Search

So it’s talking here about $3.73 million. Where did that money go?
Mr. Griffin

In some years we escrowed the money forward to future periods and in some years we lapsed it to fund balance
and then used a certain amount of that fund balance to buy down the tax rate.

Mr. Teeboom

Yeah, you have got $28 million in fund balance. Therein lies a lesson for the Aldermen. If you have appropriated
money and the money is passed the spending cap, you do not send that money back to fund balance. It has to be
re-appropriated. It ends all that nonsense about the $2.17 million spending cap override of Aldermen Siegel’s which
is nothing but a ploy to try to raise the spending cap pretty much. The point of it is if you have a surplus and you go
through the escrow, take a close look at the escrow. If you have almost $4 million in surplus in this pension fund
that everyone is complaining about and crying about. Put this $4 million into one of the two expendable trust funds
that exist for the very same purpose. One is called the school expendable trust fund and one is called the city
expendable trust fund. There are blue pages in the back of the book; account #7025 is the city expendable trust
fund and account #7071 is the school expendable trust fund. Take any surplus and put it in one of these
expendable trust funds for which you can then fund whatever you need to fund without further appropriations. In
fact, the way these funds are set up, the Aldermen don’t even get to vote on it. The way the ordinance is set up, the
CFO expends from the expendable trust fund, am | correct?

Mr. Griffin

Just one point of clarification, the funds that you speak of are for final separation payments for school and city
employees so we wouldn’t put pension expenses that are budgeted into those accounts.

Mr. Teeboom

Well, | know that you’ve mentioned this before. You decided to comment on exactly who set up #7025. | won’t take
the time to read it. Account #7025 is the city retirement trust fund. It is set up to fund retirement expenses in
excess of the yearly budgeted retirement appropriations. The fund may continue to increase to a level that is
deemed appropriate by the comptroller. Funds may be transferred from this account into appropriated departmental
accounts only after administrative review by the mayor, by the president of the board of aldermen, by the treasurer
and the comptroller. The aldermen don’t even get to vote on that one. If you look at the description, it’s a general
purpose expendable trust fund for the purpose of funding retirement expenditures. There’s not a single word that
says “final.”

Mr. Griffin

We interpret retirement as a final payment for folks that retire. We don’t consider that fund since I’ve been here and
| think when it was first set up it was for retirement payments to include accrued vacation and sick. It’s not used for
payments made to either the BPW pension or the New Hampshire Retirement System.

Mr. Teeboom

It says establish to fund retirement expenditures in excess of yearly budgeted appropriations. Mayor and aldermen,
you should take a look at that. If you go to school retirements, it’s exactly the same rules. Not surprising because of
R-00-68. | suggest you get a copy of it and read it. The words are the same for the school. You take any of the
surplus money, which is $4 million, and then what is the expected surplus in 52150 this year.

Mr. Griffin
To be determined. That is final pays for teachers. Somewhere probably between $250,000 - $500,000. The reason

for that is we budget for pension expense based on estimated payroll. We don’t factor in any attrition. To the extent
there’s attrition in the salary lines, that’s where the savings come in for pension expense.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 24

other highlights here which are impacted, small impacted areas. The plan is to consolidate everything down
into the lagoon area, so essentially the three sites after will have no impact such that residential use could
occur. So it is really to get everything down to the smallest area possible where there will be a use restriction
and monitoring wells and deed restriction and keep it there rather than having it housed across the property.

Ms. Taylor Yes it is essentially altogether with the Mohawk site as well as the other areas, it is about 40 acres
of land and we would only be restricting 2 out of the 40 acres. So 38 acres would be unrestricted for use.

Alderwoman Kelly

| have two questions. First question is what is the average time a site spends on the NPL list?

Ms. Taylor It depends. | believe we have, | have that data somewhere, in the hundreds of sites that have
been deleted from the National Priority List, | actually have that data somewhere. But sites can remain on the
NPL for quite some time, especially if you have groundwater contamination where groundwater remedy is
needed. Those remedies can sometimes take decades. So it certain sites can be on the NPL for decades.

President McCarthy

It is safe to say that there are more sites left on the NPL than have been removed from it.

Ms. Taylor Oh yes. Yes there are still about 1,300 sites on the NPL.

Alderwoman Kelly

My second question is just a point of clarification, Mr. Mayor you talked about having an outside contractor
evaluate. Can you just explain what they would be evaluating specifically?

