Search

Special Board of Aldermen 07-01-2021 Page 10

Alderman Jette

| guess, if | may, | was looking at the — this might be appropriate to bring this up now. | looked at the total
appropriations which are found on page 18 which is the amount that we talked about earlier was the
General Fund appropriation. But the total appropriations which | think, | understand the current spending
cap, the court had said it is not enforceable and this new law is going to make it enforceable once again.
Right now we are not, as | understand it, we are not under that. But if we were under it, it limits the total
appropriations to, as you pointed out, what the total appropriations were in Fiscal Year ’21 and we can only
increase that by the 3 year average, gross domestic product implicit price deflater for State and Local
Government which | had trouble trying to figure out what this is current. CFO Griffin says he thinks it is
around 2% or maybe slightly less than 2% but around 2%.

When | looked at the law, the law allows us, as you pointed out, one of you pointed out, the law allows by
10 votes to exempt principal and interest on bonds and capital investments which this year we budgeted
$18,152,055.00. If we subtract that, if we voted to subtract that principal and interest and capital
expenditures of $18 million plus, that would lower the total appropriations in the budget to — before this
change that we are talking about right now — that would lower the total appropriations to less than what it
was last year. So it would be, you know, if we adopted the Mayor’s Budget it would be .7700’s of a per
cent, you know, less than 1% less than last year’s budget. And if we adopted the amendments suggested
by the Budget Review Committee it would be about a half a per cent less. In either case, it would certainly
be less than the 2% that we would be allowed if the spending cap were currently in effect. So | bring that
up now because | am wondering whether you would recommend that we consider whether it is necessary
to make a motion to see whether 10 people vote to exempt the principal and interest and capital
expenditures as provided in the Charter from that spending cap.

Attorney Bolton

You can only do that once a year. So if you wanted to take that full total | guess you are giving yourself as
much flexibility as possible. But if you don’t want to exempt the full total, you are narrowing your options.
You can’t go back and change it later. So there’s no need to do it if this motion that is currently pending
were to pass. If you do do that, exempt the full amount of capital expenditures and service on bonded debt,
you still have not created enough space for the amount of grant money that is anticipated. So | would not
recommend doing that. | would keep all of your options open and if you run into difficulties, you can decide
whether that’s an appropriate action to take. But the pending motion doesn’t change the amount of taxes
people will pay. | think any time you can solve a problem without increasing the amount of money that you
have to have people pay, you are probably best off. We are talking about just the ability to spend money
that we can obtain from other sources, other than our taxpayers. So | would think you would want to take
full advantage of those opportunities. That’s the import of the proposed amendment.

Alderman Jette

Thank you.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Alderman Klee?

Alderman Klee

Thank you Madam President. One of the statements | kind of want to make, the thing | hear up in Concord
is be careful of unintended consequences. When this was proposed and it went through my Committee,
Municipal & County Government, we talked about the unintended consequences of something as a grant.

And we got feedback, well no, we put it into the Bill, you can exempt grants and you can exempt this. And
when | tried to explain to them the reason why | felt strongly that this Bill was going after Nashua was

Board of Aldermen Page 6
November 9, 2016

Planning Board

Gerry Repucci (New Appointment) Term to Expire: March 31, 2017
17 Badger Street, #1
Nashua, NH 03060

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR AS READ AND
REFER THEM TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
MOTION CARRIED

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE
Budget Review Committee ... 2.0... 0.0... cece cee cee cee ee cet eeeeeeeee ees 10/24/16

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the October 24, 2016,
Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file.

Finance Committee 2.0.0.0... 00. ccc eee cee eee cesses sev eeevavevevereerererer se 11/02/16

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the November 2, 2016,
Finance Committee accepted and placed on file.

Committee on Infrastructure ... 000... cee cee ece cee eeeceeeeeeeeeee es. 11/03/16

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the November 3, 2016,
Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file.
Planning & Economic Development Committee...........................11/01/16

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the November 1, 2016,
Planning & Economic Development Committee accepted and placed on file.

WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS — None
CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS — None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-16-071
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Ben Clemons
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF NASHUA TO EXTEND THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE NASHUA
DOG OWNERS GROUP, INC. FOR THE DOG PARK AT YUDICKY FARM
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-071
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-071 declared duly adopted.

