Search

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 39
Chairman Dowd

We will move on to Community Development Division, Department 153 Building Inspection; 155 Code
Enforcement; 170 Waterways Hydraulic Operations; 181 Community Development; 182 Planning & Zoning;
184 Urban Programs and 186 Transportation. Are there any questions? Seeing none we will go on to
Education — Department 191 Schools.

Daniel Richardson Berkeley Street, Nashua, New Hampshire. On Page 263 one line item here, longevity.
So for Fiscal Year ’21 it was $385,000.00, so far of that $385,000.00 of budget, you spent $439,000.00
through March. So it has got to be a lot higher than that. So you spent more money than you had and now

you are proposing $570,000.00 an even higher number. So it looks like it went up say about 40% in
longevity. So my question is what is that you did not plan for on that line item?

Mayor Donchess
The School Department would have to answer that question.
Chairman Dowd

They negotiate their own contracts, they handle their own funds so that’s a question for the Board of
Education. We only give them a bottom line number.

Mr. Richardson That’s great. I’d like to hear from the Board of Education.

Chairman Dowd

They are not here this evening.

Mr. Richardson Isn’t the Superintendent here to defend the budget?

Chairman Dowd

| don’t see him. And the Superintendent is an acting Superintendent at the moment.

Mr. Richardson It’s a Budget Hearing and you don’t have the Superintendent here. It’s a major failing.
Chairman Dowd

Alright we will move on to the next Division, Debt Service Contingency and Interfund Transfers, Department
193 Debt Service; 194 Contingency and 198 Interfund Transfers.

Unidentified Speaker So we are past education? | just got out of my seat. Can | make my comment here?
Chairman Dowd
Go ahead.

Christina McKinney 6 Southgate Drive. | am sure this was intended to be a positive but | just thought it was
utterly sad. This is Page 280 | believe. 260 a picture our budget, our education budget went through pre-
school looking at screens, on Page 240 little kids wearing masks. We have Page 911 little pre-school girl
looking at screens. What | do know about education | started my career as a teacher many decades ago
and | sure as heck know based on any parent | have spoken to, that particularly the little kids this has been
a disaster for them. You can put a bow on it any way you want but teachers should have, in my opinion,
been in school. And had we all behaved in the same way that many City employees did, including
teachers, had our grocery store workers decided to not show up.

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 40
Chairman Dowd

Excuse me, is there a budget...

Ms. McKinney Had our pharmacy workers decided not to show up.

Chairman Dowd

Excuse me, is there a budget related question because you are talking of things that are controlled by the
School Department and the Board of Education.

Ms. McKinney | am talking about the 53% of my taxes go to schools. So this is a budget issue. If | am
paying for something that | didn’t get the service or effective service, 53% of my taxes went towards that
service. If | walked into Home Depot and bought a refrigerator and what was sent to me was a box with no
doors | wouldn’t pay full price. So what | am suggesting is a School Budget should in my opinion...

Chairman Dowd
30 seconds.

Ms. McKinney we should have a rebate because the vast majority of children did not, could not have gotten
the education that they should have, could have over the last 18 months. So yes it is a budget issue and it
is a budget issue in my household because 53% according to John Griffin on March 25" in our
conversation, 53% of my taxes go to education.

Chairman Dowd

Your time has expired. OK. Next item is Capital Improvements, 1001 Capital Equipment. Seeing no one.
The next Division is Enterprise Funds Revenue & Appropriations; 6000 Solid Waste Fund estimated
revenues and 6000 Solid Waste Fund Appropriations.

Fred Teeboom 24 Cheyenne. This is another one | broke out | did the six year projection of the Solid
Waste and Waste Water. | understand you did not do the projection Mayor because these are fee based as
opposed to tax based. But! can claim the fee, the tax and the fee all money we pay to the City. So this
may be a question to Public Works Director | am not sure. Solid Waste, the average annual for 6 years of
7.6% it is now 3.9% increase; that’s Solid Waste. But Waste Water which had an average annual increase
over 6 years of 6.9% is now 38.7% - Waste Water 38.7%. | didn’t go through the details of the budget this
time, | didn’t look at any details this time. But can somebody explain to me why Waste Water went up
38.7%?

