Docstoc

20061114 Board of Aldermen

Document Sample
20061114 Board of Aldermen Powered By Docstoc
					A regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Aldermanic Chamber.

President David Rootovich presided; City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron recorded.

Prayer was offered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron; Alderman Plamondon leading in the Pledge to
the Flag.

The roll call was taken with 14 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman
Tabascko was not in attendance.

Corporation Counsel David R. Connell was also in attendance.

REMARKS BY THE MAYOR

President Rootovich

The Mayor is not here this evening, but he asked me to read a statement on his behalf.

It reads as follows: Unfortunately I cannot be with you this evening as I am attending an annual
meeting of the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce. However, I would request your indulgence
in having this letter read to the Board of Aldermen in my absence. Tonight you have the opportunity
to take a giant step in the collective bargaining process on behalf of our city employees.

As is the case in most collective bargaining agreements, both sides have to give a little in order to
achieve success. I urge you this evening to vote favorably on the three collective bargaining
contracts that are before you this evening, namely the UAW Clerical/Technical, the UAW
Professional, and UAW Police contracts.

When you are voting on these contracts it is imperative that you keep in mind that these contracts
have made great significant concessions, and have been entered into with partnership with my
administration. The partnership has included a zero percent salary increase in the first year of each
of the contracts. The three bargaining units have agreed to remove the health insurance carrier
names from their contracts. In doing so this affords the city the ability to enter into competitive bid
process with other health insurance carriers. In addition, it allows us to make potential carriers to be
more competitive in bidding our business by reducing the administrative costs associated in doing
business.

The three contracts before you this evening have doubled the employees’ health insurance
contribution, have doubled the employees’ co-payment for office visits, and have doubled
emergency room visits. I realize more needs to be done, but we are headed in the right direction. I
believe these contracts are fair, and that both administration and the unions will continue to work in a
cohabitative manner to address the needs of our dedicated employees and taxpayers.

I strongly encourage you to support these contracts, and ask that you join the administration and the
union in this collaborative matter. Thank you.

RESPONSE TO REMARKS OF THE MAYOR - None
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                  Page 2

RECOGNITION PERIOD - None

READING MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN TOLLNER THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 24, 2006 AND NOVEMBER 2, 2006 BE ACCEPTED, PLACED ON
FILE, AND THE READINGS SUSPENDED
MOTION CARRIED

COMMUNICATIONS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW
FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMMUNICATION, BY TITLE ONLY, RECEIVED AFTER THE
AGENDA WAS PREPARED
MOTION CARRIED

From: Mark Conrad, Business Administrator
Re:   Fact Finding Report – NTU, Unit B, Paraprofessionals

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND REFER TO THE
BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE
MOTION CARRIED

PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA

Maureen Lemieux, 87 Spindlewick Drive

I am the Director of the Administrative Services Division here at the City. Mr. President and
members of the Board, I am here before you this evening to speak in favor of Resolutions R-06-126,
127, and 128. Many of you believe your constituents elected you to be a conservative voice on this
board and to make every effort to control spending. You believe that is your mantra, and honestly, so
do I. But I also believe your constituents elected you to analyze proposals that are put in front of you
and to support those proposals that truly are in the best interest of the City. I believe these contracts
are exactly that.

As you begin to deliberate these contracts once again as a full Board, I ask you to take a good hard
look at what you have in front of you. First, each of these contracts contains a 0% salary increase
for the first year. In FY 06, we informed the merit employees that they would not receive a salary
increase that year, due to budgetary constraints. Our merit employees do not have the benefit of
collective bargaining agreements, and therefore, had no choice but to accept the recommendation of
administration, and then ultimately full Board of Aldermen.

Our UAW employees represent the first 3 unions to agree to accept no salary increase for the first
year of their contract. This, in and of itself, saves the City a substantial amount of money over the
life of this contract. You cannot lose sight of that impact on this.

Secondly, each of these contracts contains an increase in employee payroll contributions to health
care, with the contribution to the HMO plans actually being doubled, and the employee contributions
to the POS plans being increased to 20%. Our employees in these unions understand the need for
this change and have agreed to it.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                    Page 3

Thirdly, each of these contracts have doubled the employee co-pay for office visits. Our employees
understood that this change was necessary, and have again agreed to it.

The last time we stood before you, our employees had also agreed to doubling their co-pay for
emergency room visits. As discussion ensued, it appeared that there was concern that our
employees did not recognize the cost involved in emergency room visits, and were perhaps abusing
that privilege. Therefore, as part of our renegotiations, our employees have agreed to double their
emergency room co-payment for their first 3 visits, to quadruple their co-payment for their 4th, 5th and
6th emergency room visits, if so needed, and then return to the doubled amount for any visits
thereafter.

I am happy to stand here and report that I have just received a new utilization report from Anthem
today. Our employees actually visited the emergency room 9% fewer times than the Anthem norm
in FY 06 and 13% fewer times than the norm in FY 05.

Last time we stood before you, it became increasingly evident that members of the Board could not
support the $1,000 equalizer because the City would not generate enough health care cost savings
within the life of the contract to break even. The negotiating teams for both sides realized, that in order
to gain the support of this Board, the equalizer would have to be reduced so as to create the
opportunity for cost savings to the City by the end of the contract. The contracts before you actually
generate the beginnings of that cost savings in the 2nd year of the change in health care contributions,
once again in an effort to address the concerns that some members of the Board expressed.

We all know, health insurance costs continue to skyrocket. Health Insurance in America is in crisis.
We are not alone, we are not unique, and we cannot solve this problem on the backs of our
employees without a better understanding of what exactly is driving our numbers.

I spoke with one particular Alderman who told me that he had spent quite a bit of time reviewing the
Mayor’s Healthcare Task Force Report dated October 12, 2005, and was deeply concerned about
the City’s total claims cost per member as compared to the Anthem norm. What I explained to him,
and what I would like to mention just for a moment is that in the past 13 months since that report was
published, we have been able to dig much deeper into the data and have discovered some dramatic
observations.

The fact is that the reported data had been significantly skewed by the fact that our early retiree and
COBRA populations are part of that calculation and have significantly distorted the true average cost
per member. And while I do believe our average cost per member still does exceed the Anthem
norm, slightly, for our active employees and their dependents, I can categorically say that it is in no
way near the magnitude that it appears to be in that report.

In fact, when I have gone back and analyzed the data, it has become apparent that, although the FY
06 average cost per member including admin. fees and stop loss payments approximates $4,300,
the average cost per active member was approximately $3,800 while the average cost per member
of our early retiree and COBRA populations approximated $9,000 per member. That disparity then
magnifies itself within any reporting that is done on our entire pool.

Unfortunately, we do not have the ability to address the working rates or premium rates of our
retirees. However, passage of these contracts would enable us to change the office visit and
emergency room visit co-pays for our more than 600 members who are covered under our early
retiree and COBRA programs. Additionally, I have gone back and analyzed the total cost of claims
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                  Page 4

since the inception of the Self Insurance Program. I am also happy to report that by staying the
course and maintaining a self-insured program, the FY 06 total cost of insurance was $3.9 million
less than it would have been had we returned to a fully insured market. This savings actually
generated almost $3 million of savings directly to the City in the City’s share.

This year in FY 07, our self-insured projections are based on $1.1 million less than the fully insured
quotes we received in the spring. We are currently tracking very favorably to the working rates, and
it is my hope that we will be able to deliver at least an additional $2 million cost savings this year.

These contracts before you have additional language changes that will further enable us to truly
contain our health insurance costs for our employees and for our citizens as well. I believe the
removal of the carrier names will so improve our negotiating position that we will be able to save as
much as $500,000 between administrative fees and prescription drug costs, alone.

Throughout our discussions it became clear that many members of the Board wanted the City to
offer high deductible plans or some other type of plan design. These contracts include language
enabling the City to offer additional health plans with benefit levels and premium cost sharing
determined by the City in its sole discretion.

Further, these contracts include language that states, and I quote, “for the duration of this
agreement, the parties to the agreement agree to participate in a joint labor/management committee
to consider the performance of the aforementioned plans, any changes thereto, and to develop
proposals to modify the health insurance programs offered by the City in order to control the costs of
those programs for the benefit of the City and its employees.”. This is perhaps one of the most
important sentences in these contracts.

