Search

(30th) day prior to adoption or updating, for advisory Local Franchising Authority review and
consultation.

It is the sole responsibility of the Contractor to ascertain and establish rules, procedures and
guidelines appropriate for the use of facilities, equipment and training consistent with this contract,
subject to providing the City with reasonable advance opportunity for consultation on same. The
Contractor may amend these rules, procedures and guidelines as the need may arise.

The Contractor shall provide to City a copy of its policies and procedures, and shall provide to
City any proposed changes to the policies and procedures that require Board approval at least ten
(10) days prior to the date the proposed changes are to be approved by the Board of Directors.

SECTION 8. OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY.

A.

Contractor shall notify Contract Manager in writing within five (5) calendar days of its receipt of
any durable property purchased with contract funds to enable the City to identify and record such
property as fixed assets of the City, or as such asset classifications as appropriate. The Contractor

shall:

| .maintain custody and control over all property provided by the City;

2.maintain detailed property records; and

3.provide assistance with PEG program staff to perform an annual physical inventory of shared
equipment. Contractor shall provide an annual inventory of any non-city owned equipment,
including funding sources and/or donors.

Any property purchased hereunder using contract funds shall be property of the City.

Contractor shall notify the Contract Manager in writing not later than twenty-four (24) hours
following any loss of or damage to City facilities or equipment. Contractor shall seek to recover
from parties responsible for such loss or damage, and shall inform the Contract Manager in writing
of status of the Contractor’s efforts not later than the tenth (10th) calendar day following the date
of initial notice of such loss or damage. Contractor shall provide progress reports on its efforts to
seek remuneration for such loss or damage to the Contract Manager once every thirty (30) calendar
days thereafter, continuing for such duration as the Contract Manager believes is appropriate.

SECTION 9. CITY AUDIT AND INSPECTION.

The Contractor agrees that authorized representatives of the City shall have access to, and the right
to audit, examine, or reproduce, any and all records or documents of the Contractor related to the
contractor’s performance under this contract. Upon termination of this contract, the Contractor shall
provide the originals of all such records to the City’s Contract Manager, and shall retain copies of
such records as required by law. The Contractor shall refund the City for any unauthorized uses of
Operating Funds or Capital Equipment Funding disclosed by an audit.) The City reserves whatever
lawful rights it has to participate in and or otherwise pursue ae tion or damages payments in

connection with the foregoing.
Cee ery aullrtchahd be. “He
respensib: Lik oe Vw. Ci.

ai| es

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 10

I'd like to speak tonight against R-21-202 and R-21-203. | keep hearing mentions of save our park and protect our park.
Just to be clear, you Know, | love Greeley Park myself. A development of this property would not have a negative impact
on existing services (inaudible) by Greely Park. New housing would not resulting in the loss of the horseshoe pits, or
softball fields, demolition of the sensory garden. It’s not going to result in the removal of walking trails. All of these things
that everybody loves about Greeley Park will still be there whether we buy this property or not. | spend a lot of time in
Mine Falls using trails for walking and biking. I've hosted many of my kids’ birthday parties in the picnic areas of Greeley
and I'm an avid softball player that makes frequent use of the softball fields. If there was any chance that this
development would negatively impact the use of the park, I'd be the first to stand against. But the fact is, that's not really
the case.

| am very sympathetic to the people who've spoken tonight against the development of a neighborhood. | don't blame
them for that. If | lived on Bartlett Ave. or Maywood Drive, | wouldn't want a new development in my backyard either. The
difference is there is a difference in being opposed to new construction new neighborhood and demanding with the city
government fork over $2.5 million to interfere with the private land deal. We as citizens should not expect the city to go
around buying up every property that somebody wants to develop.

Every time a needed project comes up in the city, we're told that there's no funding. | recently spoke with DPW about the
possibility of sidewalks along one road, which is a very busy street that children use to walk to school at Fairgrounds
Elementary and Fairgrounds Middle School as well as Bishop Guertin High School. It was estimated that it would cost
around a million dollars to undertake such a project and | was told there's no money in the budget. So it's disappointing to
know that there isn't a million dollars to build a sidewalks for children but there are people who think we should spend
nearly three times that to protect (inaudible).

