Search

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 19

if | can get the money that's still going to be put in there but at least they know it's the will of the Board and so on that it's
worth negotiating over it. If they came back and said $5 million or $1.5 million, it’s going to be different and then the next
Board will have to talk about that and look at it.

It was spoken about that it would not have a negative impact. | think one of the soon to be aldermen referred to it as it
would not have a negative impact. Everything will still be there. | would disagree with that. | think it will have a negative
impact. If you get rid of the Barker forest which is truly part of a tree line, you're going to affect the trees that are sitting in
Greeley Park. That just makes common sense. So | do believe it would have an impact. Whether it's going to be
separated and the lower portion where the home is and so on has a different aspect, | think that's something that the city
has to look at as a whole. We did move very fast on this. | did file this legislation, literally, | believe it was on Wednesday
that he spoke and by Friday | was contacting legal to put something in. Over that that day, | believe that Director
Cummings spoke to the developers and said we were looking at - he asked to have the weekend to think about it. He
came back and said that he didn't have the authorization to do it. There was this whole history that when he didn't have
authorization to turn it over to the city. He thought about it. The day that he decided he was going to walk away from the
project, he actually reached out to me and said can we speak? Is there something we could do? Maybe there's certain -
and | agreed. | said okay I'm happy to talk to you. Then he sent me another message saying | need to speak to the
owners and then | got the letter that said that he was pulling out.

So that's kind of how things went. It went from we made an offer. We told them we would try to make sure that he was
whole. He was thinking about it, came back said he wasn't able to do it based on the contract, and finally, he's pulled out.
Now the letter very emphatically - and | need to make sure that everybody knows this - he stated emphatically he did not
speak for the family. He's never spoken for the family. He's never negotiated for the family. He only speaks for himself.
As | said, | believe him to be a man of honor.

These 43 homes, every single home that you would add - and that was originally development. We don't know what the
next development will be. The next development could be 70 homes for all we know. It could be 20 homes for all we
know. We don't know. But 43 homes - people can say it's just kind of a spit in the bucket. Yeah, it is but every home
does matter. So | cannot deny the fact that housing, is housing, is housing but | can't deny the fact that putting housing in
that area for a variety of ways - and yes Planning and Zoning can take care of all those issues but we've learned in the
past there's only so much that they will do. | can tell you right now that if this is developed, the homes in there will suffer.
The water supply that goes to the homes is not sufficient as it is and that's going to be my next project and what the heck
we can do to fix that. | spoke to someone to two streets down on Elliot that purchase a pump for his house and it's still not
adequate water.

So that's gonna be another bridge I'm gonna have to cross and we're gonna have to work on but the truth is that this only
allows the Mayor to negotiate in good faith. It gives him a little bit of power behind his words or Director Cummings and
so on. It doesn't authorize him to commit the city to anything. We connect the city. The next Board will connect the city
and maybe funds can come from different areas. | don't know. There are other areas that maybe some of the funding
can be found depending on what we can negotiate. For now | will, again, sit back and listen.

Alderwoman Lu

Thank you. In 2017, Moosehead Ecological did a study for us. They did a study on the inventory of open spaces and
recommendations for conservation in the City of Nashua. That was 2017. I'm sorry, Alderman O'Brien.

Alderman O’Brien

No I’m to get the President's attention.
Alderwoman Lu
Right, do you need me to stop?

Alderman O’Brien

Youre fine.
Alderwoman Lu

Okay. This study broke the city into four quadrants. So | did the same. But in 2017, they identify the south west and the
north west quadrants as being the most important parts of Nashua to focus on for planning for open spaces because there

SECTION 10. PERFORMANCE REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS.

A. The Contractor shall submit periodic reports as specificd in section 4 above (“Reporting
Requirements”) in a format approved by the City.

B. The Contractor shall furnish such statements, records, reports, data and information to the City at
such times and in such form as the Contract Manager may reasonably require.

C. The City may perform on-site evaluations of Contractor’s performance under this Contract at any
time upon twenty four (24) hours written notice (including email or other electronically delivered
notice).

D. The Contract Manager may perform an on-site audit of books, records and equipment during
business hours, upon twenty four (24) hours written notice (including email or other electronically
delivered notice).

E. The Contract Manager may conduct annual performance evaluations based on measurables
reflected in the Contractor’s annual Work Plan to be conducted sixty (60) days prior to the end of
the contract term.

SECTION 11. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES.

