Search

APPENDIX A: Salary Schedule (cont’d)

ASSISTANT

PRINCIPALS July 1, 2022 July 1, 2023 July 1, 2024 July 1, 2025
Secondary

500 $84,700 $86,400 $88,100 589,900

501 $85,900 $87,600 $89,400 $91,200

502 $87,200 $88,900 $90,700 $92,500

503 $88,500 $90,300 $92,100 $93,900

504 $89,800 $91,600 $93,400 $95,300

505 $91,000 $92,800 $94,700 $96,600

506 $92,300 $94,100 $96,000 $97,900

507 $93,600 $95,500 $97,400 $99,300

508 $94,900 $96,800 $98,700 $100,700

509 $95,900 $97,800 $99,800 $101,800

510 $96,700 $98,600 $100,600 $102,600

511 $97,700 $99,700 $101,700 $103,700

512 $100,600 $103,600 $106,700 $109,900

Page 24

APPENDIX B: Dues Deduction Form

This page is intentionally left blank. There are no dues deductions.

Page 25

R-22-044

RESOLUTION

RELATIVE TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF $1,500,000 OF FY2022
ASSIGNED FUND BALANCE INTO DEPARTMENT 126 “FINANCIAL SERVICES”,
ACCOUNT 68500 “ABATEMENTS”

In the Year Two Thousand and Twenty-Two

RESOLVED by the Board of Aldermen of the Citv of Nashua to appropriate $1,500,000
of FY2022? assigned fund balance into Department 126 “Financial Services”. Account 68500
“Abatements” for the purpose of funding additional tax abatements.

LEGISLATIVE YEAR 2022

RESOLUTION: R-22-044

PURPOSE: Relative to the supplemental appropriation of $1,500,000 of
FY2022 Assigned Fund Balance into Department 126
“Financial Services”, Account 68500 “Abatements”

SPONSOR(S): Mayor Jim Donchess
COMMITTEE
ASSIGNMENT: Budget Review Committee
FISCAL NOTE: This resolution will reduce the Assigned Fund Balance portion
for Overlay. The current balance assigned for overlay is
$1,500,000.
ANALYSIS

This resolution appropriates $1,500,000 of FY 2022 assigned fund balance tor the purpose of
funding additional tax abatements.

Charter Sec. 53 permits specific non-budget. supplementary appropriations. There should be
notice and a public hearing. A two-thirds vote is required under Charter Sec. 56-b for an item or
amount not in the mayor’s budget. A roll call is required under Charter Sec. 49

Approved as to account Financial Services Division

structure, numbers, caps
and amount. np... /s/ John L. Griffin

Approved as to form: Office of Corporation Counsel

By: ‘\D pee view heer
Date: (O Ly MR Anon

A Special Meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Monday, June 13, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic
Chamber and via Zoom teleconference which meeting link can be found on the agenda and on the City’s website
calendar.

President Lori Wilshire presided; Interim Deputy City Clerk Tara King recorded.

Prayer was offered by Interim Deputy City Clerk Tara King; Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr., led in the
Pledge to the Flag.

Let’s start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance. If you are participating via Zoom, please state your presence,
reason for not attending the meeting in person, and whether there is anyone in the room with you during this meeting,
which is required under the Right-To-Know Law.

The roll call was taken with 10 members of the Board of Aldermen present: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Sullivan,
Alderman Klee, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Jette, Alderman Clemons, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd, Alderman
Cathey, and Alderman Wilshire.

Alderman Moran, Alderman Comeau, Alderman Gouveia, Alderman Thibeault, and Alderwoman Timmons were recorded
absent.

Also in attendance: Mayor Donchess, Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

NEW BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS - None

R-22-039
Endorser: Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
AUTHORIZING PENNICHUCK CORPORATION AND PENNICHUCK WATER WORKS, INC. TO BORROW
FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Given its first reading; Assigned to the PENNICHUCK WATER SPECIAL COMMITTEE by President Wilshire
DISCUSSION
e Spending Cap

Chairwoman Wilshire

Tonight we’re having a discussion on the spending cap. CFO Griffin if you’d like to join us. Also joining us this
evening are Attorney Bolton, Mayor Donchess and Director Cummings. Who wants to start? Mr. Griffin?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

Thank you Madam President and members of the Board Aldermen. Tonight we are here to have a discussion on the
spending cap. I’ve spoken a little bit about some of the ingredients of the spending cap but working with Miss Graham
today | thought it very proper to provide you with a copy of the resolution that includes a page of the Charter which we
follow as well as the detailed calculation in the spending cap. So | can go over the mechanics if you like, explain
what’s included, and then we can have a discussion of why we’re here. Thank you.