Mayor Donchess

Well we have the Superintendent here, but the bottom line is Waste Water is heavily, heavily regulated by
various environmental agencies including the EPA and DES; EPA at the Federal Level, DES at the State
Level and these expenditures are required. We have a consent decree with the Feds. There’s increasing
requirements, there’s the issues of the sewers and the separation or the non-separation. All these things
were we to refuse to undertake some of these things, which cost more money, we would be sued by these
environmental agencies. So the smartest thing is to comply with the regulations even though it cost more
money.

Mr. Teeboom | understand that. That's a general question. | have a specific question. Why did it go up
38.7%? What made it go up 38.7%? Can the Director, is the Director still here.

Chairman Dowd

30 seconds.

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 41

Mayor Donchess

Mr. Boucher is here. Now he hasn't been here the entire 6 years so Ms. Fauteux will come up as well.
Mr. Teeboom Well | hope he knows how to spell CSO.

Mayor Donchess

He does, he knows how to spell it, he wishes he didn’t but he does.

Mr. Teeboom So the question is when the 6 year average for Fiscal ’16 to Fiscal 22 was a 6.9% over six
years. Why is it suddenly (inaudible) to go a long time. She’s been gone for decades, why is now 38.7%.

Dave Boucher, Waste Water Superintendent

We have had studies done throughout the facility. Like the Mayor said, we are heavily regulated by the
EPA and the State. We do have a consent decree. We have a permit to discharge into the river. We have
permits for air, permits for sludge, all these things, more regulations are coming down to us. PFAS or
polyfluoroalkyl substances, it’s a big concern. For the Waste Water Facility we have a management
company that takes care of our sludge, it’s a byproduct of the waste water. So the concern is right now we
have beneficial reuse of our sludge, it goes to farmlands; that might not be an option in the near future. So
we are looking at different ways of treating our sludge. Some other things we have to look at it in our
permit that is currently in a draft form for phosphorous for instance. If we have to meet the limits that the
EPA is imposing on us it is going to be an additional build on to the Waste Water Facility to meet those
regulations. Plus we have, the facility dates back to the ‘50’s there are still parts of the facility are aged. All
the waste water that comes to the facility is corrosive.

Mr. Teeboom | am still looking for a specific answer. Maybe the Director can answer.

Mr. Boucher

Right. So part of our study some of these things come out, unfortunately they come out all at once. So we
are trying to prepare for all these regulations that are coming down and still maintain our process to meet

our current permit.

Mr. Teeboom It’s up by almost $8 million dollars this year. The average in previous years | mean like $1.4
million. So what made it go up.

Director Fauteux

We did a very extensive presentation to the Board of Aldermen that explained in great detail all of the
projects that we are working on including our COGEN Project that is almost completed. We have
embarked on our pump station upgrade, we’ve already done half of the pump stations, we are now doing
the other half of the pump stations. We had primary tank upgrades. There’s a number of projects that we
have done and will be doing in the near future to contribute to the increase. And the vast majority of that is
permit. There are things that are required by the EPA.

Mr. Teeboom But typically you bond these big projects.

Director Fauteux

Yes.

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 42

Mr. Teeboom And bond things are — the purpose of that is to spread the costs over 20 years or 30 years.
So | still don’t understand. Is there a single line item that made that made this thing go up $7.8 million
dollars.

Director Fauteux

There’s not a single item. There’s many capital projects and they are listed in the debt service schedule in
the budget and there’s also in the capital improvements it will show you all of the projects that are being
funded by the Operating Budget and being funded by bonding. It is in the budget and it does show
everything.

Chairman Dowd

All set Mr. Teeboom?

Mr. Teeboom | guess | have to read the budget but it seems like an awful lot of money in one year.
Mr. Griffin

Mr. Chairman, maybe | can address this particular issue as well. Mr. Teeboom on Page 294 is the
Infrastructure improvements that are going to be funded by bonding which are listed on Page 296. 294 as
Director Fauteux just indicated. So that’s the Infrastructure improvements funded by bonds. And she
indicated the projects are clearly articulated as shown on Page 296. So that’s on the expenditure side. And
if we take a look at the revenue side on Page 291 you will see general obligation bond proceeds of a like
amount. So in this particular case, the cost of the operation went up but so didn’t the revenue and it’s a
self-contained enterprise fund.

