Search

substances present in soils, sludges, and contaminated waste originating from the Mohawk
Tannery, if not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in the Action
Memorandum and Addendum, will continue to pose a threat to human health and the
environment. The 2019 Action Memorandum primarily addressed tannery soil and sludge
contamination on the Mohawk Tannery northern and southern parcels. The Action Memorandum
anticipated that the NTCRA would be performed in connection with private party redevelopment
of the Site.

Reuse of the Property

Based on the information we have and that you provided, the EPA Region understands that
Blaylock, among other activities, intends to excavate approximately 17,000 cy of asbestos
containing material (ACM) from a City-owned Property and approximately 5,000 cy of ACM
from the Fimbel Door property and deposit this ACM into a separate capped cell to be built
adjacent to the eastern edge/wall of the capped area at the Site. Please note that, to ensure the
remedy remains protective of human health and the environment, any development must be
compatible with the EPA cleanup actions and institutional controls (ICs) designed to protect the
remedy and prevent unacceptable exposure to residual contamination. As of the date of this
letter, we have not identified any obvious incompatibility between the proposed use of the
Property as described to us and the EPA’s selected cleanup option. As your plans develop
further, please continue to discuss the development with us. The EPA recommends that you
consult with your own legal counsel and environmental professional to ensure that the proposed
reuse will not affect EPA’s cleanup response.

CERCLA’s Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser Liability Protection

The EPA understands that you are interested in information regarding the bona fide prospective
purchaser (BFPP) provision of CERCLA. Congress amended CERCLA in 2002 to exempt
certain parties who buy contaminated or potentially contaminated properties from CERCLA
liability if they qualify as BFPPs. The BFPP provision provides that a person meeting the criteria
of CERCLA §§ 101(40) and 107(r)(1), and who purchases the property after January 11, 2002,
will not be liable as an owner or operator under CERCLA. The statutory definition of a BFPP
also includes a party who acquires a leasehold interest in a property after January 11, 2002,
where the leasehold is not designed to avoid liability and the interested party meets certain
conditions and criteria.

The Agency has issued guidance discussing some of the BFPP criteria . See Enforcement
Discretion Guidance Regarding Statutory Criteria for Those Who May Qualify as CERCLA
Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers, Contiguous Property Owners, or Innocent Landowners
(“Common Elements”) (“Common Elements Guidance”) (July 29, 2019
(https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/common-elements-guidance). Based upon this situation, the
BFPP provisions apply to Blaylock. Note that a court, rather than the EPA, ultimately determines
whether a landowner has met the criteria for BFPP status.

Although Congress provided liability protection under CERCLA for BFPPs to encourage the
purchase and reuse of contaminated properties, the property they acquire may be subject to a
windfall lien pursuant to CERCLA § 107(r) if there are unrecovered response costs incurred by
the United States and the response action increases the fair market value of the property. Unlike
a CERCLA § 107(/) lien (aka “Superfund lien’), a windfall lien is not a lien for all the Agency’s
unrecovered response costs. The windfall lien is limited to the lesser of the Agency’s
unrecovered response costs or the increase in fair market value attributable to the EPA’s cleanup.
For more information, please refer to the Agency’s /nterim Enforcement Discretion Policy
Concerning “Windfall Liens” Under Section 107(r) of CERCLA July 16, 2003) (“Windfall Lien
Policy”) https:/Wwww.epa.gov/enforcement/interim-guidance-enforcement-discretion-
concerning-windfall-liens-cercla-section-107r]. Based upon the information now available to
the EPA Region, the Agency is not in a position today to determine whether the windfall lien
policy may apply to this Property.

Jahmal Mosley, Ed. D.
Superintendent

Garth McKinney, Ed. D.
N A S i UA Assistant Superintendent

so SCHOOL DISTRICT
Donna Fitzpatrick, Ed. S. Pa] Joo Daniel Donovan
Gateway to Opportunity

Assistant Superintendent Chief Operating Officer

To: Board of Alderman

From: Daniel Donovan

Date: January 5, 2021

RE: One Time Budget Funds FY21

As part of the School’s FY21 budget, 2.2 million dollars of “one time” funds were approved and put in
contingency by the Board of Alderman. $1,445,000 of the $2,200,000 has already been transferred to

the school operating budget. (See attached) This is a request to transfer the remaining $755,000 for use
by the school department.

Ite Amount Two Digit Acct code
Deferred Maintenance- Franklin Street $425,000 Deferred Maint
Fiber at elementary schools and §315,000 71

System wide Back-up solution

Legal Services $15,000 53
Total Requested $755,000

The items listed above were in the FY21 one-time budget, except for the legal services. Initially we had
budgeted the $15,000 in legal noted above, to the upgrade of our Quickbooks software but we were
able to purchase that upgrade using FY2020 funds, and thus no longer need these funds for that
purpose. We have had significant legal costs this fiscal year and this transfer will help alleviate the
overrun in that budget line.

By moving the Franklin Street request to Deferred Maintenance, this gives Plant Operations time to
work on that school location and the funds will not expire in June 2021.

