Search

Special Board of Aldermen 11-22-2021 Page 5

Tim Cummings, Economic Development Director

Pretty much all the groups will be moved over? | think there's some Street Department personnel that may not move
over right away but my understanding the plan is all the other groups would be would be consolidating but | defer to
Director Fauteux.

Chairman Dowd

Director Fauteux would you like to come up and join us?

Lisa Fauteux, Public Works Director

That’s correct Director Cummings with the exception of Wastewater will stay - remain at the wastewater treatment
plant.

Alderman Caron

Okay thank you.
Chairman Dowd
Including Park & Rec., right? We don’t want to forget Park & Rec. do we Alderman Caron? Okay.

Alderman O’Brien

One thing | want to bring up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. | at this time just want to, you Know, in part of the discussion
and everything with this as many of you know that this building will be built in adjacent to the Fire Department training
facility, which has all the props needed for the proper training when a firefighter gets into drill school to get on the Fire
Department. But it does not have showers and it does not have classroom facilities. To prove how a couple of
Divisions can work together, | thank Director Fauteux for it did opening up and have discussions with the Fire Chief
that some of the shower facilities can be used and perhaps some of the classrooms can be used on an as need type
of basis. So this will probably stop any requests from the Fire Department perhaps maybe in the future, you know, as
far as any classroom type of facility. So | love it when two different Divisions can get together and work for the
betterment of the whole city at large and this seems to be the case. | thank you Director Fauteux for your cooperation
with that.

Chairman Dowd
Any other questions? All right, I'll go back and I'll open it up to the public for testimony in favor.

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Laurie Ortolano

Hi. Good evening. Laurie Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. | know we have three different items here and they're all
related. So | don't want to repeat myself too much but | also know | have a limited amount of time. So I'll be coming
back up.

A couple things regarding the facility. First of all on this one Resolution to use unanticipated revenue from 2022, | do
support using that revenue to pay down the bond on Burke Street that was purchased years ago when it wasn't the
correct building. | think you take out a bond on a facility, you don't end up being able to use the facility, you sell it, and
then you maintain all the debt, and then apply more debt. Fundamentally, | don't agree with that. So that's one
reason.

Secondly, this facility has morphed into something different from where it began. It started off as an office facility and
then it sort of became a facility that housed everyone except Wastewater, which is fine but | do have a concern that
there was never a traffic study done. All the equipment and heavy equipment is going to be in there and | see the city
time and time again skirt these traffic studies and we don't do them. We really didn't do a good one down at Costco.
We have the new buildings going in at the Henry Hanger Company and Corriveau Routhier where the road areas over

Special Board of Aldermen 11-22-2021 Page 6

there were a big concern. We did not look at the traffic impact over there and all of these vehicles - all of the heavy
equipment going in and out in that residential neighborhood, | don't think we really did justice to a traffic study. | think
traffic studies are important and | think it should have been - even if the public didn't come out and complain, | think
we have an obligation to do the work and verify what's going on down there. It's a lot of heavy equipment. | don't
even know how the timing works with making your schedules and your shifts work effectively pushing people out
when they're all consolidated in a parking lot with 170 spaces plus the space for all of the heavy equipment trucks that
will be rolling. So that's all I'm going to say on this part and then I'll talk about the other bonded pieces after. Thank
you.

Chairman Dowd
Anyone else want to speak in opposition?

Laura Colquhoun

Laura Colquhoun, 30 Greenwood Drive. First let me say that this agenda shows that the $3.65 million is from Fiscal
Year 2021 when in fact it is from Fiscal Year 2022. Maybe the Mayor and the Aldermen forgot that 141 Burke Street
sold in July of 2021 which happens to be the start of Fiscal Year 2022.

With that said, the city is now stating that they have extra money of $3.65 million from the sale of the 141 Burke Street
for the construction of the DPW building. Maybe this money should be applied to the outstanding loans that the
Nashua taxpayers are currently paying on this property which is approximately $4.7 million. The city also has $2
million in unexpended bond money from Broad Street Parkway. However, why is the city not applying this money to
the outstanding bonds of approximately $30 million that the taxpayers are still paying on this project?

The City of Nashua now wants to bond an additional $3 million for designing construction of this building. Well if you
add up all these figures, it comes up to $14,650,000 and not the $12,000,025 that the Mayor told the Finance
Committee on November 17, 2021 that would be the total price tag for the DPW building. We do not want this project
to turn into another PAC where the price tag just keeps going up. All Nashua residents are now having a hard time
due to inflation and it does not need the city to keep spending their property taxes when they do not have the money
to spend. Thank you.

Chairman Dowd

Ms. Colquhoun you may not have been on when | mentioned that we had caught the 2021 - 2022 issue and it will be
modified as an amendment to the Resolution at the Budget hearing following this public hearing.

Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none.

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Laurie Ortolano

Laurie Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. Quickly if | could have an understanding of the protocol for a hearing. Am |
allowed to ask a question in a hearing? Y

Chairman Dowd
You can ask your question and it can be answered now or somebody can get back to you later with the answer.
Laurie Ortolano

Okay, so my question is since | did address my concerns with the parking and my belief is that we didn't have a
comprehensive parking study done. Was there a comprehensive parking study done? | mean a traffic study?