These employees have committed to working in partnership with us. They are the first groups to
step forward to take no salary increase in the first year of their contract, to increase their payroll
contribution, to increase their co-payment for office and emergency room visits, to include language
that allows us to offer a new plan design at our sole discretion, and they have put in writing that they
are willing to sit down with us to develop proposals to modify our health programs in order to control
overall costs.

I believe you are in an enviable position. You have the opportunity to set the City on a course where
we will truly be working in partnership with our employees to address health care costs and to begin
to shift the slope of that ever-increasing curve. You have the opportunity to show our employees
that you recognize their commitment to our City and the partnership that they are willing to enter into
with us. And you have the opportunity to generate substantial savings to our taxpayers over the next
several years.

Another Alderman said to me earlier today – Maureen, this is the moment. I, too, believe this is the
moment and I sincerely ask you to seize this moment, to set the direction for this City, and to give us
the tools we need to implement real cost containment measures. I sincerely ask for your support of
these contracts. Thank you.

Jim Campbell, 19 Alpine Street

Good evening. I am the Unit Chair for the UAW Clerical/Technical unit. I just want to address a
couple of concerns that were brought up at some of the Budget Review Committee meetings. One
of them is the sacrifice that the employees in this unit make. The first one, we give up one year’s
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                Page 5

wages – we are willing to take a zero for our first year of our contract. The next one is the
healthcare contribution – doubling our contribution. The office visits, the co-pay for that doubling
that, and the emergency room visits have already been outlined. We have already agreed to give
the City language to allow them to go out and get a different carrier as long as it is comparable to
what we have now.

I think one of the biggest sacrifices made by some of the employees that are covered by this
contract is in Public Works, the people that deal with snow removal – keeping the streets clear in the
wintertime. Last year we worked Thanksgiving Day, New Years Eve, New Years Day, day after
Christmas – a couple of years ago we worked Christmas day – these people are willing to give us
their time with their family for this city. I would hope that some of that is taken into account here.

While we are on the subject of snow removal, there was a concern about the number of earned time
days. After we work 24-32 hours in a snowstorm a lot of us will take a day off, and that comes out of
our earned time, just to go home and get some rest. We use a lot of earned time over the course of
the winter just for that purpose. We’re not using it for our own personal vacation time really we are
just using it to catch up on our sleep and our rest.

Lastly, I would like to address the tuition reimbursement. I personally think it is commendable that a
person does not feel that they are too old to learn something new, and will boldly go back to school
and take a course or two to keep up with the ever-changing modern technology. Thank you.

Denise Lieberman 28 Jonathan Circle, Merrimack

Good evening. Up until 90 days ago I was a resident of Nashua for 8 years. I am a UAW city
employee, and I work in the Financial Services Division. The UAW employees are not as visible as
other city employees like the police, fire, or the refuge collectors. Just in the division I work in,
Financial Services, employees handle city compliances, trust funds, investment funds, tax billing,
and collection. In 2006, we billed $155 million in property taxes, we have billed over $5 million in
wastewater fees, and we collect these fees and taxes for the city. We execute liens, we bill and
collect DPW fees, we process all deposits for the city.

The workers in Motor Vehicle, they register, title, and transfer over 90,000 transactions per year. We
help prepare the annual budget that is provided to you. We handle payroll, traffic violations,
accounts payable. Over the years we have seen staff not replaced and have taken on more work
and responsibility due to this without any additional wages.

We are the employees in the City Clerk’s Office, the Assessor’s Office, Human Resources,
Purchasing Department, Maintenance, I.T., Planning, Economic Development, Building Safety, Code
Enforcement, Solid Waste Department, Treatment Plant – all the areas of DPW, Police, and Fire.
We are in all areas of the City of Nashua. As you can see we provide a very good important public
service. We are the individuals that are residents and business owners……

Dawn Roy

As you can see, we provide a very important public service. We are the individuals that the
residents and business owners of Nashua come to see when they need answers to questions. At
least 80% of our UAW employees are residents of the Nashua area, and we are your constituents.
We are also impacted by the rising property taxes. We have had to give concessions in wages and
benefits that do not even provide us with a cost of living increase. We as city employees and
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                 Page 6

residents have been working with the administration of the city as we do recognize the financial
situation of our city. We are providing the concessions in healthcare costs and are working diligently
as employees to see what we can accomplish to help resolve the financial situations in the future.
Thank you.

Bob Burgess, 32 Bates Drive

First of all I know I am coming here tonight and am a little outnumbered, but I appreciate all the work
these city people do. I think they are a credit to the city. I have come into meetings with them at
times. They are fine people, but I have a problem with the health insurance.

One of the Aldermen last week said well this is a baby step in the right direction. To me it is a burp
in the wrong direction. Over the last couple of weeks, I have gotten a hold of different people who
have health insurance – I have looked around to see what they are paying. I work in a place where
there are federal workers – they are paying 30% and deductibles are much greater. Some of them
are paying 25% for a doctor’s visit, 100 when they go in the hospital. I have seen other people with
some of the insurances, one of them, I won’t mention the name, every one I have seen they are
paying approximately 30% of their health insurance – every one of them. I have seen about a dozen
different plans that are coming up for renewal.

The city has been very generous over the years, and to me too generous. Let’s look at some figures
here, and let’s try to go with the letter the Mayor sent here today – double the employees’ co-
payment for the office visit from $5 to $10. Five to ten dollars – you can’t even buy a twelve pack for
that. Most of the ones I have seen have been around $20 for the doctor’s visits. Let’s go on to the
employees’ contribution – 10% from 5. I will come back to that in a minute. The emergency room
we are going up to $50 and maybe $100. Let’s look at some figures now. This insurance is going to
more or less take effect in the year ’07. In the year ’07, for a family plan in the HMO $19,737 – the
taxpayers in the city will pay $17,796. The employee will pay $1,974. We heard Maureen the other
night say well we are looking at a 15% increase. Well let’s go up to the year ’08 0- the same HMO
$22,696. AS a taxpayer I am going to contribute $20,426. That is for one family plan. Let’s go to
the year ’09 – the family plan $26,099. This is what Maureen says we are going up 15% along each
way. The taxpayers are going to pay $23,489. That is for one family health plan in the city. The
employee will pay $2,610.

Let’s go to the dental plan – free dental plan for 1 or 2 person. The taxpayers are going to pay $963
a year for this. Why am I against this health insurance – well let’s go one step further. We recently
increased the elderly exemption – we got 63 more people on the payroll with this - $560,000
increase in the elderly property valuation. The total valuation the taxpayers have got to pick up for
the elderly are $161,891,950. Those are those youngsters out there trying to make it in Nashua.

Let’s go to the veterans’ exemption - $1,468,000 this is in dollar figures. That youngster 25 or 30
trying to buy a house, and we know what kind of jobs are in Nashua. I say this health insurance we
can’t afford this. These are fine people, but the real world out there today almost every insurance
company I have come into contact with in the last two weeks are paying approximately 30%, they
are paying bigger deductibles – no $5 or $10 co-pay for the office visit. I don’t think those 88,000
people in this city can afford this. We have a good crowd here tonight, and I know they want this
pushed through, but think of those 88,000 people out there, some of these youngsters struggling to
get by, some of us seniors to forget to lay down and collect the tax exemption, but continue to work,
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                 Page 7

how can we keep affording our homes? You look around the elderly are in the stores bagging and
everything else in the city today. This health insurance we just can’t afford it.

Like I say, in my heart this is nothing but a burp. This ain’t a baby step, and it is backwards. Thank
you.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN TOLLNER TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BY AN
ADDITIONAL FIFTEEN MINUTES
MOTION CARRIED

Kenneth Lowe, 11 Birch Street, Merrimack

Good evening. Thank you for hearing me speak tonight. I too am a Public Works employee. As we
debate the business of this city tonight just keep in mind each and every one of us that are in this
room tonight is a publics work employee, and we are here to serve the citizens of this fine city.
People ask me what I do for a living, and I say I am employed by the City of Nashua, but I work for
the citizens of Nashua. As the cost of doing business goes up, just remember compromise and
understanding are the two tools to any successful negotiation. We all know each and every day that
we live and breathe God’s good air the cost of living will go up, and we must share it in some way,
shape, or form. Hence the compromise and understanding.