So if we look on page 4, this is actually the presentation and model that | used from 2010 when | arrived to - when the
spending cap was deemed unenforceable by the different Courts in the State of NH. Essentially what we’re trying to
do is pick a base year. So as you recall when the spending cap was, or the tax cap, or whatever it was called was
reinstated, we needed a base year. The base year we chose was Fiscal ’22. Several of you remember that base
year. We took the general fund appropriations, the enterprise funds, the special revenue funds including grant funds.
Grant funds act a little bit different than special revenue funds but they are for a specific purpose, for specific funding,
and they don’t lapse at the end of a given fiscal year. They do not lapse to surplus.

Now in addition to Fiscal '22, you also want to consider things that happened during Fiscal ’22, which are called
“supplemental appropriations”. Supplemental appropriations can supplement the general fund, which we had a few

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 2

totaling $2.33 million, enterprise funds which total $1.85 million, capital project funds. Capital project funds are in here
because the Board of Aldermen is approving the borrowing allowing the Mayor and |, City Treasurer to borrow funds
to construct several of our projects. The total amount is listed as $76,399,000. | am going to pass out, if you’ll let me,
an exhibit that details each one of those Resolutions and the amount of the Resolutions. Some of the Resolutions
you're going to be very familiar with - $21 million for the TIF for the Riverwalk Project, $37.5 million for the bond
paving program, but there are others as well. They add up and they're for good purposes. So essentially you get the
total - supplemental appropriations you add the two together and you get that little over half a billion and then you
move on to Fiscal ’23 which is the Mayor’s proposed budget.

Using the same ingredients you’ve been reviewing over the last several weeks — the general fund appropriation
proposal, enterprise funds, special revenue funds including the grants. Because of the amount of ARPA funds we
received fortunately by the US Treasury and what’s called the ESSR funds on the school side, we’ve had a reduction
in the number of grants but we still have the mainstays which I’ve reviewed with the Committee a few weeks ago
reviewing the grants that we have. The interesting part of the grants is the Board of Aldermen not only accepts the
grants but they appropriate the grants. So it’s very important note as we proceed with this discussion.

So if we move forward with the Fiscal 23 the total appropriations at the front first two pages of this particular
Resolution is the $406,663,584. The reason why there’s nothing in the supplementals is you haven't had the
opportunity to supplement the budget yet. As we do, part of the calculation would be to add that supplemental
appropriation and inform the Board how much under the cap we remain. Very consistent with the prior calculations of
spending caps that I’m familiar with. We get into the calculation, we have the total Fiscal ’22 appropriations, which is
the original appropriation of the budget and the supplemental appropriations. You take that number and the cost of
living or the adjustment that we are allowed to make is referred to as “the State and Local Government Implicit Price
Deflator”. It was a replacement of what you may recall the CPIU Northeast. The residents of the City voted for that
thinking that might be a better description of how your budget should increase relative to State and local government
spending. So that number is 2.8. So if you take the 2.8, multiple it by the total appropriations online 19, you get about
$14.1 million, add that to the appropriations, and add that to the base which is $520 million, or to get $520 million
subtract the current budget on line 5 under the Fiscal ’23 column. You end up with about $113 million under the cap
for this calculation.

So this approach is what is what | refer to as “gross basis budgeting” from the municipal guidance. | think the issue is
that the municipal guidance for accounting and finance sometimes differs from the possible uniqueness to a spending
cap calculation. Attorney Bolton and | have had discussions on that and he is prepared to explain that difference but
what | wanted to do is go through the mechanics. If | may, | will pass out that exhibit that will further detail the
calculation of the supplemental appropriations that have been passed through the Fiscal ’22 period.

So if | may, the first thing | want to do is apologize for how small this font is but | really didn’t have time to put it on — it
really looked good on 11x17. Essentially this is the entire calculation. It’s got the description left hand side. It’s got
the Resolution numbers. It’s got the broken out by General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Grant Funds, TIF District.
People are very interested in that being budgeted and appropriated. Capital Project Funds — that’s the lion’s share of
that Supplemental Appropriation. You’re probably familiar with most of those Resolutions and then the Enterprise
Funds. From time to time are supplemented during the year, but the totals are on lines 23 and the creation of base
budgets on line 26. You can see that on the right-hand side if we take the total base budget times that percentage,
we get the new cap value.

