Meeting of the finance committee to order on December 3rd, 2025.

Mr.

Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Alderman Thibodeau here.

Alderman Govea is here.

Alderman Moran.

Alderman Greg.

Here.

Alderman Clemens.

Here.

Alderman Clee.

Here.

Mayor Donchus.

Here.

All right.

First issue.

First item on the agenda is public comment.

Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on anything on the agenda?

I don't see anyone.

So we will move on to communications.

The first communication being from Amy Girard purchasing manager, Alderman Govea.

In regard to hydroelectric operations and maintenance agreement in the amount not to exceed 755,000 annually funded from General Fund 54 property services.

I'll make a motion to accept place on file and approve a one-year extension with Essex Power Services Incorporated to provide operation and maintenance services for the Jackson Mills and Minds Falls Hydroelectric Facilities in the amount not to exceed 755,000 annually.

Funding will be through Department 170 Hydroelectric Operations.

Fund General Fund 54 property services.

And I believe Ms.

Chisholm is here on this.

Yes.

Good evening.

Deb Chisholm, uh sustainability department manager.

Um just to make a slight correction.

This contract is a three-year extension for Essex Power.

Um, and that's the company that we have used.

Uh basically, they've been doing operation and maintenance of both of the facilities uh since we acquired them.

Um we typically do uh three-year contract with them and then we extend it.

Uh this year was supposed to be the year we were going to put it out for bid, but in light of the critical work that they've been doing for us on the Jackson Mills um hydro with the new turbine and all the new equipment in there.

Um I did think it best that we extend that contract one more time in order to be able to use their expertise to get that thing up and running the way that it should.

So I'll move the amendment to uh make it three years instead of one.

Okay.

Motion is to amend to three years.

All any discussion on that?

Uh Alderman Clemens.

Uh no discussion on on that in particular, but I let's do that motion first, all right.

Because then we have to do that.

No, okay.

Yep.

All those in favor of the amendment say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion passes.

Yes, Alderman Clemens.

Okay.

Um my question is in relative to the 755,000.

Is that uh it's so I just want I guess it is relevant to that because is it 755 annually for three years or 755 over the three years?

It is 755 per year for three years.

Okay, and that 755 covers OM of both of the facilities.

And how does that compare to what we've been paying in the past?

That number is approximately 10 percent higher than what we are paying them this year for this fiscal year.

And has it when we renew, has it typically gone up that 10 percent, or what what's the the way that the invoices come in from Essex Power is it's basically time and materials.

So when their invoice comes in, I see who's worked on what, I see how many hours they put in, I see every piece of equipment that they've purchased, um, and they bill that to us straight with no markup on it.

Um, in addition to that monthly um invoice, they also invoice us their administrative invoice quarterly, and that's based purely on our revenue.

It's 15% of our revenue.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh Alderman Thibodeau.

Um I think it was last week.

In the last meeting we had, I had asked you the the hopeful revenue of the hydro um facilities, and I think it was 1.5 was the hopeful.

So this is really like 50 percent of the the revenue.

Approximately, yep, yep.

Oh, okay.

Yep.

All right, all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye, aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next communication from Mamie Girard purchasing manager Alderman Govea.

In regard to specialty team comprehensive physicals in the amount not to exceed 200,000, funded from general fund 53 professional and technical services.

I'm going to make a motion to accept place on file and approve the health and safety physicals for 185 members of national fire rescue for 2026 through United Diagnostic Services in the amount not to exceed 200,000.

Funding will be through Department 152 Fire Rescue Fund General Fund 53 Professional and Technical Services.

Yes, come on up in the fire department, right?

Good evening, Eric Tremley, Assistant Fire Chief.

We are required to obtain medical evaluations for our specialty teams.

And uh with the support of the city, this is the second year in a row, we are able to extend that to the entire department.

And does this include the cancer screening?

There are cancer components to it, yes.

Specifically firefighter related.

Right.

All right.

Any anybody all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next communication from Amy Girard purchasing manager Alderman Govea.

In regard to amendment number one for the 2025 CIPP lining of sewer interceptors in the amount not to exceed 51,257 funded from bond 53 professional technical services.

I'm making a motion to accept place on file and approve amendment number one to the construction engineering services contract for the 2025 CIPP lining of sewer interceptor projects with Hazen and Sawyer PC in the amount not to exceed 51,257.

Funding will be through Department 160, admin engineering fund bond 53 professional and technical services.

Good evening, Mark's I was Deputy City Engineer.

The contract amendment before you was uh with Hazen Soy for Engineering Services.

Um this year we went out to bid for our CC TV and uh CIPP lining contract.

Uh we ended up with favorable numbers on that contract.

So in doing so, we were able to issue a change order where they where they held their pricing.

So this amendment is with the uh with the consultant to help cover that that change order work as we go into the the next show.

And I'm happy to answer any questions anybody all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Next communication for Mamie Girard purchasing manager Alderman Govea.

In regard to landfill gas expansion C QA services in the amount not to exceed 38,500, funded from bond 53 professional technical services.