A. The Contractor represents and warrants that:

1. All information, reports and data furnished to the City by Contractor are complete and
accurate as of the date furnished to the City, and that Contractor shall promptly notify the
Contract Manager in the event of any material change affecting the accuracy or
completeness;

2. All financial statements and information furnished to the City are complete, accurately reflect
the financial condition of the Contractor on the date shown on said report, accurately show
the results of the operation for the period covered by the report, and that since said date there
has been no material change, adverse or otherwise, in the financial condition of the Contractor;

3. Contractor has promptly notified the Contract Manager of any and all pending or threatened
legal proceedings against the Contractor;

4. Contractor shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that the City’s equipment and
facilities for public access will not be used for commercial purposes;

5. None of the provisions herein violates, or is in conflict with, the authority under which the
Contractor is doing business, or the terms of any obligation or agreement of the Contractor;

6. |The Contractor has the power to enter into this Contract and accept payments hereunder, and
the Contractor has taken all necessary action to authorize such acceptance under the terms
and conditions of this Contract;

7. None of the assets of the Contractor is subject to any lien or encumbrance of any character
except for current taxes, except as shown in the financial statements furnished by the
Contractor to the City;

-16-

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 20

was so much contiguous land there that could be acquired. They also said, therefore, landowner communication should
focus on both areas simultaneously. Now, | hope that our city has taken this study and gone about doing some land or
communications. If they have and they've haven't chosen to identify this piece of property, then it says something. So |
divided the city into quadrants just like they did. You can do that and pretty much group a few different wards together and
what you see, and | went back with the information we got today from DPW or the Park and Rec. group, and | found that
in the northwest, which is comprised of - well it doesn't matter - the northwest has about 55 acres of park. The northeast,
which is where Greeley Park sits and that's comprised of Ward 3 and 4, there's 325 acres of parks and also the riverwalk.
So the riverwalk that we just committed $21 million to, to provide more open space is something that we chose to do
because it will benefit many different socio economic areas of the city.

Greeley Park is already 100 acres - whether it's 96 or 120 I'm getting different numbers, but | believe it's an exaggeration
to say we've got to get these 15 acres. This part of Nashua is not deficient of open space. 325 acres of park, the
southwest has 441, the southeast, which is comprised of four different wards, has only 165. The southeast includes 6, 7,
8, and 9. We are park deficient. What that means according to this study and according to the Master Plan is that we
need to acquire. We need to have money to acquire some land, some areas that become available in 6, 7, 8, and 9 if you
want to address park defective or deficient quadrants. We need money to buy land and turn it into parks. The Master
Plan calls for an investment in tree planting. We have a lot of parks. These parks are open spaces and they haven't been
maintained with tree plantings. That's an expense. That's an infrastructure project that going to cost money and it should
be done. It shouldn't be ignored.

So our Parks and Rec. gave us the acreage of parks throughout the city but while | waited for that information, | did a
survey on my own and | found if you include open spaces, not just parks but large tracts of land that the City of Nashua
has already identified as either wetlands or has chosen to purchase, then we have in the northeast quadrant 180 acres
plus all of riverwalk. It's not the highest. The southwest quadrant has more but the southeast quadrant has 88 acres only
of open space. That includes parks and places like the Joyce natural area near Burke Street, which is a large tract and
Salmon Brook. This is a quadrant that needs some money if it needs to be addressed so that it's equitable with other
parts of the city.

So | wish - | understand how the residents feel and I, too, love Greeley Park but it's already 100 acres. | just don't think
that money that 2.5 | don't think it's important to increase that green space at that particular spot. There's also a section in
in the northeast quadrant that needs attention and it is Pennichuck Brook. It's further north. They call it vulnerable. It's
something that the city should be planning to address but we need long term planning and not boom let's spend $2.5
million on this. Since I've been on the Board, we've spent $25 million but we bonded $25 million dollars for a performing
arts center that we no longer (inaudible). We've put $2.5 million toward a new garage. We put the DPW development
going up for many million. We're working on our schools. | don't think we should out of the blue say, gee, | think we have
to also bond this. We have to stop somewhere and we have to think of what $2.5 million dollars would do for affordable
housing as well. That just about covers - oh one other thing.

| may need to abstain on this vote. So | just wanted to ask whether I'm looking at chapter five, number 17 on votes and it
tells me that a member may abstain only if he declares a conflict of interest. Now | thought of this because | remember
Alderman Wilshire | wanted to abstain at one point and you told me | couldn't. I've heard it brought up before. So | just
wanted to ask through you to Corporation Counsel whether 517 C, if I'm reading this correctly, that an abstention needs a
reason. If so, could we just correct the record?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Not sure | understand the question.
Alderwoman Lu

