Search

Font

oo NY Oi BP wWN

NNN NM NM NM NH PP PPP ee PB
SPSS&RNXUSREREERSESGRURREERES

City of Nashua
Analysis of Grants

Activity Group Grant Description FY2022 Estimate
Police Grants (JAG) Justice Assistance Grant 5 40,000
Police Grants {VAWA) Grant S 206,000
Police Grants Bullet Proof Vest Grant 5 20,000
Police Grants New Hampshire Highway Safety Grants S 100,000
Police Grants Homeland Security Grants S 350,000
Fire Grants Homeland Security Grants 5 100,000
Parks & Rec Parks & Recreation Grants S 100,000
Emergency Managemet Emergency Management Grants $ 100,000
Public Health & Community Services Public Health & Community Services Grants $ 4,000,000
Urban Programs Community Development Block Grant S 768,964
Urban Programs Home Program Grant $ 447,023
Transportation FY2022 FTA 5307 Operating Funds Grant S 3,509,490
Transportation CMAQ Grant $ 130,000
Total City Grants $s 9,865,477
School Grants School Grants 5 16,000,000
Total Typical Grants $ 25,865,477

CARES ARPA Grants/Funding

City ARPA Funding - Will be accepted and appropriated in FY22
Will be accepted and appropriated in FY23

8,000,000
8,000,000
$ 16,000,000

ve Ur

School CARES Act Funding CARES | 5 3,274,000 Sep 2022
CARES II 5 12,973,000 Sep 2023

CARES III (ARPA) $ 19,299,000
$ 35,546,000

Total CARES/ARPA Grants $ 51,546,000

Fred Teeboom

24 Cheyenne Drive
Nashua, NH 03063
(603) 889-2316
fredtee@comcast.net
June 30, 2021
To: | Mayor Donchess

Board of Alderman
CFO Griffin

From: Fred S. Teeboom

Subject: The FY22 Proposed Annual Budget

Attached are the calculations that support my comments during the Public Hearing on the FY22
proposed annual budget.

1. Spending of taxpayers’ money is increasingly out of control

Doing the same comparison of the 6-year average for the years 2016-2021 and comparing
FY2022 with FY2021, I come to an entirely different conclusions: Nashua’s spending is
increasingly out of control.

Unlike the presentation on pages 9 and 10 of the FY22 proposed budget, the calculations in the
table below include payments for NHRS state pensions and Medicare/Medicaid.

The taxpayers do not have the option of not paying the pension costs, so the budget comparisons
for purpose of presenting the budget for a Public hearing should not exclude them, either.

Excludes includes
Pensions and FICA/Medicare Pensions and FICA/Medicare
6yearincrease | 6 year annual 6year increase | 6 year annual
FY¥21-F FY¥21-FY22

FY16-FY21 average on F¥16-FY21 average ‘a

City Hall 0% -2.7% 7.8% 4, 2.0%
ity Ha 16.0 2.7% = 27.8 6% si

Police 21.0% 3.5% ( =} 26.5% 44% 6.6%

Fi 27.4% 6% NN 1.7% 27.3 4.6% :
ire 4.6 a 3% rs 9.1%

enna

ppw 15.8% 2.6% aE 15.6% 2.6% 1.0%
Schools 17.9% 3.0% 2.3% 18.3% 3.1% 3.5%

This table illustrates the enormous cost for the Police and Firefighter pensions

2. City Must Sue the State over Pension Payments

The pension costs that now amount to $31.5 million, representing a 23.5% increase from last
year, are completely out of control. New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) pension
costs now represent nearly 11% of the proposed $290.4 million General Fund.

Page 2 of 3

aveg. 6 year

i FY21 - FY22
annual increase
21 2 increase
FY16 - FY21 FY FY2
$ % $ %

Pension |$ 1.69 7.9%|$ 25.49|$ 31.48/$ 5.99| 23.5%

FICA/Medicare| $ 0.14 1.8%|$ 865/$ 894/$ 0.29 3.3%

I pointed out the $1Billion in losses incurred through NHRS mismanagement. Couple that
to the insanity of paying for 100% funding of the NHRS fund.