Make a motion to accept place on file and approve engineering services contract for Samborn Head and Associates to provide construction quality assurance oversight for the 2025 landfill gas collection system modification work in the amount not to exceed 38,500 funding will be through Department 168 Solid Waste Fund Bond 53 Professional Technical Services.

So um Mr.

LaFleur is on the zoom.

Yes, Jeff LaFleur Superintendent Solidarity.

Uh this is uh for the quality insurance uh oversight for when we do the install of the Lincoln Gas expansion.

I went for the landfill gas expansion last month.

This is just to have the uh engineers overview and watch what the uh what they did be put into place all right.

Uh all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye motion passes.

Next communication from Mamie Girard purchasing manager Alderman Govea.

Regard to landfill 5,000 gallon diesel fuel tank installation in the amount not to exceed 242,800 funded from solid waste fund 54 property services.

Make a motion to accept place on file and approve a contract with SRS petroleum services to provide install and test a startup, a new 5,000 gallon double wide diesel fuel tank to replace the current landfill fueling system and the amount not to exceed 242,800 funding will be through Department 168 Solid Waste Fund, Solid Waste Fund 54 property services.

Jeff Luxler, Superintendent Solid Waste.

Uh, this is to replace the five uh the 8,000 gallon tank that we have at the landfill right now.

Uh it's 30 plus years old, it's starting to show some rust, and it's gonna slowly be worked out of compliance with DES.

Uh if it does fail, we have to replace one anyway, so this will solve to compliance and uh we'll have all the uh safety features installed Alderman Thibodeau.

Um so you're placing this with a smaller tank.

Um is that gonna uh become an issue at some point or um or why why are we going to a smaller tank?

Uh we we never really use the 8,000.

I mean I I fill it up like every two months, so we could drop down to a five thousand from their on call to deliver whenever we want it.

So we've never had any issues, and I figured we'd you know, save some money going with a smaller tank and uh just make it easier for everyone.

Thank you.

Alderwoman Greg.

I have the same question.

Okay.

Thanks.

Uh Alder Woman Clee.

Um, I don't have a question uh for Mr.

LaFleur.

Um, I just want to clarify.

I I don't know if it was said um double walled or double wide.

I just it was double walled.

Okay in the meeting, I just want yeah, double walled.

Thank you.

Alderman Clemens.

Uh just real quick, is there gonna be any interruption in service as far as this being installed and the other one being decommissioned?

Uh no, uh uh we're actually moving it so it'll be in a different place, pretty closer to the landfill.

This is for our any equipment mostly funding a little bit closer to the new cell that we're building, and it'll be you know, this old one will continue to running until we get in one operating.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

All right, all those in favor of the motion say aye.

All right.

Motion passes.

Next communication from Mamie Girard purchasing manager, Alderman Goveo.

Energy recovery generator maintenance agreement in the amount not to exceed 338,069 funded from wastewater fund 54 property services.

I'll make a motion to accept place on file and approve the energy recovery generator three-year maintenance contract with Southworth Milton Incorporated in the amount not to exceed 338,069.

Funding will be through Department 169 Wastewater Fund, Wastewater Fund 54 property services.

Mr.

Boschet.

Good evening, Dave Boucher, wastewater superintendent.

Uh the wastewater facility has two caterpillar generators.

Um they're energy recovery generators, they run off methane gas that we uh that we pull off of our digesters.

Uh we currently had a three-year contract with Milton Cat.

Uh that one has come to an end, and we'd like to enter into another three-year contract.

Uh, this would be for minor major uh PMs and warranty items.

Any questions all those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next communication from Amy Girard, Alderman Govea.

In regard to home and stadium fire suppression system, any amount not to exceed 580,000 funded from bond 54 property services.

I'll make a motion to accept place on file and approve the contract for replacement of the fire suppression system at home and stadium by XL Fire Protection Incorporated.

Any amount not to exceed 580,000 funding will be through Department 177 parks fund bond 54 property services.

And I believe um Mr.

Conant is on the Zoom.

And good evening.

Uh Superintendent of the Parks Department, Brian Conant.

Um, this is to upgrade the renovate the uh current fire suppression system at Holman Stadium, which was installed um back in I believe 2002.

Um this is gonna replace a lot of the pipe that's there.

Um this is gonna upgrade the system from a moisture system to a nitrogen system so we won't have breaks during the winter um like we did this past year.

Um the fire marshal um did review the specs for this.

He approved it.

Um it went out to bid.

Um and uh uh we'd like to move forward with this.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Alderman Thibodeau.

I'm just curious.

Um, if the technology wasn't available back then, or is that like new technology for this type of suppression system?

Or I'm just curious why it wasn't originally.

I can't answer that accurately.

I know currently right now we have a moisture system and it's caused problems.

Um just this past winter, there was about a hundred thousand dollars worth of erosion damage that happened underneath the grandstand because we have a moisture system.

Um we can't turn the system off during the winter.

Um, so this will alleviate that issue.

And I'm not sure, Alderman, if that technology was available back then.

Yeah, go ahead.

And what is the life expectancy of a nitrogen system?

I think it'll prolong it.

They say the life expectancy on the pipe is around 20 years old.