When you put a price tag on the service that each and every one of us in this room provide the fair
citizens of Nashua the outcome of the service that is provided for these citizens will be determined
by the price tag that you put on it. I know for a fact that each and every one of us come in every
morning, therefore, just keep in mind that service is very important here in the City of Nashua, and
we wake up every single morning to come in and provide that service whether we be police, fire,
teacher, rubbish collector, lawn and garden men at the Park Department. Each and every day, and
compromise over the past 17 years that I have been employed by the city is something that we have
to swallow each and every day to kick and scratch to provide a top level of service to the citizens of
this fine city. Ladies and gentlemen compromise and understanding are the best tools to any
successful negotiation. Thank you.

PETITIONS – None

NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS

The following appointment by the Mayor was read into the record:

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Sean W. Duffy (Re-Appointment)                              Term to Expire: September 11, 2009
9 Cheyenne Drive
Nashua, NH 03063

MOTION BY ALDERMAN TOLLNER TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MAYOR AS
READ AND REFER IT TO THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                                 Page 8

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Teeboom

I have a question for Alderman Tollner. The last time Alderman Tollner mentioned that you were not
going to interview before the committee re-appointments. Is it your intention to bring before the
committee Mr. Duffy who has appeared before and then withdrew his nomination?

Alderman Tollner

As usual, if any member of this Board would like to interview any appointee that is forwarded to the
Personnel Committee they just need to send me a communication, and I will make sure that they are
invited to be interviewed.

Alderman Teeboom

My communication is that I would like to see Mr. Duffy – a good friend of mine, but he still needs to be
interviewed. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

    Budget Review Committee .................................................................        10/19/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the October 19, 2006
Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file.

    Budget Review Committee .................................................................        11/02/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the November 2, 2006
Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file.

    Budget Review Committee .................................................................        11/07/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the November 7, 2006
Budget Review Committee accepted and placed on file.

    Finance Committee ............................................................................   10/16/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the October 16 2006
Finance Committee accepted and placed on file.

    Special Finance Committee ...............................................................        10/25/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the October 25, 2006
Special Finance Committee accepted and placed on file.

    Finance Committee ............................................................................   11/01/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the November 1, 2006
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                              Page 9

Finance Committee accepted and placed on file.

    Committee on Infrastructure ...............................................................   10/25/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the October 25, 2006
Committee on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file.

    Pennichuck Water Special Committee ...............................................            10/23/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the October 23, 2006
Pennichuck Water Special Committee accepted and placed on file.

    Pennichuck Water Special Committee ...............................................            10/30/06

There being no objection, President Rootovich declared the report of the October 30, 2006
Pennichuck Water Special Committee accepted and placed on file.

CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS – None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS

R-06-120
    Endorser: Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
    AUTHORIZING “NASHUA GREEK COMMUNITY” TO ADOPT THE PORTION
    OF THE NASHUA HERITAGE RAIL TRAIL LOCATED BETWEEN ELM STREET
    AND BEECH STREET
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN PLAMONDON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-120
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-06-120 declared duly adopted.

R-06-123
    Endorsers:    Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
                  Alderman Daniel L. Richardson
    RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF THE SUM OF $1,500 FROM ACCOUNT
    519-94005 “ASSESSORS – CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS” AND
    APPROPRIATION INTO ACCOUNT 511-94010 “ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES –
    EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN RICHARDSON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-123 BY ROLL
CALL
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                      Page 10

A Viva Voce Roll Call was conducted, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Flynn, Alderman LaRose,
     Alderman Dion, Alderman Bolton, Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Richardson,
     Alderman Deane, Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams,
     Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Rootovich
                                                            14
Nay:                                                        0
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-06-123 declared duly adopted.

R-06-124
    Endorsers: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
                 Alderman Richard LaRose
    RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $3,500 FROM ACCOUNT 591-86005
    “GENERAL CONTINGENCY” INTO ACCOUNT 520-53100 “HUNT BUILDING
    CONTRACT SERVICES”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-124

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Flynn

I voted for this in committee, and I am not going to flip tonight, but – it does point out a real
problem with the budget or where we are as a city. When the Mayor put out this request for
all the departments to reduce by 5%, the small departments (this is a department that only
had a budget originally for $30,900) with the cost of fuel and electricity, water, and I think they
have one part time person that works 4 days a week, 4-5 hours a day – those kinds of
departments the real small department they really didn’t stand a prayer of trying to measure
up to that 5%. I know hopefully this doesn’t set a precedent for other departments to come
forward to us tonight. It has got to be a concern. Some of the bigger departments were able
to come to us and ask us to escrow funds to bring forward into the ’07 budget. Smaller
departments these little – even though it is a little cut back – we asked them to cut back by
only $1,000, and with the cost of all of the utilities they really, and a lot of other departments I
think are going to have a hard time standing up to that.

I will vote for this. I don’t like the precedent of it, but I recognize that we really did put them at
a heavy disadvantage of trying to cut back 5% with very little under their control.

Alderman Deane

I have a question of Corporation Counsel – this is a supplemental appropriation?

David Connell

Items that are in general contingency have already been appropriated so that they are not –
when they transfer that is not a new appropriation. There is already a line item for Hunt
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                 Page 11

Building Contract Services so when money is transferred into that it is not a new
appropriation.

Alderman Deane

Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-06-124 declared duly adopted.

R-06-125
    Endorser: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
    RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $32,237 FROM ACCOUNT 596-86580
    “CONTINGENCY RETIREMENTS – CITY” INTO ACCOUNT 552-11052
    “SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-125
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-06-125 declared duly adopted.

R-06-126
    Endorsers: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
                 Alderman-at-Large Steven A. Bolton
                 Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
                 Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko
    APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
    BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND U.A.W.
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE POLICE
    DEPARTMENT, LOCAL #2232 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2009
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-126

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Teeboom

You will notice that the motion from the Budget Committee was not to recommend to pass. It
was recommend indefinite postponement. I would recommend all of those who would like to
know the details to look at the minutes of the two meetings where the contracts were
extensively discussed.

You heard a lot of figures this evening, and you heard Director Lemieux’s figures basically
saying this contract goes in the right direction. It does go in the right direction. Certainly
concessions are made. The question is are sufficient concessions made. Permit me for a
moment to analyze some of the information that we received without going into excruciating
detail.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                 Page 12

First on the top the contract contains at least 20 cost items – wages, holidays, vacation,
overtime, pension, dental insurance, health insurance – those are the major items. There are
actually more than 20 cost items. I only wish to address one of those, the one we have
discussed before, the one that seems to be the biggest contention by this Board, the one that
has been pointed out in the past – in particular I pointed out a letter by Vince Capasso a
former President of the Board of Education pointing out we have got to get health costs under
control. I won’t read from that letter, but that was President of the Board of Education.

The projections last time when I presented a lot of charts, and I am not going to present any
charts tonight, but I had shown that if the costs keep going at 15%, which is projected and
you can look and that is pretty much a national average – the costs of healthcare keep going
up – right now we are paying $23 million – those costs ten years from now at 15% of increase
will become $90 million. You can argue healthcare costs are not under the control of this
small board in this small city, when the federal government can’t even get control of the
healthcare costs. That is true, we cannot deal with the 15% increase annually at this point,
but we can deal with the costs of the plans before us.

Just an idea – the cost is not only expensive to the City it is very expensive to the employees.
Right now the employees altogether contribute about $2 million. That cost will go up to over
$10 million in ten years. Those are projections we made last time, and they are as good
today as they were when we talked about the previous contracts.

On the current contracts, Director Lemieux – now these are her numbers not my numbers – I
didn’t have the information that I could come up with these numbers – she removed the
retirees – retirees are people under 65 who are retired who do not qualify for Medicare – city
pays part of their contribution, but basically I take that back – the retirees pay for their own
contribution, but they are counted within the plan and add to the cost of the plan because
retirees have a higher claim service.

If you take out the retirees, which is what Maureen did, the average cost per employee to the
city this year, FY 06, is $7,858. That cost in 09 will become $12,000 a year not counting
retirees. If you count retirees the average cost will be more like $10,000. The increase is
53% over the life of this contract – increase to the city. What is the increase to the
employees? Well they get a $750 effectively a wage increase on November 1, 2006 with this
contract – it is not a one-time thing it is actually effectively a wage increase. It raises every
step in the wage standards by $750. That is like more than 3% - 3% is much less than that.
Doing that and then doing the math, over the same three years that the city has to pay $4,145
more per employee, the increase to the employees to their insurance goes up by $121.
Actually earn money with the $750 they get actually more than makes up for the additional
cost that they pay for insurance. By the time you add it up over the three years, their total
cost is $121. The city’s total cost goes up per employee $4,145. That is not equitable. That
is just not equitable. Not to the taxpayers that I know people that have difficulty of their own.