A major problem that occurs in the city far too often is that too many people think that we can pay for everything we want
to do without restriction. The sad reality is that we can't pay for everything that we want. It's unfortunate that things like a
performing arts center, boardwalks, and parks along the river...

Donna Graham, Legislative Affairs Manager

30 seconds.
Alex Comeau

...are potentially interference in the private land sale to protect people's backyards can be pushed forward but the cost of
multiple tens of millions of dollars while kids have to walk in the street to get this. Thank you.

Michael Viggiano

Thank you. My name is Michael Viggiano from 35 Columbia Avenue. | want to speak in favor of the two resolutions. | had
a tremendous presentation ready but my predecessors have already covered most of what | wanted to say. | do want to
thank the Mayor for his perspective on this. Thank you Mayor Donchess. That was well put and | agree with you.
Through the miracle of technology, I'm actually speaking to you tonight from just outside of Red Rock, Colorado. My wife
and | are visiting our daughter out here and anybody who's been here is amazed by the open space that's available. The
amount of people who exercise, the amount of people who get outside, the amount of people who do everything they can
to be outside almost all the time, including my daughter and husband who live here.

(inaudible) state park as well. Anything like what we're talking about here tonight — Nashua - here in Colorado would be
unheard because open space is what people want. | think we have heard a very good number of pros and cons about
this project but favoring developing this land with housing, which really by the way is not affordable housing, is really off
the mark. So thank you to those who spoke before me, very well put. Thank you.

Dan Richardson

Dan Richardson, 70 Berkeley Street. | just want to make a few points. Part of the purpose of having a city park is its relief
for mental exhaustion actually. It's just so relaxing to go out and take a walk off the trails through the park and it's a very
important part of the therapy of developing mental health. That's one of the things that hadn't been said before. So |
wanted to get that out there.

The other thing is that you'll have to pass both of these resolutions tonight for preservation of that 13 acres as part of
Greeley Park because a lot of people don't know that at the end of a legislative term, which will be in the next few days,

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 11

that all the legislation which has not yet been approved dies where it is on the table or in committee. So there's no
second chance. Tonight is the night. It needs to be decided now. Thank you very much.

President Wilshire

That looks like the end of our speakers for the evening or for this public comment period.

COMMUNICATIONS REQUIRING FINAL APPROVAL

From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Re: Multi-Year Contract Award — Software Subscription

Laura Colquhoun

Laura Colquhoun.

President Wilshire

We've already closed public comment.

Laura Colquhoun

Well | kept on saying Laura Colquhoun and nobody picked up.

President Wilshire

No one heard you.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND APPROVE A NEW THREE
YEAR SUBSCRIPTION WITH WORKDAY ADAPTIVE PLANNING FOR 20 LICENSE SEATS AND THE APPROVAL
OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT DURING THE FIRST YEAR TO ASSIST WITH TRAINING AND
IMPLEMENTATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $323,780. FUNDING WILL BE THROUGH DEPARTMENT 126
FINANCIAL SERVICES; FUND: 71228 COMPUTER SOFTWARE/ESCROW FUNDS FROM INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ($299,140) AND ESCROW FUNDS FROM SCHOOL ($24,640), BY ROLL CALL

A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,

Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,

Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,

Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 15
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

From: Susan K. Lovering, City Clerk
Re: NRO 5 — 6 Compensation — Alderman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly missed three regular meetings

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN TO RECOMMEND INDEFINTELY POSTPONE, BY ROLL CALL
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron,

Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,

Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Cleaver,

Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 12

Nay: Alderwoman Lu 1

Abstained: Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Laws 2

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 12
Alderwoman Lu
Point of order. | don't believe you can abstain from a vote if you're at the meeting.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

I’m aware of no such requirement.
MOTION CARRIED

From: Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel
Re: Confidential Attorney/Client Communication

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR DONCHESS TO EXECUTE EXHIBIT K FOR THE
PURPOSES THEREIN CONTAINED, BY ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION

Alderwoman Lu

Yeah, | won't be able to support this. This is a contract that we received today at afternoon and I'd have to vote against it
today. It seems to me it could be sent to committee. Well re-entered next year so that it could be properly viewed. Thank
you.