So that Madam President is a brief overview of how | calculated the spending cap analysis, why | thought it was
important that it get put next to the Resolution because everything ties together, and also included in the Resolution
were the guidance of the Mayor and Corporation Counsel. | put in there the spending cap pages so you don’t have to
look at the big book and figure out what page it’s on, etc. So with that, I’d be happy to answer any questions.

President Wilshire

Questions? Alderman Dowd?
Alderman Dowd
Just out of curiosity based on what’s happening with the economy right now, where is the SNLIPD going up or down?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

The SNLIPD is going up. And to that point if | may, that particular metric is a three year average. So if you can

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 3
imagine, it was a lot lower three years ago than it was last year. So my expectation is that it will increase next year.

Alderman Sullivan

Thank you. In preparation for tonight, and | would appreciate someone explaining to me, | understand the tax cap
was passed in 1993 and it went away for a little while and now it’s back. | would love an understanding of that
timeline but before | do that, | was looking at some budgets from prior years specifically Fiscal Year 17,18 and ‘19
where the layout for the spending cap when the spending cap was in effective for those three Fiscal Years, it wasn’t
laid out the way that the Fiscal Year ’23 is laid out. By that, | mean in the upper section you had your general fund
and then it was broken out by Enterprise Fund, Solid Waste, Waste Water, and then City Special Revenue Funds,
School Special Revenue Funds, and then below it you backed out the Enterprise Fund for both Solid Waste and
Waste Water. Then you backed out City Special Revenue Funds and School Special Revenue Funds. | don’t see
that in Fiscal Year ’23. I’m curious why we didn’t do that because that took the total appropriations from Fiscal Year
2017 from $289 million, less $29 million, with a total appropriation of $260,526,617 and that is where they applied the
cap on top of that. So I’m just curious why we didn’t do that for Fiscal Year ’23?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

Madam President and other members. | think Corporation Counsel who was with us in his position in ‘17 and so on,
he is our expert on the cap. | can say that when | came in 2010, | inherited a very complicated, in my opinion, not
simple cap structure which you just referenced where things were taken out of the calculation through ordinance.

Alderman Sullivan

Could you understand why | would be confused where in three consecutive years we took it out and the cap went
away, and now the cap is back, and now we're not taking them out?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

The only thing | can say to that, if | may and | was actually relieved, that the cap didn’t have - | was under the
impression and Corporation Counsel could further the details — but | was under the impression that we were finally
going to be able to go to gross budgeting and include everything with nothing subtracted. That’s my professional
opinion but there’s a better answer with regard to the process from creation, to ordinance changes that changed the
calculation many, many years before | was here, and then finally the decision that the current spending cap that we
had at the time was unenforceable. So we went back to just budgeting without a page that talked about the spending
cap. This is a reintroduction with what’s called “gross budgeting”. Putting in all the appropriations so people have an
understanding of what you folks are appropriating and not carving out things.

Alderman Sullivan

So we just changed it. We just changed the way that we’re going to factor it in. We went from this system to gross
budgeting which you mentioned and that’s how we're factoring it? I’m trying to connect the dots.

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

| understand. Let me see if | can give it a shot. The prior spending cap, the one that | came in with, had items that
were subtracted by ordinance from the calculation. | don’t see anything to subtract going forward because I’m relying
on a spending cap in place with all appropriations appropriate and there’s no need to subtract anything. | don’t know if
that’s a better answer for you Alderman Sullivan but there’s no need of subtracting anything because everything is
included.

Alderman Sullivan

I’m just not understanding. You are saying “by Ordinance”. The Ordinance is what made us subtract these specific
funds in those three years that | mentioned and now those Ordinances...

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

If | may Madam President and members. We didn’t even include the bonds back then. So there’s no need to
subtract. Some of the confusing part of the former spending cap was what to do with the Wastewater Treatment Plant
and the costs associated with it. The Special Revenues are added, subtracted, because they don’t have an impact on

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 4

the calculation at the end of the day. This particular spending cap has all the appropriations in it from last year and
this year and then you apply the metric which is the State and Local Government Implicit Price Deflator Multiplier and
then you get a new number.

Alderman Sullivan

| understand how we get it. My bigger question is what are we building that number off of - that multiplier? |
understand what the multiplier is but if we’re taking total appropriations and in prior years we subtracted certain
monies to bring down those total appropriations, and then we built the spending cap off that net number, and now
we're not taking anything out of those total appropriations, and then we’re applying it 2.8% increase off of that. It
really just misses the mark for me.

