Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 9
predecessor. That was with account numbers clearly identified and consistent with the Charter what’s in the
Cap and what’s not in the Cap. Somewhere along the line, the account numbers were removed creating great
distortion exactly what now is under the Cap because all you have is language, no identification by account
numbers. I’m not going to go into details about these account numbers, but clearly there’s now confusion.
There’s been other changes made causing further distortion.
O-17-031 represents a further distortion, a deviation from the Charter and that must stop. Section, Page Two,
Section 2, it’s on page two of the ordinance which exempts the entire sewer fund from the Cap simply violates
the Charter. On the question of why is part of it in and part of it out is irrational, and | said during the public
hearing, that | agree with the Mayor that’s irrational. The question of should it be in the Cap, all under the Cap
or not under the Cap, there’s only one answer. It has to all be under the Cap. There’s nothing in the Charter
that allows you to take it outside the Cap. The ordinance as the Mayor, himself, pointed out last year trying to
get mandates exempted, an ordinance cannot supersede the Charter.
| strongly recommend when this vote comes up that you vote to amend to strike all of Section 2. | have no
problem with Section 1. You strike all of Section 2 which deals exclusively with the question about the
Spending Cap. The analysis deals almost exclusively with the exception of the Spending Cap. | have no
problem with the sewer fund, the wastewater fund, whether you call it is a special revenue fund or not. It
doesn’t matter. But that’s not the real purpose for this ordinance. If this amendment to exempt take all of
Section 2 out. If it fails, you will have created a $9.1 million gap because you will compare FY17 budget with
the FY 18 budget. Effectively you have created a $9.1 million gap that you can spend, and that’s what the
Mayor's intent is, and he explained it. We talked about it without needing 10 votes to exempt. What's the
point? Get the vote. If you look at the budget and there’s really a crisis in this budget that’s different from any
other budget in recent memory under Mayor Lozeau, and you really have to exempt it, take the ten votes.
They can exempt millions, certainly a lot more than $9.1 million if you really wanted to.
In the circumstance that you choose and the amendment fails to strike line number 2, | recommend that you
further amend or substitute the amendment, and | think that recommendation is brought before you by
Alderman Schoneman, and you will address it, | presume, and that is that you compare apples and apples. So
you have a budget in 2017 and take out all of the sewer fund and compare it with the budget in 2018 without
the sewer fund. At least you have apples to apples which, itself, is consistent with the Charter.
| further recommend that you ask for a roll call vote for either of these two amendments so we can clearly see
who is with or without the true intent of the Spending Cap in the Charter. | should caution that if O-17-31
passes as introduced without any amendment, the way it is written that passed the Budget Committee that if,
as a consequence, legal action is brought with the proposition that the Charter is being violation and if that
legal action prevails, all exemptions will be removed. All of 5-145 will be removed. You'll have no exemptions.
Then you will have a smaller, you will have another serious, serious problem. Thank you.
Ken Dufour, 52 Conant Road, Nashua.
It’s hard to follow former Alderman Teeboom on the same issue, but nevertheless, | am here to speak against
O-17-031. | am disappointed that the Mayor and some aldermen devised a scheme to redefine the general
fund with the intended result of artificially lowering next year’s budget, giving the ability as the Mayor explained
tonight to spend more money. As a taxpayer we vote to send responsible people to city hall to make tough
decisions, and these are tough times. I'll grant you that. By passing this, you are skirting your responsibility.
This is simply a magic show meant to misrepresent reality. An earlier speaker called it intellectually dishonest.
| read Alderman Moriarty’s article in the Telegraph which likened this proposed scheme to people on a diet that
go into get weighed every week and then one week, for one reason or another, they want a different result so
they take off their shoes. That results in short term gratification without any long term success. That will be
the result to the taxpayer if this legislation is enacted.
What seems to be lost in all of this, and nobody has brought up, the Mayor referred to it a little bit earlier in his
conversation, is the tax rate. In my business, | am very tuned in to local tax rates. Nashua is now over $25 a
$1,000. Look at the communities around us. | heard the Mayor tonight refer to the forecasted tax breaks as