To:

From:

Re:

E. Motion:

Attachment:

Discussion:

City of Nashua, Public Works Division

Board of Public Works Meeting Date: February 24, 2022

Daniel Hudson, P.E., City Engineer
Engineering Department

City-Wide Pedestrian Infrastructure Conditions Assessment and Ranking

To approve the award of the City-Wide Pedestrian Infrastructure Conditions Assessment
and Ranking contract to Nashua Regional Planning Commission (NRPC) of Nashua, NH
in the amount of $42,500. Funding will be through: Department: 161 Streets; Fund: Bond;
Activity: Sidewalk Construction.

Exhibit A - Scope of Work

Nashua is committed to creating accessible paths of travel in the public rights-of-way for
people of all abilities. In order to enhance compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), a city-wide inventory of pedestrian infrastructure is needed. This
inventory will assist the City in identifying priority locations for improvements and
maintenance and will become the primary input to a comprehensive ADA plan.

The Nashua Regional Planning Commission (NRPC) is an agency that serves as a
resource to support and enhance local transportation planning with an understanding of
State and Federal requirements as well as offering mapping and data services that utilize
the latest technologies. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT)
has developed a GIS data collection framework known as the Statewide Asset Data
Exchange System, or SADES, which has been specifically tailored to capture pedestrian
infrastructure data for ADA compliance. In 2020, NRPC partnered with the City to
conduct a city-wide pedestrian Level of Service Analysis that included 17 miles of
SADES pedestrian infrastructure assessment, which was completed successfully.

The City would like to again contract with NRPC to further the data collection effort
using SADES technology and complete a city-wide inventory, conditions assessment and
ranking in partnership with the Engineering Department for a cost of $42,500. Attached
is the Scope of Work to be completed.

Special Board of Aldermen 07-01-2021 Page 11

Nashua did not have that built into the Charter. Grants are not built into the Charter, just those two items
that we have talked about, the principal and interest and so on. It seems to go on deaf ears. | tried to get
them to change it to say, if it’s not in a Charter it can be added or can be just automatically exempted and
so on. And | got, No you’ve got to let your voters decide on that and we fought back and forth. The bottom
line is this passed. And it passed with these, as far as | am concerned, these intended consequences, not
unintended consequences. | feel very strongly that they were intended consequences. And | keep making
a joke about my Ward 3 $1 million dollar grant. When | first got elected, we put in for this grant for Locke
Street to change this to make it safer, to make it better walking. We got the grant for $1 million dollars.
That was back in 2017. The monies are just going to come through, hopefully this fall. Now we are looking
at 4 years to get this money and so on.

And | would hate to have to go to my Ward and say all this work that we did, we can’t accept that $1 million
dollars. | would rather put it in as an appropriation and as a revenue so that it literally is a balanced
budget. We cannot spend more than we get, but we can accept it. If | remember correctly at the public
hearing for the budget there was ex-Alderman who stood up and was quite upset that he felt that we did
not fund two organizations — one | believe was the Girl Scouts and another was Salvation Army | think it
was and he was quite irate. He did not seem to understand that they didn’t put in for those monies. But
when you look at all the lists that we work at for the Human Resources Committee, the HUD grant and so
on, we would not be able to give those out if we don’t put those here ahead of time. And | would hate to
have to say to all of those companies such as The Front Door Agency and so on, we can’t help you, we
can’t fund you. Or the HOME Loan Program, goodness, or the renter’s loan program. | would hate to say,
we can’t do that this year because we didn’t have the foresight to think of this.

And where this is being zero and is not affecting the taxpayers, | don’t think we will get pushback from the
taxpayers. | keep referring to these things as “paper chasers”. And | make a joke but | am very serious
about it. If Ward 3 loses out $1 million dollars, | am not going to be happy and | am going to have a lot of
unhappy campers over our $1 million dollars. So | would like to see this go through as it was
recommended. But | do appreciate everything that Alderman Jette had brought up, those were really good
points as to does it mean that we can’t — | think it just helps clarify the situation. So thank you very much.

President Wilshire

Alderman Lopez.