President Wilshire

You heard the motion. Is there more discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to Attorney Bolton.

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

| sent it more than a week ago. | don't know where it's been but it got sent by me to the entire Board of Aldermen more
than a week ago. The settlement of the litigation is contingent upon our giving a response by January 2". So it is just
incorrect. There's plenty of time next year to deal with it.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Further discussion? Seeing none, will the Clerk call the roll?
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,

Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Tencza,

Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws, Alderman Cleaver,

Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 14
Nay: Alderwoman Lu 1
MOTION CARRIED
PETITIONS - None

NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS - None

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

Finance Committee ... 0.00. e cece cece eee cease sees eens sae eeaeee vanes eedee eae aeaene nan eenas 12/01/2021

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the December 1, 2021 Finance Committee be
accepted and placed on file.

Work Study Group Relative to Police COMMISSION............... cc ccc cee cee cee eee neste sees eee nee nee tne ene eees 12/02/2021

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 13

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the December 2, 2021 Work Study Group Relative to
Police Commission be accepted and placed on file.

Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee... 20.0.0... 0000 cece cece cee ee eee eae seseeeeeeveeaea aes 12/06/2021

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the December 6, 2021
Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee be accepted and placed on file.

Budget Review Committee... 0.0.0... ccc ccc cee cee cee eee nee ne ene en ee EeE EE EEE ene cE E EAE AEE EEE SEE SEE EEE E EE EEE ES 12/07/2021

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the December 7, 2021 Budget Review Committee be
accepted and placed on file.

Committee on Infrastructure... 20.00... e cece eee cee eee cease see see eevee eeaaee vaeeaeeeane eae aeannes 12/08/2021

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the December 8, 2021 Committee on Infrastructure be
accepted and placed on file.

Human Affairs Committee... 00... ccc ee cece cece eee eee see aea cae veeaeeaeeveeevaaeevaeeanaeeune nas 12/13/2021

There being no objection, President Wilshire declared the report of the December 13, 2021 Human Affairs Committee be
accepted and placed on file.

CONFIRMATION OF BOARD OF ALDERMEN’S APPOINTMENTS - None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-21-202
Endorsers: Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Skip Cleaver
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF
TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,500,000) TO PURCHASE PROPERTY ABUTTING
GREELEY PARK LOCATED AT 15 BARTLETT AVENUE (MAP 57, LOT 3)
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO TABLE R-21-202, BY ROLL CALL
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,

Alderman Wilshire 9
Nay: Alderman Klee, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Cleaver,

Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright 5
Abstained: Alderman Tencza 1

MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-21-202 declared tabled.

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 14

R-21-203
Endorsers: Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Thomas Lopez
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Skip Cleaver
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15 BARTLETT AVENUE (MAP 57,
LOT 3)
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-21-203, BY ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Clemons

Thank you. So the reason | know that we just tabled the other legislation regarding this, which | believe was the bond, but
this legislation here would allow us to authorize the purchase. So what it would do in effect is allow us to enter into a
negotiation and figure out the funding source later, which has a couple of beneficial factors to it. One of which is that we
could potentially split up that property. There is a house on it now and that house could be sold, you know, as it stands
and put back onto the tax rolls after we purchased the property. So there's a lot of different things that we can do but we
can't do them unless we authorize us to at least negotiate or purchase this property. | also think that by (inaudible) it will
allow us to look at different options for funding as well and the new Board of Aldermen would be able to have that
discussion. So | think for a lot of different reasons that's why | would recommend that we move forward with this
resolution. Thank you.

