We're all set.

I'll call the order.

The meeting of the committee of infrastructure, this being Monday, November 10th at 7 p.m.

in the automatic chamber and duly noted in two places, including the city's website in accordance with the requirements of RSA 91-A semicolon two, room rule number two.

Absolutely.

Talk about Alderman Thibodeau.

Here.

Alderman Sullivan.

Alderman Clee is here.

Alderman Dowd.

President.

And um Alderman O'Brien.

Present.

You have one, two, three, four.

Um members in attendance.

Okay.

Also in attendance, we have Alderman Lodge Melbourne Moran, Jr.

Alderman Derrick Tibetal, and Liz Hannem, economically uh economic development director.

Uh Mr.

Tim Cummings.

Uh and who else?

Oh, do you want to be recognized?

Agenda Shay's risk manager.

Yes.

And Jen McCormick Library Director.

Okay.

I don't know if that got on the tape, but if they could hear you.

It was Jen um Jen McCormick, Director Sullivan, and Mr.

Shane from Risk Manager.

Okay.

Thank you for all attending.

Okay.

Public comment.

Uh good evening, uh Mr.

Chairman Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Uh I was wondering if maybe at the end of the evening uh uh when we're starting to talk about the committee's schedule and upcoming meetings that we take a moment and talk about uh a motion you all adopted at the full board of alderman meeting uh basically recognizing uh desire to create a joint infrastructure and uh library of trustees committee.

So I have some thoughts on that, and I wanted to talk to you all a little bit about it.

I was thinking we could do it during general discussion if uh if you would allow that.

So allowed.

Thank you.

And the other com uh public comment seeing none.

Communications.

I'm Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services, Jennifer Duchain Risk Management Communication providing additional information on O25071 relative to open hours for the outdoor city hall restrooms.

Also from Wayne R.

Husin PE, Senior Traffic Engineer, Division of Public Works, support of pending legislation 025-070.

Okay, there being no objection, I'll accept the communication and place them on file.

I'm finished business.

There's none.

New business resolutions.

There is none.

New business ordinances.

O 25-081 authorizing a stop sign on Shadow Brook Drive at its intersection with Spindlewick Drive.

Mr.

Chairman, I motion to recommend final passage.

Okay.

Uh Alderman Thiabot, would you like to discuss this?

Sure, thank you.

Um should be a simple one.

There's a new development off Shadow Brook and uh Spindlewick that uh flatly is developing, and um the residents around there believe there needs a stop sign to kind of quell the traffic that's going to be caused by that.

So this one should be a fairly easy one, so hopefully um this one will go through.

And I thank you guys for listening to it.

Okay, and I think uh we also received a communication uh from Wayne Husman and with no objections to this.

Any other further discussion?

Seeing none, I'll call for the vote.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye posed.

Motion carries.

Uh further ordinances.

Um there are none.

I think we're up to petitions.

Oh, this will as I see it.

Petitions, yeah.

There are none.

Yeah.

Um table and committee.

Oh, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman.

I motion to remove from the table 025-07.

Okay, very good.

Uh Ms.

Chairman, if I may, yeah.

I just wanted to kind of ask for clarification.

There is a presentation on the agenda this evening back under uh night number three.

Yeah, it's not but it is here.

But it is here on the agenda, sir.

Right there.

It is on the public one.

It's on the public agenda, so yeah, it's on the blue form, but it's not on uh working document.

Yeah.

Okay, without objection, can we uh hold off on that penning legislation and then jump right into the you know the presentation and pull back my motion, sir, thank you.

See, we can fix anything.

Not bad if I'm missing the step, huh?

Yes, and this will be fairly quick.

Um Liz Hannem, economic development director.

Um I was asked to do a presentation on the clean team idea, um, which is kind of like a downtown ambassador.

This was out of the the presentation that we did or the the joint session between downtown business owners and the board of aldermen.

One of the solutions that came up was the clean team idea.

Um we had some issues trying to figure out how that could actually work.

Um and primarily that is um something that our union does through DBW already.

Um and so we were trying to figure out um other communities outsource that um and we wouldn't necessarily be able to do that.

Um otherwise we might receive lots of grievances and it could be almost twice as expensive as just outsourcing it.

Um but so I've talked with um our DPW director uh Lisa Foto, and she and I have have talked through the idea.

Um it sounds like this year we're gonna try to um uh we we've put in legislation to do use some of the the uh surplus um so supplemental appropriation, about 200,000 for the rest of the year.

Um, and we will end up using that to hire two additional staff people um for the rest of the the fiscal year.

