Search

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 5

Lisa Fauteux, Director Public Works

Thank you very much. Good evening Mayor, President Wilshire, Vice President O’Brien, Chairman Dowd and
members of the Budget Committee. Joining me tonight are Commissioners Joel Ackerman and Frank Teas,
Rob Prunier from Harvey Construction, my colleagues Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development; Jeff
LaFleur, Superintendent of Solid Waste; Jon Ibarra, Superintendent of Streets; and Lauren Byers, Public
Relations Administrator.

We are here to speak on R-19-187, authorizing the Mayor and City Treasurer to issue bonds not to exceed the
amount of $6 million dollars for the design and construction of Public Works Office Facility. About 8 months
ago, the Mayor requested that a working group be assembled to study the current conditions of our Public
Works Facilities and provide recommendations. The working group consisted of a number of stakeholders
including Aldermen, Commissioners, Harvey Construction, Hoyle Tanner, HKT Architects, DPW Staff and the
Director of Economic Development.

This working group was unanimous in the recommendation that we will be sharing with you this evening.
Since this is the recommendation of a group, we will have several members of our group presenting this
evening. | would like to invite Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development to first discuss the timeline
and disposition of the Burke Street Building.

Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development

Thank you Director Fauteux, for the record, Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development and | am up
here this evening to talk about a couple of the issues that are paramount for this project. First to orientate
everyone to the timeline; we started meeting around April to discuss how to best move forward with the idea of
a DPW facilities project. We were inclusive in our efforts, we brought various stakeholders together to hear
differing ideas and to develop a plan to move forward. We developed a preliminary plan, if you will, to look at
the existing conditions which help guide the conversation about whether it made sense to consolidate or
renovate the individual buildings. We presented the findings in early fall or mid fall | should say and ultimately
the working group made a recommendation to the Board of Public Works that we look at a new DPW Facility
consolidating the operations on the landfill. Harvey Construction helped us with the presentation in developing
these findings.

The next item in particular | want to talk about is the Burke Street site and it is really important to understand
the various dynamics that go into this project. This particular variable is of top of mind because we issued
bonds for the purchase of Burke Street. We are now looking to dispose of Burke Street. We have a P&S in
place as all of you are aware. We are going to be under an obligation to use the monies from this sale in a
very quick timetable, so time is of the essence. We will have essentially approximately 2 years or something of
that order to use the funds. We are scheduled to sell the building in mid-February. Just to re-orientate
everyone the reason why we originally purchased Burke Street was for the expansion of the Waste Water
Treatment Facility which we have been able to do because we have sub-divided 2 % acres of the Burke Street
property which we will keep within the City’s purview so we can do that future expansion.

Ultimately the Burke Street site did not meet our needs as you all know because we did some exhaustive
studies a few years back that looked at it. So | am up here this evening just to speak specifically about the
timing of this particular project and stress upon the body that we need a bond authorization as quickly as
possible to make sure all the various puzzle pieces fit together appropriately. Thank you.

Ms. Fauteux

Thank you Tim. Next Commissioner Joel Ackerman will discuss the current condition of our DPW facilities.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 6

Joel Ackerman, Board of Public Works Commissioner

Thank you Director; Joel Ackerman, Board of Public Works Commissioner. As you know the Department of
Public Works oversees several facilities. The new building committee project in question, we looked at the four
Administrative Facilities comprising the Administration and Engineering Office; Street Departments; Solid
Waste; and Parks & Rec. Currently the administration offices at these four locations provide an unhealthy
work environment for the City’s employees. Our immediate areas of concern include visible evidence of mold,
below standard air quality and live rodent activity, in adequate bathroom facilities, lack of useable office space,
inadequate storage, over-crowded lunch room and too few conference rooms available. Equally as important,
limited parking present insurmountable challenges every day for the City employees and visitors alike. Lastly,
each of these facilities are not within the ADA Federal Compliance Regulation. Nashua, as we know, is
growing exponentially, housing, traffic, streets, waste management, as well as proper sewer management and
engineering projects all require more and more attention of the Department of Public Works. The present
facilities are not equipped or prepared to meet this growth if we do not take such much needed change. Our
goal is to provide a healthy environment for our much valued City employees. Thank you.