The overhead, now we are talking about the total contract, they all go up about 6%. The
police contract before us goes up from 37% to 45%. That is an increase in overhead due to
these contracts. That is not a trivial cost. Those are not my numbers those are CFO
Anderson’s numbers.

I have taken a look at the plans because you have to start somewhere. You can sit and talk
about numbers all you wish, and what we have to do is take a look at the plans. If you look at
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                    Page 13

the language that is proposed to be in the contract it says you no longer name the contract
and that is true, you no longer name Blue Cross/Blue Shield as provider, no longer name
Harvard as a provider, but it says the plan has to be comparable. Now what does
comparable mean? By definition of the contract it means no additional out of pocket pay –
out of pocket for the plan is whatever you pay other than the premium – whatever co-pay you
pay, whatever you pay towards the deductible – no additional out of pocket cost – no
reduction in benefits, and at least 90% of existing providers, hospitals, and specialists have to
be in the plan. To me that means you can’t get off the plans that we have now. Now I am
told we have 6 insurance carriers that would administer this plan, but we can’t get off the plan
that we have now because we can’t change the benefit structure. It says no reduction in
benefits, no additional out of pocket pay, and at least 90% of the providers, specialists, and
hospitals. I don’t see how we can change the plan under those conditions. Just is not
possible. It leaves no negotiating room.

I know Director Lemieux says give me the chance and I will get you the bids, but she hasn’t
given us the bids. We haven’t seen any comparison. You would take this having no
information we can get a different plan, and I am telling you what I just read in a comparable
plan definition I see no way that another plan can substitute. I said to her let’s at least maybe
we can change these parameters and definition of comparable plan. That I think is a place to
start.

Now if you look at the plans themselves, they are very good plans. The HMO requires no
deductible – absolutely no deductibles. It has a co-pay of $5 that will go to $10, the
emergency room is $25, and will go to $50 then $100 then back to $50. No deductible and
$5 co-pay and the employee pays for this plan like I said an average cost of $846. That is the
HMO and POS. The POS is not quite as good a plan. There is a deductible of $250 and a
co-pay of 20% up to $1,000. As a result only 19% of the employees are in the POS plan and
80% are in the HMO plans. At least our employees have smarts enough to know a good plan
when they see one.

Just to compare this against the plan I pay, I am on Medicare – the federal government pays
a lot towards my plan. My Wife and I at one point paid $5,400 a year to get the equivalent
plan of an HMO. We couldn’t afford it. We now have a high deductible. We pay $3,000 a
year and we have a high deductible of $1,700 plus 20% co-pays effectively. Compare that
with no deductible, $5 co-pay, and $800. It just isn’t equitable. It is a good start, but like I
said to the negotiator who was here, Attorney McNamee, it is a good start, but if you look at
the figures it doesn’t go far enough. Thank you.

Alderman McCarthy

Thank you. I think we have gone through most of this before so I will be brief. In the 12
years I have been on this Board we have had this conversation 100 times, and we have
never made any substantial progress on cross sharing in healthcare. We have once in the
past been able to reach some mutual benefit by some changes to the plans that reduced
costs. This is a baby step, but it is a step. It is the first step I have seen. It is the biggest
step we are likely to get. You have to bare in mind that while we can compare this to the
private industry where my employer can change my healthcare plan at will and I can accept
those changes or can go elsewhere, we don’t have that situation here.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                Page 14

We are a public employer - we are bound by law, our employees are bound by law. It is a
simple case for the bargaining units to say are we better off or not better off with the new
contract. I would expect them to do nothing else. These three bargaining units have in fact
made a concession that is at least neutral and probably beneficial to the city, and I applaud
them for that. It is a first step in getting somewhere with healthcare. They have made
concessions on both the cost sharing and on those items in the cost sharing like co-pays and
emergency room visits, which foster changes in the way the plans are consumed, and that is
the way we will save real money over time is by people saying do I really need to go to the
emergency room now or is this something that can wait until I get to the doctor’s office on
Monday. Those are the kinds of things where the costs actually go down. We have those
kinds of considerations in this contract.

I think it is pretty simple. If we don’t approve these we will continue with the same healthcare
process that we have, our costs will go up more than if we approve this contract. It is in the
best interest of the city’s fiscal condition to approve the contracts. I can’t say enough good
about our employees, and I don’t think anybody around this horseshoe questions that. These
people are the soul of the policy that we make, they go out there everyday and do everything
we ask and more, and we owe it to them to pass the contract.

Alderman Teeboom just mentioned he had a plan that was too expensive and he went out
and found one that was cheaper and changed to that, which costs him less overall. Three
years ago we went out and solicited bids for other carries and got a plan that was cheaper,
which we could not switch to because of the language in the contracts. These three
bargaining units have allowed us, in these contracts, to go back and do that again and find a
carrier who will provide acceptable coverage and bare in mind we are self-insured this isn’t
that hard to do, and allow us to reach those cost savings over time by being able to bid those
services out. We have to get these agreements in place in order to do that.

These are fair to our employees, they are good for the City, and we ought to go ahead and
approve them.

Alderman Dion

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a question to the Chair at the end of my statement. When
an ordinance or resolution goes to a committee, and the committee recommends either final
passage or indefinite postponement usually one of the prevailing members of the committee
at the full Board like we are here tonight makes the motion that has been recommended by
the committee, and the motion recommended by the Budget Committee was indefinite
postponement. My question to you Mr. Chairman is how do we get a motion for final passage
ahead of the committee’s recommendation, which usually is the case?

President Rootovich

Alderman Bolton was one of the endorsers of the resolution. Alderman Bolton as a member
of this Board has a right to change that motion and not to take that motion that the committee
recommends. That was well within his rights to do.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                  Page 15

Alderman Dion

Mr. Chairman what I am trying to say and every member of this Board knows this is a fact that
usually, historically, the recommendation of whatever the committee recommends the motion
is made by a member on the prevailing side of that committee at the full Board meeting. It
was not done tonight.

President Rootovich

Again Alderman Dion Alderman Bolton was one of the endorsers of the resolution. In the
past, we have always given it to one of the endorsers to make a motion. It is his right to
make that motion and I entertained it.

Alderman Dion

I didn’t say he didn’t have a right to do it I am saying that past practice has been a member of
the prevailing side of the committee makes the motion.

President Rootovich

That has not always been the practice Alderman Dion.

Alderman Dion

To the best of my knowledge 95% of the time that is the way it has been, and it seems kind of
funny that because it is a contract it is different tonight.

President Rootovich

No underlining meaning behind it Alderman Dion I assure you.

Alderman Dion

Well I beg to differ with you Mr. Chairman.

President Rootovich

All within your rights. Is there any further discussion?

Alderman Flynn

Thank you Mr. President. I agree with Alderman McCarthy – I will try to be brief tonight. We
have covered this – we spent over four hours of this two nights in committee. I did look at the
notes a couple of times on the Internet. I think there is over 130 pages of dialogue. This has
been beaten about pretty hard. I would say that the Mayor’s notes tonight he calls this a giant
step. In the committee, I might have, I am not sure, I might have called this a very small baby
step.

Again, a small baby step for a contract that is going to last us the next three years is hardly
enough to support this resolution tonight. I am still very puzzled as to why it is so hard to
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                     Page 16

negotiate or to have to find some way to have the unions agree with us to remove this
comment about who the health carriers will be on the contract. It saves us money and it
saves them money. They still I am sure get the same good health service that they would get
irregardless of who the health carrier would be. To think that is a big gift on their part, a big
move on their part to give us that for me just doesn’t settle in quite right. It seems to me that
we would both want to do that and make it happen and that we wouldn’t have to go along with
this unfavorable contract in front of us tonight for another three long years.