I'll repeat it. | don't think it needs to be rephrased. My question is do we have an ordinance or a point in our code which is
in our Administrative Chapter 5, a chapter that's specially dedicated to the Board of Aldermen and its procedures, number
17 entitled “votes, division, and recordation c.” Does that say that a member may abstain from voting only if he declares a
conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest? If that's in this ECODE here, should | ask assume that you had just
never read it or you forgot it when you said that there's no such requirement?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

| think when Alderwoman Kelly and Alderman Laws previously abstained, it was crystal clear why they were abstaining...

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 21
Alderwoman Lu
Can you could read minds?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

...because of the meetings that they had missed and that was the subject of the communication.
Alderwoman Lu
| didn’t Know you could read minds.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

| read the communication.
Alderwoman Lu
Thank you.

Alderman O'Brien

Thank you, Madam President. | just really want to go on record that | do not support this and I'll tell you why. | know the
difference between a need and a want. Yes, | would like to see us purchase this property. It would enhance Greeley
Park. | agree with the proponents of this but is it a need?

Okay, let's look at it. Greeley Park already exists right now and today | would like, you know, whatever is the vote it
seems like we're going to be discussing it in the future. But | did ask Park Rec. who | was surprised to find out nobody
went up to the Director of Park Rec. on this issue and elicited their opinion. But | asked from what Alderman Lu read and |
says | would like to see the acreage and | would like to see the map of the city because in my idea when we have parks,
parks should be spread out through whole city. Okay. | remember we burnt down a building at the corner of Pine Street
and Ledge Street and we turned that into a park but | don't encourage the Fire Department or the city to go burning down
buildings to make more parks. But somehow Greeley Park exists. It’s a wonderful facility but | have been involved in
sports in the city and the one thing I've had, and I've referred to my colleague Alderman Caron, do we have enough sports
fields in the city? We've got plenty woods, but do we have enough sports fields? That always seems to have been a
problem in the city. We're trying to run a soccer program yet we haven't got enough. We most certainly can't put a soccer
program on a lot that of a building we burnt down.

So | look at this sort of as a want or aneed. Greeley Park is a beautiful facility. This will be in addition. Can we afford the
addition? Well, let's talk about the Fire Department for a second. Thirty years ago, this city did a study and said it needs
two more fire stations. To build a fire station is $2.5 million. Have we built the fire station in 30 years? Yep, we've just
had a meeting earlier how much the population has grown in this city. That's part of our job too - public safety and try to
look at it.

Now | look at the wards and | looked at several of the different ward maps. Ward 9 and Ward 1, my god somebody yeah,
somebody screwed the pooch with them. There's not many parks in Ward 1 and one of them - that little park on Thornton
Road was supposed to be a fire station that never got built. Other than that, what park is in Ward 1? If we're gonna
spend $2.5 million, they say maybe we should spread it around a little bit but were not. We're buying adjacent to a park.
Now somebody said, well, is this a Pandora's Box issue? It is. You go on record and voting for this. Yeah, too bad Camp
Doucette is gone in Ward 9. Yeah, it’s gone and that has a swimming pool. Let me remind you Ward 9 does not have a
swimming pool in the ward. Nowhere in the south end but that's gone. But you know development in Spindlewick is still
up there? Captains Corner development is still going on. They're gonna be knocking on the door. You got to put the big
boy pants on and really make a decision on really what we want to do with this. Yeah, it's a great idea if this was a utopic
world but | don't see the common right now.

Yes, we do a lot with conservation land and that's good, but | think we could do more with the parks and then open it up.
How can we say no? Now | go, | want to get back to Ward 9. | have in Ward 9 an acreage - Saint Andrews Park - 3.13
acres. I've been through three Division Park and Rec Directors trying to get the tot lot fixed. Way less than $2.5 million.
Am | correct to my fellow Aldermen of Ward 9 and it still hasn't been done yet | want to go out and spend $2.5 million.