Ms. Fauteux
Thank you Commissioner Ackerman. Rob Prunier of Harvey Construction will now present the study that they
completed comparing renovation of our existing facilities to building a new facility. | think I'll hand this over to

you.

Rob Prunier, Harvey Construction

Good evening everyone, my name is Rob Prunier and | am with Harvey Construction Corporation. | am here
tonight to make your night as exciting as possible and | am sure all these slides are going to be very enthralling
to you but it was part of the due diligence that we were asked to help the Department of Public Works with to
really assess their current facilities and what it would take to bring those facilities up to snuff. With that we
went ahead and we are not architects, we are builders, so we really took a perspective from a building
perspective. We looked at the Admin Building, the Streets Department, the Solid Waste parking and Parks &
Rec Department. We were focused on the office components of each of these facilities and that is important to
really hone in on is that we are talking about the administration and office aspects of these programs.

We went in and we analyzed each building, visually, physically, we asked a lot of questions. We tried to
conceptualize some thoughts in terms of what each Department needed for future growth and future
programmatic benefits to each Department. We tried to put numbers together for each one of those buildings
so that you could make some educated decisions on whether or not or where you want to invest your money.

The first building we looked at was the Administrative Building. Again these are the slides that are really going
to excite you. The DPW Administration really utilizes the front of this building, the back and the side is used
more for the Police Department for storage and what have you. The DPW utilizes the first and second floor;
the first floor is about 9,600 square feet and the second floor is about 8,700 square feet. So our task was “how
do we renovate those areas to bring them up to code, to bring them to where systems are adequate for every
day work”. There was a small reorganization of the front entry way with bathrooms and reception areas
including an elevator that needed to be put in. It still did not meet all programmatic needs of the Administrative
Offices. They needed a little bit more space, we said, “Where can we put that space in conjunction with this
building”. The area in the red there is the only space that made sense. We went through a little of a
programmatic effort, played architect for a little bit and came up with some ideas in terms of what they needed
and this is the result of that. So it was about an additional 2,200 square feet, one story. Of course that means
you are taking some parking out so we had to figure out where we could put some more parking. Again the
area in the red identifies that area and it is kind of a net on the parking side of things. But that allows you to
get the parking and the space you need.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 7

So again, we are talking about renovating about 18,300 square feet, that is major renovations to the reception
area, new HVAC systems, an elevator, new lights, fire alarms, sprinklers, new roof over the admin and the
engineering areas. The addition, we figured it is going to take about 12 months, we went through and this is
going to be a common formula that you see for all these buildings, we estimated, we’ve got detailed estimates
as best we could. On the construction hard costs, we put some contingency in there, we figured out what the
architectural and engineering costs would be, GEO-technical engineering, HazMat survey, we put some money
in there. We did not include money in the hard costs, we are hoping in the contingency maybe that could be
covered. But it is important to know that there were some costs that were not included in these estimates and
that is, what do we do with folks while we are renovating for temporary space? What is the definition of the
HazMat remediation or the mold remediation that has to happen? And certainly a structural engineering study
probably should be done on that building. So at the end of the day, we figured it is about, all in, about $5.5
million dollars to renovate that building.

Next we looked at the Street Department and again we only looked at the office component of the Street
Department Building; we weren’t looking at the maintenance and the shop portions of that building. To the left
is the existing drawing that we had for the first floor, that would obviously require some renovations. The
second floor, again we talked to the Department, talked about what programmatically they could use. There
was a multi-purpose room that could be used for beds for those long storms and what have you, some
gathering space, some locker rooms and of course elevator and stair towers are going to be required if you
add a second floor.

In total, the first and second floor would be 10,400 square feet; again you are renovating all the systems, you
are putting new life safety systems in. When you go through the whole process, including contingencies and
architectural, you get down to about $4.2 million dollars to expand and renovate the Street Department Facility,
the office part of that.

