Search

ORDINANCE

O-19-063

A. No exemption shall be allowed under §295-3 unless the person applying therefor:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Has resided in this state for at least 3 consecutive years preceding April 1
in the year in which the exemption is claimed.

Had in the calendar year preceding said April 1 a net income from all
sources of not more than $50,000, or if married, a combined net income
from all sources of not more than $50,000. The net income shall be
determined by deducting from all moneys received, from any source
including social security or pension payments, the amount of any of the
following or the sum thereof:

(a) Life insurance paid on the death of an insured:

{b) Expenses and costs incurred in the course of conducting a business
enterprise; and

(c) Proceeds from the sale of assets.

Owns net assets not in excess of $150,000, excluding the value of the
person’s actual residence and the land upon which it is located up to 2
acres. “Net assets” means the value of all assets, tangible and intangible,
minus the value of any good faith encumbrances. “Residence” means the
housing unit, and related structures such as an unattached garage or
woodshed, which is the person’s principal home, and which the person in
good faith regards as home to the exclusion of any other places where the
person may temporarily live. “Residence” shall exclude attached dwelling
units and unattached structures used or intended for commercial or other

nonresidential purposes.

B. Additional requirements for an exemption under §295-3 shall be that the property

ist

(1)
(2)

(3)

Owned by the resident: or

Owned by a resident jointly or in common with the resident’s spouse,
either of whom meets the age requirement for the exemption claimed: or

Owned by a resident jointly or in common with a person not the resident’s
spouse, if the resident meets the applicable age requirement for the

exemption claimed; or

ORDINANCE O-19-063

(4) Owned by a resident, or the resident’s spouse, either of whom meets the
age requirement for the exemption claimed, and when they have been
married to each other for at least 5 consecutive years.

Cc. Upon the death of an owner residing with a spouse pursuant to subparagraph B(2)
or B(4), the combined net asset amount for married persons shall continue to
apply to the surviving spouse for the purpose of the exemption granted under
§295-3 until the sale or transfer of the property by the surviving spouse or until
the remarriage of the surviving spouse.

D. No exemption shall be allowed if the resident appl ving therefor has, within the
preceding 5 years, received transfer of the real estate from a person under the age
of 65 related to him or her by blood or marriage.

E. If any entitled person or persons shall own a fractional interest in residential real
estate, each such entitled person shall be granted exemption in proportion to his or

her interest therein with other persons so entitled, but in no case shall the total
exemption to all persons so entitled exceed the amount provided in § 295-3.

§ 295-6. Effective date.

The revised exemption set forth herein shall become effectivetenuary+ 1098 January 1,
2020 and will apply to the tax years beginning April 1.2020.”

2, In Article IV “Tax Credit for Disabled”:

Ҥ 295-8. FaxeExemption for the disabled.

The City of Nashua hereby adopts the provisions of New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Annotated 72:37-b, as they may be amended from time to time, relative to exemption for
the disabled. The optional exemption, based on assessed value, for qualified taxpayers,
shall be as follows:

A. Any person who is eligible under Title I] or Title XVI of the federal Social
Security Act for benefits to the disabled shall receive a yearly exemption in the
amount of $194,000,

ORDINANCE O-19-063

B, A person who is eligible under Title II or Title XVI of the federal Social Security
Act on his or her sixty-fifth birthday shall remain eligible for a yearly exemption
either in the amount of the exemption applicable under subsection A or the
amount of the elderly exemption granted to the person under NRO §295-3,

whichever is greater.

C. Any person who at any time previously was eligible under Title II or Title XVI of
the federal Social Security Act for benefits to the disabled. but who is no longer
eligible for such federal benefits due to reasons other than the status of that
person’s disability, shall be eligible for the exemption under subsection A or B.
provided that the person submits an affidavit from a physician licensed in New
Hampshire that attests to the fact that the person continues to meet the criteria for
disability that are used under Title II or Title XVI of the federal Social Security
Act,

D. The exemptions in subsections A and B may be applied only to property which is
occupied as the principal place of abode by the disabled person. The exemption
may be applied to any land or buildings appurtenant to the residence or to
manufactured housing if that is the principal place of abode. Nothing in this
section shall preclude a qualified applicant from earning an income.

§ 295-9, Qualifications.

A. No exemption shall be allowed under $295-8 unless the person applying for an
exemption:

(1) Had, in the calendar year preceding said April 1. a net income from all
sources of not more than $50,000, or if married, a combined net income
from all sources, of not more than $50,000. The net income shall be
determined by deducting from all moneys received, from any source
including social security or pension payments, the amount of any of the
following or the sum thereof:

(a) Life insurance paid on the death of an insured;

(b) Expenses and costs incurred in the course of conducting a business
enterprise; and

{c) Proceeds from the sale of assets.