Alderman Klee

| think Alderman Clemons spoke very well and | appreciate all the things he said. | agree with him. The first one, in my
opinion, 202 was basically getting pre-qualified fora mortgage. That's what I've always been saying all along. The
second one, 203 does stand on its own and it does it gives us negotiating power. The thing that should be noted is that
the original, and | think it was stated by one of the speakers, the original developer has stepped aside. It still does not
mean that the current owners or trustees of the property are going to sell it to us but it gives us that opportunity to speak
to them to negotiate a deal to work with them. As Alderman Clemons pointed out, what it does is it gives us the vetability
and | think we should consider this.

We've all gotten the emails. We've gotten a lot of e-mails from Ward 3. We've got a lot of e-mails from other Wards. | e-
mailed why | can't say we got more from one or the other because we all got individual emails as well as collective e-
mails. Our boxes are filling with them. | do want to say is that there are things that can be done whether we save the
forest area of it, and developer put some small homes on the other, that is something that we'd have to cross that bridge
but we can't even get there without at least having authorization for the Mayor, and so on, to make the purchase, to have
this discussion, and so on. | think that this discussion is extremely important. | have a lot more than | want to say but |
think I'd like to hear from my fellow colleagues so thank you.

Alderman Dowd
You know first before | have some comments, | have a question for Corporation Counsel. The way this Resolution is
worded, it's giving the Mayor authorization to purchase the property. Can you enter into a purchase and sale or any kind

of agreement with someone if you don't have funding to get into that agreement?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

The city is good for it. We would owe them money if an agreement is entered into with authorization. This provides the
authorization.

Alderman Dowd

So you're saying he has a blank check?

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 15

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

I'm not saying anything. I’m saying...
Alderman Dowd
But he will have to come back to the Board...

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

I’m not arguing with you Sir. You asked me a question. | answered it as best | could. You want to characterize it as a
blank check. | never said that.

Alderman Clemons

Madam President, | could offer some insight.

President Wilshire

Can everyone hold on a second? I'd like to hear from the Mayor first.

Mayor Donchess

If there were an agreement, it would have to be contingent upon the Board of Aldermen providing funding. | mean I'm not
gonna commit the city to a purchase nor do | think | really legally could without the authorization to spend the money. So
as Alderman Clemons said, you know, there's a lot of things that could be worked out. There are people who are at least
looking at the house kind of interested. So who knows what could happen but | don't want to disagree with Attorney
Bolton at all but | don't know that | have authority to enter an agreement without a contingency on the funding and | would
never do so even if | did.

President Wilshire

Do you want to continue Alderman Dowd?
Alderman Dowd

Yeah. | wasn't trying to - what | was trying to say was | think the wording of the current resolution is not the wording that it
should have to be what we want to do. The reason we tabled the bond is because at the Budget Committee there are a
lot of questions still hanging out there relative to the purchase of this property. There's also a lot of questions relative to
the additional expenses that would have to be if we acquired the property, which hasn't been resolved. | think we'd like an
opportunity to do that. | also think that perhaps this kind of acquisition that we should probably wait for the new Board.

Having said that, | got a lot of communication from other people in Nashua from other Wards that there are pieces of
property being sold for development that these people don't want developed and they say if we're buying the Barker
property, why aren't we buying this property and that property, and where does it stop? | fully appreciate the people in
their respect for Greeley Park. My grandfather was involved in in a lot of the development of Greeley Park back in the day
89 years ago. So I'm not against Greeley Park or any part of Greeley Park. | just think that we have a lot of questions
that need to be resolved and we haven't resolved them yet. | think that we need to know these before we make any
commitments. So $2 million could turn into a substantially higher number. In the end, we don't know them and many of
the most serious concerns brought up by the people that are asking for us to buy the property are things that can be
resolved at the Planning Board. That's where most of these things would get ironed out - traffic, utilities, all of that stuff. |
just cannot support that property purchase as this time.

President Wilshire

Could | ask the gentleman in the back of the room to put his mask on or you'll have to leave the chamber if you continue
to be here without a mask. Thank you.