Um and then during the next cycle, a bit budget cycle, we will put it back into the operating cost, but we'd like to um put that in prior to uh July 1 so that we can uh get somebody out there in the springtime as especially um because we'll we'll see a lot more activity in uh March, April, May, and June.

Um, and we'll be able to um implement it a lot earlier.

Um so that that was why we're we're gonna end up going for um supplemental.

Um so that's the idea for right now.

Um down the line we're thinking that um as we put it into operating costs, we may end up trying to create some sort of pilot program where we actually work with public health to hire some of the people that are within the public health system um to try to get them uh employment through the city.

Um and then we can kind of see how that pilot program works.

Um eventually if it's working well, that we could actually take some of the other positions around DPW and um hire more people from our either homeless population or transient population um to try to get them employment uh permanent employment with things like benefits.

So that's the the long-term plan.

Um the short-term plan for this year is to do a supplemental appropriation and hire um just regular um additional employees, two of them for the downtown, and then we're also talking about one for the riverfront that would be paid for out of the riverfront TIFF account that that would be that entire riverfront um maintenance as well, uh, since we do have quite a quite a um a lot of areas that could potentially get very dirty and um that that need a lot of support love.

So that's the idea, that's the update for right now.

Um any questions?

Otherman Clay.

Uh thank you.

Um you know how I feel like about the the riverfront area.

So so would it be also maintenance of the growth, or is it just cleaning up?

No, it would be um an entirely so landscaping.

Um there would be portions of it that we would still have to um contract out because of the the slope of the bank, things like that.

We don't have the right equipment to do some of that, but um, but that that would be a maintenance person um that would also do cleanup um and trash pickup things like that.

So they would be doing doing landscaping as well.

May I follow up?

But it would not be the the tree trees and things like that.

We would likely we would still have to contract out for that.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Autumn Dow.

Yeah, so I'd be interested more in the specific tasks, like you said, because of the banks and stuff, they're never blowing the lawns.

Um no, but weeding, um, there's a lot of weeds that grow.

There's a lot of invasive species that are over there as well.

Um, so that those kinds of things are gonna have to be contracted out because we don't have a certified person on on staff for invasive species.

Um and then there's like a boom stick um that we would need, so we would have to hire that out.

Um but those would be for like twice a year rather than a weekly maintenance.

So are they gonna two two questions?

Are they gonna have a job description that says what they do and don't do?

And two, are they gonna have to be part of the union because aren't the BPW people part of the union?

Yes.

Yeah, so that that would be a yes to both of those questions.

Yeah, Alderman TV.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

So um, what is does Manchester not unionize their BPW?

Like how do they get this separate team they do, but um their DPW was never they had never contracted for the downtown area, so that's how they got away with um contracting out.

Is that was never part of DPW's job, but we do have DBW does it, and so it would be essentially taking away um things like overtime potentially from our our union.

So that's how they they worked it um a little differently than we have to.

One follow-up, please.

One follow up follow-up, yep.

Um, so would this also require extra like new vehicle requests?

Because now you have more people in the field that may need you know, if someone's doing maintenance down by the river riverfront, they probably need some kind of truck or something down there.

Is there enough vehicles on staff, or do we have to now put in for a purchase of extra vehicles?

Yeah, so that is something that we're still working out.

Um, but for this year it would just be for the staff.

Um, and they would work with you know, work schedules so that uh they could use existing material or equipment, um, and then we would figure out how that's working and if if we can continue that or if we have to buy additional equipment.

There is gonna be some additional equipment, but it's like you know, um grass trimmers and you know, little you know, a hundred dollar kind of equipment um that would fit within existing budgets.

Thank you.

Okay, other further questions.

Uh I do have one, Liz.

Would the uh on duty soup maintenance supervisor with BPW would he be supervising these people?

Yes, currently that's that's how we're gonna work structure it for at least this first six month period.

And that's already been negotiated with uh it has not yet, but that is that's how we're we're working around the um potential grievance issue is that is likely how we're gonna have to structure it.

So we're working um both uh director photo and I are working with our legal team to make sure that all of that is worked out prior to actually hiring somebody.

Um but we are asking for the appropriations, I believe, at the next at the 24th uh meeting.

Um so that's that's when we'll get the funding to actually start moving forward on the the contracts.

Okay, very good.

As long as that's on your radar.

I understand this is an infancy as a concept, so yeah.

Yeah, so we're gonna try to work with what we've got this year, um, see how that's working, and then make modifications uh into our operating budget.

Okay.

Any other comments, questions?

Seeing none.

Ms.

Hanam, I apologize.

You're on one script and not the other.

