Just click there.

All right, we're gonna start.

All right, a meeting of the planning and economic development committee was held Tuesday, March seventeenth, twenty twenty-six at seven thirty-five PM in the Aldermanic chamber and duly noticed in two places, including the city's website, in accordance with requirements of RSA ninety-one to uh two.

Um can the clerk call the roll, please.

I'm here.

I'm participating remotely because I have an ill family member.

I'm in the room by myself, and I can hear everybody.

Alderman Clean.

Here.

Also in attendance is Alderman Smith, Alderwoman Smith and Alderman Johnson.

But you can I'm smith will be so dead.

Also in attendance is Director Cummings, Director Sullivan, uh, Sam Durfee, Penning Manager, and Liz Hanneman Economic Development Director.

Thank you.

Um, do we have any public comment?

I'm seeing none.

Uh so Alyssa O'Mara informed me today that she couldn't uh make the meeting, she had another engagement that um she had to make, so we're gonna reschedule her for the next one in April.

So we're gonna reschedule her for the next one in April.

I was going to actually, if it's okay with everyone on the committee, is to go to the presentation that Mr.

Durfee has last.

I'm kidding.

So why don't we go down, go around that?

Um do we have any communications?

Petitions?

None.

Unfinished business?

None.

All right, new business resolutions.

Uh R26-014, which is approving a project plan amendment number one to the School Street Tax Increment Finance District Development Program and Financing Plan for the West Pearl Street Street Scaping Project.

Do I have a motion motion?

That's you.

Second page, yeah.

Uh by me.

Yep.

Oh, okay.

A motion uh to recommend passage.

Final passage for R 26-014.

Perfect.

We didn't have any legislation the first time we did this, so we're still getting used to it, both of us.

Um questions.

Do we yeah, it's gonna be by roll call, right?

Correct.

Um, do we need another presentation?

I mean, they presented already, so I think we're good to just open it up to discussion.

Alderman Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um I I kind of made it slightly clear that I'm not always um in favor of of TIFFs and so on, but I am in favor of this as I think that it um follows the entire path and the plan from the master plan.

Well, we're doing it backwards, it makes sense because of the economic um uh gain from this.

Um the only question that I have, and I don't know if um Director Sullivan or Director Cummings can answer this question.

Does do these TIFFs uh any of the TIFFs that we have, do they have a um a sunset date on them or I know there's a process we can go through to end the TIFFs.

These are not forever, but is there an automatic sunset debt that we have to renew, or is it just until we decide to to go?

If I may, Mr.

Jim, I think yes, Tim Cummings, Director of uh Administrative Services.

Um to answer your question through RSA 162K, uh they are sunseted after 40 years.

Okay.

Um and that's that's how they are both currently conceived.

Okay, and may I thank you.

Um I when we first started talking about the West Street um Pearl, the um the streetscaping and so on, and the dollar amounts kind of came in and we we talked to Mr.

Hudson, I think at that time, and said, you know, can we cut this and can we cut that?

Um I kind of want to get back to that conversation.

The whole thing about this streetscaping is not just to make it look pretty, but it's also to be able to redirect the traffic, if I'm if I'm not mistaken here, so that when coming from the um the uh veterans parkway and so on, it brings you to downtown much faster rather than having to go all the way around the walnut square square and have to go out towards high street and so on.

So this also brings people right to the Elm Street parking garage, where before there was no access to it unless you went back up onto Main Street and came back down.

So the the this is a beneficial if we can use um the the TIFF monies to be able to at least pay for part of this or all of it or whatever portion of it.

I'm really very much so in favor of it because this is going to have a a big impact on that area.

Um, and and I think it's something that's extremely important.

Um, and I do remember looking at the design and so on and the price ticket with with it and so on, and I think that's when myself and others um brought up the fact that can we use some of the TIFF funding?

Because that's kind of what the idea of that TIFF one.

That's why we kind of brought it forward towards where the um the National Center for the Arts is was to kind of help benefit that, whether it be for lighting, whether it be for turning the traffic around.

Um, and I believe that we've gotten money for that part of that Wall Street Wall Street Liz, Walnut Street Um Circle and so on.

So this just kind of helps one of the complaints we get from the veterans um parkway, is that kind of dumps you into the abyss.

Um this actually kind of completes that, and I think this is extraordinarily important.

So I really I'm going to be supporting this, and I hope others will too.

Thank you.

Alderman Clemens Chair.

I uh have a question through you to Director Cummings.

Okay.

Is the money that uh we are currently using from that TIFF to pay the bond for the performing arts center going to remain director Cummings?

Yes, uh so if I could Tim Cummings Director of Administrative Services.

So to be clear, uh we have a bond for not just the performing arts center, but also for a parking structure underneath the uh school street lofts, if you will.

Um so we issued bonds for for both of those projects uh utilizing the school street TIFF.

Uh those will remain and and the those expenses can be accommodated, and then anything that we were to do new would be that in that that that additional revenue that we're collecting that is accruing within the within the school street TIFF.

Thank you.

Alderman Clemens is a follow-up.

Uh no, that was my only um that was my only question.

The only other uh thing I did want to mention though was something that the previous speaker had said, and and I I just want to make it clear that Mr.

Hudson had said to us that regardless of if we put more money into the West Pearl Street project, we can we do have enough money to do the redirect of the uh traffic, so we can still do that regardless of if this goes forward or not.

Um I think where where this is going to be beneficial is the sidewalks in particular.

Um because I can tell you from my own firsthand experience.

Uh somebody with a wheelchair does have a hard time navigating those pro the um those sidewalks there.

They they do need to be redone, and uh so I think this will be a good uh a good use, a good way to do that in a way that you know hopefully doesn't affect uh other taxpayers uh as much as it could have.

Thank you.

Alderman Sullivan, thank you.

Our balance is 700,000 in the TIFF, and the only expenses inside of the TIFF are the bonds um principal and interest on the on the parking structure and the pack, is that correct?

Um so I just want to be clear that this resolution states that we are approving a project plan amendment number one, and that project plan amendment number one is to add in the West Pearl Street streetscaping project.

If I say yes to this, that's what I'm saying yes to.

That's that's correct.

All all this legislation does is it makes it eligible to potentially receive uh benefit of the school street funds.

They would have to be a separate piece of legislation that comes before you to actually gain access to that.

Yep, follow up.

Thank you.

Is that because some of the area inside that West Pearl Street Street Street?

That's a tough word to say.

Streetscaping project would be outside of the TIFF, if I may, Mr.

No, the way we have set up all of our TIFFs here in the in the city of Nashville, and I'll say also for the record that it is not uncommon for this to be set up this way in other municipalities as well, is once you adopt the project plan, um, it is written and that project plan is a governance document, and it's written in a way that allows you to amend it from time to time as it goes on.

So if you have a project that comes about and it wasn't necessarily there when you initially thought of the TIFF as a tool, you have a mechanism uh available to you to potentially access the the TIFF funds, and so the way the document is structured is from time to time you can amend that document for project specific type items, and that's what you're doing here now.

When we originally adopted the uh uh the school street TIFF, it was done with in the back of our minds that it was gonna help with some of the payment for the performing arts center and also for the uh structured parking.

Um yes, it was always kind of understood that we could do other public infrastructure projects or improvements, and those were kind of broadly enumerated in the in the project document as goals and objectives, but it was very clear that if we had another priority project that we would want done, you'd have to come back with a project amendment, and that's what this is right now.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments or all right?

Let's uh call for a vote, please.

Okay.

Alderman Deba.

Uh yes.

Alderman Clemens.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan, yes.

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

That motion carries.

Hey, five to zero.

Thank you.

Um, this resolution will uh will be on the April 14th, Board of Alderman agenda.

Um all right, the next order of business, new business ordinances 0-26-003 expanding the tax increment financing development district under RSA 162-K and NRO 295-11 established by 0-03-171 and replacing the tax increment financing development program and financing plan adopted by O Dash 18006.

And do I have a motion, please?

Uh motion by Alderman Morgan to uh pass final passage.

For now passage.

Great.

Thank you.

Questions?

Alderman Sullivan.

I actually have several, but I'll do a few and then give other people a bite at the apple.

So just in the fiscal note, uh, I just I had a question here.

This legislation sets out the governance process necessary to capture the future tax increment within the district, which we do not know, but could be over 250,000 to 2.2 million based on a five-year timeline.

Uh the question that I had here is would this really be worth it for anything less than a million dollars?

Because there's a wide range of could-bees.

So that's that's my main question.

Why do this if it's gonna be less than a million dollars?

I don't know if you want to address that, I guess.

Sounds like um Liz Hannem, economic development director.

Um, so that is an over five-year period.

Um, but but every year that that um dollar amount increases, and so usually the first few years of a TIFF um establishment, um, you can't really do much of anything because the increment is so small.

Um, but it it builds up over time.

Um so the earlier we can do it, and especially before the development happens in that area, um, the better.

Um and I would say too that um eventually that increment would get to over a million dollars, even if it takes us four or five years um to get there.

So um it will just depend on what development happens and in what time frame.

Um so it is definitely worth it at any point.

Um it just changes the the timing and the projects that we could potential potentially do in that area, if that makes sense.

Follow Alderman Sullivan.

Um I'll have to listen back to that.

Um my uh other big question is why now this area is mostly private property, and the NIMCO and Bagshaw properties are already on track to be completed.

Uh a TIFF is meant when I read it, a TIFF is meant to stimulate development.

This development is already happening.

So why do why are we putting this into place now if these projects are already in motion?

Did you want to do that?

No.

Um I I'll take it.

Um so the projects are already in motion, um, but they were based off of the development work that we've been doing in the quadrant two area.

So um that was a big um big conversation with the developers saying we we see you investing in this other area, and so we we are going to go right next door.

Um, and as we expand further into that area, um their properties will increase in value as well.

Um, and so that will just spur potentially more development on the neighboring areas as well.

So that the spurring of development doesn't necessarily have to happen just in the district, it can happen in neighboring areas as well.

Does that make sense?

So Lofts 34 was inside the existing TIFF districts, and so we see that that development happened.

Um, and that's one of the reasons why the LMG who was is purchasing the property at NIMCO was in interested in starting a development project.

Um it it was the the TIFF expansion done in 2018 uh then spurred the development that's happening now.

And so if we put this in place right now, we can spur development in lots of other areas.

And I just want to clarify this.

That once NIMCO, so right now NIMCO and the Bagshaw properties, the money that's generated from that property goes into the general fund.

Once those properties are built out, and this TIFF is extended into that area, then tax revenue from those properties that are now built out and developed will then fall into the TIFF, not into the general fund.

So what is being generated right now and going into the general fund will continue to go into the general fund.