Um out of the pipe there in the fire suppression system is exposed to the elements, which doesn't help its life expectancy.

Um so that uh I I do believe that this will aid in its life expectancy due to the fact that we won't have moisture, which is obviously corrosive um in the system.

Thank you.

All right, all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Next communication from Amy Girard purchasing manager, Alderman Goveo.

In regard to software fleet tracking and the amount not to exceed 128,642 funded from general fund 71 equipment.

I'll make a motion to accept place on file and approve a three-year renewal of fleet tracking software from Fleetio and the amount not to exceed 128,642 funding will be through Department 168 fleet fund general fund 71 equipment.

And Mr.

Rush is on the Zoom.

Yes, good evening, Michael Rush, Fleet Superintendent.

I apologize for my raspy voice.

I'm feeling a little bit under the weather tonight.

This fleet O is uh our software system that we launched for the fleet department last year.

Um we've had great success with.

Um so this is a renewal um to continue the service with with the fleetio software in our fleet department.

Um this is cut down on our um our paper and our administrative filing.

Um it has enabled the technicians to have uh tablet access and and real-time um access to some of the truck software um that runs through our GPS units.

Um so it's also a communication tool um that keeps us connected with with almost the entire fleet.

Um so this is a renewable.

Um happy to answer uh any questions you have on this.

Anyone all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Next communication from Amy Girard purchasing manager Alderman Govea.

In regard to purchase of two 2026 freight line cab and chassis with plow package in the amount not to exceed 601,032 funded from Surf 81 Capital Outlay and Improvements.

I'll make a motion to accept place on file and approve the purchase of two 2026 freightliner cabin chassis with body and snow plow uh fighter package from Viking Civics in the amount not to exceed 601,032 300,000 five hundred sixteen each funding will be through Department 161 streets, fund Surf 81 Capital Outlay and Improvements.

Mr.

Rush.

Michael Rush, Fleet Superintendent.

Um these two trucks are going to replace our uh 2016 trucks in the street department.

Um these are frontline snow fighters um for the season that we're currently active in.

Um they have about an eight 18 month lead time, has been about about the standard um over the last few purchases, so they do take a while to get in here.

Um at the end, uh we will be moving these two trucks to the back line feet to uh fleet to keep his reserve pieces um for uh snow plow routes that we um we have throughout the city.

Um these are standard equipment, it's pretty much a like for like purchase with the exception um these trucks are equipped with brine equipment um and that enables us to do a little bit better job pre-treating the city um for most of the storms that are within that temperature range.

Um happy to answer any questions you have on the scheduled purchase.

All right, all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye opposed motion passes.

Next communication from Amy Girard purchasing manager, Alderman Govea.

In regard to 2027 Freightliner Cabin Chassis will plow package any amount not to exceed 319,729 fund from Surf 81 Capital Outlay and Improvements.

I'll make a motion to accept place on file and approve the purchase of one tandem axle 2027 Freightliner Cabin Chassis with body and snow fighter package from Viking Civics any amount not to exceed 319,729.

Funding will be through Department 161 streets, fund Surf 81 Capital Outlay and Improvements.

Mr.

Rush.

Michael Rush, fleet superintendent.

Uh this is replacing uh another 2016 uh larger dump truck.

Um this has uh dual axles and a little bit more weight capacity um than the previous ones that we just went over.

Um but they are the same.

They are like for like purchase um with the exception of the Brian unit.

Um and that will also be moved to the back line and and kept as a backup for plow routes throughout the city.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have on this scheduled surf purchase.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Next communication from Amy Girard, purchasing manager Alderman Govea.

In regard to purchasing of one 2025 Ravo R2 sidewalk sweeper, any amount not to exceed 238,556.53 cents funded from Surf 81 Capital Outlay and Improvements.

I'll make a motion to accept place on file and approve the purchase of one 2025 RAVO R2 sweeper from Ulta Environmental Solutions in the amount not to exceed 238,556 and 53 cents.

Funding will be through Department 161 streets fund surf 81 capital outlay and improvements.

Sir Rush.

Michael Rush, fleet superintendent.

So this is going to replace the current tenant sidewalk sweeper for the street department.

Um this sweeper is a little bit different um than the current one in use.

Um the filtration system is a little finer, so it collects a little bit more of the dust particles that you may see um behind some of the sweepers that we do operate.

So it captures some of that, some of that fines and just takes it out of the air so that we're not having a dust cloud when we're sweeping sidewalks.

It comes with a vacuum host on the rear of the unit, which enables the operator to get out of the sidewalk machine and can get some debris that might be along a fence line or a hard-to-reach curb line where the brush may not have access to.

It's also equipped with a uh small um PSI pressure washer.

Um, should we need to get something up off the sidewalk, um, you know, it'll even take a little bit of graffiti off if there was some paint there.

Um this is a pretty much like for like purchase um with the exception of those few details I went over, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have on the scheduled purchase.

Ultimate.

Um it's called a sidewalk sweeper, but there's actually a street sweeper or or is this a sidewalk unit.

It is a small sweep, it is a small sweeper um for the sidewalks.