Consider the exorbitant payouts to retirees who learned to “play” the system. | cited the

example of a former Deputy Fire Chief (current alderman) who collects on his retirement as
follows:

Example Pension Payments
Deputy Fire Chief
(current alderman)
Retired 1 June 2015
2015 § 65,000 severance payment
§ 94,000 NHRS pension payment
$159,000 retirement payment (ist year)

2016 $120,908 NHRS pension payment (2nd year)
(incl. additional severance payment)

2021 $111,844 NHRS Pension Payment
7,349 Medical subsidy (tax free)
$119,193 retirement payment (7th year)

plus 50% survival benefit

By comparison, here are the much lower Social Security payments to the taxpayers who have not
worked for the government:

Social Security Payments

2021:
$ 15,852 |retire age 65
average
$ 18,170 [all retirees
§ 37,356 |retire age 65
max

S 46,740 |retire age 70

" This publicly available information was obtained from the NHRS.

Page 3 of 3
3. Accounting for New Bonded Debt in the Enterprise Funds

I pointed out an accounting error in the Enterprise Funds. The principal (face) value of proposed
new bonding is included in the FY2022 annual budget, whereas only the annual debt service cost
(principal plus interest) should be shown (see Account 193 Debt Service). .

Debt service payments for new bonded debt in the current year do not appear until the following
year.”) This makes a significant change in the accounting of the Enterprise Funds, and in the
Total Appropriations:

Enterprise Funds Enterprise Funds
new bond included new bond excluded
FY21 - FY22 FY21 - FY22
FY21 FY22 _increase FY2i FY22 snerease
$ % $ %
solid waste $ 9.86 | 5 10.25 | $ 0.39 3.9% $ 9.86 | $ 9.30 | $ (0.56)} -5.7%

Wastewater 5 20,25 | $ 28.09 | $ 7.85 38.7% $ 20.25 | $ 16.86 | $ (3.39)| -16.8%

E j
nterprise Funds |. ayaa] 38.35 | $ 8.23] 27.3% |$ 30.11|$ 26.16]/$ (3.95}} -13.1%
Subtotal
Spec, Revenue Funds 5 18.58 | $ 18.57| $ (0.01) 0.1% $ 18.58 | $ 18.57 | $ 0.01)} -0.1%
City + School " ‘ - : as

General Fund $ 282.88|$ 290.37) 5 7.48 2.6% $ 282.88)/5 290.37) 5 748 2.6%

Total

_ $ 33158|$ 347.28|5 15.71 4.7% $ 33158|$ 335.09|$ a.52| 1.196
Appropriations

according to standard practice for municipal bonding.

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Wednesday, June 23, 2021, at 7:05 p.m. in the
aldermanic chamber as well as via Zoom teleconference.

President Wilshire

And | am going to take just a moment to just say to the Aldermen and anyone else in this Chamber that the
people of Nashua expect more from us than what happened last night and | think that they expect more, as
far as decorum, and they deserve more. So | just want to leave that out there. That’s it.

President Lori Wilshire presided; City Clerk Susan Lovering recorded.

Prayer was offered by City Clerk Susan Lovering; Alderman Tom Lopez led in the Pledge to the Flag.

To join by Zoom — please refer to the agenda or the website for the meeting link and telephone number.

Let’s start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance. When each member states their presence, please
indicate if participating via Zoom state why you are not 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.

City Clerk Lovering called the roll and asked them to state the reason he or she could not attend, confirmed
that they could hear the proceedings, and stated who was present with him or her.

The roll call was taken with 8 members of the Board of Aldermen present: Alderman Michael B. O’Brien,
Sr., Alderman, Alderman Richard A. Dowd, Alderman Thomas Lopez, Alderman David C. Tencza,
Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu, Alderman Ernest Jette, Alderman Brandon Michael Laws and Alderman
Wilshire.

