Search

Special Board of Aldermen 11-22-2021 Page 9
Laurie Ortolano

All of them? Yeah, | thought so but | would love somebody to be able to point out where those are because | can't
find it. So if somebody - that would be a request. It might be in these guaranteed maximum price amendments that |
cannot find online in any of the attached documents. So. And again, my concern is you know right now Harvey bills
in costs increases about 3 or 4% a year and the state of construction is seeing that type of increase in a month. In
some instances, the fluctuation is 10, 12% a month. | mean, it's just real. It's really maddening and difficult to deal
with. | mean my husband has a business and he's like pricing machinery weekly now. It's crazy. So | mean that
concerns me quite a bit that, you know, we're going to have to work with our contractor. They're a great contractor but
| don't think ultimately you can just stick it to them. That's not to our benefit or to theirs if these things become difficult
to price and become difficult to maintain pricing. | think there's a reality that this could be the case. Of course, you
know, | look at all aspects of what's going on in spending and I'm very cognizant of what's happening with property
taxes next year, and these new assessments, and the sum total of it leaves me concerned that we should be more
careful about what we bond and what we spend money on. So yeah if you could point me to those force majeure
clauses and those amendments, | would surely appreciate it. Thank you.

Chairman Dowd

The actual clause might be part of the AAI contract. Those contracts are put out by AAI and modified for each case.
They're reviewed extensively by Legal and, for instance, the school contract when we started had several changes in
it to be more beneficial to the city. All of those contracts get a thorough review by Legal. I'm not sure where the force
majeure specific wording is. It usually involves subcontractors, not Harvey and believe me when they price things out,
they are very conservative. That's why we've finished all of our projects usually ahead of schedule and under budget.
So | feel very comfortable in their estimates. So | think that's the only one to say on that. If you want to put ina
written request to Legal, | know that may seem problematic to you, but they're the ones that review the contracts. I'm
certainly not a lawyer and | have reviewed the contracts and read them but | don't remember where the wording was
exactly. It could be in the basic AAI contract which we use as a template.

Any other questions? | believe that was opposition. So there are no other | will close the public hearing on R-21-190
at 7:39 p.m. and move right into Resolution R-21-192 Authorizing the Mayor and City Treasurer to Issue Bonds not to
Exceed the Amount of $3 Million for Additional Costs for the Design and Construction of a Division of Public Works
Office Facility. Any additional comments? Director Cummings? Director Fauteux? Seeing none, I'll open it up. Are
there any questions from anybody — any of the Aldermen?

R-21-192
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF
THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000) FOR ADDITIONAL COST FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
A DIVISON OF PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE FACILITY

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Laurie Ortolano

Laurie Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. So we know why I'm in a position but I'm using my time wisely. So yeah | did
look at the AIA Contract and put it in a word reader to try and find the force majeure clause and | just couldn't find it in
there in. What | did print out here 5.2 was the language that | thought was closest — “price set forth in the guaranteed
maximum price amendment as it is amended from time to time”. | took that language because that's what | thought
was Closest but anyway. “To the extent the cost of the work exceeds the guaranteed maximum price, the construction
manager shall bear the cost in excess of the guaranteed maximum price without reimbursement or additional
compensation from the owner’. But it said, “insert specific provisions here, the construction manager is to participate
in any savings” but that's a parentheses item that's in our contract. It was never filled in. So that's the only contract |
have.

I'll just, you know, reiterate my concern next year is that we have a lot of changes coming to our property
assessments. | don't think the meeting on whatever night it was, was as pointed and direct as it should have been.
First of all, | was disappointed there was no public comment. Second of all, the differential between the residential
and commercial properties shown to be about 5% but | think that's low because we have a depreciation issue with our
properties that's being corrected that wasn't addressed last week. That's going to grow that differential between

Special Board of Aldermen 11-22-2021 Page 10

commercial and residential properties. So | think property owners are in for a rude awakening next year and | think
when you couple some of this debt on that'll be rolling thereafter it's problematic.

Now when | look at this bond schedule that Dave so graciously provided us, it really looks like in 2023 the debt service
is very low - $133,000. Is that what's correctly what's projected for 2023?

David Fredette, Treasurer

Yes because we Sell our bonds in the fall of each year. So the next year will be the fall of 2022, which is actually
Fiscal Year 2023 and the payments don't start for the next fiscal.

Laurie Ortolano
Okay. The bigger hit comes in 2024?

David Fredette, Treasurer

Yes 2024, yes.
Laurie Ortolano
Yeah and then upward there okay for a little bit. Okay.