141 Ledge Street, Nashua, New Hampshire 03060
T: (603) 966-1000 F: (603) 594-4350
www.nashua.edu/district/

Jahmal Mosley, Ed. D.
Superintendent

Garth McKinney, Ed. D.
N A S i UA Assistant Superintendent

eu SCHOOL DISTRICT
Donna Fitzpatrick, Ed. S. Pa] Joo Daniel Donovan
Gateway to Opportunity

Assistant Superintendent Chief Operating Officer

To: Board of Alderman

From: Daniel Donovan

Date: July 21, 2020

RE: One Time Budget Funds FY21

The Board of Education, in a meeting held July 20, 2020 voted to request the following amounts from
the one-time FY21 funds being held in contingency:

Item Amount Two digit Acct code
Deferred Maintenance 5460,000 Deferred Maint
High School Furniture $200,000 71

Copier Down Payment $250,000 71

Middle School Amplify Science $175,000 61

Internet Connections-High Schools $160,000 71

3 ELL Teachers $150,000 51

Benefits for ELL Teachers $50,000 52

Total approved $1,445,000

We request that these funds be moved from contingency to the School FY21 operating budget so that
purchases canthen be made.

141 Ledge Street, Nashua, New Hampshire 03060
T: (603) 966-1000 F: (603) 594-4350
www.nashua.edu/district/

. Community Development 589-3095

City of Nashua Planning and Zoning 589-3090

. soe Building Safety 589-3080
Community Development Division Code Enforcement 589-3100
City Hall, 229 Main Street, PO Box 2019 Cee ersten mission eoecatoe
Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2019 Transportation 880-0100
www.nashuanh.gov FAX 589-3119

Date: February 11", 2021

To: James Donchess, Mayor
Board of Aldermen
Planning Board
Lori Wilshire, President, Board of Aldermen
Donna Graham, Legislative Affairs Manager
Cheryl Lindner, Chief of Staff
Richard A. Dowd Chair, Aldermanic Budget Review Committee
Division/Department Directors
CIC Committee

From: Matt Sullivan, Planning Department Manager, Capital Improvements Committee (CIC) Secretary

Memorandum: FY2022 Capital Improvement Program

Board Members:

Attached please find the FY2022 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that summarizes and ranks each capital
improvement requests received for the coming year’s budget. In addition, the report includes a spreadsheet
that lists all department requests projected for the next six (6) fiscal years. The Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP) is intended to aid City officials in scheduling the investment of resources. By definition, the CIP is an
advisory planning tool. Under the law, “[t]he sole purpose and effect of the capital improvements program
shall be to aid the mayor or selectmen and the budget committee in their consideration of the annual
budget.” The FY2022 CIP is scheduled for review and approval by the Planning Board on February 18",
2021 pursuant to the process delineated within the City Charter (Section 77-a).

The Plan represents the collective effort of the CIC Committee, Divisions, Departments, and their
professional support teams. Each presentation provided a clear and concise background and justification
projects contained with this cycle’s Plan and we thank participants for their time and effort in supporting the
development of this critical planning document. Within, you will see a variety of projects, phasing, and
funding mechanisms, all intended to balance the impact of the tax rate, while ensuring the community
continues to be provided with the necessary services.

The recommendations of the FY 2022 Plan are summarized as follows:

* Total Long-Term Project Recommendations: $12,190,000
« Total Short-Term Project Recommendations $25,659,011
« Total Overall Project Recommendations: $37,849,011

« Recommended Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Projects: $950,000

«= Recommended Wastewater Enterprise Fund Projects: $12,138,039
« Total Enterprise Fund Project Recommendations: $13,088,039

The following long and short term projects received the highest ranking of “A-1”:

=» Annual Street Paving
=» Annual Roadside Safety Improvements

Rehabilitation of Airport Taxiway “A”

Fire Department Deferred Maintenance

Sidewalk and ADA Improvements

Safe Transportation Pedestrian Improvements

Tennis, Basketball, and Pickleball Court Improvements
Nashua North High School Cooling Tower Upgrades

The Committee continued its strong support of all Division of Public Works Enterprise Fund projects for
ongoing asset management and maintenance of critical City infrastructure.

The Committee is cognizant of the City’s existing and future financial constraints. In that context, the
Committee has attempted to balance the Long and Short Term requests against the potential impact of not
maintaining its infrastructure and facilities. While a new city-wide master plan is currently in development,
the Committee continues to be committed to positioning the city well for growth in a strategic and planned
fashion, and these improvements are an essential component of that planning.

Thank you for your consideration of this critical planning document. | am available to answer any questions
should the Board or public have them.