Alderman Patricia Klee, Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly, Alderman June M. Caron, Alderman-at-
Large Ben Clemons, Alderman Jan Schmidt, Alderman Skip Cleaver and Alderman Harriott-Gathright
were recorded absent.

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

President Wilshire to turn the meeting over to Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.

ROLL CALL

Alderman O’Brien

| am present and | am in the Chamber.

Alderman Dowd

| am present and in the Chamber.

Alderman Lopez

I’m here, | am in the Chamber.

Alderman Tencza

Present.

Alderwoman Lu

Here.

Surface
Road Name _* Material
Heritage Rail Tra Asphalt

Central St Asphalt
Main St Concrete
Main St Concrete
Spring St Concrete
Kinsley St Concrete
Main St Concrete
Abbott St Asphalt
Concord St Concrete
Cedar St Concrete
Kinstey St Concrete
Abbott St Asphalt
Palm St Concrete
Donna St Asphalt
Ledge St Concrete
Atwood Ct Asphalt
Garden St Concrete
Palm St Concrete
Lock St Asphalt
Ledge St Concrete
West Hollis St Concrete
West Pearl St Brick
Factory St Concrete
Whitney St Asphalt
Elm St Concrete
Garden St Concrete
West Pearl St — Brick
Kinsley St Concrete
West Hollis St Concrete
Kinsley St Concrete
Grove St Concrete
Amherst St Concrete
Canal St Concrete
Manchester St Concrete
Water St Concrete
West Hollis St Concrete
tock St Asphalt
Palm St Concrete
Garden St Concrete
Garden St Concrete
West Pearl St Brick
Orange St Concrete
Whitney St Asphalt
Walnut St Asphalt
Walnut St Concrete
Factory St Concrete
West Hollis St Concrete

City of Nashua City-Wide Pedestrian Infrastructure Conditions Assessment and Ranking

Sidewal
k Curb
Conditio Conditi
“on _Y_ Surface Defect.” Curb TypL™_ on
Good None None N/A
Fair None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Fair Cracks Granite Good
Good Cracks Concrete Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Fair
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Fair
Good Cracks Other Fair
Good Cracks Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Fair
Good None Concrete Good
Good Cracks Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Fair
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Concrete Good
Good None Concrete Fair
Good Cracks Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good Cracks Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good None Granite Good
Good Cracks Granite Good
Fair Cracks Granite Good
Fair Missing Material Granite Fair
Good Cracks Granite Good
Good None Granite Good

Existence

Minimum Curb ofa
~ Reveal

0 None None
4.75 Bicycle Lan None
5 None Moveable Objec

5.5 Parking Sp. Fixed Object
3 Parking Sp. Utility Pole
4.25 Grass Strip None
4 Parking Sp. Vegetation
S Parking Sp. Utility Pole
3.75 None None
4.5 Parking Sp. Utility Pole
2.5 Parking Sp. Fixed Sign
6 Parking Sp. Hydrant
6.5 Parking Sp. Fixed Sign
5 Grass Strip None
6 Parking Sp. Utility Pole
2.5 Parking Sp. None

2 None None
4.75 None Fixed Sign
0 None None
4,25 None Hydrant
5.25 Parking Sp. None
2 None Fixed Object
2.25 None Moveable Objec
45 None None
2 None None
5.5 Other None

4 Parking Sp. Moveable Objec
6 None None
3 Parking Sp. Fixed Sign

6.5 None Utility Pole
2.25 None None
3.5 None Utility Pole
5 None Fixed Sign
4.5 None Hydrant
4.75 Parking Sp. Fixed Object
4.5 None Utility Pole
3.75 None None
4 Other Fixed Sign
3 None None
7 None Fixed Object

