Search

11.

12,

persons, corporations or property, whether said claims are for unavoidable damage or not,
and from all claims relating to labor and equipment furnished for the snow plowing work.

PARKING LOT SNOW REMOVAL PRIORITY LIST*

SPRING STREET LOT
SENIOR CENTER LOT
LIBRARY LOT

LIBRARY LOT ANNEX
LIBRARY STAFF LOT

CITY HALL LOTS

GARDEN STREET & LOT

LE PARK RENAISSANCE LOT
9. WATER STREET LOT

10. PEARSON/PARK AVE, LOT
11. FACTORY STREET LOT

12, RAILROAD SQAURE LOT

13. MAPLE STREET LOT

14. SCHOOL STREET LOT

15. HIGH STREET LOT (55 TAxn
16. CONWAY ARENA LOT

17. CROWN STREET PARK AND RIDE LOT
18. PINE STREET EXT. Lor

Sranwn wh r

*Subject to Change based on timing of storm.

GOVERNING LAW

This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of
New Hampshire, excluding any choice of law or conflicts of law rules that would result in the
application of the laws of a different jurisdiction.

SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be void, unlawful, or otherwise
unenforceable, that provision shall be severed from the remainder of this Agreement, and
replaced automatically by a provision containing terms as nearly like the void, unlawful, or
unenforceable provision as possible, or otherwise modified in such fashion as to preserve, to
the maximum extent possible, the original intent of the Parties, and this Agreement, as so
modified, shall continue to be in full force and effect.

13,

14.

15.

AMENDMENT.

No modification, amendment, or other change to this Agreement shall be effective unless
agreed to in a writing signed by each of the Parties.

NO WAIVER.

Failure or forbearance by any Party to exercise any of its rights or remedies under this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of such rights or remedies in that or any other
instance. No Party shall be deemed to have waived any right or remedy resulting from such
failure to perform unless it has made such waiver specifically in writing.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

This Agreement and any amendments to this Agreement contain the complete agreement
between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersede all
other agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, with respect to the matters
contained in this Agreement, including any letters of intent, term sheets or similar proposals
exchanged by the Parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective as of the
Effective Date.

CITY OF NASHUA

By: Jim Donchess, duly authorized

Signature:

Title: Mayor

Date:

Contractor:

By: Nathan Doty, The Doty Group

Signature:

Title: Authorized

Date:

REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

NOVEMBER 18, 2020

A meeting of the Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. via
teleconference.

Mayor Jim Donchess, Chairman, presided.

Mayor Donchess

As Chairman of the Finance Committee, | find that due to the State of Emergency declared by the
Governor as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and in accordance with the Governor's Emergency Order
#12 pursuant to Executive Order 2020-04 and subsequent extensions, this public body is authorized to meet
electronically.

Please note that there is no physical location to observe and listen contemporaneously to this meeting, which
was authorized pursuant to the Governor's Emergency Order. However, in accordance with the Emergency
Order, | am confirming that we are:

Providing public access to the meeting by telephone, with additional access possibilities by video or other
electronic means:

To access Zoom, please refer to the agenda or the City’s website for the meeting link.

To join by phone dial: 1-929-205-6099
Meeting ID: 826 1379 4838
Passcode: 098835

The public may also view the meeting via Channel 16.

We previously gave notice to the public of the necessary information for accessing the meeting, through public
postings. Instructions have also been provided on the City of Nashua’s website at www.nashuanh.gov and
publicly noticed at City Hall and Nashua Public Library.

If anybody has a problem accessing the meeting via phone or Channel 16, please call 603-821-2049 and they
will help you connect.

In the event the public is unable to access the meeting via the methods mentioned above, the meeting will be
adjourned and rescheduled. Please note that all votes that are taken during this meeting shall be done by roll
call vote.

Let’s start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance. When each member states their presence, please also
state whether there is anyone in the room with you during this meeting, which is required under the Right-To-
Know Law.

The roll call was taken with 7 members of the Finance Committee present: Alderman Patricia Klee,
Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu, Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright, Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly,
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws, Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr., and Mayor Jim
Donchess.

Finance Committee - 11/18/2020 Page 2

Also in Attendance: Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Brian Sojka, Police Supervisor
Steve Buxton, Assistant Fire Chief
Tim Cummings, Economic Development Director

ROLL CALL
Alderman Klee

Yes, | am here, | can hear the proceedings. | am not really alone, you can hear my little whiner in the
background there. But! am technically human-alone in the room.

Alderwoman Lu
| am here alone and | can hear you.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Clerk says, I’m present, | can hear everyone, | am in this room alone and | am practicing social distancing.

Alderwoman Kelly

| am here, | am alone and | can hear everyone.
Alderman Laws

| am here, | am alone and | can hear everyone.
Alderman O’Brien

| am present, | can hear the proceedings and | am alone.