Alderman Lopez

| think Alderman Klee is being a little bit kind about saying she'll be unhappy. If a mother is pushing a baby
stroller down the street and gets hit by a car because we didn’t fix that, people would be very unhappy. So
these aren't just appropriations that are done on a whim, the CDBG money and the Review & Comment
money for example support things like the expansion of the Nashua Soup Kitchen’s Homeless Shelter
because our City Welfare doesn’t have the capacity to put up all of the homeless people in Nashua into
motels; we don’t even have the motel capacity for that. Those are things we rely on non-profit
organizations to do in partnership with the City. And the City as a municipality is able to apply for those
grants and all taxpayers benefit from that.

A project | am concerned about is the Rail Trail Extension which the bike path along West Hollis is very
popular for people using it recreationally. It is also essential for kids traveling to and from school and
traveling on the afternoons when there’s a tremendous amount of traffic along West Hollis. It lets them
move up and down the Rail Trail safely. It lets elderly people who are living in outer neighborhoods travel
downtown to get to the hospital, to get to the pharmacy, to do things they need to do. So the extension on
the other side to the East Hollis side, it’s a big deal. And these are projects that Community Development
Program has done based on need, based on a considerable amount of work that the State doesn’t care
about, didn’t take into account. The State governs this way and at best it can be said to be incompetent.
They are not getting high marks as the State of New Hampshire for governing any of these municipalities.
We are, we are the ones who are working with our constituents and with our non-profit organizations to

Special Board of Aldermen 07-01-2021 Page 12

solve problems including the problems that the State drops on us because partisan politics, people may be
trying to create a certain narrative about our performance as Aldermen. Regardless of how well we do
with our budget, the narrative is definitely going to be, we raised taxes, we spent more money.

And the culprits for are not the ones who are responsible for it. The State Representatives who are not our
elected State Representatives, we are already hearing people trying to blame the Fire Department for
wanting raises when they are trying to maintain a level of service, likely knowing that this budget doesn’t
actually account for their contract negotiations or that kind of stuff specifically. They are trying to make
sure the response time is effective. We just had a fire yesterday on Prescott Street, if a house burns down
that’s not going to be a — oh let’s elect a new person next year. That’s a tragedy and that’s potential lives
lost. The response time for Nashua Fire was criticized in public comment earlier. | know last week they
managed to catch a mattress that was on fire in a very heavily populated building with a lot of disabled
people in it before it caused more damage than just to that unit, coming right through downtown, right
through Main Street. The building is located on West Pearl.

So Nashua Fire does a lot of work. They have been responding to a lot of calls, even in the middle of a
hurricane or whatever you want to call yesterday’s flash storm. And we need to keep that service intact
because lives depend on it, that’s not where you want to cut. The Nashua Police from the State
perspective, they may be saying, OH well let’s fully fund the pension program even though we don’t need
20% of the total program to keep it sustainable by any measure, let’s do that because we feel like doing it
but the impact on the ground is now Nashua PD is supposed to not upgrade their command center, not
continue to make sure that they have compatible equipment with other parts of emergency response
systems? They just made some major arrests yesterday of people who are involved in cocaine trafficking,
felons that owned multiple firearms, they have been managing a number of increasing domestic terror
threats in the City including white supremacy actions and intimidating behaviors that have actually started
to penetrate even into our own public meetings.

This is not a good idea to cut resources from them because somebody on a sub-committee decided that
they wanted to play games and maybe make a point. These are services we need for our Nashua
residents that result in tragedy or catastrophe when we aren’t able to provide them. | have made many,
many comments about how we need more resources for people who are homeless and we need more
resources for people who are struggling to make their rent or facing homelessness eviction. Alderman
Klee mentioned the HOME funds. Those are important programs and that’s not just our score on a wallet
hub survey. That’s what our residents and what our taxpayers deserve. And if the intention of expanding
our budget so that we can accept tax money that these taxpayers already paid to the Federal Government
that we are returning in exchange for services into specific areas, that benefits them and | think it is
something we need to do. | don’t think we should hamstring our own budget because somebody in
Concord decided to take away the rights of Nashua taxpayers to repair or manage their own spending cap
and just imposed it on us in what | think is a pretty unusual manner.