Chairman Dowd

Director Fauteux do you want to address that?

Special Board of Aldermen 11-22-2021 Page 7

Lisa Fauteux, Public Works Director

Yes, we did do a comprehensive traffic study and it is posted on our website under the Division of Public Works
website.

Chairman Dowd
Thank you. Also | think the heavy trucks we're talking about are already there. There's none that are going to be
stored in this building. There are no additional trucks going to be there because all the offices are going out there.

The trucks are all stored there now. You want to address that Director Fauteux.

Lisa Fauteux, Public Works Director

Certainly. So that's correct. The Street Department trucks will remain at the Street Department. The addition will be
the parking. There will be some vehicles from Park and Rec that will be moved over but the Solid Waste vehicles
already exist in that location.

Chairman Dowd

Thank you. Anyone else want to speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'll now close the public hearing on R-21-190 at
7:29 p.m.

The next Resolution is R-21-191 Changing the Purpose of $2 Million of Unexpended Bond Proceeds from the Broad
Street Parkway Project to the Division of Public Works Office Facility Project. Any additional information that wants to
be presented? No. All right.

R-21-191
CHANGING THE PURPOSE OF TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) OF UNEXPENDED BOND PROCEEDS
FROM THE BROAD STREET PARKWAY PROJECT TO THE DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE
FACILITY PROJECT

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Laurie Ortolano

Laurie Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. | could use some assistance. | have been looking at the boilerplate contract that
was given to the board members and was on the finance page. It's the AIA Contract regarding this project. Section
5.2 guarantee maximum price states that price set forth in the guaranteed maximum price amendment, as it is
amended from time to time. So it calls upon an amendment that's attached to the boilerplate and | haven't been able
to find the amendment. | wrote today to CFO Griffin and asked him if he could help me with that. But that
amendment is where there might be a force majeure clause called out and | want to understand a little more about
what guaranteed maximum price really means in these contracts. Because ordinarily there would be a force majeure
clause in there to allow that ceiling to go up in the event of unforeseen circumstances such as COVID and the
situation that's occurred.

I'm concerned that we put all our eggs in one basket. Harvey is a great company but they're doing the school.
They're doing this office facility and they're doing the art center. Leadership here will tell you they're incurring all the
risk. It's a maximum guaranteed price. So you know what if something goes wrong, they're gonna eat it. If there's a
cost overrun, that's 15% deleted. Well when you look at roughly projects that are $150 million, are they going to eat
$20 - 25 million? | tend to doubt that but | want to understand where this amendment is and it's nowhere to be found.
| think it's something we have to look at. Yeah I'm really concerned by that. Did board members receive the
amendment to the document the boilerplate document so that you could see what the specific contract is regarding
GMP?

Chairman Dowd

| believe the committee's involved receive it. | know Infrastructure and then the construction committee received. I'm
not sure about anyone else.

Special Board of Aldermen 11-22-2021 Page 8

Laurie Ortolano

Well, it's not in the DPW package and it's not in the Finance package from Wednesday night. Not the amendment.
The boilerplate document is there but | really can't find the amendment that would have the specific language. So I'm
not certain what it means that the guaranteed maximum price as it is amended from time to time. That seems to me
to open a door to say that these costs can be adjusted. And here's my concern. When Harvey came and gave a cost
estimate in August to the DPW facility, they talked about how difficult a time it is right now. We all know that and they
were hoping that things would settle out and calm down. I'm almost done, right?

Chairman Dowd

Yes.

Laurie Ortolano

I'll sit down and continue with — go on.

Chairman Dowd

All right. I'll answer the guaranteed maximum price. | have a little familiarity since I've done 12 schools. The
guaranteed maximum price says as long as nothing changes, that's all you'll pay. It could be less because if it costs
them less to do the project, the city gets the money back or doesn't have to spend it. The force majeure means that if
they are unrelated circumstances that cause exceedingly higher prices. With a review of Legal and the vote of the
committee, we can try to help them get whole. Not necessarily have to but we have the ability to.

The other thing is as we go along if we make changes to their contract - if we change the design and it happens a lot
in school projects because they’re so big, it's usually minor things for the most part. Then it has to be approved by
whichever committees are involved before you can change the contract for the added cost.

Also as we go along, we've had this happen several times on the school projects, when we go to do things the items
come in under the cost that was estimated and we do a change to the contract, the city gets that money back. So
that's the changes for the guaranteed maximum price. Everything stays the same. That's what they build it for. Mr.
Griffin did you want to add anything about the contract?

John Griffin, CFO

| actually Mr. Chairman, | don't have anything to add. | think you're a nice job explaining it. | think it's always a work
in progress with these contracts and | think they'll be able to fit in the underneath the proposed amount - the amount
of the guarantee price. That's what | have to offer. Thank you.

Chairman Dowd
There is also contingency built into the guaranteed maximum price and that can cover things as necessary. But if it's
not used, that money comes back to the city or never spent. Are there any other questions related to that? Okay.

Again, testimony in favor? See none.

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Laurie Ortolano

Laurie Ortolano, 41 Berkeley Street. Just to continue where | left off. So do we have force majeure clauses in our
contracts?

Chairman Dowd

All of them.

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