Mayor Donchess

| am practicing social distancing, therefore at home and | am alone in the living room. We've done the roll call.
Public Comment, is there any member of the public who would like to speak to the Committee? | see Mr.
Teeboom, please go ahead.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Fred Teeboom Ok thank you. | don’t normally attend the meetings but | have been tracking the cost of the
Performance Arts Center. It is on your agenda for R-20-093 for approval for the guaranteed maximum price.
I'd like to say first of all that your contractors ICON and Harvey are doing a very good job on the estimating
especially when compared with the Webb study that preceded the current project. But being a guaranteed
maximum price | did look at the details and the details are in your attachments to your agenda. So I'll make a
few comments; | won’t take too much time. The cost, the guaranteed maximum price is now for the
construction part of the job not the total project which is $25 million. We are talking just the construction of the
Performance Arts Center is now priced to be guaranteed maximum at $15.8 million dollars.

However the Option 2, and | presume this is Option #2, the Steering Committee considered many options. On
2 January of this year, the price was estimated at $15.2 million so you have an addition here of $600,000.00. |
started looking at the spread sheet, that these details are in Exhibit 8, Exhibit H pages 12 and 13 which are
pages 61 and 62 on your attachment if any of you have a computer tracking this.

Finance Committee - 11/18/2020 Page 3

Essentially the subcontract costs were up by about $600,000.00 and the construction management
contingency fees are up about $200,000.00. So this Committee ought to ask the question why the contingency
construction management contingency fee go up and especially why did the subcontract costs go up. That
combined $800,000.00 increase with some minor reductions elsewhere, there’s a total increase like | said
before of $600,000.00. The committee ought to look into that.

The outstanding item that | paid attention to that in the spreadsheet, like | said it’s on page 61/62, there is no
contingency for the design. There’s contingency for construction managers and some other contingencies. |
ran my own spread sheet from this thing but there is no design contingency. | don’t know what that means.
And looking back at the original presentation by ICON back in 2 January, there was no design contingency
then either and | don’t remember anybody asking that question. | attended that meeting. There is no design
contingency, what does that mean? Does it mean the design is done, no changes, or the changes are picked
up elsewhere? Architectural fees for example. It’s not clear to me where the design contingency is in this
guaranteed maximum price.

The spreadsheet is kind of interesting, there’s $100,000.00 difference between — if you add the salary on
pages 61 and 62 versus the guaranteed maximum price, presented in your resolution, there’s actually a
$100,000.00 discrepancy, not a very large number, but still the actual additions add up to about $100,000.00
more than the guaranteed maximum price. | don’t know if anybody through Tim Cummings has checked these
numbers. But for the record, | don’t know who is attending from Harvey but they ought to answer the question
why the additions are off by $100,000.00, and it favors the City. The numbers of $100,000.00 more as in the
resolution.

Now there was a Zoom meeting 28 October, | did not attend the meeting, | forgot about it but Tim Cummings
told me in an email that they cut about $800,000.00 from the estimate that was presented on 2 January. Now |
don’t know what was cut. You can’t, you know, there’s a very lengthy exhibit that lists all the drawings and
there must be several hundred drawings in this design. Of course the drawings are not part of your package.
There are huge amounts of design information but the $800,000.00 that was cut, so it’s not clear what was cut.
He mentioned that the second elevator was cut and | don’t know what the impact there is. It’s probably up to
the Finance Committee. There are two elevators. The second elevator was cut some additional cuts. But if
you combine these two, there’s a $600,000.00 increase in the estimate presented earlier in the year as
$800,000.00 on the cut and there’s a combined impact price of $1.4 million dollars. That presents about 10%.
It’s not necessarily upsetting because it is an estimate final, you know, nailing down a guaranteed maximum
price and guaranteeing that. Ten percent is not unreasonable, but the thing is it ought to be understood. Why
is there a $1.4 million dollar difference and Tim Cummings ought to address it.

The final point I’ll make there is a lengthy list of exclusions. Again, not everything gets nailed down. Many of
these things deal with security cameras and security and of soil that may be contaminated, unseen defects in
the existing buildings that is going to get thrown down. Bult the list of exclusions that is Exhibit - | think it’s J -,
well anyway you have an Exhibit list of exclusions. There is also a list of exclusions for Exhibit 8 its estimate.
The list of exclusions in the later Exhibit is much lengthier than the list of exclusions within the estimate and
that’s problematic. The list of exclusions ought to be at least understood. The list of exclusions sets you up for
change orders; change orders are expected. There’s got to be a certain amount of contingency in the $25
million dollars estimated at least a $1 million dollars of contingency against unforeseen problems which are
listed in exclusions and there may be exclusions outside of the exclusions that are later on found because you
are dealing with tearing down an old building on the same site and putting up a new building that’s actually
next to an existing building which is called the apartment building. So it’s a fairly complex operation.