How much is that?

Um for the general fund for this area.

Yeah, sorry.

Um I'm working off of memory at the moment, but um once the developments happen, the four developments that we were talking about, the um the NIMCO, Bagshaw, and the two properties that the police training facility and the parking lot, once those are all built out, that 800,000 is still going to come to the general fund, and whatever increment that's generated would go into this um this fund specifically to be spent in this in the district.

So that's the um one third and two thirds.

So generally that's a good rule, and that's kind of what we saw from the assessing department was 800,000 would continue to go into the general fund once everything is built, and about 1.5 is what they are estimating would go into the general fund probably in five to six years when all the development is done.

So two-thirds of the tax revenue from that area would end up in the increment, and one third would be in the general fund.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, uh I would just like to get confirmation on that.

Um just a follow-up comment.

We did put the the spreadsheet that assessing gave us in the the um document for the legislation.

Well, I I understand that and to that point um that I'm looking at it now.

I don't have my magnifying glass in front of me, but the area that um you're talking about when I see it in the column, which just basically right now, if I look at um, I'm just looking at the bagshaw land right now, and it says uh one point one point I'll say five eight two six hundred thousand.

Uh it's not highlighted, so my question is why isn't it highlighted?

Um then and then over TIFF applied, everything that you have in the TIFF applied column is in parentheses.

What does that mean?

Um thank you.

Yes, do you is there a way to zoom it a little bit?

Um sure there is down here.

Yep, at the bottom there.

Yeah, there you go.

Yeah.

How's that?

Good.

Yes.

Oh, I got that right.

It's pretty good.

So um the the current assessed value is that um middle property there, the 24,900, 1.5.

Um, and then so that is what would go into the base value, yeah, and the base value is what would continue to go into the general fund.

So the 1.5 million um times whatever the the current year's rate of uh tax would be.

So this this year I believe it's sixteen dollars.

$1683.

Yep.

So that amount would continue to go into the general fund.

So if I look at that and I'm just this is the value of the property.

When I when you say the value of the property, is that the value of the property, or is that the amount of tax they pay?

That is the assessed value of the property.

If you scroll to the right a little bit, I think we might be able to.

I'm estimating it should be 26,635 that would go into the general fund because if you take that and then you divide it by a thousand and then you multiply it by 1683, that's how much they pay.

Yes.

And so right now they're not currently in the TIFF district, so that's why it's not showing up as a value.

Okay.

So I'm sorry to just be monopolizing this.

That's right.

But so if if I take this assessed value at 1.5 with nothing on it, it's ripped down to the ground.

Yeah.

Once they build on it, what are you projecting the value to be?

Um, so can you scroll up a little bit?

So the bagshaw development, um, we are estimating future revenue at 673,000.

So that's revenue.

Once it's built up, yeah.

That is revenue.

No, uh, yes, yes, tax revenue.

So the assessed value would be um 84 times 84.

So that's 16% of what it would be assessed at.

Okay.

So I I just want to clarify that the way that I understand it, the way that I understand TIFFs is the 26,635 that that they're paying right now into the general fund for their property tax, that will always be there.

Correct.

However, once they build on it, it will be an additional, an incremental six hundred seventy-three thousand two hundred dollars in additional property tax.

No, so that is the um that's the future revenue total.

Um so the 26,000 that was going into the general fund would continue to go into the general fund, and then the 600 and change would go into the increment.

Over what time period?

Every year?

Every year it would be assessed uh or whenever it's assessed, the the tax rate would be at applied that year.

Very similar.

So it's essentially we are doing exactly um what we do with every other property is we're assessing them and taxing them at a certain rate, and then the um increment would then go, it's it's after we've done all of the the work of figuring out the tax rate for the revenue.

I'll take a break if anyone else has any.

I'll link that.

Uh thank you.

Um there would be some easier way to do that.

Okay.

No, not easier.

I think again, Tim Cummings, director of administrative services.

I think what should happen, right, is let's raise this up a little bit to like maybe a 50,000 foot level, because I think we might be getting caught up in the weeds a little bit because this is all projection and it's predicated off of the private sector.

One of the things I want to note is we believe it's gonna be housing.

Not necessarily could be the case.

It could be other type of development as well.

So what we're we believe that it's gonna be projected to be housing.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment to say.

But what you need to kind of look at rough numbers is think about the amount of units and the amount of units that you're gonna build, and then we figure out what approximate per unit value is we assess at.

I don't know what we used, I would have to double check it, but I'm gonna say we're probably in the 150,000 range, something like that.

So take 150,000, multiply it by the unit, that's gonna give you your total revenue.

That would be when complete and stabilized, a few years after project uh after you do construction.

Now, what Director Hannum is talking about, and we'll use that 675,000 figure for bagshaw is the base is in that 675.

So take 25,000 out of it.

That would be the general fund allotment, if you will, and then that would leave approximately six hundred and fifty thousand dollars year over year as the increment that would get captured and that would go into the TIFF.

Okay?

I just kind of wanted to clarify that.

I think that is just a very like a very good summary of how each of this would work, but we're really working uh on projections here.

So we need to keep that in mind.

Thank you.

Alvin Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um a couple of questions here and some comments.

Um if we expand this TIFF into this other quadrant, as as we've talked about that was on the master plan that we've basically talked about since the beginning.

Um can the monies from this quadrant be used through the entire TIFF, it's not just like it can only be used there, correct?

Correct.

So we have that parking lot that we've been talking about that needs lighting and and so on and so forth.

So this money can be used there, or it can be used to aid um the overgrowth, perhaps along the riverfront by Jackson Falls, and so it doesn't matter where within that TIFF, it doesn't have to stay within that quadrant.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yes.

So anywhere within the contiguous um TIFF district, the money can be used for um maintenance uh capital projects or um programming.

May I continue?

But it cannot be used in the school street TIFF, correct?

Correct.

It has to stay within that one single TIFF.

Correct.

Yep.

So it can only be used in those parcels um that um I showed with the the expansion, the green and the blue pieces, yeah, it can only be used within that.

Other TIFF districts can only be used within their TIFF district.

Um there can't be any intermingling.

Right.

Okay, um, thank you.

And so my other kind of comments, and please anybody correct me if I'm if I'm wrong here.

Um the reason we do this prior to anything being billed is so we can capture the bulk of the land appreciation or the value to go into the TIFF to, you know, as as was pointed out, why would we want to do it for 250,000?

It's gonna take multiple years to get this developed to get it filled, whether it be housing, hotel, or industry, um, it will take years to get to that.

So that's kind of why we do that 250 to such and such.

Is is am I correct on that?

Yes.

For example, we put this existing TIFF in place in 2003, and we didn't do a project with it until 2008.

Um, and then we did the expansion in 2018, and we didn't start the construction on the current TIFF district until 2024.

So it it has to build up um year over year, and um we hope that it spurs development so that we see an increase in that that increment in order to do projects, which is why we we're talking about phasing the milliard um potential public improvements.

Yeah, um, just kind of clarification of something you just said.

You said we put the TIF in in 2003, but we didn't do anything until whatever date range that you gave.

But those other buildings, perhaps loss 34 or Jackson, they were already being built by 2003, correct?

It's not like you're just saying we didn't use any of the TIFF monies because they had to build up.

That's what you meant.

Okay, good.

Yes, I just want to make sure that that that's understood.

The original TIFF was put in place right before Jackson Falls condo was built, so that it could capture that increment um from from essentially zero because there was nothing there to um what we're collecting now.

Um but that that helped us do that 2008, the Kathy Hirsch walk area between pedlers and margaritas.

So, but it it was five years before we could even do one project.

So it it built up pretty slowly.

Okay, thank you.

Um thank you, and I think I have one more um click.

Yeah, um, and I think Director Cummings explained this quite well.

Um, but for those that are listening, I also want people to understand it's as I kind of made a comment before, it's that appreciated value from when we put the TIF in to when it's fully developed and and and so on, and that's how the tax kind of goes in.

The question that I have when you were talking about that 26,000, and so the our assumption is we'd like to think our values are going to continue going up, but we know at some point that might not happen.

So if we were to put this in and it has currently has a 26 um thousand dollar value for that one particular piece there, um if it's reassessed and for some reason value comes down, does that 26,000 always stay?

So that regardless of what the value of the property goes, that will always stay, always hit the tax point.

So that never goes down, correct?

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alvin Clemens.

Uh thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, I like to think of TIFFs like the following.

It makes it kind of simple.

TIFFs are essentially a tax value freeze.

So if you're if you're collecting, you know, $20,000 from a property in 2026, and you you put the TIFF in, you can anticipate that you're going to collect that 26 or 25,000 into the general fund for as long as the TIF is open.

Anytime taxes go up, that's the increment.

So that difference will then go into the TIFF fund.

But the other is to finance projects that you might not do otherwise.

Go to the general fund.

That's certainly one way to do it, or you do the TIFF, and then it has to be spent in that particular area.

Existing.

So this would be the perfect example of when to do a TIFF.

And I say that because what you don't want to do is take something that exists or something that you know is producing a lot of tax revenue for the city.

What you want to do is try to capitalize on an area that is being developed where the speed of the development and the speed of the uh real estate as far as its valuation increasing, that's what you want where you want to do a TIFF.

And so this is the perfect example of where to do one, in my opinion, because right now the properties that are there really don't hold much value.

Uh and I think that when everything gets developed over there, that's going to lead to a significant increase in value, which will then lead to a significant increase in the amount of funds that are available to use to do many projects within that district.

So for all those reasons, that's I'm gonna support this because I think it's it's doing a TIFF the right way, and uh and I certainly um I certainly agree with the approach.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'm just gonna put a couple comments too, and then I'll go to someone, make sure nobody else in the committee that hasn't gone yet can go, and then I'll open it up to you, uh Alder Alderman Johnson.

Um so and I'm sure Alderman Johnson probably actually talk a little bit about what I'm gonna talk about.

Um so I know a few years back um before COVID, that whole area was kind of designed to be more of a tech base, and that's where it was going.

COVID hit and it kind of changed the world of what was actually being um uh that people wanted, right?

They they no longer wanted to do that, but everybody can work at home, you can live in California, working in New Hampshire, vice versa.

It's a different world.

So uh it turned into housing and more than more than that.

And I'd like to see if we could get some multi-use, that would be great, because then you know we have a little bit of both down there.

Um, but it's what the market asks for, right?

If the market doesn't ask for multi-use, we're not gonna get multi-use.

Um, but my concern is is we need housing, housing, housing, housing, especially affordable housing.

But every time we build something lately, for the most part, it's mostly not affordable, right?

It's a little bit of affordable, but we're not housing Nashwans, is what I'm saying.

