The Finance Committee of the Nashua Board of Aldermen met on August 6, 2025, to approve a series of contracts, change orders, and purchases. All items passed, many with unanimous votes. Mayor Donchus presided. No public comments were submitted.
Approved the record of expenditures for July 11–31, 2025, as compliant with city charter and ordinances. Unanimous.
Alderman Clemens raised a procedural question about the “General Discussion” period, noting it may not be authorized in city ordinances and may duplicate “Remarks by Aldermen.” Alderwoman Clee confirmed she read the Board of Aldermen protocol, which does not include general discussion. No vote was taken; the discussion was informational.
None.
Meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
All right, we're going to call the meeting of the finance committee to order on August 6, 2025. Mr. Clerk, would you call the rule? Alderman Thibodeau. Here. Alderman Govea is here. Alderman Moran. Alderwoman Timmins? Here. Alderman Clemens? Here. Alderman Clee? Here. Mayor Donchus. Here. All right. The first issue is public comment regarding any issues on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone who would like to address the committee? Appears not. So we'll go to communications. First communication from Amy Girard purchasing manager, Alderman Govea. In regard to change order number six for the Jackson Mills Hydroelectric Project in the amount not to exceed 85,979, funded from bond 81 capital outlay improvements. Make a motion to accept place on file and approve change order number six to Maville Americans contracting for storage and labor of equipment in the amount not to exceed 85,979. Funding will be through Department 170, Hydroelectric Operations Fund, Bond 81 Capital Outlay and Improvements. And Ms. Chisholm is here, I believe, on Zoom. I am here. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Great. Yeah, this is a change order for the contract we have with the turbine manufacturer. As you're aware, we had several delays on the project, and as a result, we're required to store the equipment. We had chosen to store it in the Czech Republic with the vendor in an effort to make sure we could uh maintain the integrity of the equipment without having it be local and being required to do any of that upkeep and maintenance ourselves while it uh while it sat for a couple of years. So this change order is for the final amount of storage. Um as you may also be aware, we did finally have the equipment delivered to the property in October of age 24, and it's currently actually up and running. So all right, anybody Alderman Thibodeau. I was just curious. Um, what was the cost of the changes that were required that put the unit on hold that made them have to keep it at the or that we requested they keep it at their facility? This is the second change order that was required for storage of the equipment. The first one I think was probably in the uh in the ballpark of about 75,000, I think. If I may I guess I was unclear, I apologize. Um the way I read it, there was something levied on us by the EPA that made it not ready for us to install, so we had to ask them to hold it. So I was just curious what the what the cost of those corrections were that made us have to put this on hold. Right. There was no there was no actual um fee associated with the um the delay on the project. We were required by FERC uh to submit an amendment to the license exemption that we have with them, um, and that process took considerably longer than was originally anticipated. That was the initial delay. Um, and then as you're aware, um we had some uh torrential rainstorms that washed out the the um earth and coffee cam that we had there in front of the facility um several times. Um so that was the uh other reason why we had uh additional delay that is anyone else.