on their study. | think Director Goodwin may
take me under the table and the actuarial certainly would but the return that we had this year is very favorable for rates

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 15

staying at least flat in the 24 — ‘25 rate cycle compared to ‘22 - ‘23. Whether they'll go down, we don't know because of
other liabilities.

The goal is trying to have relatively stable rates even if they're at a higher level than they had been in the past. You
didn't see that this year. You had a 20% increase, you know, so but this is good news but one year doesn't make or
break the pension system. The 1.1% last year, that was lower than a lot of our peers, you know, which is not usually the
case but that's a June 30" of ‘20 number, you know, three months into the pandemic and the economy and the markets
really recovered in the second half of 2020. If you had a calendar your 401k statement versus a June 30", you'd see
those single digits, you know, with other plans.

One of the reasons why our assumed rate of return is where it is and a lot of plans are we're not probably been at least a
half a dozen maybe 10 plans that have lowered it since last year since we did, is fixed income, which is about 25% of our
portfolio. Some plans it's more some or it's less by a few points, but you're not getting any interest on, you know, bonds
and fixed income anymore. Back in the ‘80s, you could have bonds paying 10 - 12% and so you have this floor and you
think you can manage the volatility in the equity markets because you know you were making X from fixed income and
that's not the case anymore. That's what's been driving rates down over the past decade for pension plans is the interest
rates have just remained near the bottom.

Alderman Dowd

| wasn’t quite sure of your answer on the - so you say that the 26% is going to be reflected and as far as our 2023
budget. So the amount we pay to the State is going to be less than we're paying in
22?

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs
24 —’25.
Alderman Dowd

Well cities can't wait that long. You know you shouldn't be doing it that far out. You know it ought to be looked at a lot
closer because, you know, we shouldn't be paying the millions of dollars that we're paying in ‘23 when you don't need it.

| mean, you can say you need it because you're gonna add it to your $11 billion but cities like Nashua, Manchester,
Portsmouth, Dover, you know, there's a lot of things that can't be done in the city budget because we're covering for a
low percentage rate that was estimated a year ago or two years ago instead of what you're getting on a return now. That
to me seems very unfair.

Alderman Lopez

So to Alderman Dowd’s point, I'm getting the sense that we're the long-term investment. At some point, the State said
let's get all the municipalities on board and then when we're not able to invest effectively, they'll carry it. That's causing
problems for Nashua particularly. When we talk about generational equity, I'm sorry Aldermen Laws but it looks like your
daughter is going to be a voter before we actually manage to carry this 0% philosophy thing that we're looking at for a
debt. This is causing real problems for Nashua citizens today. We have to look at how we're keeping fire stations open,
whether we can keep schools open, what services you can offer because there's that interest in getting to that O%
unfunded number.

So my question is, is who's determining that number? Is that the State legislature and as a collective act of governance,
or are you determining that number? And is there any transparency in terms of what you're investing in? Because
there's some pretty big investment funds that are very long term and they do much better than what it seems like what's
happening even with the 1% return? It's not a unique situation to New Hampshire's retirement fund. Everybody's
investments recovered and were able to report that so what's different and how does the average taxpayer look at how
New Hampshire retirement invests and say that's what | want to advocate for?

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

We have annual reports and quarterly reports sort of listing the managers by section, you know, with historical and
quarterly returns. So the information is out there in our annual investment report. All the managers that we employ are
listed. The Independent Investment Committee typically meets monthly and in public session to review the investments
interview. Newmont managers make decisions on terminations, things like that. You know its portfolio is consistent with,
you know, most public sector investments. In some ways, you know, we don't go into hedge funds or anything like that

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 16

like some plans do but everybody has a mix of, you know, real estate and equity.

Alderman Lopez

And that 18 years of catch up planned?

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

The amortization for 2039 is Statutory. So that's something that's in the law in terms of the investment decisions in the

determination of the assumed rate of investment return the Board or the Investment Committee deals with that. So
there's sort of a bifurcation on the funding versus investments.

Alderman Lopez
That 100% is that all in the amortization plan?
Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

That that's in the Statute. Yes, the statutory. The details of the plan are but the funding goal is enshrined in the Statute.

Alderman Lopez

And is that a product of your office or is that a product of State legislation?
Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

State legislation. We as a Bboard at NHRS doesn't take sides on the benefit increases, or decreases, or things like that.
That's a central function left of the plan sponsor, which is the State. We'll run the numbers for proposals, but we typically
don't advocate for or against outcomes unless they're really fiduciary challenging to us or would be tax violations and
things like that.

Alderman Lopez

Right and | think it's important to gauge your influence on this so that we can figure out who we should be talking about.
President Wilshire

All set Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

Yep, thank you.
Alderman Schmidt

Thank you, Madam President. The reason | was really glad when | heard that you were going to be here today was |
wanted to make it make it clear that what happens when we get a bill of $29 million? Property taxes go up. That's how
we fund this. This last year when you only made 1.1%, a lot of people here lost money. A lot of people here lost their
jobs. There's people who can't pay their rent. This is hard on us. This is not the time for this to go up and I'm very, very
disappointed that there's this goal of 100% when we're talking about people. When we're talking about them staying in
their houses. That's the real issue that | see in this entire thing. | see how you're stuck because of what the legislature
has done and we should work on that. But we also have to understand that we're people at this point and this is very,
very important to us at this horseshoe. Thank you.

Alderman Jette

Thank you, Madam President. So | echo the Mayor's comment that he doesn't want to shoot the messenger. We
understand that you're the messengers but | have several questions. One is when you first started talking, you talked
about how we were the second largest participant in the retirement system. | think I've heard you say that Manchester is
separate. Is Manchester not in the State retirement system?