Alderman Clemons

Yes, thank you, Madam President. | just wanted to state and | apologize for interrupting | was trying to help, but what |

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 16

wanted to say was that any purchase - any real estate person will tell you that almost 100% | would say 99% of all
contracts that someone signs to purchase property usually they say subject to financing. That would be true if some sort
of an agreement were to be made for the Barker property. So the way that Alderman Klee was describing it as the other
ordinance being a pre-approval for a mortgage is exactly sort of the way this is. So what this is basically us saying to the
city - please go and see what you can come back with. | don't see anything wrong with doing that. That was just the point
| was trying to make. This doesn't commit us to anything but it does allow us to at least explore and get some of the
answers that Alderman Dowd or some of the others may have. Thank you.

Alderman Lopez

Based on the descriptions that are given here, it seems somewhat obvious that while the price could go up if the Mayor is
intending to fund this and does identify the opportunity to reach an agreement, the price could also down if other funding
sources beyond the bond alone were identified. | know a number of the public speakers who came in previous weeks had
indicated they would fundraise for it and that they were looking at grant possibilities too. So | thought we should probably
in fairness point out both sides of that. It's not automatically going to go up. Mayor Donchess to my knowledge doesn't
generally write blank checks or negotiate huge expenses for the city. | think if we're just going to focus on authorizing the
city to purchase it that opens the dialogue. Even tonight, some opportunities to raise revenue such as Selling that house
were included in discussion already.

Alderman Caron

Yes, thank you. | agree with my fellow Aldermen. Alderman Dowd | received some phone calls concerning purchasing
this piece of property. One is Camp Doucette. Several people who | know live in that area and said why didn't you buy
that? That's near a conservation land.

But my biggest concern is the people who own this property, did they even come to the city to ask them if they thought we
would be interested in buying it since it's so close to Greeley Park? It's almost like we're forcing their hand that they
should be selling it to us and nobody else. | don't think that's fair to them. This doesn't really affect Greeley in the long
run. Yes, you don't want to have a lot of buildings but Greeley Park is there. We've done a lot of work over there. We've
made changes. We also tried to put some changes in there and they will fought hard. But | don't think this is the time for
us to do it and as Alderman Dowd said, maybe this should wait until the new Board comes in and the questions that are
out there are answered. But | think we're doing a disservice to this property owner who's trying to sell this property and if
the developer that first purchaser has backed out is it because of all of this? That's not fair to them, either. So | will not
support this at this point in time. Thank you.

Alderman Jette

| have a question to legal counsel through you if | could. Am | mistaken but it seems to me that in the past the city has
whether it's the Mayor, or the Planning Department, or the Board of Public Works, or some other entity in the city other
than the Board of Aldermen has oftentimes found a piece of property that they want for whatever purpose determined
whether or not the seller was interested in selling and kind of looked at the possibilities of whether this would be suitable
for whatever purpose entered into some negotiations and come back seeking authorization from the Board of Aldermen
after they've reached some kind of an agreement contingent upon it being approved and funded by the Board of
Aldermen. It seems here that were saying that whether it's the Mayor, or the Planning Department, or anybody else can
look into this property and the suitability of this property for use by the city. It seems like we're saying before anything can
happen, the Board of Aldermen has to initially authorize that negotiation and even put down a not to exceed number of
$2,500,000. It seems to me that it could be done that way but it also seems to me that the Mayor or somebody could
approach the seller and see whether or not there's any interest in selling it to us. Also determine whether or not this is the
best use of that property, whether it's suitable for whatever purposes we might have in mind. So | don't know if you
understand my question Corporation Counsel. Could the Mayor or could someone from the city begin this negotiation
without our authorizing the purchase first?

Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel

Absolutely. It doesn't have to be done this way. But in this case, an Alderman asked that this resolution be prepared and
that's what was done. But the fact is any transaction in of real property, whether the city is acquiring it or divesting it has
to be authorized by the Board of Aldermen before it can happen. So the original concept, light bulb going off, could
happen in any number of places. But eventually it has to get here.