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 22

If we pass this tonight, yeah it doesn't have a price tag on it and | understood what my colleague Alderman Dowd said. |
think he didn't really mean a blank check but we could still be liable for $2.5 million plus. Even if we bought that property
and we decided to keep the building, it's going to cost to tear it down isn't it? Is there going to be parking? Do we need
fire access because the public is there now? It was private land. There's a lot of ifs. This needs to be very much
explored. I'll keep an open mind on it. It is a wonderful idea but it's between, again, the need and the want. You may
want it but is it the need because | guarantee if it gets shot down today and we keep the discussion and the dialog opened
in the future, the sun will come out tomorrow. It might be a cloudy day, but the sun will come up. So therefore in thinking
that and as | wipe my bloody nose because we're moving at warp speed on this and | really don't understand that. | think
we ought to take a deep breath, stand back, and really look at this whole particular issue, and discuss it further. As it sits
right now, it's moving too fast. It's hard for me to digest it and I'm not going to support it. Thank you, Madam President.

President Wilshire

Thank you.

Alderman Clemons

Thank you, Madam President. So | agree with a lot of what the previous speaker Alderman O'Brien said. Not all of it
because | do think that this is a property that we should buy for $2.5 million but with that said, what if we can get it for
less? What if we can get the property and it doesn't cost the city any money because we can recuperate the cost
because there's currently a house sitting on the property. Maybe we put one or two houses on there that can justify, you
know, the cost of the expensive it, we can subdivide it a little bit, and keep the back, and save most of it, and then the city
ends up it doesn't cost the city anything. We don't know what the possibility is but this allows the discussion to move
further in a more committed way. It doesn't find the Board of Aldermen to buying the property. It doesn't say that, you
know, the next Board has to do this but what it does say is let's explore what our options are because if this is a want and
not a need but there's a way that we can get this property for little to no cost, then is it worth doing? It seemed to me that
the previous speaker seems that that would be the case. | mean | certainly would believe that if we can find a way to
better our city by doing things like this, then we should we should explore those options. They may not come to fruition. It
could be that, you know, if we pass this tonight, that it goes down and negotiations go nowhere, and it ends up being that
the property gets sold. | guess that's a worst case scenario but at least we would have tried to find out some answers,
and to get some answers to the residents who care about this, and to those who have justifiably brought up the price tag.
Let's see what we can do.

So | just think that the best path forward for us to get answers is to pass this and let the Mayor and the Economic
Development Director do some research and see and come back to us with some options and let the next Board of
Aldermen decide what's best. The thing is, is that | understand that as was alluded to by some previous speakers that this
sort of thing can happen anyway and the administration can then bring legislation. The reason though that it didn't
happen that way is because this was an aldermanic agenda item So it came from an Alderman. So for the idea to be
spurred by an Alderman, sometimes it has to come in through the legislative route. It doesn't mean that it's less of an
idea, or that it shouldn't be studied more, or that no thought went into it on the other hand either. It's just the way that
came in.

| do think that there is merit to the legislation. | think that there's a lot of questions that can be answered by moving
forward with it. So | would encourage my colleagues to support this in the sense of let's see what we can get and then
later on, we can decide whether or not we have the money, or the finances, or what the final deal is. But let's at least
move this forward and explore those options.

Alderman Lopez

So just a reminder, we are voting, the resolution for authorizing the Mayor to purchase and if I'm wrong, it needs a more
senior Alderman can point it out, but legislation does actually say for an amount not to exceed $2,500,000. So it's been
commented on multiple times that this is a blank check. The price could become astronomical. Not as | read it. Again if
we authorize the Mayor to purchase, then that opens the door for him to number one - indicate the city's interested in the
property, and then number two, identify funding sources that were appropriately funded.

There's been a lot of lamenting of the situation with Camp Doucette. | would point out, | read about it in early last year,
like | want to say February of 2021, but it was like four months later that it actually sold. So what Alderman Klee has done
with her legislation was identify a community need and address it on behalf of her constituents. | would not want to see
authority for doing that in the future and say from now on everything that the Alderman we as legislators do, should be run
through city departments first because our constituents elect us. So we do have to take on these arguments. I'm sure
Alderman Klee wishes she had staff that could handle all of this, plan all of this, do all the feasibility studies that are being
proposed for this particular project. But we are elected to represent people and | think it's within the scope of our authority

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 23

to request this and verified by legal. | would say maybe this is a practice for some of us to aspire to in connecting with our
residents and addressing these needs instead of talking about addressing these needs now where they haven't all been
given the same amount of attention, or airing, or Support over the past terms.

