Search

Jim Donchess
Mayor e City of Nashua

To: Board of Aldermen
From: Jim Donchess
Date: 12/22/16

Re: Notification of entry into contract for Award of Nashua Licensing and Permitting Project

Pursuant to NRO § 5-74 (B), which states that a contract that extends from the current fiscal year into
succeeding fiscal year(s) in which no funds have been appropriated nor otherwise designated for this
purpose shall be approved by the full Board of Aldermen before the contract shall become binding on the
City.

The Finance Committee approved and placed on file the notification of the award of the referenced contract
at their December 21, 2016 meeting. | am requesting the concurrence and approval of the full Board of
Aldermen for the award of the following contract:

This is notification of entry into a contract with Wagsys, LLC of Hueguenot, NY for award of Nashua
Licensing and Permitting Project. Attached please find Finance Memo # 17-074 regarding this contract. This
contract is for five (5) years.

229 Main Street * PO Box 2019 * Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2019
603.589.3260 * fax 603.594.3450 * NashuaMayor@NashuaNH. gov
www. NashuaNH. gov

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 8

amount to do this work. That’s basically it. There was absolutely no one at the public hearing, so there was no
testimony in favor or in opposition. The budget committee passed it unanimously.

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the oral report of the March 21, 2016 Budget
Review Committee public hearing and special meeting accepted and placed on file.

WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS — None
CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS
Cultural Connections Committee

MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO THE CULTURAL CONNECTIONS COMMITTEE: RAFAEL CALDERON,
394 NOTRE DAME AVENUE, MANCHESTER, AND SYLVIA E. GALE, 4 CLERGY CIRCLE, NASHUA, FOR
TERMS TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2018; AND, DEEPA MANGALAT, 18 WILD ROSE DRIVE, NASHUA,
FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 28, 2019

MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Rafael Calderon, Sylvia Gale and Deepa Mangalat duly appointed to the Cultural
Connections Committee for the aforementioned terms.

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton to Sylvia Gale and Deepa Mangalat

a ara) li -1a

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Thursday, January 17, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Aldermanic Chamber.

President Lori Wilshire presided; Deputy City Clerk Judith Boileau recorded.

Prayer was offered by Deputy City Clerk Judith Boileau; Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja led in the Pledge
to the Flag.

The roll call was taken with 12 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman Gidge and Alderman Jette
were recorded absent.

President Wilshire

| did hear from Alderman Jette and Alderman Gidge that they were unable to attend this evening. | am going
to turn this over to Alderman Dowd, the Chair of the Budget Review Committee.

PUBLIC HEARING
R-18-100
CHANGING THE PURPOSE OF UP TO FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) OF UNEXPENDED
BOND PROCEEDS FROM THE LED STREET LIGHTING PROJECT TO THE DISTRICT-WIDE

MIDDLE SCHOOLS RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR FUNDING
ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

Chairman Dowd

We want to ensure that we have enough money for Phase | of the middle school project. If there’s any monies
left over from Phase |, we will move them over to the next phase.

Testimony in Favor — None
Testimony in Opposition — None
Testimony in Favor — None
Testimony in Opposition — None

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

Attest: Judith Boileau, Deputy City Clerk

SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMEN

JANUARY 17, 2019

7:00 PM Aldermanic Chamber

PRESIDENT LORI WILSHIRE CALLS ASSEMBLY TO ORDER PRAYER

OFFERED BY CITY CLERK PATRICIA D. PIECUCH

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG LED BY ALDERMAN KEN GIDGE
ROLL CALL

PUBLIC HEARING
R-18-100

CHANGING THE PURPOSE OF UP TO FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000)
OF UNEXPENDED BOND PROCEEDS FROM THE LED STREET LIGHTING PROJECT
TO THE DISTRICT-WIDE MIDDLE SCHOOLS RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT FOR FUNDING ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

Testimony in Favor
Testimony in Opposition
Testimony in Favor

Testimony in Opposition

ADJOURNMENT

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 10

Ms. Taylor That capped area would be basically open space for anybody that was living there if there was
such a development that could be walked on and used for open space. There wouldn't be any structures that
would be built on that.

Mr. Santos And | just wanted to reiterate that the pictures of the sludge and the movement of this material,
Gerardo had the list of chemicals, the one that by far is the contaminant of concern in terms of the most mass
out there is chromium which is a metal and it is chromium II|, Hexavalent chromium or Chromium 6, is very
toxic and you don’t see that out here. It is Trivalent Chromium, Chrom Ill, low toxicity and there are monitoring
wells within 5 feet of the sludge that don’t have concentrations of chromium above the state standard.