ORDINANCE

(2)

(3)

O-19-063

Owns net assets not in excess of $150,000, excluding the value of the
person’s actual residence and the land upon which it is located up to ?
acres. “Net assets” means the value of all assets, tangible and intangible,
minus the value of any good faith encumbrances. “Residence” means the
housing unit. and related structures such as an unattached garage or
woodshed, which is the person’s principal home, and which the person in
good faith regards as home to the exclusion of any other places where the
person may temporarily live. “Residence” shall exclude attached dwelling
units and unattached structures used or intended for commercial or other

nonresidential purposes.

Has been a New Hampshire resident for at least 5 years.

B. Additional requirements for an exemption under §295-8 shall be that the property

iS:
(1)
(2)

(3)

(4)

Owned by the resident:

Owned by a resident jointly or in common with the resident's spouse,
either of whom meets the requirements for the exemption claimed:

Owned by a resident jointly or in common with a person not the resident’s
spouse, if the resident meets the applicable requirements for the exemption
claimed: or

Owned by a resident, or the resident’s spouse, either of whom meets the
requirements for the exemption claimed, and when they have been married
to each other for at least 5 consecutive years.”

LEGISLATIVE YEAR 2019

ORDINANCE: 0-19-063

PURPOSE: Amending the elderly and disabled tax exemptions
SPONSOR(S): Alderman Ernest Jette

COMMITTEE

ASSIGNMENT:

FISCAL NOTE: The first tier of the elderly exemption for the age group 65-74

currently consists of 248 properties. The additional $2,000 increase in this exemptions will
reflect a loss of tax revenue of no more than $10,822.72 at the current tax rate. The increase of
$25,000 in allowable assets for the disabled exemptions will reflect no additional loss of tax
revenue at this time since no former applicant was denied due to having assets at or below the
$150,000 limit. ,

ANALYSIS

This legislation increases the amount of the elderly exemption for persons between the ages of
65 and 74 from $192,000 to $194,000 starting in the tax year beginning April 1, 2020. The
amount of net assets allowed for the exemption for the disabled increases from $125,000 to
$150,000. The intent of these two changes is to make the elderly exemption and the exemption
for the disabled more uniform. The legislation also updates the language for the elderly tax
exemption qualifications and the disabled tax exemption and qualifications to match the
language found in New Hampshire RSA Chapter 72 (“Persons and Property Liable to
Taxation”).

Approved as to form: Office of Corporation Counsel

By: \YtmwGn Gin

Date: (Ge O (rAstze, AX

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, October 8, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Aldermanic Chamber.

President Lori Wilshire presided; City Clerk Susan K. Lovering recorded.

Prayer was offered by City Clerk Susan K. Lovering; Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws led in the
Pledge to the Flag.

The roll call was taken with members of the Board of Aldermen 11 present; Alderwoman Shoshanna Kelly,
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Jan Schmidt, and Alderman Tom Lopez were recorded absent.

His Honor, Mayor James W. Donchess and Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton were also in attendance.

President Wilshire turned the meeting over to Alderman Caron, Chair of the Personnel/Administrative
Affairs Committee, to conduct the public hearing.

President Wilshire

| did hear from Alderwoman Kelly that she is unable to join us this evening; Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja is
unable to join us this evening; and Alderman Schmidt is on vacation. | am going to turn the meeting over to
Alderman Caron, the Chair of the Personnel Administrative Affairs Committee to conduct the Public Meeting.

Alderman Caron gave a brief overview of R-19-162 before the Board heard public testimony.
Alderman Caron

Good evening the Meeting will begin with a Public Hearing on R-19-162 relative to a ballot referendum to allow
sports betting within the City of Nashua. So we are going to start with testimony in favor.

PUBLIC HEARING
R-19-162

RELATIVE TO A BALLOT REFERENDUM TO ALLOW
SPORTS BETTING WITHIN THE CITY OF NASHUA

Testimony in Favor

James Rafferty Good evening and thank you for this opportunity. My name is James Rafferty and |
am a citizen of the City of Nashua. | live at Jackson Falls and | also own a business on High Street; 53 High
Street, called the River Casino & Sports Bar. We are very engaged with all things funded exciting for our City.
We are here tonight to talk about Sports Betting. | just want to make a couple of points. | think that Sports
Betting will do several things for us that are positive for our community.