It's not the same size as as the larger sweepers that we typically operate.

Um it's it's about the same size as the current one we have.

Um they believe it's a little longer, and that's just because of that hose that hangs off the back for the vacuum.

Um, but it it is uh classified as sidewalk sweeper.

Thank you.

All right, all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Um next we have an emergency PO request.

Normally we would just accept and place on file, but there have been a few questions here, so I thought I would take the opportunity not only to address the change order, but the project in general.

So the project uh the riverfront was 10 years in duration, beginning in February 2016, um, when I attended a mayor's Institute of City Design with four other cities to review various design issues in each city.

Uh and our we asked them to focus on the riverfront and some of the adjoining neighborhoods.

And of course, the uh message that came from it is you should take bigger advantage of the riverfront.

And there they did issue a report.

Next step was there was a riverfront master plan, uh, which was uh proposed and adopted, which was developed and proposed and adopted by the Board of Alderman.

Uh then we instituted uh or passed a so-called tax increment financing district around the riverfront.

Uh this is a state authorized procedure used in many states.

The theory is to use public investment to stimulate private investment, which in turn will generate tax revenue, which can be used for further public investment to generate more private investment.

So the I and uh so the idea was uh using the TIFF and the TIF, what the TIFF uses the it's funded through the properties through increases in the property tax uh within the district.

So once the TIFF was passed, the development within the district has funded this project entirely.

Uh so it does not general fund uh funded.

In any event, I think it the project was completed as you saw just before the uh before the stroll.

I think it came out I mean, great.

Uh Liz Hanum, uh director of economic development was in charge.

I think she did a great job.

And I at least got many compliments about, you know, this is really great.

We're taking advantage of the river after 200 years.

So the final phase of the and and I think that this it is succeeded in the sense that we're seeing more development along the riverfront at NIMCO, for example.

I I we would not have that much interest in the in that parcel and the parcel next to it, the bagshaw parcel, in terms of much needed housing, if we hadn't done the riverfront project.

Um and they will invest uh you know over a hundred million dollars in those in that in that area of um uh NIMCO and Bagshaw.

So um the final air the final thing that needed to be done was this landscaping.

And to just take another step back.

Uh in September, the emergency manager director, management director, and the police department suggested that we not extend the uh holiday stroll beyond Canal Street.

And we close we close Canal Street rather than the top of Library Hill.

And the reason for that suggestion is that it takes a lot of officers to cover that last block.

Eight eight additional police officers to provide security between Canal Street and the top of Library Hill.

Now the police department needs to order people to come in.

I mean, there aren't a lot of people who are looking for overtime if you talk to the people at the police department.

So they have to order people, they don't like to do that.

So this would be an additional eight people have to order to come in and more money.

So, okay, we will stop at Canal Street.

So once the decision was made to stop at Canal Street, where are we going to do the tree lighting?

Well, the Renaissance Park seems to make sense.

Now it's not done yet in September.

It was kind of far from finished, or it was getting there, but still a lot of work to do.

So we'll do the we'll we'll um instead of going up Library Hill, we'll redirect the stroll.

And this was also done in connection with Great American Downtown, now called the Nashwood Downtown Association.

Um we'll direct it down uh Water Street, close water street, a lot easier, and have the tree lighting in the park.

So we got to um we get very near to the um uh the end of the project, but the landscaping needed to be done.

It's not it was never a secret that there was going to be um landscaping.

In fact, Liz Hanum went to the econom to the infrastructure committee several times to to update on the project.

In one of those uh told them that we were going to need to reach an agreement with n with uh uh Morans regarding the landscaping.

Um but there were a lot of outstanding issues, and that maybe occurred in I don't know, August, September.

There were a lot of outstanding issues, exactly what was going to be done and how much are they going to charge.

Um there were significant and lengthy negotiations regarding that.

At the end of the day, they wanted to charge 318,000, 321, 318, 310.

They want to charge 310.

Now, if we had said, fine, whatever you want, we'll pay it.

We'll pay the 310.

We could have brought this to the Finance Committee at that time.

But Ms.

Hannum thought she could save some money by negotiating with Morons.

They went back and forth.

She got them down to 281.

But that figure was not arrived at till like I don't know mid-November, and the but once that was arrived at the um change order process began, began with, it seems with um Dan Hudson, the uh city engineer.

He is not the, but he's not the guy who really ultimately approves that.

Uh and he signed the change order on November 19th, as I recall.

Uh the change order was emailed to Ms.

Hannem on the 20th, the day after our last finance meeting.

Uh a few within the next few days she reviewed the change order, agreed to it, and signed it.

She thinks she signed it on the 25th, although it's not actually dated, but it was definitely after the 20th because she didn't get the the uh she didn't get the thing uh until the 20th.

So the question was so the decision at that point was we could stop the project, um, stop the project, tell them to go home, wait for additional fees for the shutdown and the re-in the uh bring them bring them back in order to come to the finance committee.

Or we and we could handle we could cancel the holiday stroll.

I mean, you know, we could have done that.

But the best course seemed to be to approve the change order for budgeted uh funded items that everybody knew was going to be in the project.