People are coming here from other places and taking up the apartments that are $2,000 a month, right?

So it's not like we're building all these things and Nashwans are moving in.

It seems like people from other places are moving in.

So all we're doing is increasing our population, and Nashuans that need housing may still not be getting it.

And people who are older aren't moving out of their houses pretty much until they're ready to go.

And so it's not opening up houses until someone of that age goes.

So I always get a little worried that I like development, I want development, I want housing.

And I know we have the uh you know the housing trust fund, and I know we have the 60% or whatever it is, but um it just seems like we never have enough of housing for the people that we really want to take this housing.

Um, and I'm sure you know you build these things, I'm sure there'll be some Nash ones in there.

But for the most part, it's people coming because I know any house gets up on the market in my road, no one from Nashville is taking one of those houses.

It's coming from outside the area, um, mostly from Massachusetts, probably because it's more expensive down there.

Um I'm a little I'm always concerned about that, but I think you know the TIFF is good, I think the TIFF generally is good.

Um, in that public hearing, somebody had said, you know, it's gonna increase your taxes.

Can we make sure, and I know tips are hard for people to understand if they haven't dealt with it.

Um, you know, someone has never heard of a TIFF before, trying to explain it to someone isn't always easy.

Um but when we say taxes will go up, that's for the the buildings or the houses or the apartments in the TIFF area.

It's not like somebody in Ward Wayne Ward 1's taxes are going to go up necessarily, correct?

Or is that based on assessing can I tackle the first one?

I broke a couple of them down and we can't.

Director.

Uh so I I want to comment on the housing, the housing piece and and the the original vision of this area being mixed use.

And by the way, you know, this this area is not unique.

The Mohawk Tannery was pictured as a as a job site at some point in time.

I think even Director Cummings worked on that when that was the vision.

Um that wasn't long ago, and certainly the community needs have changed, and I think to some extent in our circles, we talk about housing being the biggest economic development challenge challenge for cities like Nashua.

But that aside, you know, the milliard is in our vision is still a mixed-use destination.

Um if you were to look at the the parcel map that we put up before you this evening, there are property owners on that map that have no interest in doing housing.

Uh the milliard tech park being a great example of that.

Uh we have an open conversation with the Spilios family.

They love what we're working on over here, but they themselves are not interested in developing housing at this time.

They think job having a job center is important.

And and we love that because it may not be possible to accomplish mixed use on every single property, but if you're able to accomplish mixed use and the access to jobs across a larger area, you're still doing the same thing, and I think you're meeting a community need and a community goal.

So I think the idea of mixed use is not dead, it's just maybe a little bit different than what was originally contemplated.

And I think that there can still be an honoring of the industrial character of this area while changing the uses that are taking place within the buildings that are out there.

So I think that's one thing I just want to comment on.

The other piece is you know, this is a failing maybe on my part a little bit.

Most of the housing that we've seen for multifamily in recent years, uh not most, but at least 50% of it has actually been affordable housing.

Okay.

So I think we we don't do a great job about showcasing that enough, uh, but we've actually had really great income mix in recent years, whether it's uh redevelopment of Monaghan Manor, the the Crown Street property.

Um, yes, we've seen market rate projects as well, like the High Street Flats and others, but when you really look at the last five-year period, we've actually seen a really even mix of affordable uh housing and market rate housing.

So I think we should take a second to appreciate that.

That said, um, I think there's certainly, and the aldermen have explicitly stated this in the resolution to bidda as an example, and you actually have an affordable housing requirement on the on the NIMCO property.

This will be a mix of housing affordability as well in this area.

Um it's going to range, in fact, all the way from you know, market rate down to that one unit that you asked to be ultra affordable on the bid of parcels.

And so I think this will be an example of mixed income.

I know Director Cummings wants to comment on the taxation piece, but before he does, I just want to add one comment.

Um I'm happy to provide detail on the basis of the projections for what's in this document, and I think Alderman Sullivan was asking about this.

Where do we get these numbers that are in here as far as future projections?

We we have it, we have information to back to back that up that I think might be helpful.

Uh we made some assumptions uh about what would happen on the properties where we see immediate opportunity for redevelopment.

I want to be clear, we focused on immediate opportunity for redevelopment.

Nimco, bagshop, bit of parcels.

It is possible there will be larger scale redevelopment in the milliard district, whether that's properties owned uh sort of in the core of the milliard or some of the properties adjacent to.

So I want to be clear.

The increased revenues projected here are based on a very conservative estimate of where redevelopment is going to happen and how it's going to happen.

So I just want to put that out there.

And that leads me to my final point.

The question about is it worth it to start doing this now?

The answer is yes.

And the reason for that is we know we're not going to be able to bond a $10 million improvement this area tomorrow.

To your point, Alderman Sullivan, we're not going to be collecting that amount of revenue.

What it does do, however, though, as the revenue begins to come in, is it puts us in a place where we can have monies available to do design work for what these public improvements might look like in the future.

It allows us to have capital put aside to prepare ourselves to be successful in executing a vision for the milliard public improvements.

So again, we may not be able to build anything in that first year, and we can really do, but we can then do one of two things.

We can let the money accumulate and then build something at a later time, or we can use that money to do design work and actually start to create the true hard and fast plan for what those improvements might look like in the future like in the future.

So I certainly agree that the initial revenue collected as part of the TIFF, because it will be an incremental process, won't be enough to do substantial reconstruction projects, but it will put us in a position to be more successful long term, and it will also put us in a better position when negotiating with private developers, as Director Hannem said.

As they're asking us, what do you want to see in this area?

We can actually have design plans ready, or certainly concept level design, ready to show them and say this is what the public wants to see and have that prepared for those conversations.

I'll pass it to Director Cummings who's director of administrative services, just to kind of go back to the uh point that was made a little while back about um, and I'm not exactly sure how it was phrased, but something like we would see an increase in taxes.

So I just want to be really clear.

Um you're not gonna see increases in taxes in the sense that this area will get taxed more as an additional tax.

That is often referred to as a betterment or a special tax assessment in a special taxing district.

That is you have your property tax, and then you levy an additional tax on top of it.

That's not what this is.

This is tax increment financing.

So no matter whether you're building something in Amherst on Amherst Street or in the DW or wherever it may be within the city, you're gonna get taxed a certain dollar amount.

And that's all it's gonna be.

And all we're talking about is within that dollar amount capturing some of it, that's what we refer to as the increment, and we're setting it aside for prioritized projects that this body would be approving.

So I just want to be really clear on that.

And yes, you will see appreciation within the district.

That of course, that's what we hope for.

We want values to go up in this city, that is positive economic growth.

Um that is good market-driven decisions, and of course, investment begets investment.

And when you start to see investment happening in certain corners and sort in certain nooks and crannies, it starts to spill out.

And that is the whole reason why you do something like this.

And so I just want to kind of be very clear that we are not gonna be adding additional taxes onto the property owners.

We're just saying the taxes that they would be paying, we're gonna be looking to use those monies in a certain way.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Director Cummings.

I think the way it was phrased was that well, people who are around the places that the you know appreciations coming up, well, obviously, their taxes could go up because their buildings are gonna be worth more.

My thing was like, well, the person that owns a house somewhere deep into Ward 1 isn't gonna feel that appreciation from the district that those are in.

It might have normal assessing appreciations, but it's not gonna be impacted by those direct things happening in the TIFF district.

And I think I wanted to make sure that you know someone that's not living in this area is not like, oh my god, my taxes are going up because of that.

And that's not necessarily true.

They're only gonna go up if you live in that area, and the property seems to go up with the the new property that's there.

Okay.

Is that yeah, if uh I'll just add to that um just adding this to the TIFF district does nothing at all.

It's the development that would be what what changes anything in the future.

So if there's no development for five years in that area, then nothing changes.

Right, right.

So um, and we we don't do any public improvements and there are no developments.

So I just want to be aware there there is no increase just from adding it to the district.

Thank you.

Um so everyone is spoken spoken at least once.

Can I let Alderman Johnson jump in and then I can go around again?

Alderman Johnson?

Alderman.

I wasn't gonna bring that up.

But you brought it up for me.

So I guess great minds think alike.

Um I just want to clarify what the TIF and if in fact the market crashes.

Okay.

So if we have a market crash, and people don't want, and the market totally flips because cyclical, it does happen.

The balloon pops.

You know, right now we're more on a renting market because, like Alderman T Bolt said, people aren't selling the homes.

People my age, where are we gonna go?

And so we're not going anywhere.

So what happens if the mark the bubble breaks and now we have less renters and more apartments for rent?

Is that gonna affect, you know, taking a small what is it, a third of the money automatically goes into that TIFF fund, right?

And then two-thirds, no, a third of it goes into the general fund, and then two-thirds goes into the TIFF.

What happens if the bubble breaks?

How is that going to work?

Is the TIFF money still gonna go even if revenue is declining on the property owners?

Because of course they're gonna want an abatement all of a sudden, probably.

Um so if the property value goes down, um that means that the increment goes down as well.

So the base still stays the same to go into the general fund, but if say we were collecting $500,000 in increment, and the next year they only pay 400,000, that's what would go into the TIFF district.

It wouldn't it would stay exactly the same.

So even if the property values went down, um it would just mean less in the increment.

Can I follow up on that?

Okay, I got that.

I understand that.

Yeah, but what if we have a down market?

Can happen.

We have property owners, homeowners that say at one point they can't afford to pay their taxes.

What happens if they cannot afford to pay the taxes?

The part that's going into the general fund, and they have a part that's going into the TIFF.

What happens if the market just totally crashes and they can't afford to pay?

What happens to this whole program that we were collecting money on?

Um so I believe what would happen is it the the general fund gets paid first.

Yep.

So that would always happen.

Um, and then the the money that went into the TIFF would just be less.

Um, and if it was nothing, then it would be nothing.

Um the only thing that we would struggle with is if it was nothing, um, how do we pay a new bond or or something?

But um we do a lot of work to project these things to make sure that we're understanding, but uh similar to um any other general bonds.

Um, if we if the whole market crashes, um it would it would affect the whole city the same way as as this district.

Okay, one more okay.

So it would affect just and then let's forget about the TIFF right now.

Let's just look at the property tax.

So if that money can't go into the general fund, it just doesn't go into the general fund, just like if a homeowner couldn't do it.

Am I correct?

I mean, I don't see you.

What's the exact question?

Okay, we've got the TIF.

We've got the part that's going into the general fund.

Yeah.

And the TIFF.

We're gonna push the TIFF aside because if there's no money going in there, there's just no money going in there.

But if they can't pay their obligation on their property tax, what happens then to that property that's under a TIFF?