David Fredette, Treasurer

But again, those numbers are very conservative.

Laurie Ortolano

Yes. Okay. So anyway, that's my feeling with the project. You don't have a lot of people participating. But, you
know, I'd like to see a little more control on the spending and the bonding given what's coming down the road. Thank
you.

Chairman Dowd

Anyone else in opposition?

Laura Colquhoun

Laura Colquhoun, 30 Greenwood Drive. I'd like to know how this project has gone up by $2.6 million since November
17 when the Mayor gave a total construction amount not to exceed $12,000,025. That is on the Finance Committee
meeting page one. So now you're coming and saying its $14,650,000. So I'd like to know how it went up
$2,000,625?

Chairman Dowd

Director Cummings do you want to answer that or do you want me to?

Tim Cummings, Economic Development Director

No I'd be happy to Mr. Chair. | want to clarify. | believe what is being referenced right now is just the construction
portion of the project and as we all know, there's more than just construction elements to a total project cost. So the
total project cost is about $15 million and the figure referenced earlier was just the construction element.

Chairman Dowd

| can also tell you dealing with the school projects that because of the economy right now and world economy, prices
have been driven up. Everything from gasoline to steel. When we put out the bid to pull the steel for the new school
down the south end, it had escalated significantly and if we didn't get the bid in within 10 days, which is all they
authorized us, it would have gone up another 30%. So in a guaranteed maximum price when we get items before us
to approve for the building, it's a guaranteed price for that element of it whether it's steel, cement, roofing, and we lock

Special Board of Aldermen 11-22-2021 Page 11

those prices in. That's what it will cost us unless it's something really unusual. Prices go down, we don't have to
spend that money. This money comes back to us.

Okay, any other testimony in opposition?

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None

| will now close the public hearing on Resolution R-21-192 at 7:46 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN O’BRIEN THAT THE NOVEMBER 22, 2021, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED, BY ROLL CALL

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

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

Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 10
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 7:47 p.m.

Attest: Allison Waite, Deputy City Clerk

(gee) THE CITY OF NASHUA “The Gate Cty’

tdi
WA aac toeg a
W\st enh
SY es
Sa

Request

¢ Approval of the Various Resolutions (R-21-190, R-21-
191 & R-21-192)

Why Is This Legislation Before You

¢ This will allow for the DPW Administrative Office
Building Capital Project to Proceed with all the sources
necessary to construct a $15.1 million building project

Financing Plan

Sources of Funds

Funding: Budget Available

GOB PROCEEDS S 6.0 Million YES
GENERAL FUND-ESCROWS S 500K Thousand YES
BURKE ST PROCEEDS S 3.6 Million YES
REPURPOSING BROAD ST PRKWY |S 2.0 Million NO

TOTALS 12.1 Million

NEED S 2.9M
CALL IT S 3.0M NO
PROJECT TOTAL S 15.1M

*These are round numbers

3 Resolutions

¢ R-21-190 — Relative to $3.6 million sale of Burke Street proceeds to be
used towards the Construction of a DPW Administrative Office
Building Capital Project

¢ R-21-191 Relative to the Repurposing of available bond proceeds of
$2.0 million from the Broad Street Parkway project to the
Construction of a DPW Administrative Office Building Capital Project

¢ R-21-192 Relative to the authorization of $3.0 million of Bonds for the
Construction of a DPW Administrative Office Building Capital Project

Bond Sale Plan

Term
20
25
20

Term
20
25
20
45
15
10
20
20
20
10
20

Updated 11/12/21

FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 22 - FY 28

6,000,000 6,000,000

25,000,000 25,000,000 16,600,000 "66,600,000

1,550,000 1,550,000
r

$32,550,000 $25,000,000 $16,600,000 § - § - § - § 74,150,000

3,000,000 3,000,000

10,000,000 10,000,000

4,000,000 4,000,000

925,000 925,000

2,000,000 2,000,000

3,500,000 3,500,000

1,300,000 1,300,000

2,000,000 2,000,000

1,320,000 1,320,000

1,080,000 1,080,000

2,000,000 3,000,000 ~—«4,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 —_ 15,000,000 49,000,000

6,800,000 14,400,000 14,000,000 10,925,000 17,000,000 15,000,000 78,125,000

$39,350,000 $39,400,000 $30,600,000 $10,925,000 $17,000,000 $15,000,000 §$

152,275,000

beginin FY begininFY begininFY begininFY beginin FY begin in FY

ee

78,125,000

152,275,000

City of Nashua
General Fund Debt Service Analysis Plan 204
New Debt Sales Through F¥2028
November 2021