I don't think there was anyone who thought there would be no landscaping.

Uh uh did not come to the finance committee that same night.

I have to say Liz Hannum didn't know that Morrins had agreed to the change order, neither did I, but as soon as we sort of, but we we definitely approve this to after after the 19th in order to get the um project done and the uh stroll off the ground rather than canceling it.

And um and subsequently wrote a memo to the committee to inform them what we had done.

And you see that uh the memo is there explaining the whole um procedure.

So maybe that answers most of the questions.

Alder Woman Clee.

Thank you.

So this is still within budget, it's not using additional.

Definitely within budget.

We have um a million eight left in the bond.

So this so again, that's the same thing.

And we expect it now.

Now these numbers could change with some additional items.

We could incur an additional nine hundred thousand dollars of expense.

But those items will I don't expect those will be emergencies.

We're not gonna have another holiday stroll pending, hanging, you know, depending upon the completion of something.

So uh uh that would be handled, I expect in the ordinary course.

Thank you.

Alderman Govea.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh so my question here is so I look at what we budgeted this year, which is that 2,039 number and two date in the last uh finance report that we got, we spent that amount of money.

So is this just coming from the TIFF?

Is this is that an appropriation as well, a supplemental into that into on top of the budget?

Or are we just over budget this year?

Um well, this is within the TIFF and within the within the um the bond issue.

So this isn't funded out of general fund revenue.

Correct.

Um but I think that detail could be answered by Ms.

Hannem.

Liz Hannem, economic development director.

Um so this was budgeted within the 21 million dollar bond.

So um we we knew that this was coming.

Um we just hadn't signed contracts yet.

Um and we we could have probably gone out to bid for some of it, but it just made sense to kind of use Morans who we already had a contract with and was doing good work and was already in the area and there was no more coordination that needed to happen.

So um we used them for the work.

Um so this was our we knew that this was coming for almost a year.

Um but uh so I think the question though is is this within the two million, what was it, two one?

It was two million thirty-nine thousand.

Is this within thirty?

Well, do you know what the two thirty-nine refers to even?

Sure.

So that's when I just pull up on my phone quickly.

When I look at the budget as a whole.

Um pull it up for you.

So I see FY 2026 adopted budget when we're looking at the TIFF fund, it was two that 2 million 39303 number.

And then you look at the financial statements, and we've already spent that it's 2,039,074 66, so a couple hundred bucks underneath it.

So I'm just wondering where are where did we go over?

Because I mean, if we knew it was coming, why did our budget show that what we're allocating with this money brings us over what we budgeted for the fiscal year?

I'm not sure.

So um I guess I don't really know.

Well, what about this?

You clearly don't follow all these figures and the you don't have the budget with you and all that.

What if you go back?

I don't I'm it's unclear to me if the 200,000 is part of the two million that uh Alderman Govea is referring to or in addition.

But would you look into this and give us a memo or something explaining answering that question?

Is it I think the question is, is it part of the two million or is it did we go over, right?

Correct.

Yep.

Okay.

So I guess um we we we can come up with an explanation.

We can come up with an answer on that question.

Okay, but thank you.

Just not at this moment.

Yeah.

Anyone else?

Alderman Thibodeau.

So the explanation makes sense.

Um, I understand the explanation.

Or I understand the explanation.

But what I'm not grasping is why it was an emergency.

Well, because the um the change order comes in, and it is a few days before the holiday stroll.

And we could we we could stop the project.

We could tell them, hey, look, don't do the land, don't do that last part of it and lock keep the project uh you know fenced in and just cancel the holiday stroll.

So given the fact that this was what the 29th or 30th, I forget which.

Um and that we have tens of thousands of people relying on this thing, it just seemed like an emergency that we get this thing done so we could actually have the tree lighting.

Now you might disagree if that that was an emergency, and you know that's fine, but if you're considering having to cancel the the stroll, that feels like an emergency to me.

Yeah.

And I and I get that, um, if I may.

Uh but why is that the other alternative?

Why is it we must finish the park or cancel the stroll?

Because the um because the tree lighting was in this in the park.

I'll just uh the kind of the culmination of the whole thing is in the park.

But that's that was the plan.

And that's what happened.

I mean the stroll went down the um Main Street, turned left on Water Street, went into the park and under the pavilion lighted the you know the annual tree.

And we did not have a tree on Library Hill because we had to because it had been decided um a couple of months earlier, two, three months earlier, that we would not be going up, you know, that uh the main street closure would occur at Main Street rather than at Library Hill.

So we had no tree lighting if we didn't have the park.

I'll just add one more piece of it too.

Is if we had stopped work, uh we would have started incurring fees um for for delay of work um from Morens.

Because they'd go they'd leave and come back later.

Yeah.

That that costs money.

That costs extra money.

Well, that my follow-on to that would be why weren't they done on schedule?

Right?

If the schedule was completion date of November 1st after the change order, then why was the work not complete by November 1st?

I think there were still negotiations regarding price and regarding exactly what the work would be.

Ongoing negotiations.

Thank you.

Alderman Clemens.