Three years – this is a big moment I think to start signing contracts here recognizing that this
carries us through FY 09. That is the giant step that we are taking tonight is committing
ourselves down that road for three more years. As I said – I didn’t want to repeat anything
that Aldermen Teeboom or ……. Tape flipped …. serious concern about this re-opener in
this contract that irregardless of how this contract were it to pass we really don’t know what
the true cost of this contract is. There are some precedents in here for a building that usually
doesn’t like to have precedence, and like I said I have had some of my legislation beaten
down because it sets precedence. To have that in there for three of these contracts that they
can be re-opened if there is a more favorable wage or health benefit that is rather disturbing.
I never really got a good answer what was a more favorable wage – how they define the word
favorable.

Even amongst these three contracts in front of us tonight if you take out the – if you look at
the wage increase from year ’07 I guess through year ’09, one of the contracts is 11.7, one is
11.8, and one is 11.1 percent. I don’t really know if we pass this tonight if that contract is
subject to a re-opener to get to 11.8 or if it would just be sitting there waiting for the next best
deal to come along. We are not locking into anything tonight if we pass this contract. It is
certainly setting a bad – we are certainly going along a path that this Board usually doesn’t
like to follow going along with a precedent.

I just say that the Mayor’s final sentence talks about the needs of our employees and the
needs of our taxpayers – I think tonight I am trying to listen to both needs. I think this contract
doesn’t satisfy both those needs. Thank you.

Alderman Tollner

I won’t add to what a number of the Aldermen have stated. I have been on this board for a
long time, and when these contracts come up we ask for some concessions or changes or
cost sharing. This is a good example. I did get a couple of calls on the comments I made in
committee about baby steps, but it actually is baby steps. We have to start somewhere.
Every contract that we have passed in the last 9-10 there weren’t any relative changes in the
cost sharing for the health insurance. These three unions have stepped forward and taken
the first step, and I would call it a baby step in the collective bargaining process. Any
agreement that is successful both sides have to give a little bit. At the end of this if both sides
walk away and say I am not ecstatic about it, but I can live with it then I think that is a pretty
good deal.

There is a zero percent salary increase in the first year of these contracts, which Mrs.
Lemieux had stated in the budget meetings will follow through. There is a considerable cost
savings in itself. We have already discussed the increased payroll contribution and the
changes in the co-payments. The significance of the removal of the carrier name is very
significant. I work for Harvard Pilgrim – my employer will probably shoot me for saying this,
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                    Page 17

but it is good for the city to get the names of the carriers out. It will provide the city from here
forward a lot more flexibility in going out and looking at a number of different alternatives.
When you do that the city wins, the employees win, and in the end the taxpayers win because
it will provide a better opportunity for competitiveness and you will get better prices.

As I said to one person earlier today, even if the city was to stay with Anthem do you think
that Anthem or Harvard Pilgrim would provide a more competitive quote if we put this whole
process out to bid – of course they would – competition. They would come in with a leaner
price and a better proposal. If that happens everybody saves. The bottom line is I know
there are probably 2 or 3 of you who mare undecided about this contract right now – if you
had been on this board for 12 years you would understand we have to start somewhere. This
is a start. It may not be as much as some people wanted, but it is a start. That is a heck of a
lot more than we have seen in the last 10 years. I urge you to approve this contract so we
can start on this. As soon as all of these contracts are approved let’s start again so we are
not in the same place we are when these contracts expire. Thank you.

Alderman Bolton

Thank you Mr. President. I wasn’t going to say anything. I do recognize that in spite of
everyone’s effort to be brief, brevity has long since left the building. Nevertheless I have to
take serious issue with those of my colleagues who say that year after year no changes get
made. That is flat out untrue. The fact is year after year, contract after contract, our
employee groups have made concessions. Ten years ago most of the unionized workers in
this city had a choice between having the city pay 85% of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Major
Medical JW 100 Indemnity Plan – the Cadillac of all plans. In some groups it was 90% and at
least one group it was 95%. Alternatively they could take an equal dollar value and apply it
toward an HMO plan. The result was that most of our employees paid nothing toward and
HMO plan. That was just ten years ago.

Contract after contract they have been asked to contribute more, and time after time after
time they have steppe dup and been willing to contribute more. No one pays less now than
5% of the HMO coverage. By these contracts they will double that to 10%. Some people
may not think that is a major step. I think it is a major step. I think it is once again the
employees of this city being asked to take less while they are being continually asked to do
more. The fact is over the life of this contract and the other two before us tonight, I think the
employees will find themselves worse off by having agreed to this contract than they would
be if we did not change the current circumstances they work under.

If I were one of them, if I were advising them as their council I may well have advised them to
vote against ratifying these contracts. Since they have come to us, they have agreed, they
have been willing to negotiate in good faith, and to come to this compromise I think the city
would be absolutely foolish not to jump on the chance to make progress in all of these areas
that Director Lemieux mentioned. The fact is it is absolutely crystal clear that if we can bid
out the administrative aspect of handling this because we are self-insured on the actual
medical costs, but the administrative costs are what we can bid out and the only thing
stopping us is the current language in the existing contract that is significant, and every
expert that we have talked to that we have paid money to get their opinions, say that will save
us money. It is not a small thing. It is not an insignificant thing. It is an important thing.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                  Page 18

If offering other alternatives that may save both the city and the employees money, if that is a
significant area of savings, we will have the right to do that under the contracts. We ought to
be jumping at the chance to ratify this before the employee groups change their minds.
Thank you.

Alderman Cookson

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Through you to a health provider expert that is on our Board if you
would allow me to, Alderman Tollner – it has been mentioned several times, at least twice this
evening, that if we were to ratify these contracts that we would be able to go out and have a
healthcare provider bid on the healthcare services – I will restrict it to these three contracts
right now, which consist of approximately 219 employees I believe – would a healthcare
provider bid for 219 employees?

Alderman Tollner

They would probably bid on the 219 or so employees, but the value of us approving this
contract and if the other unions follow then you will have 1 of the top 3 or 4 insurance plans in
the state absolutely bid on this. The reason why and we discussed this I think the other night
briefly at the Budget meeting, the reason why we can’t get comparable bids right now is
because when we tried to do that a few years ago with Sigma, they came in with a bid and
matched the existing plan at that time exactly, and because of the language that was in some
of the contracts we weren’t allowed to move to Sigma, which would have generated a
considerable cost savings.

To answer your question, would any carrier bid on 200 lives yes any carrier would bid on 200
lives, but the essence of this is to approve this contract and try and remove the names, and
then work to do the same with other contracts where you would gain the opportunity to bid out
the whole process – without any affect on the benefits. All it would be is a different carrier.

Alderman Cookson

However, ultimately it would be the goal to have every labor union remove that wording so
that a healthcare provider could come in and negotiate for the entire city versus a group of
219.

Alderman Tollner

Correct.

Alderman Cookson

Thank you.

Alderman MacLaughlin

Thank you Mr. President. From a personal perspective in dealing with insurance, having
worked with large retailers who do business in our community, I can say I have been working
in this city for 6 years now, and for the first 5 I was one of those who were uninsured even at
the salary that I enjoyed, the compensation that I had, my previous employer was actually
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                    Page 19

covered by the firm that is represented by Alderman Tollner in his profession. It was a very
large retail operation. The building had 95 employees during non-peak and over 175 during
the holiday peak. I couldn’t afford that plan so I chose not to be covered.

Carrying forward this past year when I made an employment change and joined my new
employer, the Men’s Warehouse, which is a very small store locally but a very large chain
nationally with 500 locations, this very point is that they employed this tool with the ability to
negotiate with other providers during the year that I had joined the company. What was
previously unaffordable to me became different, and now I am very pleased to say that I can
afford the company’s plan.

The overall correlation there is with that flexibility that it affected me that way I am sure it
affects that way as a best practice, and I am sure the city will realize some benefits. This is a
very important component as a result. I see the value of it, and I am rather critical of
contracts. I have not supported them in my three years here on the Board. I like this
characteristic very much. When it comes to the emergency room co-pay, what was $25
under these contracts will become $50 – I will be paying just a touch over that with my new
plan. I am not saying that just because I am happy with what I am able to do that it correlates
to everyone in the district I represent, but it is movement and it is significant movement when
you look at it at that level. There are other pieces here. Am I happy with the $5 going to $10
for the co-payment, not really, but there are some pieces in there I am not happy with. This
has to be a compromise. I don’t bring it down to whether it is a baby step or a giant leap.
The fact is there has to be movement and it has to happen on both sides. I believe that
movement has begun to happen. That is the view I bring to the contract votes this evening.
Thank you.

