Board of Aldermen Page 12
September 14, 2016
Alderman Clemons
| will respectfully disagree with the previous speaker. Escrows are money that we have already taken
from our citizens. We've already collected that revenue and it’s sitting in the bank. The difference is that
we are taking a portion of that and we are carrying it over into the next year and in this case with the
pension money we are putting it into an account that we can then use for future expenses when the state
brings down the hammer on us. | have no problem with taking money that we have already collected
from our citizens and putting it away in a savings account for an expense that we know is coming. |
would rather do that than to tax those residents again in a separate budget next year.
Alderman Lopez
| would like to agree with Alderman Siegel and Alderman Clemons. If there is a bullet leaving the gun we
probably shouldn't stand its’ way. Alderman Schoneman’s concern is that he doesn’t want to override
the spending cap. We shouldn’t encourage a situation where we have to have that discussion. If the
need is not going to go away and it’s still going to be there next year but we have a way that has already
been given to us to solve the problem, | think we owe it to our constituents to start working on the
problem instead of waiting until we do have to make a very difficult decision.
Alderman Schoneman
Again, we are going to spend the money on the pension and to the fact that we are going to spend
whatever percentage next year our spending cap allows plus this $900,000 means that we are spending
more money. Ultimately, whether it’s this years or next year, every dollar we spend is taxpayer money
and it’s not money that they give us, it is money that we take from them. | don’t think there is anyone
who says they want to pay more taxes so to invoke the spending cap; what | am saying is that this ought
to be contained within that. | don’t approve of the spending more and this is a mechanism to spend
more.
Alderman Dowd
We discussed this at the Budget Review Committee and we know for the next two years there is a $2
million hit coming down from the state in’17 and ’18. It was explained that the money that we would be
putting in this escrow account is to be used partially to offset those two years in particular so that it’s not
as big of an impact on our budget. With this money being allocated for pensions in the next two budgets
there is still going to be a significant tightness of the budget. We can’t afford a $2 million hit in the ’17
budget and stay under the spending cap. We have two alternatives if we don’t have this money. We had
the discussion about overriding the spending cap which will increase the taxes to cover things that we
need to cover or we are going to have to cut services to the citizens that they need. There is absolutely
no way that we are going to find $2 million in the 17 budget without impacting city services. This is the
most prudent road from an economically standpoint, both for the city financially and the citizens of
Nashua.
Alderman Schoneman
We are spending more and | don’t see how spending more is prudent for the taxpayers. This is not a
problem that the citizens of Nashua caused; it’s a problem that we caused because our budgets are a
little too much anyway. Here we are avoiding the override question and finding a way to spend money
that skirts it.
Alderman Dowd
When we do our budget planning we take into account things that we can envision. We did not envision
the state reneging on their guarantee to pay 35% of the pension cost and sending it back to the cities.