Mayor Donchess

Sure, so when we met with the members of the neighborhood back in September, they asked can we trust the
EPA findings and the solution and how do we know that this is good and all this kind of thing. So | think what
they are doing is they are reviewing the EPA report in light of the work that they have already done there and
will be able to comment on its validity and may be able to offer thoughts regarding the costs of the various
solutions which could either | suppose agree or even disagree with the EPA’s estimates.

Alderwoman Kelly

So when you say the EPA report, you are talking about EC/CA? Is that correct?

Mayor Donchess

If this is the EC/CA it is about this thick and highly technical, a number of different documents, but that whole
package of material, | think is what they are looking at.

Kelsey Dumville Hi everybody | am sorry | am Kelsey Dumville and | just wanted to reiterate what Melissa said
at the beginning. | work as a Community Involvement Coordinator and the Liaison to the Congressional
Delegation. We've heard a lot concerns about kind of shoving this proposal at the community. | just want to
be clear for one about the process, which is that this is the process we take and that is why we go through the
public comment. | understand that a lot of people are unfamiliar with the site in the beginning and it can appear
as if we are just saying this is it or nothing.

Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 25

In this case, we do just want to make clear tonight that without the support of the City, we don’t intend to move
forward in this direction with the developer. Like Melissa said, we want you to understand that this is a really
unique situation, this isn’t something we see all the time. We want to make very clear to you that this is, and |
hope we’ve done that tonight, that this is addressing more than just the Mohawk Tannery Site. It is addressing
these other parcels that otherwise would go untouched by EPA.

You could speak to the State and Robin Mongeon from DES is here tonight, but those properties are
considered protected. You could never re-develop on them as they are now. We are hoping that this
developer is coming in to give the City an opportunity to do that. That said, and | don’t mean to be
inconsiderate, it is really not up to us and it doesn’t, we want to see this happen because we care about
communities we work in. At the same time, if we have to backtrack and go back and list this on the NPL, that
is what we will do. Like Melissa said, likely we will come up with the same solution. And I’m not trying to say
that like we’ve heard that we are throwing this solution at you, but that is, in all probability, wnat is going to
happen.

So we just want to make that abundantly clear that this process is not considered an NPL proposal listing,
however it is very similar to the process that we would go to. And we would probably come up with the same
solution, but in this case it wouldn’t be addressing these other properties, there would not be a developer on
board, these properties wouldn't likely to be able to be reused and as Gerardo just mentioned it could be
decades from now before you see anything happen there.

So | apologize for sitting back and being blunt, but we just really wanted to make sure that we got that across.
The other piece is that Alderman Lopez asked a couple of times about responses to the comments that you
made and we certainly weren’t ignoring or not responding to those, but they were taken as part of the public
comment, which as Gerardo mentioned, we will be responding to in a package when we do come out with the
action memorandum.

| would encourage you to just understand that we are here for you, we are happy to talk through any of this, we
know it a lot of information to take in. But we do want you to understand that we are here now with the
developer in this potential opportunity to move forward on the site. We can’t speak for him obviously but our
understanding is that this is a financially limited and potentially time limited depending on when decisions are
made; so just to make that very clear. Thank you very much for having us here tonight, we hope it was really
helpful.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Thank you. So to follow up on your comment about you are here for any questions we have. If a member of
the Board of Aldermen had a question or wanted further clarification, who would they contact and how would
they go about doing that to make sure their comment, like Alderman Lopez about his comments were just
there, whether he wanted them to be part of public comment. | think maybe people didn’t realize that they
would have to wait until March to get responses. So if they wanted more immediate responses how would they
go about doing that?

Ms. Dumville Those comments were just counted as the public comment period and stated so in e-mails to a
number of people including community members. You are welcome to pick up the phone and call Gerardo or
myself anytime with questions. Alderman McCarthy has my e-mail address as does Sue Lovering who helped
set this up. I’m happy if you’d like to share that around with everyone.

President McCarthy

| would suggest that if you have questions, get them to Sue and have Sue give them there and then we can
make sure responses get sent to the full Board and published so that we all have the same information.

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

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Yes thank you and | guess that’s my concern. If 5 people have the same question, you only need to hear it
once. But people also need to know there is a process to exchange information.

President McCarthy
Work it through Sue and we will get answers.
Ms. Dumville That is what we do so we are happy to answer any of your questions.