President Rootovich

Is there any further discussion?

Alderman Deane

Thank you. I was lobbied heavy today. I received a couple of phone calls from the
administration pertaining to these contracts. There is a lot of if, ands, or buts pertaining to
any cost savings whatsoever. I still to this day reflect on what Alderman Flynn had to say
where if the 10 employees in the UAW representing the Police Department if the
administration thinks for one minute that those 10 employees and what they agree upon are
going to lobby the teachers, the fire or the police I have an answer for you – that is not
happening. Let’s be realistic.

I asked Mrs. Lemieux today if say these all came into place what would happen – they all
agreed to everything – would add $3 million to our payroll. Three million dollars a year. Now
we have to look at our fregulent pension system, which I think all city employees, outside of
public works, should be gravely concerned about – their guaranteed rate of return. The
numbers we got for increases on the pension plan alone for ’08 respectively were $13.6% -
this is our contribution, 14.74%, and 16.70%. We have to add that into the mix. Mrs.
Anderson had given us a number I believe was around $2.2 million or $2.3 million next year
alone just for the pension plan and then Mrs. Lemieux had given us a number around $3.8
million or $3.6 million just for the healthcare costs for a total of $6 million before we even start
the budget process will be added.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                    Page 20


This will add another $3 million, which is $9 million. If you look at the overall increases on the
bottom of these contacts, they far exceed the cost of living. The contract that we are looking
at now in ’07 has a 5.68% increase, in ’08 has a 5.92% increase, and ’09 has a 4.84%
increase. If you go through these it is too much. We have to look out at the landscape of this
community and the people that are trying to afford to live here. I think we have a lot of folks
that work for the city that live here, and I appreciate the concessions that were brought
forward, but any substantial cost savings that were presented to us by the administration
repeatedly were mentioned in FY10, which is one year beyond these contracts.

I looked back some of my colleagues made remarks about the last 10-12 years or whatever
looking at these contracts, and Alderman Bolton had mentioned concessions that were made,
but when we look back at the healthcare increase of 15% each and every year I for one just
don’t feel as though the constituents I represent can continue to sustain to pay for these
increases. It is killing us. If this is approved we will be locked into paying for this for another
three years with no guarantee on any cost savings at all. That is my feeling on it. Thank you
Mr. President.

Alderman Dion

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as the last speaker. All I can tell you is that we as
a Board elected by the people in the City of Nashua have a responsibility, a responsibility to
keep their taxes as low as we possibly can. If you read the newspaper just recently you saw
where the tax rate set by the State has gone up, which is going to increase property taxes.
These contracts will increase your property taxes plus everything else that comes to the
budget. Don’t be surprised if you approve these contracts that you don’t see a double digit
increase in your tax rate. You think the senior citizens and the kids that are just starting out
married life do you think they can afford this – continuous year after year after year Mr.
Chairman? There has to be a stop to this. Don’t people realize this? We just keep on
increasing and increasing and increasing the budget. We are just like the federal government
– no different. The only thing is they print the money and we don’t.

I urge my colleagues to think about this when they vote – budget season is coming and this
increases the budget something fierce. You have to think of these things. You have to think
about the senior citizens. You have to think about the people that are just scratching and can
barely make their payments on their homes. You have to think of these people. Thank you
Mr. Chairman.

Alderman Plamondon

I am going to keep my comments very brief. Just to sum things up on my position yes we are
elected by our constituents of the city. We are elected to watch the coffers of the taxes. First
and foremost in my mind we are elected to provide a safe, healthy, functional, economically
viable community. With that costs are incurred. The contracts before us have had
concessions that I have not seen of this level in the 12 years I have been involved. To me it
is a step in the right direction – baby or otherwise it is a step in the right direction. I think we
need to move forward. Thank you.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                     Page 21

Alderman Flynn

I think it has been said, but if it hasn’t, in the Mayor’s notes he talks about three of the
concessions; the doubled health and contributions, the double office visits, the double
emergency room visits. He doesn’t mention that wage equalizer of $750. He doesn’t
mention that after all is said and done over three years it is an additional $.02 on the
employees’ part being put towards their share of this contract. Alderman Tollner’s comment
about if the others follow – there is no guarantee any others are going to follow. Of the 200
people that we are talking about, 100 of these are actually non-affiliated. They don’t even
have any say in this. It is hard to believe that they are going to lead the big unions to follow
their step. Thank you.

President Rootovich

Is there any further discussion? Alderman Teeboom do you have anything new?

Alderman Teeboom

Yeah this is new. I was approached by an employee walking down the hallway one time that
said if you don’t approve this we are going to be without a contract. I said tell me if we don’t
approve this contract are you still going to have your vacation, still going to get your health
benefits, still get your life insurance, still get paid, still get bereavement pay, still get dental
insurance – the answer on every one was yes because the contract in the government never
stops. I don’t see the sky falling if someone would say let’s have our negotiators go back to
the table and see if they can get a little more money out of this. I do notice people applaud
when they hear what they like and they don’t applaud when they don’t.

I should mention that on the great sacrifice just look at the HMO – most of the employees are
on the HMO of course as was mentioned before. A single person pays $22 a month, $268 a
year. Two hundred and sixty eight dollars a year to get an HMO – the only thing you pay is
$5 co-payment, no deductible whatsoever. The two person pays $537 and the family pays
$724. It is a very small payment relatively speaking. It is $22 for a single person, and we
have 328 employees in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield single who may $22 a month. For all of
the yelling, shouting, and complaining, I just don’t see the big sacrifice. I think this is a huge
amount of money here that could be negotiated. Let me point out again to the employees
you are on this ride, you are on the ride of 15%. I mentioned earlier that your costs go up
significantly as well. The employees should have better options to get a better plan. There
should be a high deductible plan with lower payments like anybody else – like I have and took
advantage of. Thank you.

President Rootovich

Is there any further discussion? Alderman Flynn do you have something new?

Alderman Flynn

Yes I do. I don’t have the answer to this. I don’t know if I really want to ask the question, but
I am trying to be clear for myself what is going to be the source of funding for – in these three
particular contracts I think there was money set aside in the budget, but that is not true for
many of the bigger unions. I don’t think money is in the budget for if these kind of contracts
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                Page 22

were to come forward. I think we encourage the teachers not to set money aside, but to hire
the teachers back quite frankly and not to hold onto that money.

President Rootovich

Alderman Flynn the contract you are talking about is not before us this evening.

Alderman Flynn

I am talking about .. okay let me talk about the funding for this contract. Where is the $750
that is coming out of our insurance account? I think that is coming out of our insurance
account, and why would we have that money in insurance?

Maureen Lemieux

The $750 would actually be prorated for FY07 to $500. The $500 would be transferred out of
the insurance account into the appropriate departments and the employees would be
contributing the difference.

Alderman Flynn

The net savings in year ’07 are minus $103 per employee. That is the city’s portion that we
have to come up with per employee for every contract that we would sign at this level or
possibly something certainly better than this I would think. Where is that money coming
from? I am talking about the $103.

Maureen Lemieux

The $103 the insurance account right now is tracking very favorably against the working rates
that were established so the fund is certainly healthy enough to transfer the $100.

Alderman Flynn

So it would come from the savings that we were hoping to get through that Frank C. Church?

Maureen Lemieux

No this is health insurance. Fred Church is our Property & Casualty Insurance. This is from
our health insurance savings.

Alderman Flynn

Thank you.

President Rootovich

Is there any further discussion?
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                    Page 23

A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
     Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Rootovich
                                                    6
     `
Nay: Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman Richardson, Alderman Deane,
     Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams, Alderman Plamondon
                                                    8
MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON TO TABLE

A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
     Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Rootovich
                                                    6
Nay: Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman Richardson, Alderman Deane,
     Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams, Alderman Plamondon
                                                    8
MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DION FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT

A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:

Yea:   Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman Richardson, Alderman Deane,
       Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams, Alderman Plamondon
                                                          8
Nay: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
       Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Rootovich
                                                          6
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-06-126 declared duly indefinitely postponed.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON FOR A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS
MOTION FAILED
Division Taken

MOTION BY ALDERMAN FLYNN TO ADJOURN
MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN PLAMONDON TO RECONSIDER R-06-126

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Plamondon

I was a bit confused on the motions before me. I apologize.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                Page 24


Unidentified Alderman

No you don’t want to do this.