Then we looked at the Parks & Recreation Department and again we only looked at the office side of things:
we did not look at the maintenance or the shop pieces of the facilities. That building is kind of in two pieces,
the newer piece is in the purple there, about 1,360 square feet. The 1902 building is about 1,287 square feet.
Our feeling, after going through that, is that that 1902 building should just come down. It does not make a lot
of sense to put money into that building, | am sorry Alderman Caron. Again | am showing you this because we
tried to do as much homework as we can. We tried to get measurements and we tried to figure out what this
space would look like and what would it feel like and what kind of square footage that would mean.

So we assessed that this program would work to help the Park & Recreation Department out. The first floor is
about 1,485 square feet. This is what it would like combined with the existing building on the first floor, excuse
me, that would be the second floor, this is kind of the basement, there’s two access points. So you take down
the 1902 building, you would add a new two story addition which would total 2,900 square feet, you renovate
the existing space, all new systems, life safety, what have you; you get to about $3.192 million dollars.

Finally we looked at the Solid Waste Department. It is about 6,400 square feet and our assessment that it is
best if that building comes down to the ground. You can reuse the footprint, but the building itself has really
used its life and we don’t see the value of trying to rebuild that building. So we took a shot at what it might look
like, again we are not architects | can’t emphasize that enough. We put a program together, interviewing the
Directors and talking to staff and figuring out what the minimum was that they would need. We came up with
this floor plan and the total cost for that is about $3 million dollars. | will emphasize that we looked at the
minimal work that has to be done to get these buildings up and running, there is nothing emphatic, there’s
nothing exciting or architecturally beautiful about any of the things we are proposing here, but they just get
back to useable buildings. What they don’t do, what none of these estimates really address are future growth
or proper programmatic needs; this was kind of the minimum if you will.

So in summary when you add up the four buildings and the work that we think needs to be done there, this is
all in, hard and soft costs, you are almost at $16 million dollars. Immediately we realized that $16 million
dollars is not something that would pass muster here. It doesn’t get you what you need in terms of program, in
terms of future growth.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 8

The budgets don’t include a number of things in terms of structural engineering, Haz Mat surveys, mold
remediation. We carried things into 2020, if this got postponed a year or two, costs would likely go up as
escalation is trending in that way; so it is something to consider.

We also were tasked with looking at “what would it cost to build a new office building at the landfill’. So we
went through a program, the architect got involved a little bit here and they were able to modify a program that
they did earlier and were able to come up with a program that works, there’s 25,000 square feet. When you go
through the whole process, you will see that it costs about $9.9 million dollars to build a facility that has a lot of
benefits to the Department. With the new building you’d have an optimum program, you’d have a healthy
environment which | think is a real important thing to consider in this process; lower utilities, less maintenance,
even renovating these building, they are not going to be the most energy efficient buildings in the world There
would be a lot of shared areas between departments, there will be energy efficiencies, there’s savings on the
construction side of things. We are not moving general conditions over four different projects over four
different durations of construction. We are talking about expediting one building at one time. From an
operational perspective and I'll let the Director and others talk about that but there a ton of benefits in regards
to that. Certainly | think there are benefits to the City of Nashua as well. It gives the taxpayers the right
investment, | think it is going to help you hire employees that might not come to the City based on the current
conditions. The City employees will be healthier and happier and | think that all results in better service to the
City. So | am done.

Ms. Fauteux

Thank you Rob. This is actually going to be the end. So Commissioner Frank Teas will conclude our
presentation with a summary of our work and explain our recommendation.

Frank Teas, Board of Public Works Commissioner

Good evening, Frank Teas, Board of Public Works Commissioner, | first want to state that we were not brought
together as a sub-committee to build a new building at the landfill. We were asked by the Mayor to evaluate the
current conditions of where our folks work. We care about a safe and healthy work environment for the staff
while also obviously being very fiscally responsible. To outline again what was said earlier, we as a group, the
Board of Commissioners identified that we had a problem. We then took action to memorialize these
problems; healthy work environment was not there, didn’t have the ability really for future growth. We needed
to pay some attention to our infrastructure that was long overdue; we felt there was always kind of a Band-Aid
approach in the past and we wanted a strategic direction.