Would it the city like lean it?

There you go.

Okay, that's the answer.

So I just want to make sure.

Uh so if I may, Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services, it'll follow the tax keeping process.

It will it will eventually end up in the hands of the city, and we will put it back out, and so it starts becoming a useful uh you know product that the city can gain you know some sort of benefit from.

The city has been doing that as of recently, as you know, where we have been trying to put uh properties back on the tax rolls, and so it would follow that type of process.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

We got all you and Clean and Alderman Solo.

Uh thank you.

Um Mr.

Chairman, I I want to clarify that within the TIFF, it's not all market rate.

Cotton mill is not market rate cotton mill, some of those are subsidized.

Most of those are subsidized, all of them are subsidized.

Um they're they're hide funded in in many of those.

Um Clock Tower, quite similar to that.

These are very big buildings within this market, and so on.

Um I also want to um make a comment, and I could be wrong in this, but in the state of New Hampshire, we're not allowed to have different tax rates for different properties.

When I was up there, they tried to do that, they tried to put a different tax for businesses versus residential, and that got voted down multiple times.

So the tax rate is the tax rate.

So when Nashua comes up with a 16 point X tax rate, it goes for businesses, whatever the assessed value of that business is.

We can assess properties differently, but we cannot tax them differently.

So that needs to be really clear to everybody.

And I think that was the point that was trying to be asked.

You know, are they treated differently?

No, a property is a property no matter what.

You default on it, the city will deed it, and and so on.

And I also want to make um a comment to something that you said, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I can honestly say that people that have moved into my neighborhood, and we've had a lot of them, have all been from Nashua.

Um, I guess.

Yes.

Um I I truly have.

Uh maybe I'm just further away from the Massachusetts border.

I don't know if that's I don't know if it's moving up because I don't think my neighborhood is any different than most of the ones from like Ward 1 or anything else like that.

So this is historic.

Uh I don't live in the historic area.

I live by Henry Burke.

Oh, yeah.

Um so the the truth is that some people in Nashua are um, you know, downsizing and moving into places, um, and some are upsizing.

I hope so.

My next door neighbor, the one that moved in a number of years ago, they moved in from Nashua.

Um so, and and many of the others that that did.

So I don't want to say I I keep hearing it on social media.

People aren't going from Nashua to Nashua.

That isn't true.

People are going from Nashua to Nashua, and sometimes it's just a different type of property.

This was the right properties for these particular people.

So I don't want to send that message out there.

Um, and I also want to comment about businesses.

I've talked to a number of businesses, um, both within my ward and outside of my ward, and the biggest complaint I get is that there's not enough affordable housing.

And when I let them know about places like Hott Mill, Clock Tower, and things like that are very nice that are within the downtown area, um, very pleasant to live in, so on.

Um, you know, they do get a little excited about it, but it's still what's affordable for net for Nashville is not always affordable for the average person.

Our um economic um development director can speak to that when she first came here, she couldn't move to Nashua because she could not afford it.

We just weren't paying her enough.

But um, but the the truth is she finally did get in here, you know, she made it work and and so on, but she couldn't either.

So I I agree that Nashua is very expensive to to live in, and um we will get to this eventually on Thursday and and so on.

But part of our increased tax rate is the amount of um exemptions and credits that we give as well.

So we need to take all of that into consideration.

Um that's a big one, and I will make that discussion on Thursday, but it all rolls into it.

And to be very honest with you, Mr.

Chairman, I just wrote a document today and I was going to share it with assessing talking about tax credits and exemptions, completely listing it all out, including tax deferrals and so on for my constituents, and um I think I'm going to ask um the president if I may share that with the board of Alderman at the next board of alderman meeting.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I'd like I would love to see that.

I don't know if it's assessing or economic development to see how many people move in Nashua to Nashua or somewhere else from Nashville.

I'd love that stat.

If anyone could ever find that out for me, I would I would you got it?

I would be curious to see it just because maybe it's 50-50, I don't know, but it just with my area doesn't feel like it.

Uh Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you.

I have a uh theory, and maybe maybe I'm wrong when it comes to this TIF specifically and what is gonna go in there.

Uh I understand that maybe Backshaw isn't planned out.

NICO is it's gonna be housing.

We've seen the plan, we know what the deal is.

The way that it was explained to me is that you get the baseline of the taxes for that land once it's developed, the increment of uh the value is thus taxed, and then it goes into the TIFF, it doesn't go into the general fund.

Here's the crux of my problem, especially when it comes to TIFFs, and especially when it comes to this TIFF and where it wants to expand.

These are gonna be houses.

People will live in the houses.

Those people will need city services, they will need police, they will need fire, they will need schools.

The property tax that they are going to pay does not go into the general fund to pay for police, fire, and teachers, it goes to pay bonds for uh projects that I don't I don't see anything specified here, and that's my concern.

It goes to pay bonds for projects that I don't I don't see anything specified here, and that's my concern.

We're gonna have people move into the TIFF into these great new apartments.

They're gonna need city services, but the money that they pay in to support it isn't going into the journal fund that that's where those people are paid.

So if I'm wrong about that, um please tell me, and because I just did some quick math, that if I took the incremental tax on just that bag shop um property that the director Cummings had mentioned, 650,000.

I didn't even take the 40 years.

If I took it at 25 years, that's over 16 million dollars that doesn't go into the general fund, it goes into the TIF.

Um and just one last comment on this.

If we did nothing.

This NIMCO, I mean the NIMCO plan would go forward.

I think the bike bag shop plan would go forward.

I know most of those buildings over there are already occupied with businesses.

Um I did I did go into the rabbit hole a little bit about the uh page 28 number six.

If there's a property inside the TIFF and we make an offer, um, and and that offer isn't accepted, then the city reserves the right to do other things.

So if we go to Mr.

Spilios at uh the Milliard Technology Park and say we want to buy it from you, and Mr.

Spilios says, no, thanks, not for sale, then what happens?

Um those are these are all questions and and little intricacies inside of the TIFF that that I dug into that cause me concern.

Anyone wanna handle Dr.

Hannem?

Sure.

Um so the portion about the city services increasing.

Um we we do still see um even when the development happens, 30%-ish will still go into the general fund.

So that about 30% of the tax value um would still go into the general fund, but yes, the the other two-thirds would be put towards uh public amenities usually.

Um so city amenities that everyone in the community can can participate in, like the dog park, like the river walk, um, like the two new parks.

Um so they they are public amenities for the entire community.

Um so uh that that is what the justification because these kinds of projects don't usually rise to the level of um you know over the the um priority level of things like a new library or um snowplows, things like that.

So this is really our only tool to direct development in in certain districts.

Um that helps us shape what they look like versus just leaving it up to the market.

What about his last comment um related to um if we did if we did not nothing, yeah.

Yeah, if we did nothing, um likely I would say NIMCO is gonna go forward.

Um I would say probably bagshaw too.

I'm I'm not sure about the bit of properties, the the parking lot and the and and um we would not be investing in the public structure at all.

Um because that the wouldn't be a priority over all the other projects that we have in the city.

So we would leave it up to the market to decide what happened there.

What about his question when it uh the spilios, if if we wanted to buy it and he said no.

Um what would happen?

Well, the the only other very similar to any other place in the city, um, if we really needed it, we would do a taking.

Um but if we it we don't want to do that, and especially if it's if it's not going to be wanted, um, it's gonna be really hard to to make that work, so we we would not probably want to do future projects there.

The thing I hear from that is probably maybe Yeah, that's fair those things make me a little nervous.

I would say I'm for the TIFF, but that makes me a little nervous.

So I think that um if the spilioses said no to us trying to purchase a property, we would likely spend money elsewhere um and let that property sit for a while and then come approach them again in five years and see if the answer is different.

Um we would we would not want to spend money in a property that that is fighting us the whole time.

We would we would not want to spend money in a property that that is fighting us the whole time.

We did do that during the the Broad Street Parkway um development.

Um and it was it was a long drawn out process, so we don't want to do that ever again if we don't have to, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, yep.

I'm gonna go to Alderman Clemens, then Alderman Morgan, then Alderman Clee.

Oh, unless Alderman Sullivan is done or done.

Okay, yeah.

Did I say Alderman Clemens?

Alderman Clemens.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um yeah, so this is the when I said earlier the six to one half a dozen to the other uh dilemma.

Um because what it really comes down to is do you want to do the development in the projects that are in this area or not?

And that's really that's really what you need to think about like are they a priority?

Because if if they are a priority to you, um you know you should probably support this because what it's going to do is it's going to direct the funds towards these projects like the dog park, probably the bridge over the river on the other side of the TIF district.

Um some other master planning and things like that.

But you know, you could argue it either way that you could do these uh projects regardless.

Um, whether the money went in directly into the general fund, you could still do these projects, or if they were to uh you know be directed like they are planned to be in this TIFF, you could still do them as well.

The advantage to the TIFF is that it makes it a priority.

Uh it makes it so that you have to you have this set of funds that you can put aside and you can try to uh create a plan, a master plan that that then sets uh a guideline to follow to then develop this.

And so I think my opinion that you know I I'm for the dog park.

We need to figure out a way to fund it.

I'm for the new bridge over the river on the other side of the the TIFF district that we're talking about.

We need a way to fund it.

Um some of the other developments like the lighting in the parking lot, uh we need to finish the river walk um on this this side, maybe create a connection up to the uh veteran parkway.

So, you know, I I think I think there's a lot of things that that need to be done, and in my opinion, this is this is the best way to do it.

Certainly, I think that the argument of well, we're building housing, and these folks that are gonna live there, you know, are gonna need services.

I I agree with that.

I think that that is a consideration.

However, hopefully, we have other areas in the city that we are gonna you know focus on development, and that money will go into the general funds, and hopefully that will fund the infrastructure that we need for you know, schools and fire and uh police and that sort of thing.

So uh again, I'm gonna support the TIFF.

Um, those are just uh some of my thoughts.

Thanks.

Thank you, Oliver and uh Morgan.

Thank you.

Um I wanted to make a couple of comments um and and one correction.

So my comment around eminent domain is it this property would be no different than any other property in the city.

Um eminent domain is always at the point of last resort, and even if that um sometimes you just walk away, it's not not a fight that somebody wants to have.

Um, and I know how passionate everyone here is and would definitely rally to fight that if if need be.

I I would trust in my elected officials to do so.

Um, I did want to make a quick correction on the TIFF funds being used to build the dog park in 2019 when I started the Animal and Dog Park Advisory Committee with the intention to establish and build a downtown dog park.

I made it crystal clear to the board then and every single time anyone asks since we are not using public taxpayer dollars to build the dog park, and we never will.

I will absolutely not support that.