One it will provide more fun for the people of our City and regional sports betters, gamblers, fun-seeking
people who enjoy the environment that | provide at my business; which is, in my view, as solid, good, clean
American fun as can be had anywhere. Sports Betting will provide my charity partners and 35% of all our
proceeds on our gaming side goes to charities, that is over $3 million dollars for the 12 years we’ve been doing
this in the region. It will also help my business become a stronger and more vibrant business, like many
entertainment businesses, | need a new way to have fun almost every year. Sports Betting will give us that
nice boost and a competitive boost as it just gets more competitive in the gaming and entertainment business
in our region.

Sports Betting will also bring dollars through the Lottery Programs, significant dollars through the Lottery
Programs to help education. Sports Betting will also | think bring anew level of entertainment to the whole
region and a way to enjoy, these are some of the favorite things people do in our region, the Patriots and the

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

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/08/2019 Page 2

Celtics and the Red Sox. It is just another way to get involved in those games. People really want to get
involved at multiple levels; they are tired of sitting back and just watching and listening to the announcers.
They want to interact with those games, they want to be part of those games with their friends and they can do
that if Sports Betting, as proposed, in the Great State of New Hampshire is approved.

The one thing that | would say that you know Sports Betting will not do, it is not going to answer all of the
problems of how do we find better entertainment for our citizens. It’s not going to be the silver bullet for the
success for my business. Sports Betting in reality we’ve seen it for 40 years that I’ve been involved with the
gaming business; it is a low margin business. It is just tough to make money with Sports Betting and I’ve
closed a lot of books in Nevada because they didn’t make enough money. Because people are really good at
this stuff, you know, they really study it, they are really engaged, they are really happy doing it, it is a good
pastime for them. But we shouldn’t expect this to be the wherewithal. Hopefully the State can make the
money that they hope to make out of it. | think it is really good for our State budget. But it is not the silver
bullet for my business or any others. But you should support Sports Betting. It is a great thing; it is a great
opportunity for us here in Nashua. We should be out in front of it just like when we voted for Keno and that
ends up being a very good product for some of our businesses here in town, including mine. Thank you very
much.

Alan Brouillard Good evening, my name is Alan Brouillard, 20 Main Street, Nashua, New Hampshire. |
strongly support that this referendum be allowed on the ballot and that it be passed. | hold in my hand 6 legal
tickets purchased in Las Vegas, Nevada. | have multiple visits to Las Vegas in my life and one of the things
I’ve always liked about Las Vegas is making a Sports Wager or a Future’s Wager. Who is going to win the
next Superbowl? Who is going to win the next Stanley Cup?

The Supreme of the United States in its infinite wisdom recently decided that Nevada should not have a
monopoly on this and allowed the States to individually set their rights on this subject. The New Hampshire
Legislature has approved a Bill, the Governor signed it and now it is before us.

Sports Wagering is one of the very few wagers that you make an intelligent decision and bet accordingly. With
no disrespect friends at the New Hampshire State Lottery Commission, unlike buying a scratch ticket or playing
Megabucks, you have some direct thought process on what you want to do. It is entertaining, it can be very
lucrative if you put time and research into it. If it was allowed in New Hampshire, | would gladly, instead of
traveling to other States, spend time in the City and as the gentleman just said, probably play more games of
chance which would help the local economy and the local charities. It is a situation where its time has come.
We are also going to be, very soon, surrounded by other States that are going to allow this to happen. Right
now if | wanted to, | could go to Rhode Island, and | am sure very soon this will be allowed in the State of
Massachusetts, right over the border at the new Encore Casino in Boston.

So it is an idea whose time has come. | am strongly in favor of the proposal and | hope you see accordingly
and enact it. Thank you very much.

Testimony in Opposition

Testimony in Favor

Testimony in Opposition

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/08/2019

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 7:11 p.m.

Attest: Susan K. Lovering, City Clerk

Page 3

Board of Aldermen 10-08-2019 Page 4

Planning Board

Lawrence Hirsch Term to Expire: March 31, 2020
12 Salmon Brook Drive

Nashua, NH 03062

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

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

Infrastructure Committee... 00.0... ee cee eee cer eee ser eeeeretererertrerstereee 09/25/2019

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the September 25, 2019, Infrastructure
Committee accepted and placed on file.

Finance Committee...... 0... cee cce cee cee eee seeeeeteterereverarevartereretererseeerere 10/02/2019

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the October 2, 2019, Finance
Committee accepted and placed on file.

CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-18-102
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
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 Tabled at BOA meeting 09/24/19 with approved amendments

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO WITHDRAW R-19-177 FROM THE BUDGET REVIEW
COMMITTEE
MOTION CARRIED