Mr. Teeboom Well | see on Page 296 you’ve got $11 million dollars of capital improvements in ’22 and it
shows 0 in ’21.

Mr. Griffin

So Mr. Chairman if | may? A lot of the amounts in ’21 were funded by cash and as Director Fauteux
indicated there was a comprehensive presentation made in the January / February timeframe to the Board
of Aldermen.

Mr. Teeboom I'll let the Aldermen figure this one out. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin
Thank you.

Daniel Richardson 70 Berkeley Street, Nashua, New Hampshire. | have a commentary on the Waste Water
situation. With all polyanna view the Board of Aldermen purchased Burke Street property $4.5 million
dollars several years ago and everything was going to be hunky dory, expansion of the Waste Water
Treatment Plant and then they realized that they didn’t really do the homework. It was going to cost a lot of
money to fix that place up. So they put it on the market and we had some Purchase Sale Agreement. That
fell through. So we’ve got an asset sitting there. What are we doing with that? How is that going to be
used with the Waste Water Treatment? How is that asset going to be contributing to the benefit of Waste
Water financially?

Mayor Donchess
First of all this was purchased under a previous administration.

Mr. Richardson | am not blaming you. You were an Alderman though.

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 43

Mayor Donchess

| was an Alderman. There were some projections given which turned out not to be true or accurate, let’s
put it that way. So what has happened is several acres, 2 or 3 acres were subdivided off of the Burke Street
property and added to the treatment plant property area so that if this phosphorus treatment is required,
there would be room to accomplish that. And there is a closing, the purchase price was not $4.5 it was

$4.1 or $4.2 something like that or even $4 million; we would have to get the exact number. But there’s a
closing scheduled which was supposed to take place today and we think will occur, there was a death of
somebody instrumental in all this, we expect it will occur within the next week or so which will realize $3.7
million. So in the end getting that extra land cost like $300,00.00.

Mr. Richardson So you are talking about this net sale being a smaller footprint, smaller number of acreage.
Mayor Donchess

Yeah it is a little smaller than we bought.

Mr. Richardson So the amount that is going to be used for Waste Water Treatment purposes is how big?
Mayor Donchess

What is 2.5 acres.

Director Fauteux

2.5 acres.

Mr. Richardson And that is sufficient for our purposes?

Mayor Donchess

Yes.

Mr. Richardson | have another question but I’ll let someone else talk if anybody else wants to talk? My turn
again. On Solid Waste, so | am looking at Page 284. Down at the bottom Solid Waste Appropriations $10
million dollars in change, less Revenues minus $5 million dollars and change. Amount subsidized by the
General Fund, $5 million dollars. This has been going on for a number of years. | always ask the question
why don’t we increase the tipping fees? Why are we having this coming out of the General Fund? | don’t
believe that people coming, contractors coming and dumping in our landfill are paying their fair share. And
I’ve heard the excuse that say, well it’s market rate. | don’t believe it. So maybe you could have an
explanation of that.

Director Fauteux

Sure.

Mayor Donchess

I’d love to get more money out of that. Maybe we could justify more but | have to listen to the experts.
Director Fauteux

Our tipping fee is above market rate, OK? Market rate at landfills is somewhere between $65.00 and

$70.00 a ton. We are at $80.00. We are getting very little to begin with of the waste. A lot of it is being
taken to the hauler’s own transfer stations. So if we increase the rate above $80.00 we wouldn’t get any.

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 44
The reason that we need to subsidize is because there are really three profit centers. There’s the
Recycling Center, there’s Collections and then there’s the landfill, ok? All of those are within Solid Waste.
If we were trying to run the Recycling Center as a true Recycling Center, in other words we didn’t charge
$5.00 for a permit and took everything else in for free, if we were charging for everything and we were
operating the landfill then the taxpayers probably would not have to subsidize. OK? But because

collections is involved in that it comes at a cost and that’s about $5 million dollars and that’s what it
averages.

