Search

Finance Committee - 02/03/2021 Page 5

Mayor Donchess

Anyone else? Alright well the motion is to recommend final passage. Madam Clerk, could you please call the
roll?

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

Yea: Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Harriott-Gathright,
Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Laws, Alderman O’Brien, Mayor Donchess 6

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

R-21-113
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 14 COURT STREET LEASE FOR
UNIT B WITH LIQUID THERAPY, LLC

MOTION BY ALDERMAN HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE BY ROLL CALL.
ON THE QUESTION

Mayor Donchess

And we have Tim Cummings, Economic Development Director here to talk about the terms of this Resolution
as well as Alderman Clemons who was involved in these discussions, | believe. So | will ask Mr. Cummings to
explain the terms.

Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development

Great thank you Mayor. Again, Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development. The amendment before
you is relatively simple. All it does it clarify and make explicit that the utilities that are using to service Liquid
Therapy’s lease premise area will be sub metered and the cost of the usage of said utilities would be paid by
Liquid Therapy. The responsibility for the sub metering would be on the City. It is going to take a little time to
get those sub meters in so we are starting off the utility collection July 1° of ’21.

So those are the three essential elements that are in the amendment. The reason why we are doing this is to
clarify and just clean up from the previous lease language where it was a little foggy or unclear as to the utility
usage and this makes it more explicit and is something that Liquid Therapy looks favorably upon and so do |. |
am asking for your approval this evening. Thank you.

Finance Committee - 02/03/2021 Page 6

Mayor Donchess

Any other questions, comments on the Liquid Therapy Lease? If not, Madam Clerk, could you please call the
roll?

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

Yea: Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Harriott-Gathright,
Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Laws, Alderman O’Brien, Mayor Donchess 6

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS — ORDINANCES - None

RECORD OF EXPENDITURES

MOTION BY ALDERMAN HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS COMPLIED
WITH THE CITY CHARTER AND ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE RECORD OF EXPENDITURES
FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 15, 2021 TO JANUARY 28, 2021, BY ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION

Mayor Donchess

Any comments or questions on the Record of Expenditures?

Alderwoman Lu

Yes | have one.

Mayor Donchess

Alderwoman Lu?

Alderwoman Lu

Thank you. | had asked a question of a couple of the Departments and | am not quite clear on why this is done.
On the Record of Expenditures for the abatements that we pay, we don’t really identify the payee. And it
seems as though according to our Ordinances we are required to list the payees, 5 129 — it says, “the name of

the person to whom the account or claim was allowed”. And the only answer | got was “it would not be
appropriate”. Could someone help me understand why abatements aren’t identified as the payees?

Mayor Donchess
The payee, the person to whom the check is written?
Alderwoman Lu

Yeah.

Finance Committee - 02/03/2021 Page 7

Mayor Donchess

Ms. Kleiner | think is on the call. Can you answer that question? You’re on mute too.

Kim Kleiner, Director of Administrative Services

Excuse me. Good evening Mayor Donchess, members of the Committee. So the check, the Record of
Expenditures is who the check is written to. | believe the question is, who is the check in benefit of which is a
different question. So you may have a check that is written because the taxes or the payments are through a
mortgage company or they are through another entity, and then the abatement is returned. So | don’t think the
question is really who the check is written to. The name on the Record of Expenditures is who the check is
written to. | believe what Alderwoman Lu may be referencing is who is the check benefiting.

Mayor Donchess

Who is the property owner.
Director Kleiner

Correct.

Mayor Donchess

So you are saying that like if a mortgage company is handling the taxes or some third party that the refund
goes to the third party handling the tax payments. Whereas the owner of the property could be someone
different than the payee of the check, correct?

Director Kleiner

Correct, yes.

Mayor Donchess

Alderwoman Lu, does that answer your question or not.

Alderwoman Lu

No, it sounds really confused. So | mean | understand we have property owners whose mortgage company
manages their taxes and is the custodian of their tax payments. When we write a check, as an abatement, we
may be sending it to the mortgage company but certainly somewhere on the check it says “for the benefit of
this particular person who has an account there”. And I’m sorry it doesn’t sound like what you’re telling me is

very well thought out. | don’t understand why — there must be a name on any conveyance of money to an
institution, which institution someone has a mortgage at.

Mayor Donchess

So you’re saying that you think the name of the property owner should appear in the Record of Expenditure in
addition to the payee on the check if it is different?