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 17
Alderman Jette
Okay, thank you. Thank you for answering my question. Could | continue?

President Wilshire

Yes.
Alderman Jette

So | think | have a lot of difficulty with this. I'm torn. I'm on the Conservation Commission. I'm in tune with conservation
and the opportunity to acquire property. Green space seems like a thing that | should be in favor of and that | would like
to do. What bothers me about this whole thing is that it clearly was a reaction to news that this property was being sold to
a developer and the neighborhood reacted. As Alderwoman Klee has been a great advocate for the position of taking
advantage of the opportunity to purchase this property. But from a planning point of view, it doesn't seem that we have
really put in what | think is an appropriate amount of study. The petition that was referred to by one of the speakers talking
about over 2,000 signatures, | looked at the petition and the petition is entitled, “Stop Thorndike from raising Barker
forests to build a housing development in Greeley Park”. | think that a lot of the people who sign this petition really don't
understand what was being done here. The petition asked to stop this purchase so that the Mayor can do a study for the
highest and best use of the property. Seems like from a planning point of view, we ought to look into that. What is the
highest and best use of this property? Has an appraisal been done? Somebody told me that they could not determine
what the purchase price was by Thorndike offer. The seller refused to tell them.

So where does it $2.5 million come from? The property is assessed at $1 million. Why is it worth $2.5 million? | don't
know, maybe itis. But has an appraisal been done? Do we know what the true value of this property is as open green
space? Open green space is very valuable. So maybe it is worth that much. | don't know but | would like to see - | think
we ought to get it appraised and we ought to find out what an appropriate purchase price might be. | think that we ought
to spend some time studying whether this was, you know, the highest and best use of that property. There's a conflict
here. | like the green space. I'd like to preserve green space but this is private property. Greeley Park has been there a
long time. There's a lot of other land in Greeley Park that is undeveloped. So it might be a good idea, but | feel like we've
moved ahead. | know it was because of this pending sale. But now that that pending sale apparently is no longer
happening, maybe we've got more time to look into this further. Thank you.

Alderman Tencza

Thank you, Madam President. | just wanted to mention that this was heard at the Planning and Economic Development
Committee last week. It did pass with a favorable recommendation. We also received word that it passed the Planning
Board also gave it a favorable recommendation.

The other piece, | just want to mention, | did abstain from the bond vote even though it wasn't tabled. | will also have to
abstain from the vote on this piece of legislation just due to a professional relationship that | have in my law office with
another attorney who's worked on the project. | don't think it would be fair to either side to take a public position. So | will
be abstaining on this vote as well. Thank you.

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you, President Wilshire. Actually Alderman Jette asked the question that | was going to ask, which was just that in
the past we had offered support or general, you know, feelings of, you Know, go and figure it out to Director Cummings,
etc. in the past and | was just wondering why it was in a formal ordinance with a purchase price when it's kind of at this
point made up.

Alderman Schmidt

First of all | don't think we can actually go in and assess the property for its purpose without having given some approval
somewhere. | think that has to start with our approval here. | couldn't vote for 202 because | don't think my vote to indebt
the city would be a value at this point. It belongs to the next set of Aldermen. I'm glad that they'll be looking at this.

The seller needs to know that the city is interested in this. That they are actually not just talking about it, not just doing
petitions, not just a few people being angry or about it, we really need to let the seller know that this is something the city
would be very interested in. As Alderman Lopez said, in the past people who have owned property like this, they've

Board of Aldermen 12-28-2021 Page 18

actually given their property to the city for $1. That kind of thing does happen and if this is that valuable to the city, there's
no reason why we can't give the Mayor the right to at least negotiate or speak with some authority on the issue.

| did not receive a lot of comments on this. | received one that said no and | received one that said yes. So | think the
discussion needs to be there. We shouldn't shut it down and we certainly can't wait. If this is gonna go, it's going to go
and we have to have a say in what happens. In that case, what I'll do is | will vote yes on this because as someone who
said earlier I'd like to look like a genius on this and | think that that's a value. Thank you.