And we work on the white one, and that's the one you weren't on.

So please uh the committee office their apologies to you.

No problem.

But thank you for coming.

Okay.

Okay, so I did not ask.

Uh we have a uh you read 2570.

Can you read it again?

Because we're gonna take it off the table.

Um I motion to remove from the table 025-070.

Okay, any discussion on the motion?

Oh, yes.

Yeah, just because it's my uh legislation.

So can we talk yeah?

Yeah, okay, explain it.

Um, so is it don't we have to take it up the table to do that?

We have to take it off the table for yes.

Yeah, it's not off the table, although taking it off the table, it is open for discussion, but I have nothing to say about that.

Okay.

All right.

All right, thank you.

Okay, I'll call for the vote then.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Motion carries.

Uh 25070 is off the table.

Uh, can I have a motion, Alderman Clay?

Um, the authorizing stop signs on Maysfield Road and Rydon Ave at their intersections with Peel Road.

Mr.

Chairman, I motion to recommend final passage.

And now I'll recognize Alderman Tiavo.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So on this one, we've had some speeding issues on peels.

You can see peel's a long road, and people just can't seem to do the speed limit.

We've done many different things to try to quell it.

It's not working.

So I've had people come to us saying that they wanted stop signs at every intersection, but we're gonna try to do two.

I worked with Dan and Wayne on this.

Uh and they believe that Maysfield and Dryden are the best.

There's a I believe a bus stop near Maysfield that this will help out at that a lot of parents were concerned about.

So I think this will help quell that a little bit and at least make it a little safer in that area.

So I would say uh uh with with uh Wayne and Dan's approval, I think this is the way to go.

Okay, uh any additional comments on this.

This did meet the uh criteria from Mr.

Husband of BPW, the traffic department.

So no other further questions.

I will call for the vote.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Pose motion carries.

All right.

Also before the committee is uh we have a request from the author of 02571 that this will remain on the table.

He can't make it this evening, so I think we can extend that courtesy, correct?

Okay.

Uh next up is oh, yes.

That's on the table.

Oh 2572.

Yeah, regarding disposition of real property.

Um, I think that's still on the table.

Yes, I I recommend um the to remove from the table 025072.

Okay.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Pose motion carries.

Now, can you read O25?

O25-072 regarding disposition of real property.

Uh, Mr.

Chairman, I motion to recommend final passage.

Okay.

Any discussion on the motion?

Alderman Morin.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

First, I have to apologize to you and the committee members and other aldermen because um I made a mistake.

Uh because I didn't notice until today.

Uh I got um a message from Director Sullivan, and at first I read it in between seeing patients, and I said, E2, Director Sullivan, E2.

But no, he was absolutely right.

Um, and I double-checked the legislation.

It this looks like public housing, uh, the way it's written, and not something that many developers would even want to visit Nashua to even look at the RFP.

Um with your indulgence, uh, I can tell you what I plan to remove at a future uh infrastructure meeting, but I would still like to hear the committee's comments on other parts of the legislation, which um while hearing what I plan to um remove, if that's okay.

I'm giving you more background on the yeah, and then you want to table it again, and then table it for uh hopefully uh for us to bring back an amendment, not just of what I'll uh Director Sullivan, if he could join us even better that because he was been involved with this for over a year.

This is not something new, and uh we just got our wires crossed.

It was um essentially the email came from legal during the school uh the sky metal shooting, and my brain read this uh differently than uh what we talked about ahead of time.

Um but ultimately we're I'm looking to change the disposition of city property to six percent AMI overall.

It's currently 80 percent um citywide, and but as uh working with Director Sullivan's team over the last couple of years as uh chair of PEDC, we've determined that there may be barriers that are requiring that for private land.

Um so that existing ordinance that uh that uh requires this for the private land is gonna be uh resolved with the rezoning process to a certain I believe.

And then this would be what happens when we sell city property, and because the new 60% AMI is what 80% was when the the first uh inclusionary zoning was passed.

And I'm just looking to basically update it.

Um so when you look at 60% AMI and national income, we're looking at $29 an hour uh for a single person, and for a family of four, that's uh $42 an hour.

You're looking at around $78,000 a year for a family of four.

We're not talking about uh people that work at even CVS or entry-level jobs.

We're talking about nurses, teachers, uh, firefighters, people that work here at City Hall, uh being able to have some um guarantee that those working class jobs will have a spot when you're developing city property that has been used for the purpose of the public, like schools and such who provided such free services as required by the government, uh now turning it over to something that can be not just the betterment of the folks that can afford market rate housing, but those who traditionally wouldn't be priced out because they have professional jobs that are typically well paying.