We, as a Committee to include several Aldermen and other stakeholders, met and developed a plan. So we
could either look to renovate or look for new construction; not look for new construction at the landfill, look for
new construction or renovate. We are not experts, so we thought it prudent to bring in an expert, you just
heard from the expert. The results were pretty eye opening for us as a subcommittee when we met back a few
weeks ago and received this report you saw. $15.9 million dollars to renovate, that is really our optimal
solution, it doesn’t address future growth. Certainly it addressed some of the problems that we have. $9.9
million dollars to build a new building somewhere, doesn’t include land, but somewhere. It gives us a new
work facility, addresses our future growth, energy and workplace efficiencies, putting more people under one
roof, only having one lunch room as opposed to five different lunch rooms and so forth. It allows us to
repurpose existing buildings. 38% savings, if you will, the 38% less to build at $9.9 then to renovate at $15.9
for brand new; | am a numbers person that stuck out at me pretty obviously. But there was one caveat, we
didn’t have a place to build it.

Of course, I’ve said 5 times already the landfill, that was something that people had discussed. Why the landfill
was of interest to us was for several reasons. It would, in theory, not cost us any new money. So we are not
adding an additional dollar to that $9.9 million dollars. There are currently no other opportunities to buy a large
piece of land in which we can place this building, or none that I’m aware of that would be reasonably priced.
Lastly, we thought it important to not remove another tax producing asset from the books. So if we bought
something new we would then lose out on the real estate taxes.

Civil/Transportation Engineer, Vollmer Associates LLP
Project Engineer, Bellomo-McGee Inc

Research Assistant, Texas Transportation Institute
Reference Projects

Role: Account Manager
Project Details: Street light conversion and maintenance contract for 9,000 lights
Completed: Active contract

Role: Account Manager
Project Details: Street light conversion and maintenance contract for 10,000 lights

Completed: Active contract

Role: Account Manager
Project Details: Streetlight retrofit for 8,100 lights for multiple cities

Completed: Active Contract

Certifications

e Professional Engineer (Massachusetts — Civil #45080)

e Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (ITE — #1036)

e Roadway Lighting Fundamentals and Analysis, LightFair Institute
e |IMSA Work Zone Safety, Traffic Signal Technician II

e Roadway Lighting |, Traffic Signal Inspector

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 9

Of concern at the Committee level and was addressed appropriately, | have not seen the final report, but
Wayne Husband, our Senior Traffic Engineer for the City along with Hoyle Tanner, they did conduct a traffic
study for that area of the City. At the time we met, they did not have that final report in-hand, but they did have
enough data to confirm that a consolidated facility at the landfill would not have a significant impact on traffic in
the West Hollis Street corridor.

Our subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend to the next level, to move forward, to build a new facility
at the $9.9 million dollar level. Of course, we are using funds that we anticipate receiving from the sale of
Burke Street as you heard Director Cummings say earlier of $3.9 million, resulting in a $6 million dollar need.
The Board of Public Works met two weeks ago | believe, I’m not sure of the exact date, had a very robust
conversation. We voted 4 to 1 to move forward and recommend. We also held an informational night at the
landfill for neighbors and residents to come in. We answered all the questions that were asked that night. In
conclusion, the subcommittee unanimously and the Board of Public Works in a vote of 4 to 1, recommend
moving forward to build a building at the landfill. Thank you.

Ms. Fauteux

That concludes our presentation, thank you.

Chairman Dowd

Is there anyone from the Board of Aldermen that has an clarifying questions for the presenting people?
Alderman Jette

For clarification purposes | would like you to make it clear that the problems that we have with our current
buildings include facilities that would not be included in this new building. For example, the Street Department,
the inadequate conditions there for the bulk of the workers there, the drivers and stuff, they are not going to be
moving to this new building. So their locker room, their lunch room, as inadequate as it is, is going to remain
such. Also although the garage at the Street Department is not part of this project, it is going to stay there, but
eventually, | mean this is, if money was no object, | think ideally you’d want to move all of your facilities to this
new site including the garage. But because of the cost and the City just can’t afford to that right now but the
long-range plan would include moving the garage to the landfill site. So | just don’t want anyone to think that
that is not part of the long-range plan. Am | correct in saying that?