2.75 Parking Sp. Fixed Object
4 Parking Sp. None
2.5 None Utility Pole
2.5 Parking Sp. Utility Pole
3 Parking Sp. Fixed Sign
2.75 None Moveable Objec
5 None Utility Pole

Passable Width
| Buffer _~ Obstructions _¥_ {in.}

Minimum Vertical
x. Clearance
113 Greater than 80 inches
68 Greater than 80 inches
89 Greater than 80 inches
97 Greater than 80 inches
60 Greater than 80 inches
58 Greater than 80 inches
108 Greater than 80 inches
50 Greater than 80 inches
$2 Greater than 80 inches
$4 Greater than 80 inches
48 Greater than 80 inches
38 Greater than 80 inches
62 Greater than 80 inches
59 Greater than 80 inches
41 Greater than 80 inches
56 Greater than 80 inches
65 Greater than 80inches
45 Greater than 80inches
59 Greater than 80 inches
46 Greater than 80 inches
59 Greater than 80 inches
54 Greater than 80 inches
61 Greater than 80 inches
57 Greater than 80 inches
56 Greater than 80 inches
55 Greater than 80 inches
51 Greater than 80 inches
60 Less than 80 inches
64 Greater than 80 inches
42 Greater than 80 inches
46.5 Greater than 80 inches
60.5 Greater than 80 inches
48 Greater than 80 inches
75 Greater than 80 inches
59 Greater than 80 inches
46 Greater than 80 inches
60 Greater than 80 inches
50 Greater than 80 inches
54 Greater than 80 inches
54 Greater than 80 inches
59 Greater than 80 inches
60 Greater than 80 inches
50 Greater than 80 inches
53 Greater than 80 inches
81 Greater than 80 inches
84 Greater than 80 inches
82 Greater than 80 inches

Maximu Maxi

m mum
Change Horizo Maxim
in ntal um

Profile Spacin Grade Cross

18

1.6

0.25 45
41

13

5

25

11

1

3.6

2.9

17

12

12.5

0.5

0.25 6.8
13

19

9.6

0.4

1.25 2.5
75

1

45

0.76 43
15 3.7
8&5

15 2.4
0.7

5.5

1 6.6
0.25 3

1 10.6

25 18
1 1.4

Figure 2: Example SADES ranked model output (Note: for the sake of brevity, not all contributing attributes are shown)

pg. 3

12
3
12
12
LS
3
3.4
44
4
0.9
3
3.4
4
3.7
Li
74
2.1
15
7.9
0.3
2.2
8.9
2.7
2
45
3.7
13.9

Total

Lin.) 1+ g(in=1(%) = Slope (%2 Rating

Normalize
Zd Rankin)
23 88
35 82
44 78
47 76
47 76
50 74
53 73
55 72
56 71
$7 71
61 69
61 69
63 68
63 68
63 68
64 67
65 67
66 66
66 66
66 66
67 66
69 65
69 65
69 65
70 64
70 64
71 64
71 64
72 63
72 63
73 63
74 62
76 61
76 61
77 61
79 60
79 60
80 89
81 59
82 58
82 58
82 58
83 s8
84 s?7
85 $7
85 57
86 56

Special Board of Aldermen 06-23-2021 Page 2

Alderman Jette
Here.

Alderman Laws
Here.

President Wilshire
| am here.

Susan Lovering, City Clerk

You have 8 physically in attendance.
President Wilshire

Thank you very much. As is customary, also with us this evening is Corporation Counsel Steven Bolton.
As is customary, | will turn the meeting over to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, Alderman-at-
Large Mike O’Brien.

Chairman O’Brien

Thank you Madam President. Before us this evening is a public hearing on R-21-147. At this particular
time, members of the public will be able to come up and give us testimony in favor. After the completion of
the testimony in favor, | will then ask for testimony in opposition. | will then again ask for those who did not
get the opportunity to speak for testimony in favor, | will re-ask the question for that testimony and then
repeat again for testimony in opposition. When people do come forward, please state for the record your
name and your address and then also there will be a time limit as per our custom of three minutes. So
therefore, | will open up the Hearing. | am looking for anybody who would like to come forward and discuss
testimony in favor.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Just a correction the Public Hearing is on the Petition for Street Discontinuance. It is not on the Resolution
for the conveyance of that discontinued portion.