So hearing this discussion, my my question is is what would have happened if they didn't send back the purchase order on the 19th.

Would we have canceled the stroll?

No.

Um I don't know.

I don't I don't know what we I mean they had you'd arrived at a price, right?

At that point?

Yeah.

So uh on the 19th, we received their agreed upon price, which was the 281,000.

Which was what we were hoping for that reduction.

And we would have brought it probably at the next finance committee meeting as um something that we had already completed.

So um that's not ideal either.

We didn't want to cancel the stroll under any circumstances.

Aldman Clemens.

Yeah, I I I get that about the stroll.

I I just um so the answer to the question is it would have come in like this at a higher price.

We could have done it earlier at a higher price.

We could have we could have been here a few weeks before this, before the 19th at 310.

I I I understand I get that.

But what would have happened?

What was the plan that was in place if Morrins didn't agree to a lower price?

Were we gonna pay the higher price and still do the landscaping to get it done in time for the stroll?

We probably would have had to, but but Ms.

Hannem did a good job and was able to negotiate the lower price.

I I guess I guess I'm just it it doesn't look good because from the outside, right?

You have you know when the stroll is gonna be.

And you know, you you've been negotiating with somebody, so you have to get you know when the finance meetings are too.

So it just I understand and I appreciate the hard work that was done to get the price down.

I I agree with you that we would have done it anyway.

Um, but I'm just not gonna be able to do that.

Well, you know, could we have done better?

Maybe maybe we could have done better.

Maybe we could have done this somehow perfectly, but of course, no one has sketched out what that perfect course would have been under these circumstances.

But maybe there was a better way to go.

But our main focus was we're at the tail end, the last one or two percent of a twenty of an 18 or million dollar project.

We've got the stroll coming up, we want to finish the project and have the stroll work and be successful.

So is there some way if if our total focus had been we've got to make sure that we I you know we need to well, I don't know how we would have done it.

I but maybe you can come up with a better way, but um maybe you can come up with a better way.

But uh no one has said what we should have done.

I don't do you have any ideas, and if and if you have a good idea, I'll agree to it.

You know, we should have done something different, but but I don't know what that is.

Hindsight's always 2020, Mayor, and you could you could think of a million different ways to have done this better.

But the point of the matter is I I am finding it there is either some kind of there was something not there.

There was there is some discussion that was not happening that should have happened in regards to the schedule of the finance committee and when this contract needed to be done in order to get the work done for the stroll.

All right.

I don't know what that was because I wasn't there, but I there was I I hate to say words like I'm not gonna say those words, but I I I am there was definitely something, there had to be something that was not being communicated or done.

All right, I accept that.

Uh uh I and I take response to the extent that's true, I take responsibility for that.

All right.

So we could have done better with coming to the finance committee.

But here we are now explaining what happened.

All right.

More questions.

All right.

So we are going to give a memo on the question asked by Alderman Govea.

And if there is no objection, I will accept the communication and place it on file.

And given that, we'll move on to table in committee.

I think maybe Mr.

Sullivan is here on that.

Well, new business ordinances and resolutions we have none.

So I will make a motion to remove from the table a communication relative to the library plaza design and construction administrative services, amendment number five and the amount not to exceed 39,684 funded from capital improvements, 53 professional and technical services.

Uh go ahead.

Um all those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Uh the motion passes, and the uh resolution is the issue is before us.

So then I will make a motion to accept place on file and approve amendment number five with arcadis for expanding the scope and extension in time by 12 weeks beyond the original contract terms, any amount not to exceed 39,684.

Funding will be through Department 181 community development fund capital improvements 53 professional technical services.

Good evening for the record.

Matt Sulvin, community development director for the City of Nashua.

I believe committee members may remember this from several months ago, with the exception of Alderman uh Greg.

This is a request that was made to the finance committee uh at the request of the designer for the library plaza project, Arcadis.

This is in fact amendment number five or change order number five.

But in fact, it it isn't it is similar in some ways to the prior item with a slightly different fact pattern, uh, neither better or worse than the other.

But this is a something you would ask me to go back, speak to the vendor about and get certification on in writing.

And I have done that.

Uh specifically, what the committee had requested is that the vendor uh guarantee that there would be no cost exceedances that were not made clear to the city prior to those uh expenses being taken on.

You may recall that the vendor came to the city after money had already been spent above and beyond the work scope and requested a change order, which is not uh customary, certainly, when it comes to how we manage projects and not appropriate in any way, shape, or form.

However, as I presented at the last meeting, uh we ultimately did negotiate with Arcadis, and in the interest of moving forward the good working relationship that we've had, I brought forward the change order in the amount of 39,684 dollars.

As you can see in the memo dated November 19th of 2025, that I presented to you in sort of the bold italicized letters.

Uh Arcatus has confirmed in writing that they will make clear any deviations from the scope of work.

Uh frankly, uh they were very apologetic about the uh timeline of events that led to this after the fact request for authorization.

Uh but they are very clear on what the city's position is on this moving forward and how this process will work moving forward.

And I expect that Ms.

Hanum and others have have had the same experience and are clear on the process moving forward.