So | think the motions that are made are reasonable and | think the costs that are associated are essential
and has been stated multiple times, this is grant money that is not going to increase the taxpayer's bill.

President Wilshire

Alderman Dowd?

Alderman Dowd

Yes, | would just like to reiterate so it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle here. We had a goldenrod copy of R-
21-142 and the motion | made to change the items in the budget book as was pointed out by Mr. Griffin

allowed to change the numbers in the golden rod copy and | think the motion is to accept the motion that
was made and accept the golden rod copy with the new numbers in it before finally vote on the budget.

Special Board of Aldermen 07-01-2021 Page 13
President Wilshire

Anyone else? Alderman Jette?

Alderman Jette

Perhaps | missed it, but | know you made a report about what the Budget Committee did, | am not sure
that you made a motion.

Alderman Dowd

Yeah | did make a motion. | can repeat it.

President Wilshire

Would you Alderman Dowd?

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO AMEND R-21-142 TO CHANGE PAGE 34, ACCOUNT NUMBER
48320 TO THE AMOUNT OF $77,411,477.00 AND ON PAGE 271 ACCOUNT NUMBER 70160
CONTINGENCY GRANTS TO THE AMOUNT OF $77,411,477.00 AND THEREFORE IN MAKING
THOSE CHANGES TO THE BUDGET BOOK IT CHANGES THE GOLDEN ROD COPY ON LINE 7 IT
CHANGES THE NUMBER $291 ,026,961.00 TO $368,438,438.00. AND ON LINE 8 IN THE GOLDEN
ROD COPY IT CHANGES THE $64,979,022.00 TO $142,390,499.00

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Dowd

So that would be the new Golden Rod Copy to accept under R-21-142.

Alderman Jette

I’m sorry to be so dense about this but did you include increasing the Police Budget?

Alderman Dowd

That was in the original golden rod copy the $291,026,961.00 included the 3 motions made that we voted
on in the Budget Committee. That’s already in there.

Alderman Jette

OK. Thank you.

President Wilshire

So Madam Clerk, | believe the motion before us is to amend Resolution.
Alderman Dowd

To accept the golden rod copy as amended.

President Wilshire

With the golden rod copy. Is that correct?

Special Board of Aldermen 07-01-2021 Page 14
Alderman Dowd

Yes.

President Wilshire

Is there any further discussion on that motion? Alderman Jette?

Alderman Jette

So are we voting, it’s all one package?

Alderman Dowd

Yes we are just voting for the changes to the golden copy and then the golden rod copy after we approve it
will be the final budget that we will then try to adopt of R-21-142.

Alderman Jette

Having it all together like this makes it difficult because there are parts of this | don’t agree with. | agree
with adding the grant revenue and the grant appropriations, | agree with that. | agree with taking the
$495,745.00 for the Command Vehicle out of CERF, that’s going to be bonded.

Alderman Dowd

Alderman Jette, perhaps | can clarify. After we pass the — so we have the clean golden rod copy, then
there will be a second reading of R-21-142 that you can make other motions then.

Alderman Jette.
OK is that correct, am | jumping the gun here?
President Wilshire

No, | think what we could do to address that is to take this piece by piece, the Police, the Fire and then the
grants.

Alderman Dowd

Attorney Bolton? Do we need to do that or can we just, could those be addressed under the final motion
on the Budget?

Attorney Bolton

Well you can do what most pleases the majority of the Board. But the question posed or the indication
was that it was to separate these things out when it was all packaged together. So it may be an
appropriate way to approach is to do one motion about the changes in the Police Budget which |
understand is two pieces; a second motion that deals with the Fire Department and a third motion that
deals with the grants. And then maybe people will have a better understanding on how they wish to vote in
each separate area.

President Wilshire

OK so the motion on the floor is to amend Resolution 21-142 by replacing it with the golden copy. What is
the Board’s pleasure? Alderman Jette?

Special Board of Aldermen 07-01-2021 Page 15

Alderman Jette

| would like us to take it to separate it but | am not sure how to approach that. Can | just make a motion
that we separate it?

President Wilshire

Yes. Sure.

Alderman Jette

And it either passes or not and we can go from there.