Mayor Donchess

She’s saying that it costs money to pick up the garbage and that’s part of the cost of the subsidy. You
know, they pick up — the garbage trucks, the garbage crews.

Director Fauteux
Soft yard waste pickup.

Mayor Donchess

Soft yard waste all that stuff is included in that cost. So there is a service, it is more than just the cost of the
landfill proper- it’s the pickup operation.

Mr. Richardson Back a number of years ago when we had ...
Mayor Donchess

Also recycling. So it is recycling, regular garbage, soft yard waste...
Director Fauteux

And bulky items.

Mr. Richardson So when we first opened up this landfill it was projected to have over 40 years of life to it.
That’s a cost, that’s (inaudible). So how much is left.

Chairman Dowd

You have exceeded your time but you can ask that last question.

Mr. Richardson Thank you.

Director Fauteux

| estimate we have roughly between 40 and 50 years left if we get, right now we are in the process of
permitting Phase 4 which is the final phase of the landfill. If we are successful in getting that permitted,
which | believe we will be, then we will have another 40 to 50 years.

Mr. Richardson Which phase is that?

Director Fauteux

Phase 4. We are currently operating right now in Phase 3 and we are in the process of permitting Phase 4.

Mr. Richardson That’s the last phase isn’t it?

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 45
Director Fauteux

Yes it is.

Mr. Richardson So the clock is ticking and that’s a cost.

Paula Johnson 15 Westborn Drive. Question on the landfill. How come and I’ve thought about questioning
this | think for years. How much does it cost to get a sticker to go into a landfill?

Director Fauteux

For residents?

Ms. Johnson $5.00. | don’t like to raise anything but there’s 12 months in a year why wouldn’t you just
charge everybody $12.00 to help cover the costs another way. | don’t like to raise anything and how many
people sneak into the landfill that don’t belong that take a sticker from somebody else?

Director Fauteux

While that may happen | think we are doing a pretty good job of preventing that from happening. We do
have two scale operators now and they have been very diligent in watching.

Ms. Johnson And all your trucks that are the green deal trucks and when their lifetime is gone, what do we
do with those trucks?

Director Fauteux

We either take them as back line trucks or we trade them.

Ms. Johnson You trade them? And what are we getting for trade on them?
Director Fauteux

It all depends Mrs. Johnson on what type of truck it is and how long we have had it, its condition, that
varies.

Ms. Johnson What about the trash trucks? How many have we turned over lately, how many have we sold
at auction?

Director Fauteux
| don’t think we’ve sold any at auction recently but we can bring the Superintendent up to speak to that.

Jeff LaFleur, Superintendent of Solid Waste

Currently everything that we have purchased in the past 3 to 4 years we have them on backline trucks right
now. We are saving them so we can use them when other trucks go down.

Ms. Johnson OK and how about older trucks? Dump trucks and all those trucks, what is happening with
them? Have we kept them all, are they done with, that they rotted away the under carriages?

Mr. LaFleur

We currently saved a bunch of them in the back. We were taking parts off of them and anything that was
unusable or rusted out we sold as scrap metal.

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 46

Ms. Johnson OK and what is the return on the trash trucks because they are more of a green truck am |
correct, like the gas that we are using?

Mr. LaFleur

All of our trucks right now are green. We had two that we sent out to scrap metal because there was no
interest in buying them.

Ms. Johnson So on the green trucks to do a trade-in can we do it or are we better off with a diesel truck on
a trade in?

Mr. LaFleur

It depends on the market. A lot of companies are now switching over to CNG right now. So there’s a
market out there, but right now we haven’t had any need to trade any in as of right now because we are
keeping them all on backline.

Ms. Johnson And so when is the next time that we have to buy trucks?

Mr. LaFleur

| currently think | have 1 or 2 on this year but those will become backline trucks for repairs and our busy
times of the year.

Ms. Johnson Thank you.

Fred Teeboom 24 Cheyenne. | think | figured out the $8 million, I’d like you to just confirm on this Waste
Water, you can probably answer it. | see on Page 294, let’s go to Page 296. | see on the Fiscal ’21 $3.3
million. And that is for capital improvements. | see for Fiscal ’22 $11 million, I’m rounding it off capital
improvements. When | go to page 294 | see that $3 million dollars under 2021 the left hand column and |
see the $11 million dollars on the 2022. What! don’t understand now is it says debt proposed. What
exactly does that mean?