Ms. Taylor In groundwater.

Mr. Santos And again the sludge, as some folks know, the Beazer sites, the Copper site down on the
Merrimack where they have the creosote sludge that is actually migrating through the soil getting up into the
river and we talked about that at the last public meeting and this is a different scenario. They need a cutoff
wall out there, a slurry wall to stop that. We essentially are putting this here to buttress the material that is
there and protect it against floods in the future. The added benefit is it will be impermeable, but that is almost a
secondary.

Ms. Taylor And also just to note that the groundwater flows from up here down to the river, that is typically how
groundwater flows. So | know there were some people in the past that were concerned about groundwater
contaminating their wells or anything like that. It would eventually go to the river, but if we are containing all
this then that material no longer goes to the river. As Darrin said we have monitoring wells right between where
the sludge is and the river, we are not seeing anything. So you know there really is not an issue with
groundwater; we would restrict it either through a town ordinance or groundwater management permit that the
state would issue to make sure nobody would drink the groundwater there. But since everybody is on City
water, there would be no reason for anybody to drink the water anyway.

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you Mr. President. | actually wanted to know, Ms. Taylor you had said that it was probably more of a risk
to pull it away and contaminating the river during the process, versus the secant wall. | wonder if you could
just unpack that and explain why.

Ms. Taylor Yes sure. | think it is basically very similar to what Darrin was explaining whereas if you have a big
excavator in there you are having a huge hole essentially dug where it is very close to the river. Not only do
you have the river right there and the river bank but you actually have the City sewer system that is right there.
So if you are digging a huge hole right next to that, there’s a greater chance of collapse of not only the river
bank but the actual sewer line. Whereas if you are putting in these shafts, one at a time, there’s virtually no
way to have any of that collapse happen.

Alderman Jette

My concern is the material that is there. You talked about retaining walls around it to contain it. You seem to
hint that maybe you could explain further, what is going to stop it from going down, from the material going
down and into the river that way?

Ms. Taylor Sure. Well the cap that Gerardo explained will be an impermeable cap that is on the top of it. So
there wouldn’t be any infiltration going from say a rainfall event or anything through the cap into the sludge
after this was done. Right now, there is really nothing that is prohibiting that from happening and you are not
seeing any contaminated ground water 5 feet from where the sludge is. But with this, it would be like a geo-
synthetic liner that is essentially impermeable that would be covering all that material so you wouldn’t have any
leakage going inside.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 11

Alderman Jette
What about on the bottom? What on the bottom is going to stop it?

Mr. Millan-Ramos | wanted to add the geologic material that is right now at the very bottom, it is what we know
as till, it has a very, very low permeability, meaning rate of liquid going through it. So if anything, we are
improving what is already there. We are containing it laterally and vertically we are putting a cap on the top.
So we are essentially making sure that rain or flooding will not wash that out to the river. In all these years that
we have been testing the groundwater, we have not seen contaminants moving towards the river. So we don’t
have any reason to believe that it would be any different. If anything, it would be better, would be more
protected with this containment unit around it.

Alderman Jette

| have another question, the original owners of the Mohawk Tannery and its successors, | think Chester Realty
was the name, is there no source of money there to help pay for this?

Mr. Millan-Ramos Well there is a very, very minimal source of money. There was a settlement that was done,
an agreement between EPA and the Chester Realty Trust and it is money that has been used for investigation
of the site and other emergency activities as well. Right now, | don’t know the exact figure, but the last time |
saw it was $600,000.00 or something like that.

Ms. Taylor Which we would contribute.

Mr. Millan-Ramos We would contribute whatever remains towards the clean-up. Does that answer your
question?

Alderman Jette
Yes thank you.

Alderman Lopez

| just want to clarify because | have been misunderstanding this, comparing the risk of storing this in perpetuity
under like basically the cover you would get on a fancy meal, that’s one set of variables and the other one is a
removal event where for a period of time you need to focus on safety, transport, removal and all that kind of
stuff, the main factor is excavation? Because it seems to me that shooting a bunch of tubes around a circle
has the same risk of puncturing any kind of pipe leading in or out if you are not making sure you know where
everything is, that digging it up and removing it would have.

Mr. Millan-Ramos I’m not totally sure | understand your question.
Ms. Taylor The sewer line?

Alderman Lopez

You referenced the sewer line.

Ms. Taylor We have the drawings from the City we know exactly where the sewer line so we wouldn't ...

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 12

Alderman Lopez

But an excavator wouldn't?