However, the property developer that is coming into NIMCO and Bagshaw has agreed to pay for the dog park.

Now, does that mean that TIF funds could be used for ongoing maintenance or if a fence, I don't know, a giant tree falls down or a bear runs through a moose.

I don't know, pick something crazy.

Um, sure.

But that would be just the same as any other park in the city that needs a maintenance or repair.

Um and then I don't know if this is doable, but I did just want to make a motion if I could to move to vote.

Doable.

I think it's a non-speaking, right?

Yeah.

It's non-debatable.

Non-debatable.

All right.

So uh she wants to move the question.

So uh let's vote on that.

Call the roll, please.

Alderman Tiba.

Uh yes.

Alderman Clemens.

No.

Uh Alderman Morgan, yes.

Alderman Clee?

No.

And Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

That's so moved.

All right.

Let's uh now we're voting on the uh actual motion for final passage.

So call the roll on that one, I guess.

Um Alderman T bow.

Uh yes.

Alderman Clemens.

Yeah.

Alderman Morgan, yes.

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

No.

That motion carries.

Four to one, and that will be uh looking for final passage on the April 14th of the Board of Alderman.

Um thank you for that.

Um now we can go back to the presentation by Manager Durfee.

Sorry that your boss kept you up here.

Come on up.

Yes, sir.

It is the only one on there.

All right.

You need me to I do need the clicker, actually, yes.

Is Alderman Sullivan still have?

I mean, Director Sullivan still have it.

Oh, yes.

So sorry.

He's taking it home with him.

Sorry about that.

All right, well, thank you everyone for uh for bearing uh with me and and your patience this evening.

Uh there's some content to this presentation and understanding the late hour.

Um, this can kind of be a choose your own adventure.

We can go as long as you have desire to go for.

Um, so when you feel like you'd like to call it, please do.

If we get through it all, fantastic.

Uh, and I'll try and be as brief and succinct uh with uh these policy points as I possibly can.

Uh so just to set the scene a little bit.

Obviously, we've we've had quite a few of these.

Um, as I alluded to at our last session, we're at the point now where the code is is fairly well developed, um, but we have a number of important decisions to make, kind of where we draw the lines, where we set the numbers, uh, and how we basically kind of put the the key parameters into the code as we uh move towards the adoption process.

Uh so there are a number of policy points uh that we kind of introduced at the last session.

Uh this uh session this evening, as well as I believe probably the April one, and then any others that we so choose to have would be dedicated primarily to fleshing these out, and I think introducing some or clarifying some other topics that are related to these policy points.

So this is kind of higher level um finishing work that we'd be be going through.

So uh the way that these slides are gonna work, basically each one is going to be a policy point.

Um I'll talk about uh what we currently do, and then I may or may not have a proposal uh for how we would approach it, but then it's just general discussion.

Uh none of this is gonna be set in stone, but at least it provides me with some guidance to go back to our consultant and to do some code writing.

So questions per slide, basically, if anybody has questions.

Yes, each slide should be a discussion.

Alderman Clemens, you're gonna have to uh yell out if you have a question I don't see on the screen.

Uh so we'll get started uh with our articles three and four.

Uh so right here, this is a question about uh the neighborhood residential district, um, currently like our RB right now, uh, and whether or not we would want to uh include a multiplex or an apartment house.

So this is really at the more dense end, more intense use uh side of the spectrum.

Uh so setting the stage multifamily right now is permitted by conditional use permit in the RB, and that density is at seven units per acre.

Um the average lot size in RB is about a quarter of an acre, so you're looking at probably an average of of two units an acre if you're talking about um you know the the single family and the duplex style households.

We had done uh pretty significant analysis around uh density nonconformity, and there are vast density nonconformities at up to 15, 16, 20 units an acre uh is very common in this district.

Simply a factor of very small lots with a duplex with a triplex with four units.

When you have a quarter acre lot, that shoots that density up into the 16, 20 units an acre.

There aren't 20 units on that lot, it's simply a factor of again that small parcel.

Uh so to contextualize or really to visualize this, this is the multiplex uh district sheet.

Um what's important about this particular building type is that this is a standalone building, it's not attached to any other buildings.

That form is really observed in what we would call the mid-rise districts.

If you think of main street, the a lot of the buildings are attached to one another, they share a common wall.

Uh, but there's clear um architectural differences between you can see what is one building, what is another building.

This is a standalone building just as detached and single family homes, detached uh duplexes, triplexes, but a multiplex is typically four to six units, and the geometry around the building widths, the four floor plates, and the heights uh complement that the other option is an apartment house, which is slightly less intense simply because this is a two and a half story building versus the the multiplex, which is a true three-story and this has limited dimensions uh in terms of its length is limited, the multiplex is not, uh and a uh an apartment house cannot have a flat roof, so that would be a more of a form and a contextual sort of uh thing we'd want to observe.

I did do a little survey myself, and I do not see examples of a multiplex in the RB right now.

There are plenty of examples of apartment house.

So the question to you all is if an apartment house is something that we currently observe in the RB, is that where we want to draw the line, or do we want to bump it to the next level of intensity from a building type standpoint to allow multiplexes?

Alan Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um just for for myself and for others that are listening and so on.

Can you give an example of the RB within the city?

So that people can visualize w the locations that you're speaking of.

Certainly.

Um the RB uh much of Concord Street, much of the historic district is in RB, and then the surrounding areas, uh, much of your ward is is RB.

Um portions of Amherst Street very close to Main Street as you go further out.

Um there's some more RB in there.

Yeah.

Yep.

So when some of these large homes that are on Concord Street that have been turned into apartment type of things, would those be considered apartment house, or would they be considered a multiplex?

They wasn't built for multiple, it was built for the homes of the owners that lived there and have now since been turned into multi-units.

It's it's likely that those would be considered a large house.

That is a building type in the code.

Um in an apartment house, it's it's more of a just a there's very um dimensional and architectural uh cues, if you will, that would indicate that it's it's not a large house, it's an apartment house.

And it could be multiple entrances, there can be other things that then change.

You could see a large house evolve into an apartment house, but generally uh from a floor plate and a dimensional standards, the houses along Concord Street would be considered large houses, not apartment houses.

Even the despite how many units may or may not be in that.

Thank you.

Answer the question I was gonna ask.

Thank you.

Is that the only thing related to these?

That's so that's that's the the question on this.

Um do we draw the line at multiplex?

Do we draw it at apartment house?

Anyone else have any opinions or thoughts on this?

I I do have one more.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Um so keeping in mind that this area is the areas that you mentioned, the main street and um the Concord Street being very different styles.

Would something like a multiplex fit in within that um I'm gonna say Concord Street.

I can see it fitting in within the main street area.

That that would make a lot of sense and so on, um, because it's extremely uh more dense type of area.

But when you're thinking about Concord Street, I mean when I look at Concord Street by um what we call the wedges, um, which is where the um uh the where the firemen thing is like I see more dense area there, but as you go up to Greeley, that's not quite the density.

Again, these are those large houses that we speak of.

So um, while I don't have uh necessarily uh a leaning towards either way, I'm just asking would a multiplex fit within the flavor of that neighborhood.

It would fit on the edges closer towards the core.

Okay.

Um as I was saying, there are currently instances of an apartment house throughout RB.

I did not see any of multiplex.

So does this group want to encourage a more intense building typology that may not totally fit the form right now, or stick with something that we see every day.

And I think that this could even then answer further questions that I may have when looking at the code of you know, when do we push into that next level of intensity?

And I think we we do know that answer in areas where there's clearly been direction for growth, but in these more sensitive neighborhoods, this is why I'm asking the question is when we push and when we hold back and meet character rather than saying let's grow.

I uh again I I know I I'm probably very biased here, and I apologize if I if I'm coming off the way because I'm trying not to.

Um but when I think about the historic district and I think about things such as that area, I do have a little um anxiety about a multiplex um type of thing.

I have no problem with it being in, you know, more down towards you know, like uh the peddler's area or you know, which again it's still ward three in and in through that area, but I would have some concern with that.

I'd also have some concern with it in if it were to be able to go into like the French Hill area or something where there's just not enough space for parking and so on that goes with it, and knowing the new rules of one parking space per unit um gives me lots of anxiety and so on.

So I would prefer to see apartment houses if this is the areas that you're speaking of, um, because I think it would be more keeping in with the neighborhood.

I think it would be we do have some new homes coming up in the historic district, is I'm sure you're aware of both on Manchester Street and on Concord Street.

Um again, when it comes to the historic district, um, you know, there's limited to what they can say, but they do say trying to keep in with the neighborhood.

I don't think a multiplex would keep within the historic district neighborhood, but I can see an apartment house fitting within that within that area, and you know, I leave it to my colleagues to speak, but being very, very familiar with this area, being on the historic district commission and and so on, um, I would have a little bit of of issue with um multiplex in that area.

Thank you.

What does planning suggest?

Um based on if the general idea is to keep with neighborhood character in these areas that are relatively built out, the apartment house is the natural choice.

But I wanted to put it to this group to see what interest there would be in pushing further on.

This in in this being like multiplex is is the next increment of intensity beyond apartment house.

This exercise, Mr.

Durfree, that we're going through.

This is the first time I've seen all of this.

It's it's hard for me to because it it seems to me like you're asking me for like yeah, I like it or no, I don't.

I I need time to process it.

I mean, I so I understand that you're looking for feedback.

Um either.

What's that?

It's not a vote, so we I think no.

You're gonna give us time to oh, certainly this.

We don't have to give it tonight, right?

Oh, yeah, because it sounded like it was an open like a question that you were looking, because I wanted to reserve the right to not have an opinion on.

I'm looking for general feedback.

Okay.

I'm just taking it in.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Johnson then Alderman Morgan.

Thank you.

So if your apartment house is two stories and you multiplexes three stories, what's the next one?

Four stories and five stories?

We we would begin getting into uh the mid-rise districts, and that is characterized largely by uh apartment buildings, which those can be of of more stories and they can be attached, they can be the longer buildings.

Okay.

Thank you.

Morgan.

Um quick question.

Thinking just about let's say French Hill, for example, there is no real one acre lot that is currently even open.

Um I have the last house in the historic district in French Hill, and I have 0.18.

So I don't even know where you would unless somebody came in and bought, you know, an acre of houses that happen to all be for sale.

Um there's nowhere that you would be able to put that.

So it feels kind of like a no-brainer in that area.

Um, but would there were what are other RB areas that that could be a question in?

And specific to uh the multiplex or the the apartment house.

Um one versus the other, right?

One versus the other.

Well, I think you're getting to a key point here in that one, even from a from just a massing standpoint, the the multiplex is by um dimensional definition is a more massive structure.

It is allowed to be larger horizontally, vertically, you know, with depth.

Um there may not be an appropriate context in the majority of RB situations that but more on the fringes because multiplex is allowed in the urban residential, which is the next most intense district beyond neighborhood residential.

Um and though there are plenty of instances in those districts where either multiplex exists or could very reasonably exist given the context, but because those two districts often are abutting each other, you have that fringe area where it may be appropriate.

But obviously, if you allow it in a district, it can go anywhere in the district.

And so that's that's the potential reality that we're we're playing with right now and determining if if that is something we would be okay with.

If if often Morgan is finished.

Um as I said, there are builds that are going on right now in ward three, um, both on Concord Street and on um, and and that's splitting properties and and and so on, and that's kind of they they're taking some of the properties and dividing them and then doing builds.

There's two, like I said, one on Concord right now and one on uh Manchester Street.

There may actually be two builds on Concord Street, or one might be in Hall.

Um, but down towards the end of Lock Street where those apartments were kind of built, um not to my taste, but um they were kind of built and so on.

That would have been an area that you might have been able to put something like a multiplex.

And and I don't that being on the fringe of the RB district, um that might have been um BAE has that parking lot, and I know there's been conversations at times of them selling part of that off because they don't always use it, and so on.

That would be another area that would be potential, which is why I'm um my concern of the multiplex is it doesn't keep with the flavor of that neighborhood.

I can see the apartment house.

Um now the apartment house I think you mentioned um could have um I'm sorry, the multiplex you said could have four to six units.

The apartment house, the two stories, how many units would you think in that?

So it's it's again it's driven by the density factor, so it's a product of how many square feet are in but but in general terms it could be three to eight.

You know, a multiplex could be two to ten, right?

Generally, typically you know, four to six, three to five.

So the the you're thinking of the apartment house as being three to five.

Is that what you're doing?

Terry generally speaking, there's a lot that goes into that.

Right, yes, and I'm not holding your feet to the fire, but I'm just trying to see that um the apartment house again um has a design that would work within those neighborhoods.

Yes.

Um and could still push the number of units.

Yes, right.

Um a multiplex would fit very well in the main street area, it would go with the flavor of someone, but I wouldn't want to see necessarily uh a multiplex on maybe on um uh I don't I'm saying West Hollis here, I don't mean that, but well, I'm I'm trying to get outside of my my um my ward here, thinking about like in ward four down in the tree street areas.

You could you could put multiplexes there or but truthfully, even apartment houses would look better within that area than putting a multiplex.

And it will keep with that neighborhood as well.

So I you know I'm going to be pushing towards the apartment houses because I think it keeps with the flavor of these of these locations in these these areas where multiplex, I just look as multiplex has kind of got this industrial kind of look, a very square flat roof type of thing where an apartment house has you know a um pitched roof and and so on, it kind of goes with a neighborhood.

When we think about what you would like to see in your own neighborhood, and I'm not saying that everybody's gonna be a NIMBY, would you want to see a square building kind of going up?

We do have that in in French Hill.

Depends on the neighborhood.

Yeah, um, right off of um, I think Merrimack Street, we have a multiplex kind of thing where it kind of butts towards where Abbott Street is and so on.

So we do have these things.

It's not that we don't have them.

Um, but I just think that an apartment house would be more keeping with the um the outside of the the inner city portions.

So well, I think I've gotten if we have no more questions, maybe we should move to the next direction.

Yeah, so thank you for that.

Um this relates to the commercial industrial districts.

Um so largely situated on um some of the the back parcels on Amherst Street, largely Northeastern Boulevard.

Um so the question comes down to should we be employing form standards?

So again, building design standards and uh specific treatments prescribing treatments of the frontage uh and how the buildings relate to the streets to promote walkability.

Um this is driven by a statement in the master plan uh that one centers uh northeastern boulevard and positions it as a commercial and industrial center rather than housing, very explicit about that, and we've zoned it accordingly, but it does also say, and again, this is coming from the master plan that uh bicycle and pedestrian connections should be established uh between that district and the surrounding neighborhoods to allow um easier access without a car to the district for people who may work within the district who live in those abutting neighborhoods.

Um I struggle with this one a little bit because I'm generally very much for um pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, but when you're talking about an industrial district, we're talking about high bay warehouses, large trucks, long sweeping turning movements.

While we would want to encourage the uh bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and free movements, it almost seems like we're trying to make two things that don't necessarily want to be together, we're kind of forcing them to be together.

Um I struggle with this one just because it seems like there's competing interests here.

Uh and I do think that the master plan was spot on with identifying areas of the city that should remain commercial industrial in nature and not to force residential in those areas, and uh, I think Northeastern Boulevard should stay that way.

Um so questions two pieces.

Um bicycle and pedestrian connections, that's not so much a land use thing because that is more of a public realm right of way.

Uh this code deals with private property.

Um so more of a uh more of an ethereal question, but form standards and how the buildings relate to the street, that is the question.

Um and I will just add before you reflect the key driver with form standards and what we're trying to achieve is is being good neighbors.

And in districts where you have mixed uses, where you could have some commercial, you could also have some residential form standards are key because you're trying to make everything really blend together and be harmonious.

But if you're talking about a district that's geared specifically for commercial industrial, you you don't have that mix of uses.

And I would say that I don't mean to be leading with my comment, but I believe the form standards are are less important because it's more about function rather than form.

Uh and just for one anecdote uh for you to also consider.

We have heard from individuals who operate in the commercial and industrial real estate businesses, and they've looked at this code.

I've had conversations with them about this code.

They were not too keen on form standards in this specific context.

Um, because again, it was I'm operating a high bay warehouse.

What does it really matter what it looks like?

And I assume that that um you know, just to be clear about it, it's not if this was in place, we wouldn't start going down northeastern boulevard and changing everything.

It has to be when someone builds something or develops something, that's when it would come in place, not before we'll go over here this time to all the Sullivan.

I'll be quick.

Uh yes, make Northeastern Boulevard more walkable.

Okay.

Um I want to echo my colleagues' words.

Um, as a person who lived in Cannon Gate, which is right off of Amherst Street, there is a mix, a lot of mix of residential, they're kind of on the back side of Amherst Street.

Um and so on.

And I can tell you, as a person who just wanted the walkability and um even the bike ability.

I know Amherst Street is a very unique animal because it's kind of a state highway.

Um, but I I think having um we we just had some new businesses, the bowling alleys got knocked down, and we had we were having you know, buildings so on.

So I do think form standard would be good.

Um, and while these people may say um, what does it matter?

What does it look like?

You know, we have these large bays and sweeping trucks and so on.

I think as a city as a whole, um we judge with our eyes as much as everything else like that.

So I think walkability is something that's important.

I think Northeastern Boulevard, um, you know, I see a lot of business going up, but I also know people who live right behind all those buildings, much like Amherst Street.

There are some side streets when you get down more towards um, you know, where the um gate city casino is and so on.

There's you know, when you pull to the left there, off to the right, there are homes that are back there and and so on.

So this is the entryway to their homes.

So I do think, and it's the same thing when I lived on um, I lived in Cannon Gate, Amherst Street was the entry point to my home.

So I do think it does matter.

I do like the idea of form standards.

And I understand these people that you've spoken to from, you know, uh these real estate type for for industry, um, you know, industrial use and so on, but when that is the entry point to my home, I would like to see a form standard and so on.

And I and I and I'm trying to kind of balance their need to, you know, we want to keep values in properties.

So, yes, we we know we have to live together in a happy way, but make it so that it doesn't look so we and and I'm going to kind of make a comment that's a little different from this, but there was nothing worse.

I lived, as I said, in Cannonate, and um when the mortgage company gentleman moved in at the base of Cannon Gate and he was putting up those signs and so on.

Um, I didn't live there when you're putting up the signs, but we came to um we came to the zoning and and so on because um what he was doing, the sign that you said he was putting up and so on was def devaluing our property um and so on.

So I do think form standards do matter.

Director Sullivan has something to say.

Well, I actually just wanted to ask Manager Gurfey a question.

Um, what would a st a standard look like that would demand more walkability, and what would the conversation look like with a developer of a facility that we're talking about?

You gave an example, but is it your meeting with the high bay warehouse entity and you say we want a sidewalk along the road, and they say we don't want to do that, or what are the state what are the standards that you think will be promulgated in order to achieve these goals that Alderman Sullivan wants for more walkability?

Like what would that actually look like?

Excellent.

Thank you for teeing up that wonderful question.

Um essentially a lot of it relates to how buildings are positioned on a lot.

So um to encourage walkability, you want to have a building that's closer to the street rather than putting the parking lot between the sidewalk and the building.

Uh what that does is it forces traffic flow um further away from the sidewalk as this traffic comes off of the main road, up a driveway around the building to either park or to utilize uh loading docks on the backside or the side of the building, and then the that street frontage, you know, is maintained uh relatively unbroken aside from those access points uh as you know, sidewalk trees, some sort of landscaping, and then a building rather than just more pavement and more more vehicles, and it creates a more pleasant um walkable experience.

Um as you get into the construction standards for sidewalks, um more of a public realm sort of thing.

Uh but that's a conversation that's ongoing with DPW relative to those specific standards, which then do obviously come into play when a site is developed, they have to build sidewalk if they're touching it, they need to build its standard.

I mean, Northeastern Boulevard is busy, but uh I don't see how you'd how you make it more walkable.

Um and when you talk Amherst Street, Amherst Street proper isn't really commercial industry.

You're you're talking about going down almost towards Merrimack, right?

Where there's like is that where you're talking about or behind Amherst Street?

Is that what you're talking about?

So there are a number of streets that come off of Amherst Street, like that kind of almost like they tee into the airport, if you will.

Yep.

Um a lot of that those back parcels we'll call them back from Amherst Street, those are more industrial in nature.

Which kind of makes sense, you know, as we're talking about, you know, the entry to neighborhoods, having having less industrial, less high bay warehouse type of uses, but more restaurants and and other strip clauses that are more commercial, that's less intense of a use, um, which would be more favorable to an entry point for a neighborhood.

Um the quality of which can obviously be debated, but you know, from a use intensity perspective, there's there's a clear step down from high bay warehouse to strip development.

I mean, I'm not opposed to the to this technically.

Um I just think it would take a while for anything because you need turnover and change, right?

Because you you can't just go over to the FAA center and say, hey, from now on, you gotta do this and change everything in your your area to to fix that.

So I mean I'm okay with it putting it in.

I I mean I these there's no votes here, so I'm not sure how we really like give you feedback without uh this is all very valid.

Just the commentary, and you know, I I get a good sense of of opinion and desire for for what to do here, and so this is actually anybody else have any other opinions on this this particular one, Alderman Clee?

Um, I just want to uh kind of comment on what you had said about I agree anything that exists where we wouldn't even be discussing this with them.

This would be anything that got billed, but when I look at Amherst Street and I looked at the bowling alleys that were both that were there, Leto Lanes and so on, when that got knocked down, um and there's other buildings within that area too that I see potentially being repurposed, knocked down because of the age and so on.

So I can see something like this happening on something like Northeast Boulevard.

There is um there are there's land that places could be built, you know, because there's some things that are pushed far back.

So um I don't want to take this into consideration and say, well, it's unlikely that anything's gonna happen.

I think I'd like to always think as that there's a potential that somebody's gonna buy everything, knock everything down and rebuild.

Again, it's unlikely, but I would like to always think that in mind.

And I and I think I would like to um hear more specifics, and we don't have to do it now because you just wanted to hear what we had to say.

More specifics about the the people that you said were not in favor of it.

Um I I think I would like more detail on that because I think it would be good for us to hear.

I don't want to push anybody who wants to construct anything.

There's got to be some kind of middle ground and so on.

So thank you.

Is Lita Lane's would is that area considered commercial industry, or is that another business?

Commercial business.

So this wouldn't even apply to them, right?

Or correct.

Okay.

I just want to make sure we're looking at the because industry is usually smaller, retail businesses all over the place.

So okay.

I I just wanted to make sure it didn't impact business.

Okay.

Um yeah, we can move to the next one then if everybody's also good.

That was helpful.

Almond Clemens, do you have anything you want to add?

Sorry, I can't see if your hand's up or not.

No, I I do not.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um, so this gets to civic space dedication.

Um, so how this would happen is if there was a significant uh redevelopment so large that um there was a requirement that civic space had to be developed.

Basically, civic space we're defining as open space, green space, maybe programmed, may not be, could be a pocket park, could be a little playground.

Uh, and then because of the size of the development, they have to create this.

The question is does it get dedicated to the city as you know a separate lot owned and maintained by the city, or is it owned and maintained by the either the developer or the homeowners association?

Um I brought this question first to DPW last week, as a they be, you know, the entity that has most interest in this.

Um their response was that the scale matters.

If it was something so large that it could truly be considered a park, yes, they would want ownership and maintenance and control over that.

If it was something much smaller, you know, kind of just more of like a small little, you know, an amenity to the block versus a broader neighborhood amenity.

Um it could be maintained by by the uh homeowners association, the developer of the property owner, whomever it may be.

Um but because of that, and and that's something that we would need to kind of flesh out on a case-by-case basis, they would prefer to leave it to the the city's discretion, and that's something that we would operate through at the at the planning board level.

Uh something that we currently do on um, you know, subdivisions, new streets.

We have that conversation at the planning board already.

So not the similar Alderman Cleek.

Thank you again.

So where the Mohawk tannery has now agreed to create that park that's open to everybody.

Is that an area that you your this would come up for discussion because that's literally in the middle of their property, it's not on the edge or um or anything else like that.

I I would think that I I can s I can see both sides of this.

I can see that if they didn't maintain the equipment and citizens are on it, who's liable for that?

That's I think we need to discuss that.

If they open something up to the public, are they liable for maintaining all of this?

Are they liable if someone gets hurt?

What is the I think those are some of the questions that I would have on that?

Any other thoughts on this one?

Alderman.

Some of them do we have to call it civic space.

I I think that can we just call it green space or open space.

I mean, in that way that to the DPW's point.

I mean, I think that depending on uh scale uh could be unmanageable, and you don't want parks that aren't kept up.

That's a fair point.

Yes, uh the term civic space does imply that we would take care of it, ownership.

We mean the city, correct?

Yeah, not this group assembled.

Get your rakes out.

No, I that's um I've had that thought going through this this code process as well.

Um words matter.

They do, they do.

We can certainly explore uh a new uh term.

Alvin Johnson.

Thank you very much.

If we can let the developer and whoever owns that property keep their green space for them to maintain, that's one less thing that the city has to put on to maintain, and then all of a sudden it goes downhill, and then all of a sudden we're scrambling to find money to fix it.

And a lot of times when these complexes, a lot of them don't have green spaces.

And if they do, they're probably small parks with maybe a couple of swings for the kids.

So a lot of times it's probably not a normous that the city would probably want to take.

And the less the city has to take on as a burden, I think the better off we are.

So I agree with Alderman Sullivan, the green spaces.

Um Mr.

Chair?

Oh, uh yeah, uh Alderman Clemens, go ahead.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, um, but I had a question through you to um director Sullivan, the um well, I because I think I can't remember if we talked about last year requiring a certain amount of space uh on projects to be areas dedicated to things like recreation and things like that.

Is that still being brought forward in the code or uh yes, Alderman Clemens, this is to whoever I'm sorry, to whoever can answer that.

I think I said director Sullivan, but that's all right.

This is what that is.

This civic space is that that green space, that amenity space that is required by developments of certain sizes.

Okay, so my opinion would be that of Alderman Johnson in that you know we should require it, uh, but it I I don't want city ownership of it.

I I think I think it would be better to leave it into the hands of the developer to maintain um, and that that would be my my opinion.

Very good.

Thank you.

Alderman Clee.

Um I uh before Alderman uh Clements had spoken.

I I was going to echo that I agreed with my previous colleague Alderman Johnson, as well as Alderman Clemens and and um Alderman Sullivan.

I I don't want to see the city take on any more because there's always a dollar every time we do something, there's always a dollar figure.

My concern is I would want it very clear as to if it's being open to the public, that the public is aware that any liability, it's kind of use at your own risk kind of thing.

This is not city liability.

I don't want to see all of our social media that the city is not keeping up this park and so on.

I think it needs to be very clear direct as to who has liability, who has the appropriate maintenance of it, and and so on.

I don't want to see the city um take over, especially small parks.

I mean, if it was something very large, maybe that would be different if it was going to be a ballpark or something.

That that would be different.

But in I'm using the Mohawk tannery because that's one that I know is exactly that.

They've opened it up.

It's not just for their people anymore.

They've opened up that to the public.

The people in the neighborhood and so on can use this.

And it's going to be a park with swings and and and so on.

So liability has to be clear.

Sure.

And we would have standards for clear signage, saying, you know, private property, open to the public.

These are all things that we would craft into basically our site plan regulations that you know, all of the legalese that goes along with such approvals.

Um that that's kind of the weeds that we would flesh out.

But the intent is understood.

Any more questions on this one?

Um for the chair.

Go ahead.

Sorry, I just I just wanted to uh I wanted to um ask a question in regards to the maintenance as well.

So if if this was if we did put this into place and we made it on the you know the owner of the property um to maintain these spaces, this would fall under code enforcement too, right?

So if in other words, if if these parks fell into disres disrepair or something was not being maintained, this is something that our city code enforcement could uh could enforce and say, listen, you have to you know you're green to build this, you have to maintain it, here's what you have to do.

Am I correct to assume that?

Absolutely.

The the civic space in the maintenance thereof is all enshrined in the site plan regulations, and any lack of maintenance would constitute a site plan violation, which is enforceable.

So I think that's the mechanism right there.

So I think when when there's complaints, you know, in regards to the area not being maintained or broken equipment or things like that, you know.

If the if the owner of the property is not addressing the situation, then the folks who use that facility have redress through the through um code enforcement, and I think that's you know, again, on lines of what I don't know that you want to put this on a sign, but at least you know, people should know that somewhere, or at least you know it can be it can be said in the public that hey, you know, this this is a problem, let's get code enforcement involved type of thing.

Certainly, thank you.

Um before we go on to the next one, just are we good if we just go through one more?

Or what's your appetite for I'm asking you guys, not a dirty whatever we ask him to do.

Um one more?

Yes, perfect.

All right, cool.

Yeah, let's go through one more.

All right, and then we'll just take it up at the next meeting.

Certainly the rest of them.

Okay.

Um so this gets into our overlay districts.

Um, so think large, significant redevelopment of a 10, 20 acre big box store, total redevelopment, several hundred uh units mixed use, larger buildings.

The question is around requiring structured parking.

So saying you have to build a garage of some kind at X number of units in a project.

Um the reason for this is we want to see highest and best use of land.

Um recognizing that significant developments can take time to build out uh over phases, several years potentially.

Um this could be something like an like an end goal, a a final product uh and allowing surface parking as a project develops.

Um, but would we want to require that projects that are proposing 500 units have to have some percentage of the parking in a structured form so that there is more building and less surface parking on a redevelopment parcel?

Alderman Morgan.

What is a podium?

So a podium it would be considered structured parking.

Um I appreciate that question because we have seen some podium development.

We have also seen some projects that are approved with podium parking not moving forward because under current market conditions, we are hearing that podium does not work.

The cost of building podium is the under.

Yeah, so podium under the apartment.

The cost of building podium style development in the context of the Nashua market rate rental market does not pencil.

So you need larger scale, like 250 units to begin to make podium work.

Alan Clean all of it Sullivan.

Thank you.

But my first question would be would this push project development away from the city?

Is this a common type of thing?

The what I do like about it is that it's not all the cars are kind of seen.

That's my first part of my question.

My second part of my question is are you talking about this for apartments?

Are you talking about this for like a big box store?

Um or something of that nature.

Because if it were apartments, we're only allowed to have the one spot per unit.

Um and so would this even work in in that particular kind of uh thing?

So the context um being an overlay district where in the overlays you unlock residential as a permitted use.

The idea is that this would largely be residential, though I expect it would be a mixed-use component.

Um getting to the first part of your question, would this drive development away?

That is the thing we would want to avoid.

We we do not want to over-regulate and make um we ask for too much so much so that it kills projects before they even get off the ground.

Um to make a a recommendation based off of what we are currently seeing in the marketplace.

Um Nashville is a strong market.

We're seeing sophisticated developers from the Boston area come in well capitalized.

They they have a model.

While we do allow by state law, a one-to-one parking ratio, they're typically targeting one three five, one five, uh, and they want to deliver uh spatially effective projects, efficient projects, and and that means podium parking or structured parking to some some degree.

Um management styles differ and and long-term holds make more sense if you're trying to recoup the investment of structured parking.

Um so there's a lot of things that go into making that calculus work or not work.

Um so as a way to say um what I would suggest is leave it up to the market.

Some will want to do structured parking.

There could be ways for us to incentivize structured parking, that being more units that scale that can work.

Um, but to flat out say, and I don't think that we're even at a position now where we could say with a high degree of certainty what that threshold is at 500 units it works, but at 300 it does not.

We could not say that with certainty right now.

Um we would rather have the market tell us what that is and and let them build as they see fit.

Just follow up.

Yes, um, really quickly.

Um the NIMCO building, um, they're putting in podium.

They are correct.

Yes.

It's a mix, it's podium and surface.

And surface.

Um with the underground garage at the um school street flats, is that considered podium as well?

Because that's underneath and they have the airspace and the parking is down below.

Okay, thank you.

Alright Sullivan.

The mention about the unlock where residential unlocks more units, yes, more density.

Is it possible that building a podium or garage development unlocks more parking spaces?

So you said that there are there are cross-state developers coming in, we have a one-to-one, but if you built a garage, then would allow you to do a one-three-five or a one-five by putting up a garage.

Yeah, so we um we wouldn't necessarily say that they they can't go up to one five.

Um in some instances we may prevent a two-to-one, um, simply because over parking, but ideally, given the cost of constructing parking is so high, these developers want to be very accurate with their numbers.

They don't want to overbuild if they don't have to.

Um, so uh allowing them to use structured parking as a means of delivering the parking on maybe a constrained site, or at least freeing up more land that can be used for more units, and then parking those cars that belong to the the apartment owners or our renters in a structured form.

Um, but to require it, that's the question is do we force them to go that way or do we do we let them?

Yeah, a follow-up.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um so I think uh this an interesting idea.

I'm sure it's not a novel idea.

I'm sure it's being tried in markets across the country.

What can you report back on what's happening in the marketplace?

Sure.

The popular idea.

Yeah, so you see this more in more urban environments.

Like think um, I think Somerville, Massachusetts, um, where we consider ourselves fairly built out.

When you think of Somerville, that's that's pretty built out.

Um, you know, we we still have the ability to make use of uh surface parking lots, but there may be opportunities um or where in instances where land value is higher in the city, where you simply do need more intense development to make the return necessitated by that higher land value, and and structured parking would be that the vehicle for delivering that when you say summerville, you mean like assembly square or that area in the you know the general four square miles that is Somerville, Massachusetts.

Um I I I tend to not want to require it, but that's that's just my thought.

Uh let the market like you said, let the market figure it out.

Um anybody else have any other questions on this one?

Mr.

Chair, yeah, all in the comments.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Um so yeah, I I uh I tend to think if we can figure out a way to incentivize it, I think that would be a uh a good strategy.

Um but I don't I don't think that we should uh that we should force it.

That's it.

Looks like you want to answer that or a well, I would comment on it.

I want to respond with an interesting question in the context of the the conversation that was the discussion prior to this presentation.

Um we've been asked, it it's it's no secret.

Um sometimes developers come to us, you know.

What what what can the city offer us in terms of money to help us out with this really expensive parking garage, you know, you know, so we can get more units, you know.

There's we can incentivize from a regulatory perspective, but there's there's two numbers that we can't change.

We can't change the cost of construction, and we can't change what the rents are.

And those two numbers have to pencil at the end of the equation, and the regulations are just a variable between those two numbers.

You remove the regulations entirely, the two numbers still have to pencil.

Um, and so incentives, they are only so good as softening the regulations.

We're we're very limited in the state of New Hampshire in terms of what we can do from you know tax breaks outside of TIFF and the few tools that we do have.

Um we we don't really have monetary incentives unless, in the context of of the milliard TIFF expansion, if there was say a developer coming in who is building a several hundred space parking garage, and some of which were dedicated to public use, there's a clear nexus between that development and public benefit where TIFF dollars could be deployed.

In that context, that is an incentive, um, but entirely constrained by the geometry of the TIFF district.

Um I just I respond that way, Alderman Clemens to your question uh of how you know how can we incentivize it?

We're incredibly limited.

Um, but when we talk about incentives, is municipal funds a type of incentive you're talking about, or is it more regulatory in nature?

Yeah, so no, I was not I mean two things.

One uh no, I was thinking more of like a density bonus, right?

Because obviously, if you're building something like that, um you should be able to fit more units on a property, right?

So I don't know if the amount of units that you'd be able to fit would make you know financial sense to do something like that.

I guess it would depend on the size of the property.

Um I was thinking along those lines.

As far as incentives go, there you in fact, I know I was the co-sponsor of this.

I don't know if the legislation still exists, but as far as rehabbing properties in the downtown area, there there is like a there's a program or there used to be a program where you can apply to have the tax your tax uh taxes frozen for a period of up to 15 years if you're rehabbing more than 75% of a property.

So, you know, I don't know if that program still exists, and you can't try to know that Nashua did opt into it.

Um, and it was in the the D1 zone.

Um but you know, I think uh I I prefer things where the city doesn't have to give up any cash um in order to incentivize if we could do something along those lines of like a property tax freeze.

Um you know, I'd be in favor of that, but not necessarily giving giving away cash unless, like you said, there was some one off way that we could get a shared parking garage and it was beneficial to the city, but tend to think that that would be uh not really in the areas where you're talking about would that be beneficial?

So certainly thank you.

And you're referring to RSA 79E.

Yes, it still exists, and yes, Nashua is opted into it, though.

I don't believe we have deployed it once.

We we have deployed it once, and it was it was for the Cotton Mill Square.

Oh, good.

Uh, and I think that's the only time that we've that we've used it.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions on this one?

All right, so let's take a break there.

Um let me ask you this, uh, Director Durfee, Manager Durfee.

Um is there a way that that and maybe it was sent to us through something and I totally missed it or whatever.

Is there a way we can get a copy of this exact presentation and maybe we can each prepare ourselves to be ready for next month's meeting?

That way I think you know, if we're looking at the questions and we're thinking about the questions ahead of time or researching these questions, maybe we can have a you know better responses to them for you or better ideas of of what how we feel about some of these things.

You know, it's Alderman Sullivan's point earlier, he's like he's just looking at this for the first time.

I think if we have this ahead of time, it's almost like a little homework or pre-work.

Um we can do for ourselves and be better prepared.

That'd be great.

And then it's up to us whether we we look at it or not at that point.

Certainly.

I will obviously through Donna or however I will I'll send this presentation with a uh a bookmark in the slides of of where we left off uh to Donna.

I will also send a supplementary document that has the rest of the points that I plan to cover in future sessions.

Okay.

Um I will just caveat that with there are a number of policy questions that we have not gotten to that do require uh additional conversation around some of the um instruments that we'd be using in the code to help clarify them because on their own, they'd be a bit uh I don't know how to take this or or apply it.

Um so I will I will generate that and probably get that out this week or next.

And then also we can ask questions to you directly if we have a specific question about something we see in there, and again, help us just help us be better for you, you know, be a better committee for you when when we got to go through this stuff.

So I appreciate that.

All right, well, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um all right, tabled in committee.

Uh any general discussion, Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um Mr.

Chairman, and I want to caveat with this my comment with um an apology to anybody who takes it wrong.

And Alderman Morgan, I I know it's gonna feel like I'm I'm speaking to you and I and I'm not.

Um, but I just want to say that when we do move a question, we cut off any more questions and so on.

And personally, I did have a couple more questions that I did want to ask as much for the public as for myself, and we speak all the time that we do the homework in the committee.

When we move a question in the committee, we've cut off doing our work, which means those questions will now have to be asked at the board of Alderman.

Um, and I just want to make that very clear that it really should have happened here.

And I apologize, I'm not um being critical of anything.

I understand that it might have felt like we were going around around in circles, but I had a number of more questions that I needed to ask.

So uh thank you.

Uh thank you.

I think it's good that the TIFF discussion is gonna come up for a full vote on April 14.

I think we'll be in the midst of budget season, and that gives us about just under 30 days to really look at it.

I'm I'm just I'm reaching out to my colleagues to really look into TIFFs.

And I I really think that this is this is a decision that uh it's a 40-year sunset.

And um I'm not gonna say yay or nay, do what you want to do, but please just look into TIFFs.

They're very long, they're very involved, there's a lot of little caveats in there that this current administration you may say, hmm.

They would never do anything like that.

Thirty years from now, just think that we're making decisions beyond we are simply stewards of this city, and the decisions that we make for the next board that comes in.

I would just ask that people look at the TIFF, especially and what it can do for the city and what it may not do for the city.

So please just look into it.

That's all.

Alman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

I remember when we had the first TIFF.

Um, and that was with Mrs.

Hirsh, and I voted against it because I sat down with then Mr.

Fadet.

I'm gonna be because it's so long, I need a memory refresher.

I'm gonna be sitting down with um CFO and right this week, and I'm gonna go through it because there are a few things I'm not very happy, and I agree with Alderman Sullivan.

I mean, this is future, this is a lot.

There's a lot of components to it, so if you don't understand it a hundred percent, and back then Mr.

Fedette sat down with me several times and explained it to me so I understood exactly what I was voting for or against.

So I would just say to my colleagues, if you have any questions, do your homework.

And if you need to sit down with somebody in the city who can review it with you so you completely understand that you do it.

Thank you.

Alderman Clemens.

Uh thank you, uh Mr.

Yeah, I just want to um quickly just say that I appreciate everybody uh tonight and the discussions that um we've had and um you know, probably for the foreseeable future I will be uh participating remotely due to the illness of my my wife.

Um so I appreciate everybody's patience with that and um sorry for all the roll calls.

I just want to uh uh say I'm sorry for that ahead of time.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh public comment there well, sorry.

If if you don't mind, Mr.

Chairman, rather than speaking at the end under automatic comment.

Um I want to agree with my two colleagues that spoke about about TIFS.

Um I I've told um director um Cummings as well that you know I do have a little bother by by TIFFs.

I'm going to vote to extend this one.

I'm making that very clear.

Um, but I think we need to look very long and hard on any other additional TIFFs because this was part of the master plan.

That's why I'm keeping with it and so on, but I really do agree with them, and I spoke to uh Mr.

Ferdette just recently.

Um, and he feels that this can be a detriment if we do too many of these because we are literally earmarking funds for a particular area.

So I do agree with both of my colleagues that we have to look long and hard on it.

I will vote in favor of this particular one, extending it because I think it's the right thing to do.

I think that's what the master plan idea was, and so on.

Um and but they are absolutely right.

We need to look very long and hard at them.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh public comment.

There's no one in the audience.

Uh remarks by Alderman.

I just want to say thank you to my clerk.

I know she's new.

I'm new to chairing, so we're working lear learning to work working together here for the only the second time.

So thank you for for supporting me and being there.

Um looking for an adjournment, uh, Alderman Clemens.

Yep, motion to adjourn.

Uh by roll call.

Alderman Tiba.

Yes.

Alderman Clemens.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan, yes.

Alderman Clee?

Yes.

Alderman Saldan.

Yes.

That was hey.

We adjourned at 9.46.