Alderman Klee

Thank you Alderman Schmidt. Even if you voted no, you still look like a genius but thank you. I'd like to kind of address
some of the concerns on 203. I'm sorry 202 was tabled without discussion at the Budget Committee and | understood the
reason for it. We didn't have at that point, | believe, the developer said that he wasn't going to back out. Since then he
has (inaudible). That being said, there was no discussion at the Budget Committee because like here, it was tabled
without discussion. So | just want to get that out on the table.

Why push this as quickly as we did? The main reason for pushing it as quickly as we did was because there was that
pending. Truthfully, | probably would not have necessarily come forward once all of them had started except the
developer at that time stood in front of 50 people at least in my Ward at Hunt Memorial and he very, very openly said if the
city is interested in buying this, | will step away. He said that. | spoke to Director Cummings. | said to Director Cummings
what do | have to do to move this forward? We needed to come up with a figure for a bond so he spoke to the developer.
We also told the developer that if we did purchase it, he'd already put out some money, that we would try to keep him
whole. He would have to show and prove exactly what it was that he had put out and if it was justifiable, we would include
it based on the price that he spoke to Director Cummings about and that we came up with a $2.5 million. This was why
and how we came up with that number. | didn't pull it out of the air. | didn't go and get an assessment. | didn't do
anything. It has real backing. That's why we came up with that money.

We're kidding ourselves. If we don't think that there are other developers waiting in the wings, every good business
person is going to have someone there that's going to want to do it. If the city does not show that they're willing to
negotiate in good faith, if they won't show that we give the Mayor the authorization to at least talk to him, and yes we've
done this without having approved here at the Board and then we scramble. That's what we do. We approve the bond
way too often without approving the authorization and that's why | put both them in at the same time. It was so that we
didn't have to say okay well we got this bond now we're going to get approval. They go hand in glove, but they can be
separated. It's a done deal as far as the 202 and the 2.5 but that doesn't mean that we can't have the Mayor sit and
negotiate and let's think of us as individuals selling our home. Wouldn't you prefer number one is the person who comes
and talks to you, I'd love to know that they've already been pre-approved for whatever amount of money we're going to
negotiate and I'd like to know that they have the ability and the will to be able to negotiate? So why would | waste my
time.

| can't speak to the family and the letter that came from the developer didn't speak to the family either. He basically said
that he was willing to walk away. He said you need housing, you need green space. He was a man of his word. | truly,
truly appreciate everything he said and what he did.

| wrote notes as everybody was talking so | apologize if I'm kind of like scrambling and looking at things. | Know one of the
things were and | agree with what Alderman Jette had said. | saw the in Greeley Park. | saw the signs sitting at Greeley
Park and if you'd notice, every single time | speak, | say it is not in Greeley Park. It abuts Greeley Park and I've made that
very, very clear and I've made it very clear to the people who went out and spoke to it as being inside Greeley Park. | said
to them if you do that, people are going to stop trusting you. You have to be honest and you have to be transparent.

So | think in their zell, you know, being very, very passionate about it, they looked at it as - and | think someone actually
described it as when you look at the whole thing it looks like it's in an eye often and | know it kind of sounds disgusting
referring to it as being in the armpit of Greeley Park because there's this big huge portion of it here and there’s a little
piece that comes a little back kind of towards the neck that goes up to Colombia.

So as far as Camp Doucette and other areas that we haven't saved, I'm sorry that we didn't save Camp Doucette. It
probably would have been a very good property to save. | agree we cannot purchase every green space in the city. This
one is a little different. This one truly is going to affect and it's a piece of a puzzle that fits right in here and that's why I'm
disappointed that 202 went down but it is what it is and it's the will of the Board. | will abide by it even if this one goes
down too but I'd like you to think long and hard to give permission - and | don't believe it is a blank check. | think it's a
negotiation tool where the family or whoever it is that's going to be working with the Mayor and economic development
has that ability to have that backing. It's a little bit stronger than just, you know, if | can get that - as it is, they're gonna say