Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 7
President McCarthy
... trial by innuendos so please keep your remarks to the piece of legislation that is in front of us.
Ms. Pappas
Okay, you know the day that | ever am so disrespectful to members of the public to come to speak, | will never
run for office. | will quit. And, thank you, Alderman Moriarty for speaking out. | appreciate that. What do | get
for coming here? A lot of guff. | am here because | take very seriously my oath of office to represent the
people of Nashua. And it is not allowed under state law that we comingle funds. That’s why Manchester does
not charge their funds for the director of public works under their wastewater fund.
Perhaps we should have engineers that are 100 percent under the purview of wastewater. Perhaps we should
do the same as other municipalities and require our director and assistant director of public works to have an
engineering degree. For that matter, | think we have too many shared positions.
And frankly, | think the Board President should rule someone out of order by interrupting people all the time.
It’s done very regularly, and it is not right.
President McCarthy
And | will ask that it not happen again.
Ms. Pappas
Thank you.
Fred Teeboom, 25 Cheyenne Drive
I'd like to address two items from the agenda. The first is R-17-092, and the other is O-17-031. The Mayor
addressed both of those. Now | need to give you the rest of the story.
R-17-092. Before you is a basically 20 years of payments on $37.5 million borrowed at a cost of $11.1 million,
30 percent of principal. If all assumptions are made about grants from the state highway fund and motor
vehicle revenues, yes, it just pays for that bond. The fund goes down as low as $140,000 but builds back up to
about $5 or $6 million. However, that is not the full story.
| was the only person at the public hearing. It’s not look at as a five-year program at $7.5 million a year for a
$37.5 million bond. What’s looked at is a ten-year program at $7.5 million a year for a $75 million bond. That
in fact is implied in the amendment that’s before you that says this is the first part, five years of a multi-year
program, meaning five years of a ten-year program. Who is going to authorize the other five years of the
remaining $7.5 million per year? You are dealing with a $75 million program as proposed. There’s really no
answer to that.
| worked out a spreadsheet. The first five years for $37.5 million and then the next five years for $37.5 million
using the same scenario that Fredette proposed. Five one-years, $7.5 million bonds and then staggered one
year apart. | took 25 years and then 20 years and then you have another 20 years of program staggered. The
total takes 25 years to pay off, to pay the bond.
However, if you now look at the cost and what is going into that reserve fund, you know see there’s a deficit of
$26.6 million. To prove that , | sent to the entire Board at the Public Works my spreadsheet, and to Fredette
and to CFO Griffin my spreadsheet. And that’s still not the full story. In addition to 10 years at $75 million,
after 11 years you have to start maintaining what you have already done, and that is proposed at another $3.5
million a year. The consultant said it would be between 3.2 and 3.8 million dollars.