But as we're seeing the AMI grow and change, it's getting up there higher and higher for Nashua, we have to realize when our current organiz ordinances just don't make sense anymore when it comes to that uh that percentage.

And maybe Director Sullivan can add more.

Um my initial thought was of that 60 percent, there'd be a certain portion, just like we did with Elm Street that at least one unit might have the ability to take a uh a voucher.

And we have seen that that resulted in numerous bids.

Uh, but this, the way it came out, uh, because of my error in not picking it up, it looks like we're saying don't come here and develop, and I don't want that to be the perception.

That's why I need to apologize to everyone, because that's not what I intended to do, nor represent the the board in a way that this would even be something considered by the full board.

So if there's anything Director Sullivan would add, but from what I'm saying, removing that table regarding the vouchers at 50%, one through ten units, etc.

Um, the overall aim will be sixty percent AMI for a portion of the property, uh similar to percentage that's already in existence now at the 80% inclusionary, and slightly a bit of those, uh maybe a little bit less.

And we he did give an amendment today, which is great.

This guy works so much, but I I don't want anyone to feel rushed about something we threw together five minutes ago.

Mr.

Chair, if I may Yeah, Alderman, I mean, excuse me, director Solid.

Uh thank you, Matt Sullivan Community Development Director.

Um we we did end up with a bit of a in part in the use of this phrase, particularly to pardon Alderman Moran, a bit of a Frankenstein piece of legislation because we had the mixing of several concepts that were being uh, I think contemplated by both the legal department, myself, and Alderman Moran.

So while he's taking on fault, it's certainly not his fault in any way that we had this error in the legislation.

I think it was well intended.

But uh, as Alder Moran Alderman Moran is saying, uh his intent as I understand it is to, in cases where the city is disposing of city property, uh and where that city property is going to be used for multi-family housing.

Examples being the NIMCO site in Elm Street, despite the fact that those are expressly exempted under this ordinance.

Um, in examples like that, much like we currently have in our inclusionary zoning ordinance, there would be a requirement that a portion of those units be uh guaranteed as affordable to individuals or households making 60% or less of the area median income.

Um that that is clear, and that's Alderman Moran's intent.

Uh we unfortunately mixed in the concept of housing choice vouchers here, which muddies the water, it's actually a very different concept.

And so uh unfortunately those two have been included here, but now understanding Alderman Moran's intent, I'm gonna go back to work with him on trying to come up with an ordinance that uh at the minimum can be debated uh in concept.

I will just note that I believe, and I don't want to speak for Alderman Moran, but there's there is an understanding that uh although this ordinance will now contemplate more affordable units than what our ordinance currently does, um, that the percentages in this table will likely need to be changed based on that deeper level of affordability.

So rather than stifling or shutting off development by having overly onerous affordability requirements, I think Alderman Moran recognizes that if we're gonna ask for more affordability, there needs to be a lower percentage requirement.

And so you're gonna see some changes within this table as well uh over the next month, assuming uh we can again convene this committee to modify the table to make this something that could be more workable.

I think regardless of how this uh ordinance ends up from a vote perspective, uh what it certainly does, where it ends up, it certainly does start a conversation about how we might uh mandate or articulate the need for deeper levels of affordability in projects that the city is undertaking uh that result in multifamily housing.

So uh happy to work with Alderman Moran on that in advance of your next meeting, but again, uh apologies on the staff side of things for uh mixing the concepts and the way just legislation that was put forward to you tonight.

Happy to answer any questions.

Can I just add one follow-up to that, if I may, Mr.

James?

Um and there is the exemption for smaller builds and small uh construction companies to not hamper also small businesses who are not uh uh well financed developers too.

Is that correct?

Yes, it's a tiered system.

Smaller projects are more much, much, much more difficult to get affordability into.

Uh the numbers are harder to to make work.

Uh so this exempts projects that are smaller in nature under 10 units.

Uh and I expect actually as we adjust this to include 60 percent at varying median income, we may in fact have more steps or more tiering uh so that we can ensure that development still happens despite the intent to have more affordability.

Otherman clay and then all of them doubt.

Oh thank you.

Um I have a couple questions if that's okay, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, first off, the in lieu of payment is that still can exist because when I'm reading it, it sounds like only under certain circumstances of contamination and so on, where we have the in lieu of now.

Mr.

Chair, if I may comment on that.

If you may I think it's important to uh be clear that this ordinance would exist independently from the land use ordinance that Sam Durfee is working on for inclusionary zoning.

So that ordinance will continue to exist as a very separate product for general private site developments.

