Minutes

Board of Aldermen 12-08-2020 Page 24

Alderman Tencza

Board of Aldermen 12-08-2020 Page 23
Alderman Schmidt

No, not really. Would it be possible for someone who was in the negotiating team with the Fire Union to
speak to my question or is that right out at this point?

President Wilshire
Without objection from the Board, we could do that. No one objects to that? We could ask Chief Rhodes?

Chief Rhodes, Nashua Fire Department

Board of Aldermen 12-08-2020 Page 22

Board of Aldermen 12-08-2020 Page 21
President Wilshire
Yes.

Attorney Bolton

If the Mayor’s veto is allowed to stand, what is vetoed from the contract is the provision that (audio cuts
out).

Alderman Schmidt

Oh my goodness, have we lost him?
President Wilshire

| think so.

Alderman Lopez

That was terrible timing.

Alderman Schmidt

Not now, seriously, | need an answer. Oh no.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Board of Aldermen 12-08-2020 Page 20

Alderwoman Lu
| apologize, | thought | knew.

Attorney Bolton

A “yes” vote if it prevails will cause the Resolution to be back before the Board with a motion to override the
veto in order. A “no” vote, if that were to prevail would not allow further consideration of this Resolution and
the veto would stand.

Alderwoman Lu

Thank you.

(Roll Call Resumes)

A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Conclusions

¢ Planned rate increases cover the costs to finance the capital investments that are required
to comply with regulatory mandates and to maintain the high level of services provided by
the City to its ratepayers.

¢ Despite the increases, Nashua’s sewer charges in 2023 will still be lower than its peer
utilities charge in 2020 and well below the 2018 NH State Average Household Quarterly Bill.

¢ Nashua rates are and will remain affordable to all major household income brackets based
on EPA’s 2 percent affordability metric.

Integrated Planning Framework: Reducing future costs

¢ Nashua is currently developing an Integrated Plan Framework (IPF) to comply

with its Consent Decree with the US Environmental Protection Agency:

¢ Prioritizes capital projects that best address the most pressing system needs as
determined by Nashua using City-developed criteria.

¢ Defers capital projects that are determined to confer fewer benefits for similar investment
costs.

¢ IPF smooths the “cost curve” and can mitigate future rate increases.

Nashua Capital Funding Strategies to Minimize Ratepayer Impacts

¢ Nashua employs a mix of financing strategies to minimize ratepayer impacts:

Planned Future Major Capital Expenditures

¢ More than $52 million in upcoming required capital investments from FY2020-
FY2025:

Pump Stations Rehabilitation (Phase 1 and Phase 2): $10.86 million

CMOM Plan: $5.20 million

Sewer Infrastructure Program: $30.40 Million

Wastewater Treatment Primary Tanks Upgrades: $3.90 million

Phosphorus Removal and Storage Facility: $1.00 million

¢ Wastewater Plant Booster Stations: $0.80 million

Primary Drivers of Required Rate Increases

Major Cost Drivers are associated with expenditures on required Capital Projects

¢ Current and future required capital project investments are substantially increasing

annual debt service costs:
¢ Annual Debt Service is projected to increase from $5.1 million in FY2020 to $8.4 million in FY2025 (10%
average annual increase)

¢ Annual Operation and Maintenance expenditures are projected to increase at a modest rate of 3 percent
per annum during same period