So uh we're happy to answer any questions that you have this evening, uh, but again, appreciate the committee's consideration of this request, albeit through a slightly unusual uh set of circumstances.

Happy to answer questions that you have.

Alderman Clemens.

Yeah, I don't have any questions, but I think the circumstances are different.

And I think this was on this was on Arcadis.

This was not on the city.

And uh so, you know, I I'll because of the want for and because they put into into writing that they're not going to do this again.

Um I'll I'll support the motion mostly because the work was done.

Somebody's not or presumably they've gotten paid.

But I mean, this you know, they did the work, but um this was not on the city or any city employees.

This was this was that company, and that and it it's very different.

Alderman Goveo.

Yeah, I I agree with my colleague at large.

I think uh to your point exactly, this was kind of thrown at us.

Uh we didn't really have much say in the matter, they just handed the invoice.

My one question would be kind of broadly speaking about the project.

How much money to date have we spent?

Uh yes, Alderman Gouvea.

Um, I I probably should go back to my computer to confirm the exact amounts, but over the initial contract and the five change orders, and remember there was an initial iteration of this project back in 2019.

There was design work done more than five years ago.

Uh we've spent about or encumbered about 400,000 worth of expense on this project to date.

That includes Arcatus's scopes, scopes of work and also uh authorization to enter into a essentially a project management contract with IMAG or Hainer Swanson.

Those expenses together are around that 400,000 dollar mark.

I follow up on that.

And is that where we expect to be right now?

Are we over?

We understand.

Yeah, that's that's I'm sorry to interrupt Alderman Government.

That's right in line with where we expected the project to be.

Uh again, we've sort of pre-contracted for project management with IMEG, so that that phase we haven't really entered that phase yet, um sort of more of a construction side service, but um it's about where we expected to be.

I will say uh, you know, we had anticipated that much of the design work was already done in 2019, but you may remember we learned some new things about the site and asbestos and other on-site contamination, leading to more design costs than we'd anticipated.

So that was a little bit unexpected, but not exponentially so.

Okay, thank you.

Alderman Tibodeau.

Um, just in general contract terms, maybe this is a good line item to start adding to our standard contracts to if said vendor does what they did, that we can incrue some kind of penalty towards them.

Well, if I if I could just comment on that, and and I don't I don't want to accept responsibility when it sounds like I'm being absolved of that tonight, but um you know booking.

No, yeah.

But I mean, in all in all seriousness, right?

I mean, that there is, and I think I was clear about this in the last committee meeting, so I don't mind repeating it.

You know, the city has an oversight role in a project management role when it comes to these contracts.

Um, certainly when a vendor doesn't tell us they're going over budget, that's a problem, yes.

But you know, we there were opportunities for this for us to understand that when we're asking for additional work to be done, although it wasn't being explicitly stated to us.

I could have inquired directly with the vendor.

So I'm just saying this is not dissimilar in some ways from the prior requests that was before you.

Many different facts, of course, but ultimately that I bear some responsibility for this one as well.

Um, but certainly, you know, it it should be clear to vendors that if they're going to exceed scope and budget, they should be communicating that to us 95 plus percent of the time, probably 99% of the time they do that.

In this case, they didn't.

Um so generally we don't have this problem.

I don't know if we need it in our contract, but maybe now we do.

That's something to discuss.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Um Mr.

Mayor, um, while I agree that we did keep, and I know even the Board of Alderman kept throwing things at you.

What about what about what about, you know, looking at this and so on, and I'm sure that you were talking to the contractor and asking these different questions.

Maybe they felt that they had the the green light to go.

Um, but I don't think it is a bad idea to put something in there that if without um distinct authorization of doing something like that.

And I know you don't necessarily write the contract, but I just think maybe better for the the city um in general, it gives it clear and and and I I appreciate you accepting some responsibility for having thrown ideas out with them and then not necessarily following up by saying don't do it, just you know, and I'll I probably last comment I'll make.

That are that language really is already in our standard contract.

I want to be really clear.

I mean it's it's not as explicit as we're talking about it tonight, but it says clearly that vendors cannot simply overexpend budgets because they want to.

Um what it usually comes down to though is when you have a relationship with a vendor, you're midstream in a in a project or a contract, you have a decision point in front of you.

Do we litigate this and spend money arguing whether or not this violated the contract or not, or do we try to resolve a cost overrun?

And typically, you know, to be clear, we we try to land somewhere in the middle on that, to be honest with you.

Uh so that language is already in the city standard contract.

Vendors can't simply spend money without authorization.

Folks in the audience certainly know that, but it's I hate to say it's a little more complicated than that, but sometimes it really is.

Mr.

May.

I Aldoan Clee.

I think you know, and and then and I appreciate that.

And and I'm not putting the blame fully on anybody because I know even from the aldermanic side, we were asking a lot of you, well, what if what if this, what if that?

So I think it you we can spread the blame around or but playing the blame game is really kind of silly.

Um so but I do appreciate that it's already in the contract.

And um, you know, I and I also appreciate you going through per um Alderman Clemens' request of getting that certified.