Chairman O’Brien

Thank you Attorney. Yes, this is for the discontinuance as stated by Corporate Counsel, so yes, thank you.
Alderman Dowd

Are you going to have somebody explain? We usually give somebody an opportunity to explain.

Chairman O’Brien

Alderman Jette? If not, | can if you wish.

Alderman Jette

No I'd be happy to take a stab at it but | think Attorney Westgate is on the meeting.

Special Board of Aldermen 06-23-2021 Page 3
Chairman O’Brien

Mr. Westgate would you like to explain what we are doing here.

Attorney Westgate

I’d be happy to, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Thank you all for giving us the chance to appear
tonight. My name is Brad Westgate, | am lawyer with Winer & Bennett, 111 Concord Street in Nashua. |
represent Etchstone Properties, the petitioner. | submitted a letter at the end of last week, Mr. Chairman, to
the Board that summarized the purpose of the petition and the reasons behind it. In a nutshell, it is pretty
straight forward. Groton Road on the north side of it, Etchstone Properties obtained Planning Board
approval to develop 25 single family unit conservation subdivision which now is in the process of
development. (Inaudible) ownership. Hayner Swanson the project surveyors and engineers did a lot of
research determining the status of Groton Road as part of their typical detailed analysis of any project that
they seek approvals for.

What they found was that there were two areas of Groton Road that were laid out many, many years ago.
One area which we call Discontinuance Area A in our Petition is a set of a couple triangles on the north
side of Groton Road that was laid out in 1799, if you can believe that. Many years later in 1937 the State
realigned Groton Road. So what you see now for Groton Road as you go out there is what was established
by the State in 1937. But these old triangles along the north side in Etchstone’s property, remember this
continued. So they are not used, they haven’t been used for all this time but they are technically not
discontinued streets.

In 1847 there was another section of probably what was intended to be Groton Road. Hayner Swanson
found that too but couldn’t plot it, couldn’t put it on a plan in effect. So it may be likely does go through this
Terrell Farm project but it can’t be found if you will. So neither these sections of what | would call the Old
Groton Road in our petition are used today. They are not necessary to be used, the serve no purpose but it
is the kind of thing that a developer and new property owner would want to move off the books if you will
out of the record of title because they are merely a historic encumbrance of no purpose. We have been
before the Planning Board, the Planning Board gave a favorable recommendation last week to the
proposal. As | said, | submitted a letter that summarized the purposes as well. Corporation Counsel has
reviewed the application, she’s been very judicious and cooperative with me, came up with good ideas on
it. The fundamental conclusion that Corporation Counsel Celia Leonard came to was that the City be
granted an easement for two portions of sidewalk that will be on Terrell Farm Property, there’s going to be
a sidewalk along part of this project, some of which is in the Groton Road right of way; a couple of pieces of
which are not. We agree because obviously we were going to build that sidewalk anyway, it was a
condition of approval from the site plan granted by the Planning Board but we certainly understand and
agree that we should grant an easement to the City for those portions of the sidewalk on the Terrill Farm
piece.

Attorney Leonard has revised the Memo that she sent to the Board that correlates into Resolution 21-147
that Corporation Counsel Bolton just referenced. We are in full agreement with the approach Attorney
Leonard has suggested. | don’t want to take up any other time, Mr. Chairman of the Board, you have items
tonight. | am happy to answer any questions. We will stay on the meeting during your Infrastructure
Committee Meeting, Mr. Chairman, if there’s questions there. | assume the Board will simply address it
internally then but | will stay available if you need any further information from us. And we thank you very
much.