| would also point out that with regards to how the space is used and whatever quadrant systems that study used - this is
a very weirdly shaped group of wards so | don't know how you can divide into quadrants that don't include multiple wards.
While Ward 3 and Ward 4 have a disproportionate amount of acreage, we also have a disproportionate amount of
population density. | know Greeley Park isn't just in Ward 4. It's also abuts Ward 5 and is used by the entire city. Many
of the Aldermen who have objected to specific local areas have also in the past stated that they use Greeley Park. So
Greeley Park is a shared amenity for the entire city. If we would like to equally distance locations for parks, | would submit
that that is a much, much less efficient and effective way to allow access to parks to give each ward its own 100 plus acre
park. That is probably not a serious suggestion. What is serious is we have an opportunity to preserve a chunk of
Greeley Park which it was correctly pointed out it is not in Greeley Park. It’s only surrounded on three sides by it. There's
a point where you're using parsimony to claim that people are misrepresenting things.

Functionally speaking, it is an important element of Greeley Park. | have pointed out in the past that parts of Mine Falls
which were thought to be part of the park were developed and then people realized exactly how close the abutting
properties were. | would also point out that this Board actually voted to obtain a piece of property because they recognize
the opportunity, and the value, and hopefully recognized the public concern that would arise if that parcel had been
developed, and it was thought to be part of Greeley Park. So these are opportunities that don't come back. Once a
parcel is developed, it at best takes years to recover. Keeping spaces natural, keeping spaces green, taking conservation
seriously is more than a want. It may not be on the same level of need as a fire station, but | would also argue that adding
a whole bunch more houses when we still haven't addressed that situation isn't necessarily the way to go either. We
should be addressing the city's needs as well as those opportunities in between that will become needs if we don't have
the foresight to recognize them as they are today because for all of those Aldermen who've mentioned that they go to
Greeley Park, previous boards had the foresight to identify and protect that and with Mine Falls. If you're lacking that
foresight, then maybe you don't understand the difference between a need and a want.

Alderman Klee

Thank you Madam President and for my colleague to the left, I'm going to put on my big boy pants and I'm going to speak
to this. First of all, need versus want. The bottom line is we can say that and it really sounds good. Do we need it? Do
we want it? But the bottom line is if we don't go forth, we don't get a second chance. | believe the Mayor brought up the
Pennichuck property when that whole sale was happening. | remember | was just a citizen and when it hit the headlines
that this property was going to be developed and the city had kind of lost out on it and the previous Mayor was
scrambling, | remember how irate | was with how did how did this slip by? How did we miss this? Why did this happen?
The truth is, it did happen. Camp Doucette happened. Other things have happened.

Alderman Lopez brought up the point about the property alongside Mine Falls. | walk through Mine Falls a lot. | walk on
the paved path where you get a lot of the bikers. As you walked through Mine Falls through there, you see a lot of those
factories and parking lots. It's not as pleasant as walking at the lower end where | can walk by where the swans are or the
soccer fields. You get a completely different experience. So, to develop that part of Greeley Park will do a disservice and
it will take away from the beauty of the park, the park that we all love.

Now | looked at that same spreadsheet and as Alderman Lopez pointed out, Ward 3 and Ward 4 have a very high density.
So if | were to pull out Greeley Park, | could look at things like the Salem Street tot lot or | could look at the Shattuck
Street tot lot. Those are important and very high density areas. Part of one of the things that's brought up in there is
something called “foster square” and if anybody knows where Lock and Orange Street is, to call that a park yes itis. It's
got two benches in it and it's got a statue. It's not really a park. Actually, | call it poopville because that's what people do is
just let their dogs out and poop in that area.

To answer something that Alderman O'Brien had mentioned that no one contacted the Public Works, that's wrong. | did
send an e-mail. | did ask a question and | did speak to Lauren. She did call me. | did talk to her. She said because |
asked her question, what is the stance of Public Works? She said they're not taking a stance. They're not against it.
They're not for it. They were just staying neutral on it. | said, okay, | could understand that. | could respect that. She
said that they weren't really sure. They had no conclusive evidence that the reduction of those trees could hurt the park.
It might hurt the park, but it might be something that would happen 9, 10 later years. It wouldn't happen immediately. It's
something that would be awaiting.

| believe that ex-Alderman Richardson had sent us something from a previous Board of Aldermen when they talked about
selling off little bits and pieces of the park. That Board sent that on to not a no vote, but basically | think was indefinitely

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 24

postponed. So things have happened. Obviously parts of Greeley have been either sold off or roaded. The original will
talked about 168, more or less, acres. Now we know that when | looked at the three parcels of what was considered
Greeley Park, | didn't really even quite come up to | think maybe 126 acres of it.