This ordinance will only impact city-owned properties that are being disposed of.

So Alderwoman Clee, um this does not create a 60% area median income requirement for a typical private property development, it's only for city-owned properties that are going through an RFP or similar disposal process.

Follow up?

Yes, please, thank you.

So you you did answer my question of the um the IZ going from 60 to 80.

That's not that's a whole separate thing.

That's correct.

It's just for city owned.

That's correct.

It's not for um private property development and so on.

Um are we looking, and and I'll ask either one of you are we looking to to make this similar to like major drive, where we have like it's all gonna be, or is it just a certain percentage of it has to be?

So major drive is mostly um AMI, and there's that step down so that if people actually start doing very well, they're not thrown out.

They can move up.

Is that what this is enough?

Uh I want to be upfront in us.

This is gonna be more market rate um overall.

Okay.

Uh the goal is, and that major drive, just the concept I think most of city uh the city is behind is the um any type of housing, right?

But we can't control the private market.

What we can control when well to certain circumstances we can control it when we have leverage.

We can control um public housing, which this is not, and we don't want it to be.

And we can control um a seal, uh a deed of property, basic uh when selling city land to ensure that the intent of that public land in some way, in my theory here, continues to be used for um the neighborhood to stabilize housing.

So a project like this plus straight up market rate, no one just getting the zoning permits, uh really just making sure everything's conforming to uh private public partnerships uh that may be more reminiscent of the proposal we got for um Greeley Park, all those combined.

Uh but some of these things we don't have much control over, but you can control this and how you stabilize the housing in the current uh area that the most likely are schools and parks that have been so integral to neighborhood to begin with.

Um so the goal is not to make it more AMI like major drive, it's just to recognize that to get the best bang for your buck, you have that market rate plus uh that social contract that we have with the the community that the folks that already live there and are working at the hospitals and stuff.

We don't have to turn this in the Boston where everyone goes down to Boston to work because they can't afford to live there when they're nurses and doctors working at um even Burlington.

We can even say Burlington.

I used to work at Leahy in Burlington.

Um, you know, there's you can't afford to work live in Burlington if you work at the hospital, you know.

Uh we don't want that to happen in Ashwell, at least I don't.

One quick follow-up.

Yes.

Please thank you.

Um, this would be my worst nightmare.

Let me give you a scenario and you can tell me if we were to take Mount Pleasant.

Just choked on that one, um, and that were to be turned into housing, which it can't be because structurally you can't handle it, but if that were to be turning to housing, this would be the type of structure that you're discussing.

I think we both have the same answer, if I may, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh yeah, go ahead.

So uh no matter what happens to the land, the board's decide if it's gonna be disposed of as um uh uh what it's gonna be.

So before you even decide if it's gonna be housing, you first have to make that concept, right?

I get that part.

I'm just saying if we were to sell that to a developer and so on, this would be a requirement of it.

Oh, yes, yes, I'm so sorry.

Yes, yes.

Yeah, I'm not saying that that's what's gonna happen.

I think that's the thing.

And it could be housing, it could be housing.

I mean it's that there'd be a community conversation that would need to happen before that.

That's the people's board that decides if it is going to be housing or not, or it's gonna be turned into another park.

I'm not I'm just saying if that had where the conversation had gone, this is what would be applied to them.

Yes, that's right.

That's what I was asking.

Because that was just in my head, the epithet.

Thank you, sir.

She had to floor all of it out.

I saw you recognize you got next, please.

So I'm trying to understand exactly what we're we're doing.

Does this mean that if we have this housing that we're talking about, that the only people can buy it are restricted to have salaries under the 60%?

And if not, what are we talking about?

And once you have the qualification, the qualify to buy it, who determines the price of the unit?

Is it market-driven or is it capped?

I'm happy to answer that.

Uh so Alderman Dow, you're bringing up uh an excellent point, and that is that the legislation, as it's currently drafted, uh, applies to both rental occupied units, rentals, and owner-occupied units, those are for sale.

Um so the answer is that the qualification process would be done most likely by the community development division.

We would ensure that either a tenant as a renter or a buyer for an ownership unit is under that 60% of the area median income at the time that they go to either sign a lease or execute a purchase and sale agreement.

And so we look at numbers that are published by HUD and New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority, we then review tenant uh income statements and other documentation, we ensure that they qualify, and if they do, they're in fact able to occupy the unit.

So we have experience with that.

We do it actively in our urban programs department right now.

Um despite that, uh, this legislation is intended for multifamily uh development, but it's worth a conversation I think further with Alderman Moran subsequent to this meeting when I work with him to determine whether this should apply only to rental units or to owner-occupied units as well.