Alderman Lopez

Can | just point out in the EPA’s defense | did get a response to my request, it just didn’t actually happen but |
got a response. So | am not accusing you of anything at all, | made the comment and then | was actually
asked do you want this on the public comment and I’m like “yes” but | also wanted the presentation. So here
we are. Not what! was hoping for, but it was a response.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ADJOURN
MOTION CARRIED

The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Attest: Patricia D. Piecuch, City Clerk

Mohawk Tannery

Meeting with Board of Alderman

Mohawk Tannery Site
Nashua, New Hampshire
EPA Work Area

Toll Free 888-372-7341 —
=

SEPA

New England

Cranes

October 2, 2018
City Hall Auditorium, Nashua NH

Melissa Taylor, NH & RI Superfund Section Chief
Gerardo Millan-—Ramos, Remedial Project Manager

Mohawk Tannery
Presentation Overview

¢ Recent Past Activities
¢ Maps & Figures
¢ Contaminants of Concern

¢ EPA’s Recommended Alternative

Mohawk Tannery
Recent Past and Future Events

>

WwW

WwW

WwW

WwW

WwW

07/25/18

08/29/18
09/07/18
10/03/18

03/29/19

Summer ‘19

EE/CA Amendment
Public Information Meeting

Informal Meeting with Neighbors
End of public comment period
Site Tour to a group of neighbors
Approx. date of Action Memo

Construction

Mohawk Tannery
Where is the Site?

"4 City Property with

Parkway ADS Cell
~ (Former Fimbel Factory)

FIMBEL DOOR
SLUDGE LANDFILL

Tannery Sludge
Lagoons

MOHAWK TANNERY
(Northern Parcel)

MOHAWK TANNERY
(Southern Parcel)

Approx. Route of
Broad Street Parkway »

Fa

Fairmount Street

1) Base map from NH GRANIT, 2009 aerial photograph.
2) Property lines digitized from City of Nashua GIS/Assessors Map.

euENT

CITY OF NASHUA /
MELTON ASSOCIATES, LLC

iT MOHAWK TANNERY /
FIMBEL SLUDGE LANDFILL

AREA SITE PLAN Geolnsight

Mohawk Tannery
What is on the Site?

Pp aBE NORTHERN:
PARCEL °.

Boor
LANDFILL

BUILDING

(SLAB REMAINS)

SOUTHERN
PARCEL

I y
jOPEN LAGOON

ke

MONITORING WELL LOCATION 4ND DESIGNATION (G24 1985, WCI 1997) _ APPROXIWATE LOCATION OF FENCE
IWOICATES WELL COULD NOT BE LOCATED WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL —'——— )s APPROXIMSTE LOCATION OF SEWER UNE
DURING OPERABLE UNIT | REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
ee APPROXIWATE LOCATION CF TRalL/FOOTP&TH

Fi ATION AN NATION (Tt 1)
TEST FIT LOCATION AND DESIGNATION (TtNUS 2001) oe OCTOBER 2013 GEOWSIGHT TEST PIT
OVERLYING SOIL, SLUDGE AND UNDESLYING SOL SAMPLE LOCATION
AND GESIGNATICN (THUS 2001)

OGSERVATION BORING (NO SAMPLES [NS] SUBMITTED FoR
LABORATORY ANALYSIS) LOCATION AND DESIGNATION (TtNUS 2001) DRA F T

—_-- APPROMIMATE LOCATION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY . = “a
ao aE er

AREA OF SLUDGE,/WASTE DISPOSAL

CITY GF NASHUA,’
MELTON ASSOCIATES, LLC.
PROVECT:WOHAWK TANNERY/FIMBEL SLUDGE LANDFILL,
NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE

FOUNDATION/SLaS OF FORMER STRUCTURE
NOTE

MANHOLE ——

1. THE BASE MAP WAS DRAWN FROM 4 PLAN ENTITLED, “SITE PLAN AND SAMPLING LOCATION PLAN, MOHAWK TANNERY SITE.
NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE’ PREPARED GY TETRA TECH NUS. INC. (TENUS) OF LWINGTOM, MASSACHUSETTS, DATED OCTOBER 17,
200! ORIGINAL SCALE 1-60", AND “SITE FEATURES AND PRE-EXISTING EXPLORATION LOCATION PL4N — NORTHERN AND
SGUTHERN PARCELS” PREPARED BY SANBORN, HEAD & ASSOCIATES, DATED MARCH 2005.

- Geolnsight
ols Br ighure

. nee
PLE na Tame ha RUPE
71310001 | 7131000 3

Mohawk Tannery

Contaminants of Concern (COCs)

» Dioxin

» Benzo(a)pyrene
» 4-Methylphenol
» Pentachlorophenol
» Antimony

» Arsenic

» Cadmium

» Lead

» Vanadium

» Barium

» Chromium

» Manganese