Alderwoman Lu

| think the person who ... So, when you have someone like Core Logic that’s paid, Core Logic did not file an
abatement request and | just wonder if it's an unnecessary clouding of where or who these checks are paid to.

Finance Committee - 02/03/2021 Page 8

Mayor Donchess

Now I’m not disagreeing with you | am just trying to find out what — you know — make sure | understand the
point. | think you are saying that the name of the party owning the property to whom the abatement benefits,
whom the abatement really benefits in substance, should be, that name should appear in the Record of
Expenditures in addition to the payee of the check if those are different, correct?

Alderwoman Lu

| don’t personally think, | don’t know what is legally required but | mean the way | am reading this it says, “the
name of the person to whom the account or claim was allowed”. That’s not their mortgage company. And |
have directed this to Legal with no response. The only response | have gotten is “it would be inappropriate”.
And | just want a better understanding of why that is not appropriate.

Director Kleiner
Mayor, if | may?

Mayor Donchess
Go ahead.

Director Kleiner

So the name in the Record of Expenditures is the name that the check is written to. And | think there’s two
different things here. So when an abatement goes to the Board of Assessors and is approved for payment by
the tax office, there is a record, a list that goes to the tax office signed off by the Board of Assessors which lists
the property owners. And that certainly is a public document, that is the official list of approved payments to
property owners for an abatement. So that would actually have the property owner's name. And | think we
provided those. That’s the official record of approved abatements. The Record of Expenditures is not a list of
approved abatements. That’s a record of who checks were issued to. So | really think the two separate things,
both of which are certainly public documents, and both which can be provided only the list of approved
abatements would be found in the Board of Assessors and the Record of Expenditures would be found in the
financial documents.

Mayor Donchess

| mean | follow that but what you just explained raised this question in my mind. So if there is a mortgage
company that is handling a group of abatements and let’s say they have made payments on behalf of three
parties that got an abatement, does one check go to the mortgage company to cover the approved abatements
or is it three separate checks.

Director Kleiner

So let’s think of it this way. The name that the tax bill goes to, the name on the tax account is who tax would
issue that to. So when tax bills are issued, many get banks or mortgage holders receive the tax bills for
different residents. So you can think of it that way. I’m not sure Mayor, | would certainly want to look at it. |
believe they are all separate, but | would verify that for you. | believe they are separate amounts and separate
checks, which is why you see them listed quite often multiple times.

Mayor Donchess

Alright well | think | understand Alderwoman Lu’s question and | would be glad to inquire further on that issue.
You are just saying that the name of the taxpayer should be in the Record of Expenditures, right, basically in
addition to ...

Finance Committee - 02/03/2021 Page 9

Alderwoman Lu

Yeah that’s what | ...

Mayor Donchess

Ok well we could check that out. I’ve not had that question come up before and I’d be glad to look into it.
Alderwoman Lu

Thank you.

Mayor Donchess

And get an answer from Legal. Alderman Clemons did you have some input here?

Alderman Clemons

Yeah just briefly, working in the industry | can tell you that every City and Town does it a little bit different
depending on the size of the Town. | know that we have received checks from the City of Nashua and typically
in my own company because we have mortgage holders that live here and | can tell you that the City sends
out, at least from my experience, the individual check per the taxpayer. But it references and what we look up
is the, we reference the property tax ID and not the owner. And the reason we do that is because we have and
| assume that this is probably true across the board is that we have multiple, we have people that own multiple
properties in Nashua or any other City for that matter. And so if a check comes in from the same town, we
don’t want to know who the person is necessarily, we want to see the property tax ID. So typically those
checks reference the property tax ID and not the person. | can’t recall off the top of my head whether or not

the ones that I’ve seen from Nashua have the name listed on it. Most of them that come in from across the
country, because we are nationwide, just reference the Tax ID Number because that’s what we are looking for.

Mayor Donchess

You are saying that’s for clarity because with the Tax ID Number you know exactly where the abatement
should apply whereas if they have the name of the owner that owner might have 10 different properties and
you have no idea where it should go.

Alderman Clemons

Correct.

Mayor Donchess

OK.

Alderman Clemons

But again | am speaking from my experience and | don’t recall how Nashua particularly does it.

Mayor Donchess

Well that’s an interesting point. Alright well we will check this out and we will report back. Ok?