So I think your question is a good one because I expect that Alderman Moran may have intended this to apply to rental units and not necessarily to owner-occupied units.

So that's a an excellent point for us to ponder before we bring back a new draft of the legislation.

Follow up follow-up.

So if if we have a unit, let's say for sale at the moment, and you have five qualified people that could go into that unit, uh, is there a bid process and whoever's the high bidder gets it?

Uh so I can try I can address that.

That's the way of real estate.

Those those standards have yet to be developed.

What I can tell you because we're going through this right now with the units at Due Set Landing, is that we use a first come first serve qualification process, whereby the seller, and that's this case it would be the city, uh, as soon as a given buyer is qualified, the seller can begin negotiating with any eligible buyer, basically.

So it's first come, first served.

So if you uh ripped out, submit your application process to buy a unit, the city qualifies you.

You can then begin negotiating right at that point in time, but there's no obligation to go through a lottery system or a high bid system.

But we haven't developed those rules and regulations around this yet.

And so, quite honestly, I was contemplating this more towards uh as applying more towards multifamily rental units than I was towards owner-occupied units.

Okay.

Uh yes.

And one thing I should point out, and I'm I'm sure Director Cummings might have more information, because he looks like he wants to speak.

Um, but I think even at the Elm Street uh proposal, neighborworks was part of one of the uh bidders that had this exact concept in it.

And that was one that's just LMG uh proposed 60% AMI to sell the homes that uh they allowed neighbor works to develop while they develop their market rate next door.

So the concept I guess would be stolen from LMG.

Uh but maybe Director Cummings.

Okay, yes.

Director Cummings, thank you for your patience.

Thank you, uh uh Mr.

Chairman Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Um a couple points that were brought up this evening, and and Aldman Dowd started to touch upon them.

Um I think uh Director Sullivan was kind of thinking a couple steps ahead in terms of thinking about the end user and what this legislation speaks to is actually just the disposition from the city.

And and I'd like to kind of get clarification from this body um as to what your expectations are relative to the disposition process, because if we put something like this in place, then uh we may get proposals where you're not getting the highest bid, and that's okay if we have other community values that we're trying to achieve, but we need that type of policy direction.

One of the um pieces of legislation one of the language or wording in here in this piece of legislation is it says, and I think this is worth discussing in a little bit more detail.

Um when the city of Nashua is selling city owned property, which could be developed into 10 or more residential units.

It would be good if we knew what could be meant, what your expectations are around that, so we can have that guidance.

It's gonna be the purchasing manager that is gonna be charged with disposing of the property through a competitive procurement process.

So having that type of clear guidance to help steward that process along is gonna be uh extremely beneficial.

I have one more point, but I'll hold if uh Alderman Moran wants to.

No, please make your point because I'm disagreeing with them after you speak.

Okay.

So then the second part is uh there's some language that talks about um if there is an exceptional burden on the property, but it really doesn't talk about what exceptional burden is.

It starts to talk about environmental contamination, but it doesn't talk about some of other some of the other technical nuances that you need to think about when you're thinking about land development and the disposition of that land development and ultimately what you're trying to achieve in your community goals.

So I think that's another element that when you're you're developing some additional language, we might want to talk about how we can further clarify some of that language as well, so as we're implementing, we can actually carry forward what you're looking to do.

Thank you.

Okay, uh before you go, uh Director Cummings, please.

Um you bring up some points there, but to us on the committee, you dive in into deep end or another pull, you know, because this thing uh admittedly it's not ready for prime time, we're not gonna vote on it tonight, it's gonna remain back on the table.

But when it comes back to us, when can we get some education and certain things to meet some of the concerns that the city has?

Because the other thing that I see is this window, which is closing it to as we speak.

This is November meeting.

This means only one more meeting, and then it disappears if it still remains on the table.

And I don't think Alderman Morin's coming back.

So yeah, I think you're right about that.

So it has very short life.

But I think maybe some of us on the committee were like, you bring up your concerns.

We too share them.

You know, because I don't think we're that deep into the code.

Yeah, happy to.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Alderman Moran.

Right, and um, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Director Cummings is correct.

Um, the aspect of um exemptions I think I asked for that uh because thinking of Mohawk tannery, uh, what that means is what I'm hearing from you is more detailed um of the circumstances of of environment aspect, maybe no bids on the NRF at all, that might be exceptional, but a certain summer we work with to define it and make it make more sense because I also wanted there to be a way that if there was a problem, uh the mayor could step in and waive the policy.

Understood.

Yeah, and so I think that's the kind of direction we're looking for.