I think that that really was important.

I think it was a great request of his and so on.

So and it kind of brings it home to the vendor um that we need to make sure that we're clear on this.

And again, I don't believe that they did it uh maliciously.

I think it was just it wasn't intended to necessarily cause any kind of problems and so on.

So uh I hate the blame game, so thanks so much.

All right, so the there's a pending motion to approve the item.

Um any further discussion?

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh record of expenditures.

Alderman Govea.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

I move that the finance committee has complied with the city charter and ordinances pertaining to the record of expenditures for the period from November 14, 2025 through November 27, 2025.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Uh general discussion.

Is there any general discussion?

Alderman Clemens.

I just want to say to the to everyone who works for the city.

You all do a great job.

We all have good days, bad days.

I know I've had my share of terrible days.

So you know.

Just hopefully we can avoid situations like this in the future.

And um, I just want to say I I I appreciate everyone, especially Director Hannem.

So on general discussion, as I'm thinking about that previous item.

What we could have done, which we didn't think of, we could have come to the finance committee on the 19th and said there is an outstanding issue having to do with the landscaping for the park.

We're negotiating we're in negotiations.

We did, I think they they uh Morrins had given the purchase order to Dan Hudson, but had not yet been communicated to Ms.

Hannem.

Um we could have come and said, you know, we don't know how this is gonna come out.

We're in negotiations, we really need to get this work done, but we just want to let you know that there is going to be some kind of change order.

We could have done that.

And that would have been uh, you know, better.

But we didn't think, I mean, uh we were more focused on trying to get this thing done.

It didn't even it that that didn't even cross I mean that did we didn't think of that.

So in hindsight, yeah.

Could we have done better like by doing that?

Yes, but we didn't.

Alderwoman Clee.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I I want to kind of reiterate to what my colleagues said.

I think everybody in the city does a good job.

And I appreciate the fact that the willingness for Ms.

Hanam and everybody to come, including yourself, Mr.

Mayor, and and speak to this, um, accept any kind of criticisms or or anything uh such as that nature.

I think it's good.

We take it as a lesson learned.

I don't think anybody should um be pistol whipped or anything to that nature.

Um I think everybody is trying to do the best job possible, and um I heard the stroll was pretty good.

I didn't go this year.

Um just wasn't something in my that I was able to do.

But um I heard it was really good.

Um, and I think I did speak to Ms.

Hanum about it, and the tree may be moved maybe to Renaissance Park rather than where it was.

It might be the other way around, sorry.

Um, so that more people can see and get a better view of it.

Um that was probably the only complaint I had heard.

Otherwise, I all the activities and so on.

There were so many lines that uh people couldn't get to all of them, but it it sounded like it was a great, great night.

Cold, but a great night.

Um thank you for everybody's hard work, um, including um the organization formerly known as GAD and our downtown improvement committee.

I know they all worked really hard on it.

So thank you.

All right.

Any other general discussion?

Um what's next?

Public comment.

Public comment.

Any member of the public wish to um address the committee.

Oh my god, really, I'm just kidding.

I don't have to.

Come on.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

I was coming up this evening because there was a point that I thought was should be explicit and at least added to the record relative to an expenditure that occurred earlier this evening.

Uh earlier you approved uh a contract for 200,000 for the uh for the testing uh for for the firefighters.

And although that is a large amount of money, I I want to put it in a little context, and and that's relative to the amount of money we spend when we're providing health insurance for a cancer, and the whole point of this type of contract is to, if if God forbid one of our employees does develop cancer, we're catching it early in the stage one, as opposed to a stage three or a stage four.

Those dollars are are are astronomically higher as a stage three, stage four.

You know, I don't want to put any numbers to it now.

I certainly can, but the point that I'm trying to make is this is actually a cost-saving measure for for the city.

So thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

All right.

Remarks by Alderman.

Alderwoman Clee.

I have to add to what um Director Cummings just said, it's a cost savings to the city, but it's also a cost savings to someone's life.

And that to me means more than any of those dollars that we that we're spending.

Um if we can catch somebody's cancer at stage one versus stage three.

Um I think it's something we owe these men and women that have been um working so hard for the city and putting their lives on the line.

So um I think it's money worth well worth spent.

Alma Govea.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

If anybody wants information on cancer screenings for firefighters, I have binders full of it.

You're more than welcome to use it.

Thanks.

Alderwoman Greg.

Thank you.

I just wanted to take a minute to talk about our first responders in the last couple days between DPW and our firefighters.

We've really seen um, you know, how well covered our city is with these first responders and the heart and the effort that they put into it.

So I just wanted to take this time on public record to thank them for their hard work.

It was an incredible fire.

And we had communities, fire fire units from all over the area.

Hudson, Manchester, Kingsboro, Lowell, Hudson, Hollis, Merrimack, you know, just all over the place.

All right, any other aldermanic remark, or any other any any other remarks by Alderman?

If not, uh Alderwoman Clee.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

At this time I'd like to uh make a motion for adjournment.

All those in favor of the motion say aye.

Aye.

Uh motion passes, and the meeting is adjourned at 8 p.m.