Search

Board of Aldermen Page 6
June 14, 2016

government overreach is never a good thing, this seems to be a very positive and proactive step which
would help to make people more proactive rather than reactive as our Mayor indicated when he stated
that the one hotel only fixed their violations when the city went out and identified them. As a homeowner
| identify what’s wrong with my home and | fix it before somebody comes in and tells me something is
wrong. | know, | just put 44 windows in my house and resided it because | knew there was an issue.
Again, while the appeals process seems to be an issue there is no Appeals Board so going to court
seems to be the logical way to handle this. Again, the Nashua Housing Authority supports this and
maybe delving into that appeal process even deeper. | defer to the Mayor and Alderman Siegel on this
and Alderman LeBrun. | apologize for my brief comments and now | am going to exit because | have six
more cases upstairs.

Mr. Don Dobens, 210 Pine Street, #11

| have a couple of questions on the substandard property Bill. In the beginning | was under the
impression that this was started and letters were sent to property owners, am | correct on that?

President McCarthy

This is public comment.
Mr. Dobbins

Well, | am just trying to find out the information that | didn’t have.

President McCarthy

| cannot answer questions at this time.
Mr. Dobbins

Well, | understand it was sent out to a couple of people and to the best of my knowledge nobody that’s
here in this room now and like that...then the property owners of Nashua ended up having an attorney
come in and talking. | thought there was consensus that the property owners, whether it’s residential,
multi-family, mixed use commercial and multi-family or straight commercial or industrial; they are all
under the same rule unless | am mistaken. | was under the impression that we were going to have some
input and it seems like what ended up happening is the minutes of the meeting where the attorney had
his input was taken into consideration and then the Board or Commission made a decision not to include
the property owners in the process so we could have any input. | think it’s interesting because the Mayor
just had something in the newspaper where he wanted input on the budget but not on this topic. |
personally think because of that ideally this should be pushed back and at least allow the property
owners in Nashua to have an input on this process. It just seems like it is a situation of exclusionism
which really bothers me to tell you the truth because that means all of the people in Nashua; if they want
to come up and get included in a project they are going to be rejected. Thank you.

Attorney Courtney Ball, Nicosia & Associates, P.C.

| am here filling in for Attorney Peter Nicosia who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. He obviously,
as you noted, made attempts to have the meeting tabled until the 28'" of June but that request was
denied. | am here to represent the Association of Nashua Property owners opposed to O-16-003. | have
copies of the memo that Attorney Nicosia drafted but | assume everyone has a copy. Addressing the
audience, Attorney Ball asked if anyone wanted a copy of the memo to follow along.

Bennett — Prescott, LLC
179 Amherst Street
Nashua, NH 03064

December 7, 2016

Mr. William McKinney
Building Official/Manager
Department of Building Safety
City of Nashua

Nashua, NH 03064

RE: Prescott Square Buildings A— B--C

Dear Mr. McKinney,

Please find this as our formal request for consideration of reassignment of prepaid fees for
permits issued related to 8uildings A — B — C at Prescott Square Condominium in accordance with the
City of Nashua Revised Ordinances Chapter 105: Building Construction, Article VI: Fees, Section 105-21
Permits and fees. B.

in October of 2007, Building Permits were issued for Buildings A— B ~ C to Bennett-Prescott, LLC
for the construction of 3 - 8 unit buildings. Also in October of 2007, Plumbing and Mechanical Permits
were issued for the same Buildings A — B—C. In June of 2008, Electrical Permits were also issued for
Buildings A- B—-C.

As most in the industry and beyond know, the financial collapse nationwide that took place in
the fall of 2008 crippled the Real Estate world and especially condominium projects. The result of those
conditions was that we were greatly impacted at this project in that we were forced to rent ten
completed units and halt active construction on these 3 - 8 unit buildings. For the past 8 % years, we
maintained the project to the extent that even irrigated lawns around these foundations were fertilized
and mowed and all related paved areas were kept free of snow during winter months. We have
maintained annual property tax payments of $20,000+ per year, $16,000 of which is allocated for the
improvements related to the subject 3 — 8 unit building foundations and utilities.

The point to this history is to help frame the base for this request, that for reasons beyond our
control we were forced to suspend the completion of the project until such time as construction
financing for condominium projects such as this became available and stable. We intend to begin
construction the first of January, 2017 and build all three buildings throughout the 2017 and early 2018
construction season.

We fully understand that your staff spent time reviewing applications, plans and provided
administrative support, not to mention several field inspections. We would ask that you consider the
costs of those services provided and request that you allocate the balance of what we paid in 2007 as

represented below and apply it toward the costs of re-permitting the project.

Address | Date Bidg Elec Plumb Mech School Total
issued Permit . Permit Permit Permit {| Impact Fee
Fee Fee Fee Fee
8-22 10/1/2007 | $1,820.00 | $733.50 $613.00 | $261.00 | $5,378.00 | $8,805.50
Bennett
St. “C"
15-29 10/1/2007 | $1,820.00 | $733.50 $613.00 | $261.00 | $,5378.00 | $8,805.50
Bennett
St. “A”
31-45 10/1/2007 |} $1,820.00 | $733.50 $613.00 | $261.00 | $5,378.00 | $8,805.50
Bennett
St. “B”
Total $5,460.00 | $2,200.50 | $1,839.00 | $783.00 | $16,134.00 | $26,416.50

Thank you for your consideration,

heen Slab

Kevin Slattery, Manager

Bennett-Prescott, LLC

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Monday, January 23, 2017, at 6:30 p.m. in the
Aldermanic Chamber.

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

The roll call was taken with 12 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman Clemons, Alderman
McGuinness and Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja were recorded absent.

Mayor James W. Donchess is attending his Ward meeting and unable to attend.
Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton was also in attendance.
COMMUNICATIONS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY
MOTION CARRIED

From: Brian S. McCarthy, President, Board of Aldermen
Re: Special Board of Aldermen Meeting

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy

We didn’t have public comment on the agenda because the agendas are just done specially for special
meetings. If there is anyone who would like to speak please come forward and give your name and address.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne Drive

| will refer to R-17-087. | completely agree with everything in this resolution. Yesterday in the newspaper you
can see | did a substantial article on the subject and I’ve done a lot of studying on the subject and I’ve learned
a lot of information on the New Hampshire Retirement System and the people that run the fund and on that
’ve based a lot of my information. Now referring to this resolution | would like to make some suggestions.
First of all, on the second paragraph where it mentions that Nashua was induced to join the NHRS based on
the fact that the state would contribute a sizable amount of money. The state contributed 35% and in 2012
they reduced that to zero. There was a one-time payment that year of $3.5 million and that was it so now local
municipalities and this is throughout the state are left to pay the entire bill. The state contributes nothing
except for their own employees. | would suggest in the third paragraph that you mention 35%. It mentions
here about the powers of return and | don’t Know if you noticed it but the rate of return last year on the pension
fund was 1%, not 7.25%, not 7.75% but 1%. The second thing that | wanted to mention is that it mentions
here the public works retirement system. | placed some questions into Dave Fredette who | guess is involved
with that system but if you look at the 2016 CAFR report on page 87 you will find that the public works pension
fund is funded at 80% and | suggest you take a look at the 2016 CAFR report on page 87. It mentions 80%.
There is nothing wrong with 80%. Many financial managers say that 70% - 80% is fine. 80% is fairly
accepted but 100% is crazy. If you owe a mortgage on a house, let’s say you owe $400,000 on your home
and you make payments of $1,000 or $2,000 per month, it means that you put in a bank account the full
$400,000 just in case you lose your job and everything else falls apart you’ve got $400,000 to pay for your
debt, it’s crazy, nobody does it. By comparison social security's fund, if you assume that the $4 trillion is
actually cashed it’s a security |OU but if that is an asset the social security if fund is funded at about 24% and
that’s very low. 80% should be mentioned here instead of 85%. The next paragraph over it mentions what