Director Fauteux

| didn’t, | am sorry, | didn’t understand, towards the end what did you say? What does what mean?

Mr. Teeboom So you’ve got the $3 million on Page 296 for 2021 and there’s $11 million dollars for 2022 for
capital improvements. It is brought over to Page 294, we see the $3 million dollars on the left hand column
for 2021 but on the 2022 instead of saying that’s an expense it says “Debt Proposed”. What does that
mean “Debt Proposed”.

Mr. Griffin

| can answer that Mr. Chairman. John Griffin, CFO. This is the array of projects that instead of paying
cash for any of them, we are going to bond them. So it’s just a choice of words that we will be bonding this?

Mr. Teeboom You are going to spend $11 million dollars on bonds?
Mr. Griffin
$11 million is the proposed bond amount over time it will be depending on the years.

Mr. Teeboom Wait a minute, that’s not the one-time payment that is the total debt.

Special Board of Aldermen 06-21-2021 Page 47
Mayor Donchess

It's not the payment, it’s the amount that will be borrowed to do those projects.

Mr. Teeboom So you are going to bond $11 million.

Mr. Griffin

Correct.

Mr. Teeboom Then why is it shown as an expense of $11 million? Bond only should show for the payment
for the year you spend that bond. Why it showing as an $11 million dollar expense?

Mr. Griffin

We decided as the presentation to couple the $11 million of infrastructure improvements to be bonded with
the — as | mentioned earlier in the revenue — bond proceeds Page 291 so they offset. We are not going to
have any capital projects paid by cash.

Chairman Dowd

Your time is ended.

Mr. Teeboom | am totally lost on this. | don’t understand how you can take debt payment which is $11
million dollar total debt and put it in as a one year expense.

Mayor Donchess

But he’s saying there’s an offset. He’s saying that elsewhere there’s a revenue item of that same amount
showing money coming in so that it balances out.

Mr. Teeboom The problem with this kind of approach Mayor and this is a real defect, this can’t possibly
pass (inaudible).

Mayor Donchess

This can’t pass what?

Mr. Teeboom That’s why you have made a million dollar difference, because you are bonding $8 million
dollars more, you are bonding $8 million dollars more this year than last year of capital improvements. But

at $8 million dollars more it is going to be spent over let’s say 20 years period of payback. You are showing
it as a one-time expense.

Mayor Donchess
There’s an offsetting revenue.
Mr. Griffin

Yeah as the Mayor indicates you have a choice. You can either leave the two lines blank, in other words
have 0’s where the $11 million is....

Mr. Teeboom What you typically do is you have and look at Solid Waste, typically have a table of all the
bonded expenses — the years you paid them, what the payments are in any particular year. And for 2022
you show the total payments for a bond. You don’t say the face value for the bond, you show the payment

THIS FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL RESPONSES TO IFB

7. Communications concerning this BID shall be addressed to:
Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager

Email: purchasing@nashuanh.gov

SUBMITTED on__ January 24th ,20_ 22

Business Name (typed or printed): John W. Egan Co. Inc.

[_] Individual [_] Partnership [X Corporation [_] Joint Venture
Type:
L] General L] General
[] Publicly Traded L] Professional
L] Limited L] Services
[] other L] Limited Liability
py: @rbut(C Behsh /Robert Belisle (seat)

(individual's Signature, General Partner, Officer with authority to sign)

Doing Business as): John W. Egan Co.,I|nc.

Business Address: 3 Border Street
West Newton Ma 02465
Phone: 017-244-6390 Email: Nbelisle@johnwegan.com

Date and State of Organization: __1947- Massachusetts
1947- Massachusetts

Date and State of Incorporation:
Date of Qualification to do business is _1947- Massachusetts

Names of Current General Partners/Executive Officers/Joint Partners

Name: Title

Robert Belisle President

(Indicate managing partner by an asterisk *)

IFB1092-010522 WWTF Primary and Secondary Digester Coating Pagel3o0f9