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 17
Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

City employees only have a separate plan in Manchester much like your Public Works folks do in Nashua. But the
teachers, police, and fire who work in Manchester are part of NHRS.

Alderman Jette

Okay. My second question is to Alderman Lopez’s question. This idea of 100% funding did you say that that's a
decision that the legislature made that you have nothing to say about that? Is that correct?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

It is a decision that the legislature made, Sir, and speaking as fiduciaries even though we're not Board members we are
staff, and that does make us fiduciaries. It is the right thing for the plan to do to have a goal of being 100% funded.

Alderman Jette

Okay. So that may be ideal but do you know what banks are required when banks lend out money and they have a
liability to their borrowers? Do they have to hold 100% of those assets? Do you know?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

No. Banks are subject to different rules and regulations than pension funds are because they’re different types of
enterprises.

Alderman Jette

Do you have any idea what percentage banks are required to hold?
Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

| personally do not know.

Alderman Jette

| don't know either but | suggest it’s a lot less than 100%. | pick the same is true of insurance companies. This idea of
100%, you know, being an ideal | understand from what you're saying that the legislature has made this decision but it
does not seem in spite of you're saying that it's the right thing to do, | don't think anybody else does it. So I'm not sure
how right a thing it is to do. And it's an easy decision to make for the legislature when at the same time the legislature
has opted out of funding this at all. They've gone from 40 - 35% to zero. So it's easy for them to say you're to fund this
at 100% but we're not going to contribute anything. | know it's not your decision and I'm not trying to shoot the
messenger but it's a hard for me and | don't know if you can justify it, but it's hard for me to find a justification for this
position. | echo what my other fellow Aldermen have said. This is really hurting not only Nashua but all the cities and
towns. Thank you

President Wilshire
Alderwoman Lu? Alderwoman Lu? Is there anyone else that has questions?
Alderman O'Brien

Thank you, Madam President. | really want to thank you folks and for coming down here. | hope you don't really feel
that you're in the middle of a lion's den, you know and if you did, | apologize. But | think the other Aldermen have really,
truly express their opinion. What you’re going to do with it, | don't know/. As a State Representative as well, | appreciate
the non-partisanship of the New Hampshire Retirement System. You guys do not take sides to the political games that
exist up there. You try to do your best to advise the legislature and I'm under the impression at times the real problem
with the New Hampshire Retirement System is 400 legislatures and it seems.

Last year, | wrote a Bill to put in just 15%, or excuse me, 5% to get back to the 35. Just 5%. It was defeated. Nashua is
dealing with cities and towns up there that don't employ the amount of firefighters, and police, and teachers that we do.
We have some schools, elementary schools that’s probably bigger than some SAUs in some communities. They might

Special Board of Aldermen 09-21-2021 Page 18

have a handful of teachers. We've got more than a handful in this town.

So | don't know what message you can bring back. I've already banged my head against the wall up there in Concord. |
am proud of my fellow delegation that has gone up there and | did have to support that 5% trying to get it back into the
pension system. But that 5% would have helped the Nashua taxpayer and that's what we're really talking about here.
These other people from the hinterlands of, you know, wherever they have cows, and barns, and everything great for
them. We in the city have broad shoulders down here and we're expected to put out fires, and manage a police
department, and educate children that come from other communities, and everything. So things are going good but we
would appreciate some support from Concord but we're not getting it. | just hope in the future, and like | say, I'm very
appreciative coming here like this but in the future, | don't know what you can do. | mean as a legislator we will try more.

I've seen games and I'll ask you just one final question if | may. When you have a pension system, people is dumped by
percentages. So if a police officer, or a firefighter, or a teacher what they get paid a percentage goes into the pension
system. It's the same percentage in Canaan as it is in Nashua. What he withdraws is based upon that percentile that he
puts into the system. So | heard on the legislative floor that it is what Nashua pays its employees. It has nothing to do
with that if we follow the law of percentages. Am | correct?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

Yes. The contributions are based on the salaries and it's the same percent for each of the participants in the plan
whether it's Nashua, or Portsmouth, or any other city or town. It's the same percent.

Alderman O’Brien

Yeah and | thank you for that answer because a lot of our teachers that do yeoman work within our school system, the
firefighters, the police officers that accepts their duties, and a lot of work realize that and unfortunately | think every State
Rep. in the room has heard that before echoed in the chamber up there. Oh it's what you guys pay in Nashua has
nothing to do with it. It's strictly the larger percentages. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Alderman Dowd.

Alderman Dowd

Yeah just two quick things. One - several people asked me if the State of New Hampshire has a lot of - | hate to use the
term “elderly” cuz | probably fall on it but | don't know how that shifting are we getting younger or older which would affect

the pension, particularly people that are retiring.

But the other question | have is when you say 100% funded, that means that you have enough money in the plan that if
every single person working today retired today, you could pay them their pension? Is that's correct?

Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of NH Retirement System

Yes.

Alderman Dowd

Major companies — thousands of them, as I've looked at them - don't get to 100% because not everybody that they have
is eligible for retirement for a long time. So there's a vast number of people in the retirement system that couldn't retired
if they wanted to. So to have the money to pay them for retirement for the major companies in the United States doesn't
make sense. So why have that money? So why are our States different in that they feel they need a dollar for every
person that could possibly is in the system for retirement, they can't retire till they reach 20 years. To me, that doesn't
make sense either.

Again, by the way, I'm not here to shoot the messenger. We appreciate your being here and we're just using you as a
conduit to get some information back to Concord.

Marty Karlon, Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs

Thank you for having us. It was very civil and a good conversation and if hopefully we had some answers. It may not