Special Board of Aldermen Page 4
January 22, 2017
MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO FURTHER AMEND BY INSERTING THE WORD
“APPROXIMATELY” IN BETWEEN THE WORDS “AT AND 80%.”
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION BY ALDERMAN LEBRUN TO AMEND BY STRIKING THE EXTRA “THE” FROM PARAGRAPH
TWO
MOTION CARRIED
Alderman O’Brien
There are other bills pending up there and | don’t know if you want to wrestle with them or not. It has to do with
the term “double dipping.” Does the city want to take a stand on that?
President McCarthy
| don’t particularly want to address it in this legislation because it’s not related to the funding of the system but
if anybody wishes to...
Alderman Moriarty
| am going to suggest that they address reducing future liabilities. That last paragraph on the front which | am
not going to amend to change but the fact that it says that the “Board of Aldermen holds that it is fundamentally
for the residents of Nashua to pay for retirement costs.” | disagree; | don’t think it is fundamentally unfair for the
residents of Nashua to pay for the employees of the Nashua. | have no problem with that and on the very
basis of the public works retirement system...
President McCarthy
It doesn’t in fact say that. It says “to pay simultaneously the retirement costs of the past, the present, and the
future due to the State’s handling of the trust fund.” We are catching up, we are getting ahead and we are
paying for this year all on the same tax bill.
Alderman Moriarty
As | was saying, in general, | don’t think it’s fundamentally unfair for the residents of Nashua to pay for the
employees of Nashua. It may indeed be unnecessarily burdensome due to mishandling by the state but on the
other hand | think it is reasonable to expect the residents to pay for the employees of Nashua. If we paid for
the whole thing ourselves then we should also have the ability to control the rules of the pension system. If
Concord wants to be in charge of controlling the rules of the pension system then | am willing to let them kick in
a portion of the money to buy that right to control the pension rules. I'll let the fundamentally unfair part go but
ultimately what | think is most important is that this resolution only addresses how to pay for things, it doesn’t
address the expenditure side. One thing that the people in Concord could do is to have some sort of pension
reform or just minor changes as time goes on to reduce the future obligations which is just as important an
issue as figuring out how to bring in more money.
MOTION BY ALDERMAN MORIARTY TO AMEND R-17-087 BY ADDING AT THE VERY END OF #5
“ADDRESS MEANS TO REDUCE FUTURE OBLIGATIONS.”
ON THE QUESTION
President McCarthy
Do you have any idea which bills that this currently affects?