Then the other question | have is the grant funds. So you’re saying grant funds if we get $100,000 from the State or
the federal government, that’s a grant. We’re counting that as an appropriation because it goes to a specific cause?
Are you counting that as $100,000 or are you counting that as $200,000?

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

Madam President, | would count that as a $100,000.

Alderman Sullivan

Because we are getting it.

John Griffin, CFO/Treasurer/Tax Collector

Right but some of these questions are more the legal interpretation of the spending cap. This isn’t something that the
Comptroller and | would be learning at the Department of Revenue Administration. This is the interpretation of a cap.
It’s not a tax cap. It’s a spending cap and what | like about it is it didn’t subtract anything. As a purist accounting
person where every appropriation that you folks rule on is in the cap.

President Wilshire

Attorney Bolton would like to weigh in.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

| think | can help with some of these questions. Taking the grant question first. The grant is revenue but when we
spend it, it’s an expenditure. There are many things like that throughout the budget. You've got a whole section on
revenues and another larger section on expenditures. So the motor vehicle funds that are collected when people
register their cars downstairs, that’s revenue for the City but then that gets spent. That part of the money that funds
those appropriations on the expenditure are half the budget. Similar with grants, revenue comes in. Part of the
arrangement with the State but more likely the federal government is we get that money because we promised to do
certain things with it. We promised to spend it on the program that we spend it in. When this Board approves the
acceptance of that, they’re approving that agreement and authorizing the expenditure of money for the purpose
therein contained. So that’s an expense. That’s part of what the City Charter refers to as “total expenditures” and
that’s what builds the base.

There’s another reason why grants should not be treated specially, or subtracted, or something and that’s because
the State Statute would allow that in a City Charter. In fact, RSA 49-C:33 | says “a tax cap provision in the City
Charter may provide for specific exclusions for dedicated enterprise or self-supporting funds, or accounts, capital
reserve funds, grants, or revenue from sources other than local taxes, or interest in principal payments on municipal
bonded debt, or capital expenditures which shall be by a super majority vote as determined in the Charter”. So the
Charter could say that you’re going to subtract grants. Our Charter does not say that, meaning grants have to be
included.

Now there is an Ordinance that was passed back in 94, had some amendments over time that attempted to say what
things should be subtracted. | have long been of the opinion that those Ordinances were contrary to the City Charter.
You cannot change a City Charter by Ordinance. Clear you can’t. The Charter talks about total expenditures. It
doesn’t say anything about subtracting out grants, or special revenue, or other things. It could but it doesn’t. Since it
doesn’t, those things have to be included.

Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 5

Alderman Sullivan

My only question was why did we do it for three years in a row and now we're not doing it?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

| think it was illegal to do it for those three years. Former Alderman Teebow and then Alderman Moriarty took the City
to court over that. In that case, the court found it did not have to reach the question of whether the budget in that
year, | believe that year was '18, those Ordinances should have been followed as they were then in effect. The court
didn’t reach that question because it founded the entire spending cap itself did not comply with State law. State law
last year in 2021 was amended to essentially say “regardless of what the Supreme Court said, that spending cap is
okay, go with it”. So we're going with the spending cap as is contained in the budget. What was done in prior years, |
think, was illegal.

Mayor Donchess

Now | see the confusion. | get why it’s confusing. | can state and you haven't given a timeline. So this is my
understanding subject to correction by either of our other two experts - Attorney Bolton or Mr. Griffin. But if you look at
the spending cap, it is very basic. It says in Section 56c of the Charter. “In establishing a combined annual municipal
budget for the next fiscal year, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen shall consider total expenditures” and that’s the only
guidance it gives - “total expenditures”. That’s it and then it goes on to say “the percentage increase etc.” Total
expenditures, that the only language in the Charter that really says what’s in and what’s out. Now that is a very, very
broad term. It includes every check, every appropriation, every bond issue, everything.

So back in the 90’s when this passed, people saw the difficulty of that broad concept and there would be huge
volatility because of capital expenditures and bond issues. So the Board of Aldermen at that time passed interpretive
language. Here’s what it means - this is in and this is out. There were Ordinances that defined what was in and what
was out. For example, the enterprise funds were out but one of those Ordinances said that only half of the
wastewater fund was in and half was out. The Board of Aldermen and the City continued to follow those interpretive
Ordinances and | always considered them myself to be valid. Attorney Bolton did not, but he is the expert. | thought it
was reasonable that the City was interpreting what that broad term meant.