Commissioner Teas

I’m still Frank Teas, Commissioner of the Board of Public Works. | think that everything that Alderman Jette
said was true. | think it’s important to note that with respect to the renovations that were being proposed in the
Harvey presentation earlier, it did not taking into account making any improvements to the actual mechanical
area improvement, so yes, those folks would stay in place. Long-term? Sure we would like to move that
garage. We are going to mindful of where the building goes to ensure that we could put the garage there in the
future. We are not making that recommendation tonight because we are being fiscally responsible with our
money and over time perhaps we will be able to do it. Thank you.

Alderman Caron

So Alderman you asked the question | was going to ask. So that means Park Rec staff, other than the
administration is going to stay in that 1902 building?

Ms. Fauteux

No | don't believe so.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 10

Alderman Caron

You think is that whole staff and their employees, the rest of the employees moving to the landfill?
Ms. Fauteux

Yes, that’s the plan. Yes.

Alderman Caron

So quick question, what do you anticipate doing with that facility where you utilize Greeley Park and you
usually have staff people there during the daytime, like from 8 to 5 or 8 to 8?

Ms. Fauteux

That’s a good question. We do plan to leave some staff at Greeley Park and I’m not sure how many, we would
have to work that out. In terms of the buildings, | think we would probably, at least the office building, we would
eliminate, which would free up some more space. But we would definitely retain a presence at Greeley.

Alderman Caron
Thank you.
Chairman Dowd

Any other questions? Seeing none, OK, we are going to open the Public Hearing. So there are some new
people that have come in so | just want to reiterate that because of the number of people and the number of
things we have to address this evening, if you come up and want to make a comment in favor or opposition, |
ask that you try and keep it to 3 minutes. If you have a question, you can ask the question. If you have more
than one question, please save it for the second iteration of testimony in favor or opposition. Please do not try
to repeat any questions that were asked by a previous speaker, you can say that you agree with a previous
speaker if that is the case. So | will now open up R-19-187, which includes for the design and construction of
the Division of Public Works Office Facility testimony in favor. Please indicate your name and address for the
record.

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR

Fred Teeboom 24 Cheyenne. First of all | would like to say if you have a 3 minute limit maybe you shouldn't put 3
bond resolutions on the same calendar. Just one would be sufficient, would give you a little bit more time. Now |
don’t see Paula Johnson in the audience, because | remember when the Aldermen approved buying the Riverside
building, | think she was an Alderman at the time she yelled Holy Hell about buying a building that was totally
deficient. | think the City spent $2 million dollars to buy it at the time, | may be slightly off on the figures and over
$2 million dollars to renovate the Riverside Facility. There has been more and more spending done since that
point in time. So the whole Riverside Building has been a disaster from Day 1. If you go to the upper floors they
were substandard in height, a lot of problems. The City insisted on buying it; bit mistake. Just like the Burke Street
property, they were going to buy that for $4 million until you found out it was going to cost you $50 million to
renovate it. Now | hope this goes through a little bit better planning.

| do have a couple of questions, apparently you are replacing four facilities, the Riverside Building, what other 3
facilities are being replaced?

Ms. Fauteux

Which facilities will be moving to the consolidated facility? Is that your question?

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019

Mr. Teeboom What 3 facilities or 4 are eliminated?

Ms. Fauteux

So that’s Administration & Engineering; Solid Waste; and Park & Rec.

Mr. Teeboom Park & Rec?

Ms. Fauteux

Yes.

Mr. Teeboom Solid Waste is where?

Ms. Fauteux

Solid Waste is in a substandard building at the landfill right now.
Mr. Teeboom And the Riverside Facility which is Administrative?
Ms. Fauteux

Administrative & Engineering.

Mr. Teeboom What’s the next one?

Ms. Fauteux

So Administration & Engineering, Park & Rec; and Solid Waste.
Mr. Teeboom That's 3.