I'll give you an example.

Sometimes we have contributory value, and so that means that the piece of land, the utility of that land is not ideal, but with it combined with another piece of land, it could be uh a better product.

But we're only talking about a very, you know, uh small sliver, if you will, sometimes, uh, or maybe it could be even larger.

It depends on the land itself.

So in how you envision that what we control is just that piece of land versus the other land area around it, what your goals are, it would be good if we knew that so we could work uh work accordingly towards them.

But if it's just in isolation, I could see this potentially being a problem.

Uh can I follow up?

Yes.

Oh, Allian Moran.

Thank you.

I can continue um to meet with Director Sullivan.

I'm sure he was representing the city side, right?

And then if there's any further input here as well.

But uh actually, if I did, Mr.

Chairman, yes.

I haven't been involved with this, and I would welcome it.

Yeah, I said direct Cummings or Sullivan.

You said solid.

Oh but I welcome the opportunity to be involved in it as well.

That'd be great.

Yeah, and also this is the committee.

It's got to go back on the table, and I've got to come back with a ready for prime time.

Yes, correct.

I think the point is to assess what's ready for prime time here, so we don't have to keep going through it regardless.

The next board, I had two aldermen say they would uh bring it forth again.

I think the conversation can should continue here in public eye to say, you know, one I made a mistake, two of the things that I didn't think were a mistake.

What do you guys want changed?

And you just asked the questions, and we're working on them right now.

I think that's great.

Okay.

I have Alderman Clay then Alderman Dowd.

Um thank you.

Um, and this is probably for Alderman Moran.

When you were speaking, it doesn't say here, it just says here about um city-owned real property, but you made some kind of comment about deeded property.

Um my concern about deeded property, and perhaps someone could say that that goes out an auction, if I'm not mistaken, and so it doesn't we don't do an RFP for that.

It has to do an auction type thing, is that correct?

No, we can we can just assume the property and you have actually uh solving community development director.

There are other methods of disposition that can be undertaken.

Uh you may recall that the West Hall Street property was recently brought to the board as part of a separate piece of legislation to basically decide for an all you decided to choose an alternative disposition disposition method.

So you do have other options when the public interest is determined to be served by using another method.

May you follow up then?

Follow up.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

So I guess my concern would be well.

I don't have a problem with this legislation.

That's not my issue.

The problem that I have is that if we did auction or we did do another method where we uh disposed of it, if once they got that property, it now becomes a private property, and if they were to develop it.

Um that that's my only concern about deeded properties.

Right.

Um that's a good point.

That that so I'm just making that point just so that when we're thinking about it, because I don't want to have to chase say that we can only sell deeded properties if they're gonna follow this rule.

Almond Dow.

Yeah, just real quick.

Having been a licensed realtor before.

Are we checking with state and federal real estate laws to make sure we don't run afoul of either one of those when we're proposing this legislation?

Yes.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Okay, this means it's open for a motion.

Hold on Clay.

Uh at this time, I'd like to make a motion to table O twenty five-072.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none I'll call for the vote.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Oppose.

Motion carries.

And uh I'm sure you're gonna be working on this forthwith.

Yeah.

You know it.

You're backing against the calendar.

Best wishes.

Yes.

God speed, more like it.

More like it, absolutely.

Okay.

Um we also have something on the table deal with drive, but we're not gonna remove that.

So we're into general discussion.

Seeing nothing from anybody.

Director Cummings wanted to be hearing the thank you, uh Ms.

Chairman.

Thank you, Alderman Dowd.

I uh put on the screen.

Uh I lowered uh I brought it up earlier in the in the meeting and I minimized it.

Uh can you do the next one?

Uh you should see one other one.

Oh, that on that on that page there.

Yeah.

Uh here.

There you go.

Ordinance 220118.

So uh again, Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

I'm here up here this evening to talk a little bit about this idea or concept of of the joint committee on infrastructure and library trustees.

Now, just to orientate everyone, uh the library has done a yeoman's job in in bringing forward a building project.

Uh it's my understanding that they've really centered on along what I refer to as option two.

I believe you've heard a briefing on this.

Um you were presented a communication and ultimately the full board of Alderman uh adopted a recommendation to essentially create a joint committee on uh infrastructure and library trustees.

And what we did back in uh 2022 was we amended our ordinance, and if you scroll down, you'll see we actually created the various bodies.

If you want to keep scrolling to the next page, you'll see we created some standing committees.

Um what I'm gonna suggest is we do is we update our ordinance, and if it's the desire of this body, we would file some legislation to create that joint committee as a standing committee, uh, very similar to what what we did back in 2022.