Well then several years back, the wastewater fund was half in and half out, the Board of Aldermen passed an
amendment saying well look the wastewater fund is not tax dollars. It’s a separate - it’s not property taxes so it makes
no sense to have it half in and half out, so we'll put it all out. So they amended the Ordinance to say the wastewater
fund is no longer part of it. That was challenged in court and the Superior Court decided, without the Cities request,
the City never requested to invalidate the cap but the Court on its own volition decided the spending cap is invalid
because it doesn’t contain an override.

Okay. Then the legislature got into the act and over the unanimous objection of the House Delegation at least,
everyone was against it, unanimous opposition. The Legislature adopted an Act which attempted to put the spending
cap back into effect. In doing so, suggested that only the language of the Charter is meaningful. Ordinances cannot
amend, or interpret, or change, or anything else. That all these Ordinances that have been passed in previous years
which resulted in those deductions which you were pointing out. Only the Charter language means anything. So the
Ordinances no longer apply and therefore, we do not have those Interpretive Ordinances anymore. We don’t have the
thing that says “this is in and this is out”. All we have is this simple language in the Charter that says “Total
expenditures should be included”. What Attorney Bolton was saying right at the end is yes you could exclude
enterprise funds, or grants, things like that but the Legislature in its wisdom made it clear that those kinds of
exclusions would have to be in the Charter itself. They can’t be in an Ordinance and they’re not in the Charter. So
the difference is the Legislature changed the landscape and said that, in essence, these interpretive Ordinances that
had been passed and applied resulting in those deductions are no longer applicable. All we’ve got is the language
total expenditures. Mr. Griffin, the CFO, is telling you what total expenditures are. He is applying the strict language
of the Charter.

Now is that is inaccurate, which it could be, if that requires correction please make the correction.

Alderman Sullivan

Around grant funds and building our appropriations off of grant funds, I’ll just ask this in a common sense way. Do
you think counting grant funds, money that we got in 2022 and then spent - | understand that, and included those as
total appropriations to build our spending cap off of, do you think that’s a good decision? Because to bring it back to

EDUCATION

BS, Political Science,
Florida State University

CERTIFICATIONS

EMI Professional
Development Senes

BEN REDIFER

ASSOCIATE PROJECT MANAGER

Ben serves as an Associate Project Manager for iParametrics. He offers various response

planning, and recovery skills and knowledge in the field of emergency management. Ben

started his Emergency Management career interning with the Florida SERT Mass Care

Coordinator, where he created guidance and training for new grey sky staff. He went on ta

lead the Inma Sheltering Task Force where he oversaw a team coordinating sheltering

statewide during the largest shelter mobilization in state history. He has served on the

Salvation Army's regional recovery program for Irma for nine counties where he led

coordination with case management partners. Ben served as a member of the Human Services

Branch during the COVID-19 pandemic and most recently worked as the Planning Section

Chief for Maryland COVID-19 Recovery Operation.

EXPERIENCE

State of Maryland Mobile Vaccination
and Testing Task Force, Maryland.
Planning Section Chief. Developed and
managed organizational chart and
process structure for ali mobile
vaccination and testing. Managed
Planning Section personnel and led
tactical planning decision making process.
Developed long-term mobile vaccination
strategy for transition from FEMA teams
to contract vendor teams.

State of Maryland M and T Bank Stadium
Mass Vaccination Site, Maryland. Deputy
Site Manager. Coordinated planning and
site leadership, White House and Secret
Service for Vice Presidential tour and
remarks. Created management tool for
predicting stafling needs for increased
vaccine distribution, Managed Volunteer
Program incorporating as many as 60
volunteers per day. Served as acting mass
vaccination site manager for 10 days
including site's peak daily distribution of
over 6200 doses.

ESF-6 Mass Care, COVID-19 and
Hurricane Response, Tallahassee, FL
State Emergency Response Team Special
Project Assistant Intern for COVID-19
and Hurricanes Isaias, Laura, and Sally.
Served as liaison between ESF-6,
Catholic Charities, Farm Share and
Florida Counties. Assisted in the
activation and coordination between
Florida State University Virtual Operation
Support Team and ESF-6. Entered and
updated missions and info-messages in
Web-EOC.

The Salvation Army Emergency Disaster
Services, Florida, Regional Recovery
Coordinator for Hurricane Irma.
Coordinated funding between NGS and
county long-term recovery groups, case
management partners and the Salvation
Army for 9 counties. Created training
and guide documents to increase
efficiency for disaster case managers.
Facilitated, vetted, and tracked funding
application

PAGE | fp