We look at Ward 3 as having a lot of acres. | look over at Ward 5 the way they say that they have quite a large number,
but that's primarily Mine Falls. Ward 1does have park. They have Lincoln Park and they have an entrance to Mine Falls.
Whether Mine Falls falls within Ward 1 or it falls within Ward 5, | don't know. Mine Falls also falls in parts of Ward 4
because it's really big. It's really huge. So it's loved and used by everyone within the city. | can say the same thing with
Greeley Park. | talked to people that live in French Hill and they walk up Concord Street and they go to Greeley Park.
There is a little pool in Greeley Park for the kiddies to go into and it's a beautiful pool. It's really tiny, but it is a beautiful
pool. We have baseball fields there; we have pickleball court on the east side. So Greeley Park is used by all kinds of
people. We have a stage there. It needs to be finished but we do have that. We have a little children's park with swings
and so on that is also in there. They recently replaced, | think, the old slide because it was metal, rusted, and even
burning children. So they now have one that will not do that.

I'm sorry that the Ward 9 parks are to not being taken care of and | have spoken to Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright on that,
and that just like yours Alderman O'Brien, is something that she really wants to be looked at and it should be looked at. |
think it should get the attention that it deserves. One of the problems with Greeley Park is if we don't do it now, we don't
act now, it's done. As far as a $2.5 million, you all have tabled that. So that isn't on discussion and while this other one
might say not to exceed $2.5 million, it doesn't mean we're spending $2.5 million. Maybe it would be less. Maybe we only
purchase half of that but | want the right of negotiation for the Mayor, for economic development whether to buy all of it,
whether to buy part of it but at least to start that discussion.

As was pointed out, this came in from an Alderman. It didn't come in from Director Cummings. It didn't come in from any
other department. It came in from me and it came in together just for that reason. | did not want to ask for a bond and
then have to come back and ask for authorization to spend that bond. Logic was to bring them both in together.

| don't have a staff but | do have an amazing Ward who has done a lot of work and they have given me more information
than | ever knew about Greeley Park and I'm sure you've all been the recipient of some of that information as well. So
yes, | don't have a staff but | do have an incredible constituency that has worked very hard for it. They've sent you emails.
They've talked to friends, and family, and so on that live there. For these people to come out and say, please purchase
this land, enhance Greeley Park, save growth. | know | wrote something here.

Alderman O'Brien you brought up a Pandora's Box. This would not be the first time that the city has purchased land to
stop development. Pennichuck is the perfect example of it. We purchased that land to make sure that it didn't go
somewhere else. That it didn't go to a foreign country. This is not quite the same thing. I’m not worried about going to a
foreign country but we want to make sure that we save the integrity of it. It was asked why didn't we approach the family.
To me, it would have been foolish to wait for this person who was passing away on their deathbed go knock on the door
and say, hey, can we buy your property? We didn't know what the family want to do. For all we knew, the family
themselves wanted to move back into that house. We did not know this was going up for sale. We heard about it - or at
least | heard about it when | was contacted by Mr. Geisinger who said can we meet? I've heard you’re the Ward 3
Alderman and I'd like to talk to you. That was literally days before he held a meeting. He actually notified the abutters
and the neighbors before he talked to me about it. So from the moment | learned about it, | took action. | didn't just sit
back. | took action.

You don't have to be with me. | understand exactly the way you feel. | understand what your constituencies feel but |
can't just say Ward 3 has too much green space, or Ward 1 doesn't have enough green space, or Ward 2 doesn't have
enough green space. The issue really is that the green space is where it is and we're changing the lines possibly. So to
turn around and say as a matter of fact, | think Ward 2 green space will probably grow a little bit because they're going to
be taking some of the thing | think the Pennichuck Brook which is going to be an issue to have to take care of and so on.
So need versus want, you can define it as that but this is a one shot deal. If it gets developed - trees clear cult, it's over,
it's done. Thank you.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Thank you, Madam President. When this first came to us and there was these apartments or townhouses that were going
to be built, we talked about whether it was affordable. What | found out and what we were told was that it was not
affordable housing at all. It was like a $650k type of homes. So right off the back, | was against that, because we are
trying to put in low income and affordable housing here in New Hampshire. So I’m really happy that the gentlemen pulled
out of that negotiation because it was bad news for Nashua.