Um, and we get in in in good stead, so then we can start taking action.

We have um a couple contracts that we know are going to be needed to be pursued.

There's already been uh authorization uh uh a bond authorization to start design, and so we would like to proceed and move forward with the getting the contracts approved.

Uh what I would uh need is for the ordinances uh to be updated to include something like a joint committee type body so that that entity could actually um act as it does in a similar manner as to all the other uh joint committees, police commission, board of public works, fire commissioners are mentioned in here.

Um if we do not do that, then the process would deviate a little bit in the sense that then everything would need to go through a finance committee.

And so um what this ordinance did was it made it clear that it was the joint committees of police commissioners, board of public works, fire commissioners had the authority, similar to what was laid out in state law for the joint special build school building committee, and what what our standing committee does is followed the joint school building committee.

Um our charter was silent about a building committee for the library trustees, so this would be just uh emulating what we've done as past practice uh so on and so forth.

And so um I I wanted to tease this detail out because I think it's important to see what the desire is of the infrastructure committee.

If uh you're so inclined, I'll work towards getting some legislation prepared that mayors something like what we did in 2022.

I'll start working with Director Cormac because we need to start scheduling some dates, and I need to work with you all about getting things getting some joint committees scheduled.

I'm thinking we probably really won't do that until January, in fairness.

I'm hoping the police commissioners uh the joint body on infrastructure and police commissioners is winding down at that point.

So I'm I'm thinking in the back of my mind we'll slotch you in where the police commissioners used to used to meet, uh trying to be mindful of of your time and and whatnot.

But that's sort of what I see happening as turn terms of next steps and and trying to get us organized.

And wanted to talk that all through with you now before any actions were taken to see if maybe I've missed stepped or if you've had a different uh thought process, or maybe I'm going in a different direction or the wrong direction.

Thank you.

To have a question from Alderman Dow.

Yeah, I thought when attorney Leonard came up with this legislation that it included any division's new building.

If it's if it's not, it's this which is calling out every single division individually.

It probably should go back and be generalized so we don't have to do this every time.

It should say that any division wanting to build a building will have a joint infrastructure with their whatever group and and infrastructure, and and uh you know, and I and I do agree, you know, should wait till January because uh you know you'll get one foot in the hole and the whole get buried.

So um you know, uh I rather than every time we come up with a building we change the ordinance.

It should be any time any division wants to build a building that we have this joint meeting, joint committee.

Uh the I absolutely I understand that the language doesn't say that at this time.

I'm happy to happy to look into that.

Why don't you talk with attorney Leonard and see if we can generalize it so that we can save Dory's typewriter?

Understood.

Alderman Clay.

Uh thank you.

I I understand what um my colleague just said.

Um, but I think because this does affect the charter, the what's it 5-90 if I'm reading this correct here?

Um that where things have to go through finance.

I think it's best for us to just my opinion, and I'm only one vote here.

Um I think it's best for us to be very specific so it doesn't suddenly get out of control.

Um we can amend this as many times as we want, or future boards can amend this anytime we want.

I just think it's best rather than just put a generalized statement in just to protect the provision of the finance committee, which is the only committee really in the charter.

Just again, my opinion.

Other and doubt.

Yeah, the whole purpose of this type of legislation, paralleling the joint special school building committee, is so that none of the expenditures from these buildings has to go back to the finance committee.

That would be a two-step process that would slow things down to a snails level.

So I don't see why it say it doesn't say every division, you know, that wants to build a building of capital infrastructure that it can't be just handled in in one statement without listing every time there's a new building.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay.

You got more homework to do.

So in it uh everyone's kind of understanding the what's on on the horizon and relatively good with that.

Right, because the committee we still stand as part of this, it's just really cleaning up some of the uh putting every all the toys in the right cupboard, you know.

So yeah.

All right, well, thank you much.

Okay.

Anything else on general discussion?

Okay, seeing non-public comment and remarks from Alderman.

Alderman uh Thibodeau.

Uh Tebo.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I just wanted to remind everybody Veterans Day Parade tomorrow kicks off 1111 at Holman Stadium.

Chris Warm.

Chris Warm.

Oh, yeah.

It's gonna be like a 34 degrees, yes.

Yeah, fast.

Is it the 11th hour or the 11th minute?

Yeah, on the 11th day, yeah.

1111 at 11 o'clock.

Yeah, okay.

Well, anything else?

Let's see.

No other comments.

All right.

Uh Alderman Dowd.

Yes, like to make a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Pose.

We are adjourned at 7.52 p.m.

Thank you, everybody.