Column 4 Column B Column C Column D Column E Column F
Target Projected Projected
Line Fiscal Debt Service on = Increase (Decrease) in Debt Service Total General Fund Debt Service Fiscal
Number Year Current Debt Current Debt Service Amount Debt Service Budget lget IncreaseM[Decre: Year
3 2022 5 16,678,541 | 5 (295,287)| $ 16,900,000 | 5 16,678,541 | <Budget 2022
4 2023 5 16,812,625 | $ 946,290 | $ 17,500,000 | $ 16,812,248 | $ 133,707 | 2023
5 2024 5 15,128,650 | $ (1,692,253)] $ 18,100,000 | $ 17,894,248 | $ 1,082,000 | 2024
5 2025 5 13,021,429 | $ (2,109,2071] $ 18,600,000 | $ 18,621,590 | $ 727,342 | 2025
7 2026 5 11,453,679 | $ (1,568,586)| $ 19,200,000 | $ 19,315,377 | $ 693,787 | 2026
3 2027 5 11,057,371 | 5 (447,649)| 5 19,700,000 | 5 19,780,705 | 5 465,328 | 2027
9 2028 5 10,581,505 | 5 (476,362)| $ 20,400,000 | 5 20,881,580 | 5 1,100,875 | 2028
10 2029 5 10,196,427 | 5 (385,079)| 5 21,100,000 | 5 21,666,562 | 5 724,982 | 2029
11 2030 5 10,132,003 | 5 (64,502)] 5 21,200,000 | 5 21,144,641 | 5 (521,921)] 2030
12 2031 5 9,932,094 | 5 (200,067)| $ 21,200,000 | 5 20,784,668 | 5 (359,973)| 2031
13 2032 5 9,554,193 | 5 (377,989)| $ 21,200,000 | 5 20,249,068 | 5 (535,600)| 2032
14 2033 5 8,793,031 | 5 (760,184)| $ 21,800,000 | 5 19,332,392 | 5 (916,676}| 2033
15 2034 5 8,422,650 | 5 (370,769)| $ 21,800,000 | 5 18,463,739 | 5 (868,653)] 2034
16 2035 5 7,142,538 | 5 (1,279,444)| 5 21,800,000 | 5 16,939,262 | 5 (1,524,.477)| 2035
7 2036 5 5,948,051 | 5 (1,195,409)] § 21,800,000 | 5 15,608,915 | 5 (1,330,347)| 2036
1g 2037 5 5,088,630 | 5 (859,299)| $ 21,800,000 | 5 14,515,120 | $ (993,795)| 2037
19 2038 5 4504505 | § (584,298)| $ 21,800,000 | 5 13,888,118 | 5 (727,002)| 2038
20 2039 5 4,501,958 | 5 (1,944)| 5 21,800,000 | 5 13,749,121 | $ (138,997)| 2039
21 2040 5 4,362,492 | 5 (140,279) $ 21,800,000 | 5 13,479,267 | $ (269,854)| 2040
22 2041 5 4,196,489 | § (165,584)| $ 21,800,000 | 5 13,178,751 | $ (300,516)| 2041
23 2042 5 3,796,430 | 5 (393,867)| $ 21,800,000 | 5 12,581,280 | 5 (597,471)| 2042
24 2043 5 3,736,811 | 5 (59,7871| 5 21,800,000 | 5 12,268,686 | 5 (312,594)| 2043
25 2044 5 3,738,103 | 5 1,012 | $ 21,800,000 | 5 11,608,152 | $ (660,534)| 2044
26 2045 5 3,733,161 | 5 (4,157)| $ 21,800,000 | $ 10,841,498 | $ (766,654)| 2045
27 2046 5 3,727,828 | 5 (6,001)| $ 21,800,000 | $ 10,560,128 | $ (281,370)| 2046
28 2047 5 2,583,744 | $ (1,423,795)| $ 21,800,000 | $ 8,853,794 | $ (1,706,334)| 2047
29 2048 5 - |5 (2,583,744)| § 21,200,000 | $ 5,482,400 | $ (3,371,394)| 2048
30 2049 5 5 - 1$ 21,800,000 | $ 3,103,850 | $ (2,378,550)| 2049
31 2050 5 5 5 21,800,000 | 5 1,479,000 | $ (1,624,850)) 2050
Totals 5 208,824,938 § (16,504,240) "5 479,862,701
Page 2

Equal Principal except Middle School which is level debt
Interest rates estimated conservatively 3.0% - 4.0%

Does not reflect estimated premiums to reduce bond size
General Fund Only

DESIGN
Administrative Office Building