Thank you,

Matt Sullivan, Planning Department Manager, CIC Secretary

FY 2022
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM

LONG-TERM & SHORT-TERM
PROGRAMS & PROJECTS

SIX-YEAR PLAN OF
REQUESTED PROJECTS

CITY OF NASHUA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE

February 18, 2021

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE MEMBERS

FISCAL YEAR 2022: CITY OF NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE

Name / Affiliation

Scott LeClair
Nashua City Planning Board
And Citizen Representative

Charles Budris
Citizen Representative

Matt Sullivan

Planning Manager

Nashua City Planning Department
City Charter Member (City Employee)

Bob Canaway
Citizen Representative

Laurence C. Szetela, CPA
Citizen Representative

David Fredette
City Treasurer
City Charter Member (City Employee)

John Griffin
City Comptroller
City Charter Member (City Employee)

David Tencza
Alderman

Jan Schmidt
Alderwoman

CIC Role

Chair, CIC

Vice-Chair, CIC

Secretary, CIC

Aldermanic Representative

Aldermanic Alternate

Planning Department Staff

Matt Sullivan
Planning Manager
City Employee

Marcia Wilkins
Planner |
City Employee

THE FUNCTION OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE

The Capital Improvements Committee (CIC) is a subcommittee of the Nashua City Planning
Board (NCPB). The CIC is an appointed committee, with its composition as follows: four (4)
citizens appointed by the NCPB, the City Treasurer, the City Comptroller, the City Planning
Director, and a liaison of the Board of Aldermen. Historically, one of the citizen members is a
NCPB member. In an annual cycle that begins in late summer and is completed in late spring,
the CIC receives, evaluates, and makes recommendations on capital improvement projects
requested by each municipal department. The CIC's function as an appointed body is advisory in
that it makes recommendations to the NCPB, and then to the Mayor, and Board of Aldermen on
priorities for funding requested capital improvement projects.

lThe CIC process is as follows;|

A. Late summer: Letters are sent out to Division/Department Heads requesting their detailed
CIP project submittal information for the next fiscal year, in addition to a listing of projects
within a six-year time frame. Each year, Division/Department Heads reassess all of their
prior project requests and add a new sixth year.

B. Fall through early winter: The CIC reviews all project requests, conducts site visits to
locations of proposed projects, and schedules public meetings for Division/Department
Heads to present their project requests for the next fiscal year.

C. Beginning of calendar year: After all requests have been heard, the CIC meets to
prioritize all requested projects.

D. Late winter: The CIC makes its recommendations to the Nashua City Planning Board
(NCPB), and then to the Mayor, and the Board of Aldermen.

E. 30 days of receipt of the CIC's recommendations: The NCPB may attach its own
amendments to the CIC's recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen, but such
amendments shall be in the form of supplementary recommendations or comments attached
to the proposed CIP Budget.

F. Early spring: The Mayor reviews all recommendations regarding the CIP, together with the
rest of the City's budget requests, and makes recommendations for funding to the Board of
Aldermen.

G. Through the spring: The Budget Committee hearings are held for the proposed CIP
Budget and for City Division/Department budget requests.

H. At_start_of Budget Committee hearings: The CIC makes its presentation to the
Aldermanic Budget Committee regarding its recommendations for project funding and the
relative priorities assigned to each, including rationale and justification for those
recommendations.

l. By the end of Spring: The Aldermanic Budget Committee makes its recommendations to
the full Board of Aldermen; a public hearing is held, and by the end of the fiscal year (June
30) the Board of Aldermen adopts the final City Budget.
3

IDEFINITION OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

A capital improvement will be any single project requiring expenditure by the City of $50,000 or
more, and which falls into one of the categories listed below. Projects under $50,000 will only be
considered by the CIC if there are exceptional circumstances.

1. The purchase, construction, replacement or rehabilitation of any physical facility for the
community with an anticipated life in excess of ten (10) years*

2. The purchase of equipment for any physical facility when first erected or acquired;

3. Significant equipment purchases. *

4. The acquisition of property of a permanent nature;

5. The acquisition of land or interests in land;

6. The construction, reconstruction, or major improvement of public facilities such as highways
and sewerage lines;

7. Any other expenditure which increases the physical assets of the community;

8. Surveys or studies relative to the aforementioned items or of significant value to the

Community; and

9. The purchase of wheeled vehicles or motorized equipment having an anticipated life of over
twelve (12) years, and which are not included in the City's Capital Equipment Reserve Fund.

IDEFINITION OF PRIORITY CATEGORIES;|

In order to evaluate each proposed capital improvement project with other projects for the same
department, and with projects from other departments, the Committee utilizes the following
priority categories:

A Rating. Essential (highest priority) - Projects which are required to complete or renovate a
major public improvement; projects which will remedy a condition dangerous to the health,
safety, and welfare of the public; or projects which will provide facilities for a critically needed
community program.

B Rating. Desirable (second priority) - Projects which will benefit the community; whose validity
of planning and timing have been established.

C Rating. Acceptable (third priority) - Projects which are adequately planned, but which can be
postponed if budget reductions are necessary.

D Rating. Deferrable (fourth priority) - Projects which are definitely recommended for
postponement or elimination from the capital improvements program since they pose
serious questions of adequate planning, proper timing, or community need.

E Rating. Other - Those projects presented as capital improvement projects by various
departments but which in the CIC's opinion do not meet the definition of a capital
improvement project as such or which are more appropriately funded in another manner,
Non-prioritized.

* Amended by the CIC February 15, 1994 for the FY 96' process.

4