Ms. Taylor it is not as precise is what I’m saying. It’s not even that it would come up next to the sewer line but
that if you have a big open space right next to that, the potential for that to collapse, to break, is much greater
than if you have one small part that is being, one secant pile is being drilled.

Mr. Millan-Ramos It is definitely a much more surgical approach and numerous test pitting have been done in
the past and we have a very good idea of where this waste is located.

Mr. Santos So on the cross section here you can see the sewer main there and you see the river here, so
you’ve got a very narrow swath here where the sewer main is where the sludge is, very close to the river. So if
you start excavating this, if this is an excavation rather than a wall here, you’ve got a potentially 25 foot sheer
wall, that would have to be supported with shoring or piling. It is certainly possible, the costs go way up to be
able to hold back, you are basically holding back the river. We have to be prepared, we get a 500 year flood
event while we are doing it, we have to hold that back too. So we are essentially preserving this little swath,
and if you can do the site walk tomorrow, you'll see, we walk right over the sewer main and you can see the
distance. We are talking 10 to 20 to maybe 30 feet to the edge of the sludge.

Alderman Lopez

| think that answers my question.
Alderman Tencza

Can | ask, Nashua can’t be the first City to dig a project like this, especially | would imagine that in Rhode
Island with all the industry that is down there with all the water that is down there, there are other examples of
clean-up sites that have either used a secant wall or have removed any toxins from the soil. Can you give us
examples of other projects that would be similar to this and projects that may have been around for 10 or 15
years and if there have been any studies that have been done to essentially prove the effectiveness of the
secant wall versus removing the soil from the area?

Ms. Taylor | don’t have any specific examples that are right next to a river or that have been implemented, at
least not in the region for say 15 years. But one of the sites | worked on before | became a manager of this
section was a site in Concord, Massachusetts, where we are essentially doing the same thing. It’s nota
cement bentonite but it is a bentonite clay that is going around radioactive material that is in essentially a
lagoon, we call it a holding basin, but it is essentially the same thing. We are basically the exact same remedy
there.

We are also, in terms of tannery sites, there are a couple of other tannery waste sites that we have in the
region where we have consolidated and capped on site and both of those are in relatively close proximity to
rivers in the State of Massachusetts.

Alderman Tencza
Is there a reason that you in those projects chose to cap the waste, was it just cost or were there other?

Ms. Taylor It was just the most effective remedy from looking at all the criteria that we evaluate. Cost is one of
the criteria that we evaluate, but in terms of its implement ability, its effectiveness and comparing cost with
other alternatives, it has been the best alternative that we have chosen at a couple of sites. We haven’t used
secant walls in those because they are not as close to the river as this, so as | said before, this is kind of like a
belt and suspenders kind of approach. Whereas other sites, we have just capped it and left it there with an

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 13

impermeable cap similar to what we would put here but not encapsulated it. So those are the tannery waste.
But with this case of depleted uranium that we were trying to contain that was leeching into the groundwater,
we are going to be putting a wall around that to inhibit groundwater flow.

Alderman Tencza

So if | may just follow up, tannery waste it must be a problem for the last couple of decades with tannery waste
| would imagine in the northeast. So have there been any studies done to say that the waste, once it is
capped, is not an issue going forward, 10, 20, 30 years after it is capped?

Ms. Taylor There have been reviews that | believe the one site in Woburn that | am referring to and there
hasn’t been any issues with that capping of that material.

Mr. Millan-Ramos | have to add there are other sites where a secant wall per se has not been used but a
slurry wall which is less surgical, less effective or secure if you will, many of those sites, at least all the ones
that | know for years, they have been able to successfully contain liquid waste, not nearly as solid as what we
have in here. So we don’t have any reason to suspect that this will not perform as we need it to be.

Ms. Taylor Yes | think Darrin had mentioned the Gilson Road site that has a slurry wall, that’s another
Superfund site, we call it the Sylvester Site that has that type of a slurry wall that has been in existence, | don’t
even know how long. I’ve only been a manager for 2 years.

President McCarthy

| would point out that the Gilson Road site is a little different in that the slurry wall was constructed to contain
the groundwater while it was being treated and that the VOC’s have been primarily removed. So there isn’t the
issue of long-term leeching out from inside the slurry wall in that case, as far as | understand it.

Mr. Santos You are correct and I’m not an expert on that site. They were containing and pumping and treating
but they just recently, the EPA had | believe internal experts outside of the region do a hydraulic study on the
flow of water through that wall. One of the reasons was that it was one of the first slurry walls done under the
Superfund programs. It performed very well even after 30 years. So in terms of reducing flow across it, it is
still performing.