Ms. Fauteux

That is four. Some of Streets, but Administration and Engineering are two different departments.

Mr. Teeboom Ok | am just talking about buildings, they are in the same building aren’t they?

Ms. Fauteux
They are in the same building, correct.
Mr. Teeboom_ So there are 3 buildings that are being replaced?

Ms. Fauteux

Yes, just to clarify, Mr. Teeboom, there will be space though to hopefully someday have all of the administration

staff over, with the exception of Waste Water at the landfill.

Mr. Teeboom So my first question is “what is going to happen to these 3 facilities’. Are you going to sell those
facilities? Well one of them | guess you are going to tear to the ground which is the Park & Rec facility, | guess

that’s worthless.

Page 11

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 12

Ms. Fauteux

Of course there are some things to be worked out, but | think the Police Department may have some interest in our
facility, the Engineering & Administration Building for a training facility. It makes sense because it is right next to
the Police Department. Also their evidence cage is right behind our building so that may be something that is
done. Short term, the landfill building will probably be used as storage, long-term it will probably be removed as
well as the Park & Rec Building just is really not something we would use.

Mr. Teeboom Those are 2 of those, but the Riverside Building, | don’t know why you want to keep it. It ought to be
sold so you can spend the money, the proceeds to offset the bond on this facility just like you do at Burke Street.

Ms. Fauteux

That won’t ultimately be my decision.

Mr. Teeboom Well that’s these folks decision. Sell it. You have no need for it. It is a substandard building. The
only concern | have with that is the studios inside that building which | helped built. So if you sell the building you
probably want to move the studio.

Ms. Fauteux

Transit also occupies the other half of the building.

Mr. Teeboom But you are not selling the transit building.

Ms. Fauteux

No.

Mr. Teeboom Alright, so you ought to consider doing something with the Riverside Building. The other thing is the
Burke Street Bond, now you still have a bond, it’s going to take a while to pay that off. That's probably what,
another 15 or 20 years remaining on that?

Ms. Fauteux

I’m not sure of the time on that currently.

Mr. Teeboom Ok so you are going to sell Burke Street Building, or you have sold it already for $3.9 million dollars.
Ms. Fauteux

It hasn’t been sold yet; | think mid-February. Director Cummings can speak to that.

Mr. Teeboom Has that building been sold.

Ms. Fauteux

No.

Attorney Bolton

It's under a Purchase & Sales Agreement.

Mr. Teeboom There’s a Purchase & Sales Agreement.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 13

Ms. Fauteux

Yes.

Attorney Bolton

It will close in February.

Mr. Teeboom So you're not paying off the bond, you are going to take the proceeds, the cash proceeds and put it
into this facility, rather than pay off the bond? You are not paying off the Burke Street bond?

Attorney Bolton
That’s correct.

Mr. Teeboom Is that correct, is that a legitimate use? | mean that building was bonded, so now you are not paying
off the bond but you are selling the building. Is that a legitimate financial transaction Mr. Fredette.

Mr. Fredette
Yes. This all went through Bond Counsel and Financial Advisors, this is how it is treated.

Mr. Teeboom Everything goes through Bond Counsel, the Bond Counsel makes a lot of money handling the City
of Nashua’s bonding. | know, I’ve dealt with the Bond Counsel.

Chairman Dowd
Mr. Teeboom, if you have any other questions, you need to come up at the next period.

Mr. Teeboom No! won't come back, | do endorse it. | think that building, that building is a disaster, should have
never been bought. So some cost, part of many bad decisions made by the City.

Chairman Dowd

Thank you. Anyone else who wants to testify in favor of this bond?

Tom Monahan Good evening, my name is Tom Monahan, | live at 28 Swart Terrace in Nashua. | want to
commend the Public Works Commissioners and the Committee for their foresight in thinking and using some
available land to replace some really depleted, deplorable buildings. Our workers deserve a good environment

and this is a wonderful step in that direction. So thank you.

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None

Chairman Dowd

Seeing no one, I'll close the Public Hearing on R-19-187.