Alderman Plamondon

No?

Unidentified Alderman

Hey hey hey hey!

Unidentified Alderman

He has made the motion.

Unidentified Alderman

Withdraw that.

President Rootovich

Alderman Plamondon would you please re-state your motion if there is one?

Alderman Plamondon

The way I understand it R-06-126 indefinite postponement passed.

President Rootovich

It did not.

Alderman Teeboom

Point of Order Mr. President – it passed.

Alderman Deane

It did.

Alderman Plamondon

Where are we at with this thing?

President Rootovich

I would ask that one person speak at a time. I can’t listen to five people speak. Alderman
Teeboom please wait to be recognized. If your hand is up I will recognize you. You just cannot
blurt out. I can’t understand five people at once.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                   Page 25

Alderman Teeboom

I have a point of order Mr. President.

President Rootovich

Your point of order is what Alderman Teeboom?

Alderman Teeboom

You again stated Mr. President it failed. The motion to indefinitely postpone passed.

President Rootovich

It did.

Alderman Teeboom

Thank you.

President Rootovich

We cannot reconsider at this time.

Alderman Deane

Mr. President I am sorry to blurt out, but there is a motion on the floor by Alderman Plamondon
to reconsider.

President Rootovich

I would ask Alderman Plamondon to restate his motion. I did not hear it because of all the
talking. If Alderman Plamondon has a motion I will consider it.

Alderman Plamondon

Now that I understand the final vote for R-06-126 I will … no motion.

Alderman Tollner

Point of Order…

President Rootovich

Alderman Tollner I wish you would at least allow him to finish, but go ahead.

Alderman Tollner

There is a reason why. I have a question through the Chair to Corporation Counsel. If a motion
for reconsideration is made, never mind – forget it.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                Page 26

Alderman Deane

What does this mean?

President Rootovich

I have no idea Alderman Deane because it is not recognized as a legitimate motion so I don’t
recognize it.

Alderman Deane

I would like to understand what the previous point of order was.

President Rootovich

You will have to ask the maker of the question.

Alderman Deane

What was the previous point of order?

Alderman Tollner

I withdraw it.

Alderman Deane

Is there a motion on the floor?

President Rootovich

No there is not. We are going on to the next piece of business at this time.

R-06-127
    Endorsers: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
                 Alderman-at-Large Steven A. Bolton
                 Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
                 Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko
    APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
    BETWEEN THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF NASHUA, NEW
    HAMPSHIRE AND INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE
    AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), LOCAL #2232,
    CLERICAL AND TECHNICAL UNIT THROUGH JUNE 30, 2009
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN PLAMONDON TO AMEND R-06-127 BY DELETING IN THE
TITLE THE WORDS “BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE”
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                   Page 27

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Richardson

It is my understanding that has already been done as an amendment.

President Rootovich

That is correct, and that amendment is now coming back to the full Board for ratification.
That amendment was made in committee, and it is coming back to the full Board.

Alderman Richardson

Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN PLAMONDON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-127 AS
AMENDED

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Teeboom

I thought this motion was – I thought the committee…

President Rootovich

Alderman Teeboom again as previously – the maker of the motion does not have to take the
committee’s recommendation. It is his right to change the motion, which he did.

Alderman Teeboom

Is Mr. Plamondon a sponsor of the resolution?

President Rootovich

Yes he is.

A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
     Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Rootovich
                                              7
Nay: Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman Richardson, Alderman Deane,
     Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams
                                              7
MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN TOLLNER TO HOLD R-06-127 AT THE FULL BOARD AS
AMENDED
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                         Page 28


A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
     Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Rootovich
                                              7
Nay: Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman Richardson, Alderman Deane,
     Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams
                                              7
MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DION FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF R-06-127 AS
AMENDED BY ROLL CALL

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea:   Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Richardson,
       Alderman Deane, Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams
                                               8

Nay: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
     Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Rootovich
                                              6
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-06-127 declared indefinitely postponed as amended.

R-06-128
   Endorsers:    Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
                 Alderman-at-Large Steven A. Bolton
                 Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
                 Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko
   APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
   BETWEEN THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF NASHUA, NEW
   HAMPSHIRE AND INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE
   AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), LOCAL #2232,
   PROFESSIONAL UNIT THROUGH JUNE 30, 2009
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON TO AMEND R-06-128 BY DELETING IN THE TITLE
THE WORDS “BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE”
MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-06-128 AS AMENDED
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                       Page 29

A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:

Yea:   Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
       Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Rootovich
                                                7

Nay: Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman Richardson, Alderman Deane,
     Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams
                                             7
MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON TO TABLE

A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:

Yea:   Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
       Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Rootovich
                                                7

Nay: Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman Richardson, Alderman Deane,
     Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams
                                             7
MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE TO RE-REFER TO COMMITTEE

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF R-06-128 AS
AMENDED

President Rootovich

That motion is out of order. The motion before us is to re-refer to committee.

A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:


Yea:   Alderman LaRose, Alderman MacLaughlin
                                                    2

Nay: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion,
     Alderman Bolton, Alderman Richardson, Alderman Deane, Alderman Teeboom,
     Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams, Alderman Plamondon, Alderman Rootovich
                                              12
MOTION FAILED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN TEEBOOM FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF R-06-128
AS AMENDED
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                   Page 30

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Dion

Mr. Chairman I have a pretty good idea why these votes are being voted the way they are. I
don’t think I will insult anyone by saying they are probably waiting for another Alderman for
the next meeting, but I will say this that there is a game plan here and I can see it and I think
everybody else can see it. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

President Rootovich

Is there any further discussion?

A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Flynn, Alderman Dion, Alderman Richards, Alderman Deane,
     Alderman Teeboom, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Williams, Alderman Plamondon
                                                    8
Nay: Alderman Tollner, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Bolton,
     Alderman MacLaughlin, Alderman Rootovich
                                                    6
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-06-128 declared indefinitely postponed as amended.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES – None

NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS

R-06-129
   Endorser:       Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
                   Alderman-at-Large James R. Tollner
                   Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane
                   Alderman-at-Large Steven A. Bolton
                   Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
                   Alderman-at-Large David Rootovich
   AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $400 FROM ACCOUNT 374-07118-7223-7106
   “CDBG FY06 POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE (PAL) - BUILDING RENOVATIONS”
   AND $1,653 FROM ACCOUNT 374-07990-7224-7106 “CDBG FY06 – CONTINGENCY”
   INTO ACCOUNT 374-07118-02223-7107 “PAL BUILDING RENOVATIONS – FENCE
   REPLACEMENT”
Given its first reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN PLAMONDON TO ACCEPT THE FIRST READING OF R-06-129,
ASSIGN IT TO THE HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE
CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 16, 2006, A 7:00 PM IN THE ALDERMANIC CHAMBER
MOTION CARRIED
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                Page 31

R-06-130
   Endorsers: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
                   Alderman-at-Large James R. Tollner
                   Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
                   Alderman Richard LaRose
   RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $20,000 OBTAINED
   FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND
   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION INTO
   SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT #352-6518 “NASHUA RIVERFRONT PARK @
   COTTAGE AVE.”
Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President
Rootovich

R-06-131
    Endorser: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
    RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $3,391 FROM ACCOUNT 596-86580
    “CONTINGENCY – RETIREMENTS, CITY” INTO ACCOUNT 575-11400 “LIBRARY
    ASSISTANT”
Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President
Rootovich

R-06-132
    Endorser: Alderman Daniel Richardson
    AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE CITY’S REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN
    PROPERTY AT 34 SARGENT AVENUE
Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President
Rootovich

MOTION BY ALDERMAN BOLTON THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO
ALLOW FOR THE FIRST READING OF A RESOLUTION RECEIVED AFTER THE
AGENDA WAS PREPARED

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Teeboom

What is the subject of the motion?

President Rootovich

To suspend the rules to introduce a piece of legislation that was given to us after the agenda
was prepared.

Alderman Teeboom

Yes, but I have not seen that legislation.

President Rootovich

It was placed on your desk this evening.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                              Page 32

Alderman Teeboom

Just to make sure – it is the …

President Rootovich

It is R-06-133.

Alderman Deane

It is the CBA.

Alderman Teeboom

I would appreciate if the maker of the motion would mention what the subject is so we
understand what is being requested.

Alderman Bolton

Point of Order – It would be a violation of parliamentary procedure for me to do so.