But in your Resolution there are two lists of exclusions - one a lengthy one and one a not-so-lengthy and it
ought to be understood. That’s the result of my comments, | am not against, | am fairly impressed with the
presentation by ICON and Harvey in the attachments to the Resolution and | understand the Finance
Committee only has so much time to get into this one because there are other items on your agenda. So you
may ask Tim Cummings a few questions along these lines and then let the Steering Committees deal with the
rest. Thank you for listening to me.

Finance Committee - 11/18/2020 Page 4

Mayor Donchess

Thank you very much. Any other members of the public wish to address the Committee? Please proceed.

Laura Colquhoun I’m 30 Greenwood Drive. | know the Board is reviewing the Guaranteed Maximum for the
PAC tonight. However, has anybody come up with the costing of the exclusions? How much is the City of
Nashua going to lose on permit fees that are going to be waived? Nashua Taxpayers need to know how much
more money is going to be required to get this project up and running. Before anybody decides on this
amendment, | think these questions need to be answered to both the Board and the Nashua Taxpayers.
Thank you.

Mayor Donchess

Thank you very much. Any other member of the public wish to speak? If not we will move on to
Communications.

COMMUNICATIONS

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Vehicles: Police Interceptor Utility (Marked) Funded From FY21 CERF/81500Vehicles in the amount of
$304,124.10

MOTION BY ALDERMAN HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE, AND APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF SEVEN 2021 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTOR UTILITY VEHICLES, WHICH WILL REPLACE
SEVEN 2018 FORD INTERCEPTOR UTILITY MARKED VEHICLES, FROM M-H-Q, INC. MUNICIPAL

VEHICLES, MARLBOROUGH, MA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $304,124.10. FUNDING WILL BE THROUGH
DEPARTMENT 150 POLICE; SOURCE: FY21 CERF/81500 VEHICLES, BY ROLL CALL.

ON THE QUESTION

Mayor Donchess

Now | see there is someone from the PD on. I’m not sure who it is?

Brian Sojka, Police Supervisor

It's Brian Sojka, Police Supervisor.
Mayor Donchess
Nice to see you.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

How do you spell your last name?

Brian Sojka, Police Supervisor

S-O-J-K-A.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Thank you.

Finance Committee - 11/18/2020 Page 5

Mayor Donchess

And could you please give an explanation of this item?

Brian Sojka, Police Supervisor

What we are looking to do is replace 7 of our existing cruisers with the 2021 Police Interceptors. It is a
redesigned vehicle from 2018 to 2021 so there’s a little bit more equipment that needs to be purchased
because we can’t interchange the old parts from the old cruiser to the new cruiser like we had done in the past.
And we actually are shooting for 100,000 mileage by the time we replace these vehicles.

Mayor Donchess

Ok, any questions or discussions? Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Alderwoman Lu

I’m sorry | had my hand up.

Mayor Donchess

| recognize your voice, Alderwoman Lu?

Alderwoman Lu

It’s Elizabeth Lu, I’m sorry, can everyone else see me?

Mayor Donchess

We can see you when you are speaking but | can’t see you otherwise. So | need you to speak up as you do.
Alderwoman Lu

Alright, quick question.

Mayor Donchess

Go ahead.

Alderwoman Lu

Thank you. | just wanted to ask why the vehicles were presented this way? | know that | think the purchase is
for 10 or 11. I’d have to look again. Is that because there are 7 that are the same? Is that because the

packages are slightly different?

Brian Sojka, Police Supervisor

Yes they are. I’m sorry, Brian Sojka, Police Supervisor. The 7 vehicles are identical to each other so there are
the same equipment, same everything in the vehicles. And then we have 2 other orders that we are looking to
do but the equipment in the cars are different. That’s why they are not all combined together.

Alderwoman Lu

Alright, thank you. And is 100,000 the goal of the life of these vehicles?

Finance Committee - 11/18/2020 Page 6

Brian Sojka, Police Supervisor

Yes.
Alderwoman Lu
Ok, thank you, that’s all.

Mayor Donchess

Any other questions or comments? | don’t see anyone. So Madam Clerk, we are on then to the next
communication from Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager. Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright?

Alderman Klee

Don’t we need to vote on the previous one?

Mayor Donchess

We didn’t get the first one, I’m sorry. We didn’t get the first one by roll call. So let’s go back to the first item.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Thank you, | was going to say.