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 25

Secondly, the Planning Board and economic board pass this, you know, to us in a favorable position. Some of you
actually chaired other boards here, committees here, and you passed things to the full Board, you know, expecting that
you've done your due diligence, and your committees have done your due diligence, and you pass it off here for us to
make decisions. What I'm finding here today is that a committee did their job, and there's some questions about it, and
here we are now, and we have some of our colleagues that mostly the same ones that were against it in the beginning are
still against it. That's the essence of it.

Most importantly R-21-203 is just allowing the Mayor to negotiate and that's important. If it's any other property, the same
thing, someone's allowed to negotiate. It doesn't say we're going to pay for this, we're going to buy this, it doesn't say any
of those things at that point because no matter what, they have to come back to the Board at some point in time, and the
Board makes that decision in terms of how we're going to pay for it rather the neighbors are going to assist or raise
money. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen. So to shut it down without passing forward just doesn't seem
right to me.

Then | looked at the situation with St. Andrew's. The money is there and | have been dealing with them for a long time
now. The money is there and all he has to do what | was told was he needed to take the money from one pot and put it in
another pot because it's the last part to be done. | was told that it should be done by the springtime just update you with
that. But I'm not going to be here so | would like you to follow through to make sure we get you St Andrews because we
were the last on board to get the park redone.

So with that said, | hope that my colleagues will really consider allowing the Mayor to negotiate or to go forward with this
and at some point next year, I'm sure, he'll come back with what he's found in that area because Greeley Park was not
just a Ward 3, Ward 4 park. Greeley Park belongs to Nashua and the Nashua residents and my constituents were just as
concerned. So I'm just saying that | think that we should look at this as a Nashua not specifically for 3 and 4. Thank you
all Madam President.

Alderwoman Lu

Thank you. | just wanted to correct a couple of things. Every Ward has the same population. So Ward 4 and 3, they're
not more heavily populated than any other ward generally speaking. The point that | had tried to make is | put 3 and 4
together because they are on the map, the northeast quadrant, and that gave me 180 acres plus the Riverwalk
development that we just earmarked $21 million for.

Every park in Nashua is a city park, every park. People go to their favorite parks. They drive to them. So we all
understand that Greeley Park is for the whole city. But the Master Plan has identified that with a walkable city. You need
distributed green spaces. You need to give residents of neighborhoods somewhere to go where they don't have to jump
in the car to bring the kids to. So it's important that we embrace this idea that we have to start distributing in finding ways
to build green spaces where there aren't any.

Finally as far as funding goes, as far as the recommendations go, we're also taking into consideration something that
neither of those boards needed to which is the cost, the expense. That's our unique consideration and that's why it's very
easy to say it's easy when you don't think about the expense. Yes, let's add to Greeley Park. Sure. Let's make it even
bigger but we only have limited resources and we've identified in the Master Plan some really, really important human
centric needs. Open spaces is great for people. That's what we need but people also need affordable housing. People
also need neighborhoods with equitable green space.

So | also want you to keep in mind that | just don't think this is a need but the conservation fund does have $1.6 million in
it and maybe that's the funding - something that's sitting there. I'm not sure what it's being held for but we don't need to
further encumber the taxpayers.

And finally — | can only remember one thing at a time. I'm all set. Thank you very much.
Alderman Jette

Thank you, Madam President. | appreciate Alderwoman Gathright’s reminding us the committee's spend time looking at
issues, and making recommendations, and we ought to listen to them very carefully. | would like to point out, | did watch
the Planning Board meeting and they were very careful to point out. Number one, it wasn't unanimous and there was one
vote against it. They were very careful to point out that they were not evaluating the deal, so to speak, they were just
looking at it and the Chairman emphasize that they were just looking at, you know, if the city acquired this land would it be
consistent with the Master Plan?

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 26

The Planning and Economic Development Committee - they only had four members in attendance. One of them
abstained and the vote was 2 to 1. So it was not a unanimous vote there either. So | appreciate and | agree with you that
work should be done in the committee and we ought to respect the committee's work but we still have a right to look at it.
We don't have to accept what they vote, especially a close vote like that at the Planning and Economic Development
Committee meeting.