President Rootovich

That is forthcoming Alderman Teeboom. That is why it was placed on your desk this evening.
The motion before you is suspension of rules.
MOTION CARRIED

R-06-133
    Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Steven A. Bolton
    APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
    BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE NASHUA TEACHERS
    UNION, LOCAL 1044, AFT, AFL-CIO, UNIT B (PARAPROFESSIONALS) THROUGH
    AUGUST 31, 2008
Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President Rootovich

NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES

O-06-55
    Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Jams R. Tollner
    REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PARKING METERS IN THE FACTORY STREET
    PARKING LOT
Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President
Rootovich

O-06-56
   Endorser: Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
    AMENDING THE NO PARKING ZONE ON NORTH INTERVALE STREET
Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE by President
Rootovich
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                  Page 33

O-06-57
   Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large James R. Tollner
                   Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
                   Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko
   AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF LAND OR
   INTERESTS IN LAND WHEN DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING BOARD
   OR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Given its first reading; assigned to the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE and the NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD by President Rootovich

O-06-58
   Endorsers: Mayor Bernard A. Streeter
                   Alderman-at-Large David Rootovich
                   Alderman-at-Large James R. Tollner
                   Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
                   Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko
                   Alderman Robert A. Dion
                   Alderman Richard LaRose
                   Alderman Marc W. Plamondon
                   Alderman-at-Large Steven A. Bolton
   PROVIDING THAT CONTRACTS EXCEEDING $10,000 FOR SERVICES AND OTHER
   PURPOSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PENNICHUCK WATER ACQUISITION
   SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN RATHER THAN THE
   FINANCE COMMITTEE
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE by President Rootovich

O-06-59
    Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Fred S. Teeboom
                   Alderman Robert A. Dion
    ESTABLISHING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE by President Rootovich

O-06-60
    Endorsers: Alderman Robert A. Dion
                   Alderman-at-Large Fred S. Teeboom
    ESTABLISHING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE by President Rootovich

O-06-61
   Endorser:       Alderman-at-Large Fred S. Teeboom
                   Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane
   DETERMINING SALARIES FOR UNAFFILIATED FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE by President
Rootovich
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                   Page 34

MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS
TO ALLOW FOR THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE RECEIVED AFTER THE
AGENDA WAS PREPARED
MOTION CARRIED

O-06-62
   Endorsers: Alderman Mark S. Cookson
                   Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
                   Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane
                   Alderman Robert A. Dion
   AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF A SIGNALIZED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
   ON BROAD STREET IN THE VICINITY OF 523-525 BROAD STREET
Given its first reading; assigned to the COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE and the
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS by President Rootovich

PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – None

REMARKS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN

Alderman Teeboom

I should say that the RFP for the audio system to replace and upgrade the audio system in this
Chamber and up in the auditorium is on the street. Bids are expected to be open on the 27th of
November. If anybody wishes to bid they are welcome to do so. If anybody wants to see what a pretty
good package looks like look it up on the web site. Thank you.

… tape flipped …

Alderman Deane

….comment on the ordinance that Alderman Cookson brought in under suspension. I had talked to
Legal – I think Alderman McCarthy kind of raised an eyebrow that the funding associated with that
expendable trust fund is under the privy of the Board of Public Works. When Mrs. Graham from the
Legal Department called me today I asked her. She said she had a couple of things, and told me
Ms. Bielawski had told here there was around $46,000 in that account, but it was under the privy of
the Board of Public Works. This is all we had to do for the legislation itself, and the funding
mechanism will be dealt with at the Public Works level.

Even though we have voted on these contracts and we are minus one Alderman and we all know
what will transpire with a motion to reconsider, I still find, and it is nothing against the employees, but
we have a significant problem in this city and it has to be dealt with. It is a big pill to swallow and
when you take the health insurance this year at $23 million and you keep adding 15% to it when you
finish this contract we will be at almost $35 million we will be budgeting just in that line. I refuse to
see any reduction in that area as was explained by Mrs. Lemieux and others in the administration
that any real cost savings don’t take place until FY 10. I just really struggle with this. It is nothing
against the employees. I have the utmost respect for them, but the realization is that the taxpayers
are footing the bill, and the last 12 years of struggling with a lot of this has come to rare its ugly head
and has to be dealt with. I know plenty of people whose, mine included, when my health insurance
went up I was not given equalization. I was given a form to fill out – if you want it sign here, if you
don’t, don’t sign the form.
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                                      Page 35

I just struggle with it. Maybe it is the private versus the public sector, but the reality of the situation is
we can’t continue to sustain these increases, and the taxpayer cannot continue to fund these type of
benefits at this rate. Thank you.

Alderman LaRose

Mr. President this past Saturday I know some of the members of the Board marched in the parade. I
chose to stand on the sidelines and watch the parade. What really impressed me about the parade
was some of the young members of the armed forces especially those who just came back from
Iraq, and they were marching along both sides of the street and were shaking hands with people.
They were thanking us. That really impressed me. Obviously my Wife and I thanked them for
serving, but I was very very impressed on their part of thanking us when they are the ones that were
serving us. Thank you.

Alderman Tollner

I want to thank Connor O’Neil who sent me an e-mail this morning with regard to his interest in a cat
walk across Broad Street. He is going to be attending the high school in 2-3 years, and figures if we
take a look at his e-mail maybe by the time he goes to high school we will have a cat walk to walk
across Broad Street. I will make a copy of that and give it to the whole Board.

I too attended the parade, and the group that Alderman LaRose is talking about is Bravo Company
that came back about two weeks ago. I got a chance to go over to Nashua High to watch them
return and their families young and old were waiting for them. It was quite an experience. I don’t
think I have experienced anything like that. I don’t know how they stayed in formation when their
families were across the way in the stands. I know they were ordered to stand in formation, but –
while they said the ceremony was short I know they were itching the second that they got in there to
run up to the stands and hug their family. Alderman LaRose is right. I went and thanked as many
gentlemen as I could that night, and they thanked me. These are people that have been over there
and have seen the action. The group that Alderman LaRose was talking about was in Palusha for 8-
9 months. They were in probably one of the most difficult areas of Iraq. If I am not mistaken, at our
next Board of Aldermen meeting we will honor a number of those gentlemen prior to the start of the
Board of Aldermen meeting.

I attended the show over at 14 Court Street, the Peacock Players had the show that Elton John
wrote. On Saturday night the place was packed. I have to say it was a fantastic show. I think there
are 3-4 shows left. As the Liaison to the arts community I am going to ask all of you to consider
buying a ticket. I guarantee you will have an enjoyable evening.

A couple of years ago during the Thanksgiving football game where it used to be Nashua against
B.G. and now it is Nashua North versus Nashua South, to raise money I put an idea together where
we would offer two seats in the press box with breakfast for people who might be interested in
making a donation to watch the game and have breakfast in the press box. After speaking with the
Athletic Department, they have agreed to offer four seats this year. I will try and get this information
over to the Telegraph, but we will accept two bids, two seats each. I will provide them with breakfast
like I did a few years ago. All the money will go to Officer Briggs’ family up in Manchester. I
mentioned this also to the Police Chief. Everybody thought it was a good idea. If the public wants to
put their bids in tonight by all means they can send me an e-mail. I would appreciate it if they would
use my work e-mail address – that way I can get back to them right away. I will have that printed in
the newspaper. If anybody is interested two sets of two seats in the press box with breakfast for the
Bd. of Aldermen – 11/14/06                                                            Page 36

Turkey Bowl game. Hopefully we will be able to raise funds for the family up in Manchester. Thank
you.

Committee announcements:

Alderman Deane

November 27th at 7:00 p.m. Budget Review Committee here in this Chamber.

Alderman Dion

The Infrastructure Committee meeting date has been changed to the 29th of November.

Alderman Plamondon

Human Affairs Committee meeting this Thursday, the 16th at 7:30 p.m. in these Chambers preceded
by a public hearing.

Alderman Teeboom

The CTAB meeting is at 8:30 a.m. this Thursday instead of Friday. If anybody is up you can come
by and meet the new PEG Manager that just got hired this Monday.

Alderman Deane

We also have Finance on the 15th, which is Wednesday at 7:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE THAT THE OCTOBER 24, 2006 MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:37 p.m.


Attest:                                           Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:17
posted:12/11/2011
language:
pages:36