Mayor Donchess

Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

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

Yea: Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Harriott-Gathright,
Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Laws, Alderman O’Brien, Mayor Donchess 7

Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager

Re: Vehicles: Police Interceptor Utility (Marked) Funded From FY21 CERF/81500 Vehicles in the amount
of $85,002.60

MOTION BY ALDERMAN HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE, AND APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF TWO 2021 FORD POLICE INTERCEPTOR UTILITY VEHICLES, WHICH WILL REPLACE
TWO FORD INTERCEPTOR UTILITY MARKED VEHICLES, FROM M-H-Q, INC. MUNICIPAL VEHICLES,

MARLBOROUGH, MA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,002.60. FUNDING WILL BE THROUGH DEPARTMENT
150 POLICE; SOURCE: FY21 CERF/81500 VEHICLES, BY ROLL CALL.

ON THE QUESTION

Mayor Donchess

Are there questions or comments on Item #2. Yes, Alderman O’Brien?

Finance Committee - 11/18/2020 Page 7
Alderman O’Brien

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Alderman Lu brought up a very good point and maybe the Police Department can
speak on this equally as well. But knowing vehicles and everything, yes, they do shoot for the 100,000 miles
but you’ve got to remember that these vehicles, some of them, are running almost 24/7. So it’s not just
mileage it’s you compensate what they call “engine hours”. So you have to take that into consideration. So
they may be approaching like | say the 100,000 but their engine hour potential is well up there. So it’s just a
point for information. Thank you.

Mayor Donchess
Anyone else? Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Harriott-Gathright,
Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Laws, Alderman O’Brien, Mayor Donchess 7

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Vehicles: Police Interceptor Utility (Marked) Funded From FY21 CERF/81500 Vehicles in the amount
of $59,372.93

MOTION BY ALDERMAN HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE, AND APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF ONE 2021 FORD INTERCEPTOR UTILITY MARKED VEHICLE FROM M-H-Q, INC.
MUNICIPAL VEHICLES, MARLBOROUGH, MA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,372.93. FUNDING WILL BE
THROUGH DEPARTMENT 150 POLICE; SOURCE: FY21 CERF/81500 VEHICLES, BY ROLL CALL.

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

Yea: Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Harriott-Gathright,
Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Laws, Alderman O’Brien, Mayor Donchess 7

Nay:
MOTION CARRIED

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Protective Clothing & Equipment Funded From FY21 Operating Budget/61110 Protective Clothing in
the amount of $25,848.70

MOTION BY ALDERMAN HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE, AND APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF TEN (10) SETS OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) FROM BERGERON
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,848.70. FUNDING WILL BE THROUGH
DEPARTMENT 152 FIRE RESCUE; SOURCE: 61110 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING, BY ROLL CALL.

ON THE QUESTION

Mayor Donchess

Ok from the PD, are you still on?

Finance Committee - 11/18/2020 Page 8

Steve Buxton, Assistant Fire Chief

Good evening. It’s Steve Buxton, Assistant Chief, Nashua Fire. How are you?
Mayor Donchess
Steve Buxton, Assistant Chief, yes?

Steve Buxton, Assistant Fire Chief

This is basically a partial order for protective clothing. This is the structural fire fighting gear that our members
wear when responding to incidents. It’s inline with what we’ve done in the past and we make multiple
purchases of this size annually. There will be another one of these come springtime when we go to hire our
new personnel. | can take any questions if anybody has any?

Mayor Donchess

Anybody have questions or comments for Assistant Chief Buxton. Alderman O’Brien?
Alderman O’Brien

Yeah, Chief | know the answer as you know, but to assist the public because it is like you say a reoccurring
event. But the life expectancy of this protective clothing, it does have a life expectancy and needs to be
replaced. And plus our firefighters are going to multiple incidents and they do need a couple of sets. And
every single incident you go to creates wear and tear. So there is contamination. So can you just give us a
background, how important it is that there is a life expectancy and why we are rotating this to keep the member
safe?

Steve Buxton, Assistant Fire Chief

Certainly, Steve Buxton, Nashua Fire. So basically industry standard requires us to replace interior structural
firefighting every 10 years. All of our members have 2 sets of protective clothing and the reason for that is
because when they come back from an incident we have to decon, clean their gear of carcinogens and debris
and other items as such that aren’t very good for us. We have a program in place that we’ve been adhering to
for several years now. The plan has been approved by the Board of Fire Commissioners and it keeps us so
we are replacing their primary set somewhere in the 6 to 8 year range so their second set is right on the cusp
of just outside that 10 year window. The reality of it is they are not in that second set that often unless they are
laundering their primary set.

For instance yesterday we had a multiple alarm fire down in the south end of the City. So 38 members of the
Fire Department went back to quarters after, utilized the extractor machines in the fire houses to clean their
protective clothing. Obviously, they need something to wear in responding to incidents while that’s being
laundered. So that secondary set of PPE is put in service at that point in time. Does that answer your
question, Alderman O’Brien?

Alderman O’Brien

Yes, it does. Thank you Chief.

Steve Buxton, Assistant Fire Chief

Thank you sir.