If | could ask another question of Corporation Counsel. The ordinance that we're looking at says that the Mayor is hereby
authorized to purchase the property located 15 Bartlett Avenue, Tax Map 57, Lot 3 on terms and conditions and for such
purchase price as determined by the Mayor with the purchase price not to exceed $2,500,000; and then further resolved
that the Corporation Counsel prepare all the necessary documents, etc. So does this mean that if the Mayor is able to
reach a deal to purchase this property for less than $2,500,000 and he somehow comes up with the funding from the
budget without requiring a new bond that he could do that without coming back to the Board of Aldermen or does this
ordinance require him to come back to the Board of Aldermen for approval?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Well, it's a resolution not an ordinance.
Alderman Jette
You're correct, sorry.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

But | don't fully understand what you mean by come up with the money in the budget. This is not in the budget as far as |
know currently. At least it's not been identified as being in the budget anywhere. If it was going to be a transfer of funds,
that would require action by this Board. If it was going to be added to the budget as an additional appropriation, that
would require action by this Board. Now you might have to do that if the Mayor were to enter into an agreement and bind
the city, which this gives them the authorization to do, but you've heard him say tonight that he wouldn't do that without
including a contingency that this Board would have to authorize the expenditure in some manner. So that's what the
Mayor said.

Alderman Jette

Madam President, | would | would like to make an amendment to add after the first paragraph, “subject to final approval
by the Board of Aldermen’.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN JETTE TO AMEND BY ADDING AFTER THE FIRST PARAGRQAPH “SUBJECT TO FINAL
APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Lopez

Doesn't that potentially undermine the purpose of passing this at all because the idea to indicate an authorized person
and by amending it for the person that has to consult with 15 others they're not authorized?

President Wilshire

I’m not sure what your question actually is.

Alderman Lopez

Well I'm pointing out that if we make it subject to the Board of Aldermen in the manner that's being suggested, it
undermines the idea of having the Mayor be able to enter into that negotiation phase because he can't promise anything if
it still has to go through the Board of Aldermen in that particular way. If he can at least negotiate the purchase and then
has to on his own side make sure that there's funding available or a strategy for it, at least he can approach the potential
seller with that position.

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 27

Alderman Clemons

Thank you, Madam President. | actually support this amendment and I'll explain why. | support it because | believe that it
basically encaptures the spirit of what we're trying to do and what has been laid out tonight, at least by myself anyway.
Essentially what we want to do is to have this go forward, and be negotiated, and see what we can come up with. | think
multiple speakers have said that this evening. | think what Corporation Counsel was trying to say was that, you know, any
appropriation would be subject to an act by the Board of Aldermen, but that the Mayor could potentially bind the city into
an agreement. Now, | don't think the Mayor would do that but this amendment just kind of tidies that up. So | have no
problem with the amendment and I’m fully in support of it. | think it keeps the spirit of the legislation alive and really, it just
kind of encapsulates what we're trying to do.

Alderman Klee

Thank you, Madam President. | actually agree with both Alderman Lopez and Alderman Clemons. | understand people's
anxiety of thinking that the Mayor would bind the city. He has not said he wouldn't but then if he does, what is the
recourse? So | do understand that anxiety. | would love to just be clean and allow the Mayor to negotiate up to a certain
amount pending approval of the amount. So while | would prefer it to be as it was, | will support the amendment.

| don't know if | can say this, but your comment Alderman Jette about the Planning Board and the PEDC. | had written a
note because that's exactly what | was going to say about the membership that that was there. | do believe that we still
talked it so you watched. | did answer all their questions. As to the property, we did not discuss the price of it but one of
the things that they did state was that it was within the Master Plan keeping with the, | believe they said with the spirit of
the Master Plan, and what they had to do. They did say the Master Plan did also discuss housing and so on, but they felt
that this was equal or surpass that so. | just also wanted to get that out on the open.

While | would prefer not to have this amendment, I'm happy to support it. | don't believe that it will change anybody's mind
here. | think everybody's mind is more or less made up as to how they want to vote on it but | do think that it's an olive
branch so to speak. Yes, | will support it.

Alderman O’Brien

Thank you, Madam President. | rise for a parliamentary inquiry. Where this has $1 amount potentially $2.5 million is the
cap, would just require a 10 member vote?

Alderman Klee
If it's bonded.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

| guess I'm not following. Why would it?

Alderman O’Brien

Well | think if | can further explain to Corporate Counsel, whenever we vote on these type of things we usually go with
financial matters that we need to have the super majority of the 10 whenever we look at the project. I'm just wondering
where this could affect a budget, would that come under a 10 vote rule?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

If you're talking about a supplemental appropriation, this does not supplementally appropriate any funds.

Alderman O’Brien

Okay, thank you for your clarification.

President Wilshire

The motion is to amend. Further discussion on that motion?