Alderman Dowd

Point of order, | think you’d have to amend the motion that is on the floor currently.

President Wilshire

| am not sure we do. We are moving to amend the Budget Resolution with the golden rod copy.
Alderman Dowd

There are pieces of the numbers that are in the motion that | made that he wants to change. So if he
wants a piece of that out, | would suggest he make a motion to amend to eliminate, reduce, add whatever
he wants to do to that particular item that’s in there.

President Wilshire

OK we can do that route. Alderman Jette did you want to make a motion on the Police Department’s
budget?

Alderman Jette
Maybe someone could help me locate where it is in this golden rod copy?
Alderman Dowd

It would be the motion on the floor, the total budget including what we talked about for the grants is
$368,438,438.00. The motion on the Police Budget a portion of that is $241,338.00.

Alderman Jette
| am having trouble following you.
Alderman Dowd

It's that sheet that you got that had the motions on it from the Budget Committee. And if you want to
eliminate the adjustment to the Police Department that would be $241,338.00.

Alderman Jette

Yes | would like to amend the golden rod copy by eliminating $241,338.00 from the Police Department line
item 90120 which would restore it back to what the Mayor had proposed and | would like to speak to that.

SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMEN
JULY 1, 2021

7:15 PM or immediately after the Special BOA meeting Aldermanic Chamber and via Zoom

Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89948155727?pwd=RD YwO LINZ WNT 05BcjRONFMyvSjRkOT09
Meeting ID: 899 4815 5727 Passcode: 088704

Join by telephone: 1-929-205-6099
Meeting ID: 899 4815 5727 Passcode: 088704

If for some reason you cannot connect to Zoom, please contact us at (603) 589-3329 and they wil help you
with connectivity. The public may also view the meeting va Channel 16.

PRESIDENT LORI WILSHIRE CALLS ASSEMBLY TO ORDER

PRAYER OFFERED BY CITY CLERK SUSAN K. LOVERING
PLEDGE TO THE FLAG LED BY ALDERMAN-AT-LARGE BRANDON MICHAEL LAWS
ROLL CALL
REPORTS OF COMMITTEE
UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS
R-21-142

Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess

Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright

RELATIVE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE
CITY OF NASHUA GENERAL, ENTERPRISE, AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

e Budget Review Committee with anticipated Recommendation for Final Passage
PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN

ADJOURNMENT

R-21-142

RESOLUTION

RELATIVE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET
FOR THE CITY OF NASHUA GENERAL, ENTERPRISE, AND SPECIAL REVENUE
FUNDS

CITY OF NASHUA

In the Year Two Thousand and Twenty One

RESOLVED by the Board of Aldermen of the City of Nashua that the Fiscal Year 2022
Proposed Budget for the General Fund of the City of Nashua be and is hereby adopted, and that
the following amounts are hereby appropriated for the several accounts and for other needs of the
City of Nashua General Fund for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021, and ending June 30,
2022, and for the purpose of Section 50-a et seq. of the Nashua Revised City Charter, as
amended, each item of this budget shall be considered as a separate appropriation. The proposed
General Fund appropriation amount is $290,366,852 with estimated General Fund Revenues of
$64,979,022 including estimated state funding for education in the amount of $32,839,691.

That the Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget for the Enterprise Funds of the City of
Nashua be and is hereby adopted, and that the following amounts are hereby appropriated for the
several accounts and for other needs of the City of Nashua Enterprise Funds for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, and the purpose of Section 50-a et seq. of the
Nashua Revised City Charter, as amended, each item of this budget shall be considered as
separate appropriation. The proposed Enterprise Funds appropriation amount is $38,344,285
(inclusive of anticipated Capital Appropriations), with estimated Enterprise Funds Revenues of
$33,155,377 and any additional funding for capital and CSO-related expenditures from retained
earnings, bonding and/or State Revolving Fund Loans.

That the Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget for the Special Revenue Funds of the City of
Nashua be and is hereby adopted, and that the following amounts are hereby appropriated for the
several accounts and for other needs of the City of Nashua Special Revenue Funds for the fiscal
year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. The proposed Special Funds
appropriation amount is $18,570,313 with estimated Special Revenue Funds Revenues of
$18,570,313.