Special Board of Aldermen Page 2
January 22, 2017

the payments are. | calculated all of those out and | got a complete rundown of the entire list of retirees and
you can see how much the state pays and how much the Nashua School District employees pay and how
much Nashua city employees pay and you compute all of that out on spreadsheets and you'll find that indeed
the city’s part of both the pension fund and the medical subsidy is around $6 million and for this year alone
$21 million is 3 % times what it needs to pay the pension fund if you paid exactly what it's owed. Nobody is
saying that you should only pay for what you owe like social security you pay the money in and pay the money
out. They should have the money saved for the future. The point here is 3 % times, it’s a very large sum of
money and next year it will be more, it will be $24.2 million by my calculation and it will go up after that
because the rates are going to change, the rates that the State of New Hampshire tell you that you should pay
toward your retirement fund, the teachers, the police and the firemen. Finally, this is important, before the
state legislature there are six bills for the retirement. Three of those have a significant effect on the money
paid by local municipalities; HB369, HB425 and HB413 have a significant effect on what we pay for Nashua.
HB 369 recommends a 30-year period to pay and be (inaudible) from the liability; it wants to change that to
forty years. If you look at the information provided with the states analysis; that would have a payout to
Nashua of about $3.7 million. Our share of the state is about 7% of the state’s bill. Our retirement bill is
around $44 million and the states bill is about $659 million. That’s what we pay retirees, $44 million in Nashua
and $654.9 million is the state’s bill. So if you take the 7% and put it as our share because there is no reason
that share would change anytime soon, does it pay off in HB369 of $3.7 million for police, firemen and
teachers. HB425 changes the contribution, the investment rate from 7.25% back to 7.75%. That would save
Nashua taxpayers $3 million. | think that’s unrealistic, 7.75% is a very high number considering that last year
it was 1% but obviously you have to use a lot of money. You have a $700 billion retirement cash fund and you
vest that at 7.25% versus 7.75%, that’s a lot on money. HB413 says for the state to go back and contribute
15% and that would add $3.53 million. Alderman LeBrun is a sponsor of HB369 and HB425 with mostly
Hillsborough County people. LeBrun is not a sponsor of HB413 because | presume having 50% paid by state
means it stays with the taxpayers so it’s still a tax that needs to be paid. | recommend that you place in this
text that you support the state and HB369, HB425 and HB413 or any combination thereof. Finally, you
mention here why you need 100% funding. If you go to 80% funding, and | mentioned that in the article that |
wrote yesterday, it’s very simple, if our bill is $6 million, if our actual cost to pay retirees for the pensions fund
and the medical subsidy, the medical subsidy is a sizable amount of money, it’s $6 million and our bill is $21
million; the difference is $15 million. You have 80% funding and 60% funding now and if you go to 100%
funding you’ve cut that in half and make it 80% funding that comes across the board as an equal percentage it
would save $8 million. That’s a really big bang. Why be insistent on 100%, it’s not clear. The Board of
Trustee’s does not have it in the law, it’s not written in the law. Constitution Article 636 mentions that the
actuary rates have to be fully funded. If the actuary says 80% is fine and they set the rates based on 80% of
funding then that’s fully funded. The state constitution doesn’t mention 100% funding of a fund, in fact, state
law doesn’t mention 100% funding of a fund. It’s the actuaries’ and the bookkeepers and the retirement
systems that say it should be 100% funded. The state law should say funding at 80% and | wouldn’t see the
problem. Our payoff is enormous; it’s $8 million and $8 million next year and even more in the year after.
That’s my recommendations, thank you very much.

NEW BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-17-087
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
SUPPORTING EFFORTS BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO REDUCE THE DOWNSHIFTING
OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Given its first reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE THAT THE RULE BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR
THE SECOND READING OF R-17-087
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-087 given its second reading;

Special Board of Aldermen Page 3
January 22, 2017

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-087

ON THE QUESTION

President McCarthy

City Clerk Piecuch, if amendments are made can we get the amended copy printed, signed and copies for the
hearings tomorrow morning.

Ms. Piecuch
Yes, we should be able to do that.
Alderman Deane

Mr. Teeboom referred to the CAFR and the percentage that the public works pension plan was funded at 80%
and here it says 85%. Did Treasurer Fredette tell him it was at 80% or did he take 80% out of the CAFR and
has there been a significant increase?

President McCarthy

| think he looked at the CAFR. | took that number from what | traditionally knew it to be.
Alderman Deane

Should it be brought down to the 80%?

President McCarthy

| would suggest that we amend that to 80%.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO AMEND PARAGRAPH FOUR TO CHANGE THE “WHICH IS
FUNDED TO ABOVE 85%” TO “WHICH IS FUNDED AT 80%”
MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ TO AMEND PARAGRAPH THREE TO CHANGE “NEW HAMPSHIRE’S
CONTRIBUTIONS” TO READ “NEW HAMPSHIRE’S 35% CONTRIBUTIONS”
MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO AMEND PARAGRAPH ONE TO END WITH THE PHRASE
“SUCH AS HB413,” PARAGRAPH TWO TO END WITH THE PHRASE “SUCH AS HB369” AND
PARAGRAPH FOUR TO END WITH THE PHRASE “SUCH AS HB425.”

MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy

The only other two things there were was that the discussion of the return and the resolution doesn’t actually
mention the rate of return at the moment it simply says that was one of the promises that we had. The city’s
contribution being $6 million if it were flat, that’s not covered in the resolution and it is something that | intend to
mention when we speak to the House Committee tomorrow morning. | don’t know that either of those may
change anything that is inaccurate in the resolutions so | don’t know if anyone wants to further amendments.