Chairman Dowd

Thank you Attorney Westgate. Any comments or questions from members of the Board to Attorney
Westgate? Seeing none, thank you sir. Alright to get back to the business at hand, | will now open up the
Hearing for the Petition of Street Continuance of Old Groton Road with testimony in favor. Is there anybody
in attendance in the Chamber or on Zoom? If you are on Zoom, please raise your hand, hopefully | will be

Special Board of Aldermen 06-23-2021 Page 4

able to see that and you will be recognized to speak. Again to remind you, there is a three minute limit. So
therefore, | will open up to testimony in favor.

PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION FOR STREET DISCONTINUANCE — (OLD) GROTON ROAD
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — None

Attorney Westgate

Mr. Chairman | neglected to just indicate that in the Chamber tonight is David Petropulos who is Treasurer
of Etchstone Properties; Tom Zajac, the Project Engineer at Hayner Swanson and on Zoom in Jaron
Slattery, President of Etchstone Property. | just wanted to know that these gentlemen were in attendance.
Thank you.

Chairman O’Brien

Thank you Attorney Westgate.

Chairman O’Brien closed the public hearing on the Petition for Street Discontinuance (Old) Groton Road at
7:17 p.m. | would like to remind the public that immediately following this we are going to go into the
Infrastructure Committee Hearing where this will be brought up again as well as other items. So please
stand by.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ THAT THE JUNE 23, 2021, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED, BY ROLL CALL

A viva voce roll call was taken to adjourn the Board of Aldermen meeting which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Dowd,

Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,

Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Laws,

Alderman Cleaver, Alderman Wilshire
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 7:18 p.m.

Attest: Susan Lovering, City Clerk

David K. Pinsonneault Brian C. Kelly*
J. Bradford Westgate* : y Brenner G. Webb
Kent M. Barker Barbara W. Halevi*

John M. Edwards*

. *
W Peter W. Bennett (retired)
All Admitted in NH INeP and Bennett, LLP Peter G. Webb (retired)
*Admitted in NH and MA S. Robert Winer (1920-2019)
Attorneys at Law John V. Dwyer, Jr. (1946-2013)

www. winerbennett.com

June 18, 2021

VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL

City of Nashua
Board of Aldermen
PO Box 2019
Nashua, NH 03061

Re: __ Petition for Street Discontinuance — (Old) Groton Road
Committee on Infrastructure — Public Hearing on June 23, 2021

Dear Members of the Board:
Winer and Bennett, LLP and I represent Etchstone Properties, Inc.

On May 11, 2021, Etchstone Properties, Inc. filed a Petition for Street Discontinuance to
discontinue (i) a portion of Old Groton Road (laid out in 1799) located adjacent to the northerly
side of (existing) Groton Road and (ii) a portion of a right-of-way (laid out in 1847), the location
of which is unable to be plotted. These are so-called Discontinuance Area ‘A’ and Discontinuance
Area ‘B’ as referenced in the Petition and as depicted on the Discontinuance Plan prepared by
Hayner/Swanson, Inc., appended to the Petition, a copy of which plan is also enclosed with this
letter.

As detailed in the Petition, Discontinuance Area ‘A’ was part of the historical location of
Groton Road, but is not part of the current location of Groton Road given the realignment of Groton
Road by the State of New Hampshire in 1937. Discontinuance Area ‘A’ is part of property
acquired by Etchstone Properties, Inc. in late 2018 now being developed as Terrell Farm
Condominium, a 25 unit, single-family detached community.

Discontinuance Area ‘B’ was laid out in 1847, but its location is uncertain. Consequently,
in light of the current, clearly defined layout (from 1937) of Groton Road, Etchstone Properties,
Inc. seeks to discontinue Discontinuance Area ‘B’ to the extent it may have been laid out over
Terrell Farm since it serves no purpose, not to mention its location cannot be determined.

111 Concord Street
Nashua, New Hampshire 03064
Tel (603) 882-5157 * Fax (877) 395-7335