President McCarthy

It also occurs to me that we are talking now about the alternative of removing the lagoons, we have not talked
about the cost of that alternative and what it would cost to actually dig up the two lagoons that are on the
tannery property. Do we have a delta number for those?

Ms. Taylor Well our number in the engineering evaluation cost analysis that we came up with for just the

Mohawk Material, which would be the two lagoons and any of the other satellite areas is approximately $32
million dollars.

President McCarthy
As opposed to what was the number for containment?

Ms. Taylor Between $7 to $10 million. Our estimates are slightly larger than what the developer thinks but we
think it is going to be about $10 million dollars.

spend it on spending and put half of it into the school capital reserve fund. The school kept the reserve fund built up
to $20 million. Then what happened? Then we started spending. The first time it was an insurance shortfall,
instead of making up a priority someplace else they took the money out of the capital reserve fund; they collapsed
the fund and took the $6 million out of it and re-established the fund. Then when the school has a shortfall it was
about $3 million and it came out of the capital reserve fund. That’s not setting priorities. Today the school capital
reserve fund is down to $2 million. If you look at the budgets there is a general fund budget and it went up to about
1.25% so it’s within the 1.3% cost of living for the government index. There is a total appropriation of $290 million;
it's really not $244 million, that’s what was reported by the press. $244 million is really a general fund budget, the
real budget is $289.9 million and that went up by .6%. If you combine the annual municipal budget that’s used in
Concord as the spending cap is at $263 million, it went up 1.26%. It seems pretty good, however, last year the tax
rate went up by 2% and you just announced today that the tax rate is going to go up by 2.5%. Here’s a flash, | ama
senior and seniors live on social security income. Do you know what the social security income was this year?
Goose egg, nada, nothing and that’s where the sense of entitlement comes in. The patrol officers got a contract
increase that gave them 7.5% per employee in fiscal 16, a 3% increase in fiscal 17 and an 8% increase in fiscal
"18. There was a 2.9% in fiscal 15 and an 8.7% in fiscal 14. Percentage increases to the police department was
way above the spending cap limits, it’s inexcusable. There’s always the excuse that you are going to lose the
patrolmen but there are huge amounts of patrolmen that willing to have a job with the police department. They are
all qualified, that’s true but a 7% to 8% increase is not sustainable and it’s unacceptable. The firemen had less
raises but they still are way above the spending cap. Fiscal 18, 3.7% increase in pay; 2.9% in fiscal °19 and 2.9% in
fiscal ’16; all well above the cap. Teacher’s raises, 2.7% in fiscal ’15; 2.8% in fiscal 16, so as you have to cope with
these raises, it’s well beyond the spending cap and you have to reduce services elsewhere and that’s a problem that
has to be taken care of. | think you have done a pretty good job at balancing it but when these contracts come up,
you can’t keep giving 6%, 7% or 8% raises to the police department and 2% and 3% raises to the firemen and 2%
and 3% raises to the teachers. These are entitlements and people like myself has to pay for that. We get nothing
as an increase.

Department 113, Benefits and Department 115, Citywide Pensions
Mr. Teeboom

Let’s take both the pension and the benefits. Benefits are $160,000, and it says pensions are $1,000 and we
obviously know that this is incorrect and that the pensions are about $21 million. This department does not reflect
true budgeting and | don’t know Mr. Griffin, there’s something wrong there.

Mr. Griffin

The $1,000 is for the pension expenses related to retirees that retired several decades ago. As you may know, the
allocation of benefits and pension expenses are within the budgets of the departments. They are summarized on
page 21 which is the account numbers that you just referenced.

Mr. Teeboom

That’s the problem. We are here reviewing line item by line item; we are not reviewing the pension funds on page
21. We are already on page 78, you skipped by 22 rather quick because we never got to page 22 because Mr.
Chairman you never noted page 22. The 52150 account is an account that’s $31,662,000 and it went up by 1.63%
from the previous year which was $21,315.000. | don’t really have any questions on benefits other than that’s a
really large amount. The main thing is if you deal with the departmental pensions then we have to deal with all of
the pensions. If you deal with departmental benefits then you have to deal with all benefits so we know what the
dollar amount is. It says in department 115, Pensions, its $1,000 and it doesn’t do the job. Let’s talk about 52150,
in fiscal ’12 had $614,000 surplus and in fiscal 13 had a $1.2 million surplus, in fiscal ’14 it had a $916,000 surplus
and | don’t quite know what was the surplus in fiscal °15?

Mr. Griffin
| think it was approximately $1 million.

Mr. Teeboom