Alderman Siegel

Having just pulled up the CAFR for 2016 the actual number is 79.46% if you want to be precise.

Special Board of Aldermen Page 4
January 22, 2017

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO FURTHER AMEND BY INSERTING THE WORD
“APPROXIMATELY” IN BETWEEN THE WORDS “AT AND 80%.”
MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LEBRUN TO AMEND BY STRIKING THE EXTRA “THE” FROM PARAGRAPH
TWO
MOTION CARRIED

Alderman O’Brien

There are other bills pending up there and | don’t know if you want to wrestle with them or not. It has to do with
the term “double dipping.” Does the city want to take a stand on that?

President McCarthy

| don’t particularly want to address it in this legislation because it’s not related to the funding of the system but
if anybody wishes to...

Alderman Moriarty

| am going to suggest that they address reducing future liabilities. That last paragraph on the front which | am
not going to amend to change but the fact that it says that the “Board of Aldermen holds that it is fundamentally
for the residents of Nashua to pay for retirement costs.” | disagree; | don’t think it is fundamentally unfair for the
residents of Nashua to pay for the employees of the Nashua. | have no problem with that and on the very
basis of the public works retirement system...

President McCarthy

It doesn’t in fact say that. It says “to pay simultaneously the retirement costs of the past, the present, and the
future due to the State’s handling of the trust fund.” We are catching up, we are getting ahead and we are
paying for this year all on the same tax bill.

Alderman Moriarty

As | was saying, in general, | don’t think it’s fundamentally unfair for the residents of Nashua to pay for the
employees of Nashua. It may indeed be unnecessarily burdensome due to mishandling by the state but on the
other hand | think it is reasonable to expect the residents to pay for the employees of Nashua. If we paid for
the whole thing ourselves then we should also have the ability to control the rules of the pension system. If
Concord wants to be in charge of controlling the rules of the pension system then | am willing to let them kick in
a portion of the money to buy that right to control the pension rules. I'll let the fundamentally unfair part go but
ultimately what | think is most important is that this resolution only addresses how to pay for things, it doesn’t
address the expenditure side. One thing that the people in Concord could do is to have some sort of pension
reform or just minor changes as time goes on to reduce the future obligations which is just as important an
issue as figuring out how to bring in more money.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO AMEND R-17-087 BY ADDING AT THE VERY END OF #5
“ADDRESS MEANS TO REDUCE FUTURE OBLIGATIONS.”

ON THE QUESTION

President McCarthy

Do you have any idea which bills that this currently affects?

Special Board of Aldermen Page 5
January 22, 2017

Alderman Moriarty

No so they will have to do it via amendments to the current bills.

President McCarthy

So there are no bills in the legislature that addresses that issue to the best of your knowledge?
Alderman Moriarty

Correct, so | don’t have one to identify here.

MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-087 AS AMENDED
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-087 declared duly adopted.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

Attest: Patricia D. Piecuch, City Clerk

SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMEN
JANUARY 23, 2017

6:30 p.m. Aldermanic Chamber

PRESIDENT BRIAN S. MCCARTHY CALLS ASSEMBLY TO ORDER
PRAYER OFFERED BY CITY CLERK PATRICIA D. PIECUCH
PLEDGE TO THE FLAG LED BY ALDERMAN KEN SIEGEL

ROLL CALL

COMMUNICATIONS

From: Brian S. McCarthy, President, Board of Aldermen
Re: Special Board of Aldermen Meeting

NEW BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-17-087
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
SUPPORTING EFFORTS BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO REDUCE THE
DOWNSHIFTING OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM

ADJOURNMENT

Board of Aldermen

City of Nashua
229 Main Street Brian S. McCarthy
Nashua, NH 03061-2019 President, Board of Aldermen

(603) 589-3030

January 19, 2017

Patricia D. Piecuch, City Clerk
City of Nashua

229 Main Street

Nashua, NH 03061-2019

Dear Ms. Piecuch:

Please be advised that | am hereby calling a Special Meeting of the Board of Aldermen for Monday,
January 23, 2017, at 6:30 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber to consider Resolution R-17-087, Supporting
Efforts by the State Legislature to Reduce the Downshifting of Costs Associated with the New
Hampshire Retirement System.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

Aad nthe

Brian S. McCarthy
President

cc: Mayor James W. Donchess
Steven A. Bolton, Esq., Corporation Counsel