Finance Committee - 02/03/2021 Page 10

Alderwoman Lu
Yes, thank you.

Mayor Donchess

Alright so any other questions or comments on the Record of Expenditures? If not, Madam Clerk, could you
please call the roll?

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

Yea: Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Harriott-Gathright, Alderwoman Kelly,
Alderman Laws, Alderman O’Brien, Mayor Donchess 6

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

GENERAL DISCUSSION - None

PUBLIC COMMENT - None

REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN

Mayor Donchess

In the absence of Alderwoman Klee, | will call on Alderman O’Brien.

POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION - None

ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN TO ADJOURN BY ROLL CALL
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Harriott-Gathright,
Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Laws, Alderman O’Brien, Mayor Donchess 6

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
The Finance Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.

Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Committee Clerk

FINANCE COMMITTEE

FEBRUARY 3, 2021
7:00 PM

To Join Zoom Meeting: https://usO2web.zoom. us//82724717335?pwd=eUJP akZieU1BSHJ6eFNaVU8yTEtUdz09
Meeting ID: 827 2471 7335
Passcode: 403067

Join by telephone: 1-929-205-6099
Meeting ID: 827 2471 7335
Passcode: 403067

If there is a problem with the audio, please dial 603-821-2049 to advise.

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENT
COMMUNICATIONS

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-21-110
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AFIRST AMENDMENT TO CONCESSION AGREEMENT
WITH GRANITE DIAMOND, LLC

R-21-113
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons

Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Patricia Klee

Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 14 COURT STREET LEASE
FOR UNIT B WITH LIQUID THERAPY, LLC
NEW BUSINESS — ORDINANCES
RECORD OF EXPENDITURES
GENERAL DISCUSSION
PUBLIC COMMENT
REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN
POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

R-21-110

RESOLUTION

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH GRANITE DIAMOND, LLC

CITY OF NASHUA

In the Year Two Thousand and Twenty-One

RESOLVED by the Board of Aldermen of the City of Nashua that the Mayor is
authorized to enter into a First Amendment to Concession Agreement in substantially the same
form as the attached. This amendment extends the Concession Agreement for a term of one year
beginning on January 1, 2021 and ending on December 31, 2021.

LEGISLATIVE YEAR 2021

RESOLUTION: R-21-110

PURPOSE: Authorizing the Mayor to enter into a First Amendment to
Concession Agreement with Granite Diamond, LLC.

ENDORSERS: Mayor Jim Donchess

COMMITTEE

ASSIGNMENT: Finance Committee

FISCAL NOTE: This First Amendment to Concession Agreement will generate

a maximum of $28,000 in game fees for the use of Holman
Stadium per baseball season. The City will also receive 40% of
net profits of concession sales from City non-league games and
sponsored events. Having this Concession Agreement does
require an increased cost for utilities, grounds maintenance
and overtime.

ANALYSIS

This resolution authorizes the Mayor to enter into a First Amendment to Concession Agreement
with Granite Diamond, LLC. This First Amendment extends the Concession Agreement for an
additional year, through December 31, 2021, continuing all the other terms of the Concession
Agreement.

Approved as to form: Office of Corporation Counsel

By: Mpunke, Aude
Date: VD (FoAnalO Foe

FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONCESSION AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to the Concession Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”), dated as
of the latter of the signatures below, is by and between the City of Nashua, a municipality
incorporated in the State of New Hampshire, having a mailing address of 229 Main Street,
Nashua, County of Hillsborough, New Hampshire 03061 (hereinafter “City”) and Granite
Diamond, LLC, a New Hampshire limited liability company with an address of 67 Amherst
Street, Nashua, County of Hillsborough, New Hampshire 03064 (hereinafter “Franchisor’’).

WHEREAS, the City and Franchisor entered into a Concession Agreement dated May 14,
2019, whereby the City granted to the Franchisor certain rights in regard to the City’s Holman
Stadium facilities (hereinafter “Premises’’);

WHEREAS, the Term of the Concession Agreement was for 2 years, beginning January
1, 2019 and ending December 31, 2020;

WHEREAS, the Concession Agreement also provides for up to 5 additional one-year
options to extend the agreement pursuant to terms to be agreed upon; and

WHEREAS, the Parties with to extend the Concession Agreement to cover the first
additional option year.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and Franchisor agree as

follows: