I'd like to call the joint meeting of the budget review committee and the planning and economic development committee to order.

It's April fifteenth, twenty twenty-six, and it's seven eight oh seven PM.

I texted him.

I'm here.

Alderman at large, Alicia Greg.

Here.

Alderman Derrick Tebow is here.

Alderman Paula Johnson present.

Alderman Tim Senate Vice Chair of Budget.

Here.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm here.

I um gosh, my mind is.

I'm sorry.

I I've been very worried about my puppy.

Um, which is why I am home.

Um, good news she finally just ate something, so uh I am home alone.

Uh no one is here that can hear, and as I pointed out, I am remote because of a very sick dog.

Thank you.

And I apologize that you all have to do roll call.

Alderman John Sullivan.

Alderman at large, Amber Morgan.

Here.

Alderman at large Ben Clemens, PEDC vice chair.

Alderman Derek Tebow, PEDC Chairman, is here.

Um we only have two, so that's not enough for quorum.

So uh on PEDC on PEDC.

So um Alderman at large, Alicia Gregg filling in for um the last quorum piece of quorum.

We also have uh in attendance, Bobby Bagley, director of public health and community services, and uh director Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Okay.

So the first item on the agenda is public comment.

I would ask that if we've already had that heard your comments in the public hearing that you don't repeat them.

If there's anybody that has anything that hasn't spoken or has anything to add, they could come up now.

I just want to uh only if you're gonna add something that's not already been covered.

Say here.

Yeah, all right.

Uh excuse me, I had a forgot my phone.

So, Diane, if you're listening, I took my eight o'clock pills.

I'm a good boy.

All right, we're good.

Okay.

You have a question, Mr.

Keating?

Yeah.

Another comment.

If you have an amplifying comment, I think so.

And you have three minutes.

All right.

Uh Bob Keating, uh, five Coven Woods Drive.

Uh I think in in hearing uh the totality of of the uh the comments, I I'm just somewhat stunned that we're reaching a point of speaking about you know spending four million dollars.

So that's great.

And uh that people may differ about how that gets distributed, but I just think that's that's a very significant step that we're making.

Uh just very, you know, kind of some I'm stunned at this point of thinking that we've reached that point.

So that's all I want to say, and uh I I trust the the continuing process to figure out a way that we maximize the use of that money to help the most vulnerable.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Yeah, the four million is probably a a best estimate guess at the moment until we have a design option, we have no idea exactly what the cost is going to be, and also the grants that we can apply for, it won't all be city money.

Yeah, no, I'm I'm just saying four million dollars, you know, because I don't want to duplicate the other comments but made, but four million dollars uh that would be used, you know, for directed to getting people uh housed and staying housed.

That's that's just great.

Okay.

Director Sullivan, did you want to speak good evening for the record?

Matt Sullivan, community development director.

I wanted to add some additional context to some to some commentary offered by Director Cummings relative to the 1.2 million dollars of congressionally directed spending that's been considered for this project.

Um I want to emphasize the fact that in fact we have strong indications that because those congressionally directed spending monies are being administered to the U.S.

Housing Urban Development uh Department based on preliminary conversations with them and the timing of this acquisition specifically, and I'm happy to get into more detail about this and also put you to bed.

But uh basically, we are of the belief that because of the rapid timing of the acquisition of the property, we are in a way going to disqualify ourselves from using that 1.2 million dollars for the rehabilitation of the structure or the acquisition.

This is the nature of HUD funding.

If Alderman Lopez were still here, he would maybe nod as I say this.

Uh there's a risk of doing what's called a choice limiting action, and that is essentially choosing to do something that decides how the money is going to be spent.

Us acquiring this property for the intended purpose of doing a warming station, resource center, and transitional housing is something that would constitute a choice limiting action, and therefore, I believe based on preliminary conversations, disqualify us from accepting that 1.2 million dollars for this express purpose.

I do want to also just thank Congresswoman Goodlander, though, for her efforts on getting us those funds.

I know she's deeply committed to this project, and that conversation is not final, but I do want to be just very clear that if this proceeds, that 1.2 is likely to be inaccessible to us for this project.

But more conversation to come.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other public comment?

No.

All right.

Communications or is none.

Unfinished business.

There is none.

New business resolutions.

I'd like to make a motion on R 26-019 authorizing the purchase of 14 Mulberry Street and recommend final passage.

Okay.

Now everybody here can discuss this.

Um, but when it comes to voting, only the PEDC members can vote on this particular resolution.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so a couple things.

Uh I was surprised.

I I was expecting more people being excited about this because I know Director Bagley must be, um, because this is a long time coming.

And despite what was said in that last or one of the last public comments, um, this has been a long time coming.

It just because it just started to be looked at in the in the winter, is not because it wasn't being thought of or looked at pro previously.

So I want to I want to make that clear.

This is something that was on the Capitol Plan, at least since 2024.

And it was fairly like Dr.

Bagley and and Miss Muscioli said, was low down on the on the improvement capital improvement plan.

It wasn't gonna get done anytime soon.

And and it was kind of forced, but it was forced because we got into a in an issue where it was getting dangerous out out there for for the homeless people to live in that kind of a mass uh uh amount of people.

It was getting dangerous for them, not just uh people around them.

So it pushed us to do this, and that's one of the the uh things that came out of it.

And can I interrupt you for a second?

We're discussing it.

You should make the motion to recommend final approval so we can have a discussion.

Oh, I did.

I didn't make it.

Oh, yeah.

Um so it it pushed us.

And one of the things when I I voted the way I did on the the public encampment was that it we had to get a one uh a resource center.

That was part of the deal.

It's taken a long time.

They did look at commercial places, headlines was looked at.

That was public knowledge.

There wasn't anything that uh the mayor mentioned in one of the meetings.

So we did look at commercial spaces.

What you don't want to do is look at something in Northwest Nashua because how are people gonna get there where there's no other services?

This is perfect, it's right next to the health department.

You're not gonna find a closer place than this.

So I thought this was a good thing.

Now, at the end of the day, it's never gonna be the solution the final solution for this.

It's not, it's not gonna solve homelessness.

It's one little step, right?

It's something we don't have that other communities like us have.

And it's pushing, like you know, and Alderman Sullivan says this all the time.

Is it pushing Nashua forward?

It is.

And again, it's one piece.

Can we put up a uh uh low barrier shelter of 20,000 square feet in the next year?

Probably not.

We're spending 4.5 million on this, which to some residents is going to be a problem for them.

Most people I hope would would think this is a good thing.

I think it's a good thing.

I'm voting for it.

But some people will still come at us that it wasn't money well spent in the they think it should be spent on something else or given back into the taxes, right?

That's what we're gonna hear.

So to go and turn around and then buy a low barrier shelter and try to get that's gonna be you're talking tens of millions of dollars, probably even more than that.

That we just it wouldn't fly right now in the city.

So it doesn't mean we're not gonna look to it in the future.

I think we should.

But we had to start somewhere.

We have to go somewhere first.

And this is the first step, like I said, that other cities have that we had to make before we can get to that next step.

So I think it's a positive direction.

I trust in Director Bagley.

If she says we can fill it with enough people that meets the needs of Nashua, I have to trust her.

She's the one out there, she's on the front lines.

I'm not on the front lines.

So I have to trust her and Miss Muscioli that they know what they're talking about.

And Director Cummings, hopefully they have faith in him as well.

Um I do, that this is the right thing to do.

Um I know it's fast, but it was it sometimes you have to act fast on things.

We always get criticized for not acting fast on things.

This is the opposite, right?

We're maybe we're acting too fast.

So this is what we need to do.

I think I'm gonna vote for it.

I hope the rest of the committee supports it, and then the board of Alderman supported after that.

Thank you.

Other discussion, Alderman Morgan?

Thank you.

Um I wanted to recognize the exhaustion in the faces of those that did support that spoke in favor of this.

Um this is maybe new to some of us in the conversation within the past couple years, but this is work that they've been doing for decades, if not their entire life and their careers.

Um, and so I'm not a subject matter expert.

Most of us, many of us, I won't speak to everyone, also are not subject matter experts, although we have learned a lot in the past, in the past year.

So we have to rely on those that are the subject matter experts that do this work every single day.

And while I may disagree that this space can do all of the things that we really want to do, it is the choice we have in front of us right now, and they are saying that this is going to check those boxes and keep us moving in the right direction.

I don't think this is a question of either or.

I think this is a question of yes and yes to this, and what else can we do next?

And the point of that being is that we we will be creative, we will see what else we can do.

We have an incredible community that spoke not just in favor of this tonight, but many other times.

And know that yes, it is a difficult decision.

This is not the ideal property, but it is what is in front of us right now, and that's what we're tasked with doing.

Thank you.

Um I I want to echo the the last speaker's words.

It's exactly what I how I feel.

Um it's not perfect, and one of the things that Alderman Lopez reminds us all the time is that sometimes when we wait for perfection, nothing gets done.

And that's kind of been the problem.

Um while we talk about this is um just kind of a conversation that happened in 2024.

I remember uh a much larger plan that would put forward um to you know, a um one size fits all kind of type of thing.

Um and we all bought, uh, not necessarily the new people there because it wasn't in front of you, but many of us balked and said, wow, you know, we we can't afford necessarily 15 million dollars or so on.

Um I personally don't think once this is completely looked at, we can have everything there.

I'm not sure that we really can have a warming station and transitional housing and quote unquote their the resource center unless we get very creative.

But in any case, I think it is a start.

And if we keep waiting for perfection, we're never gonna get anything done.

As it is, this is not going to be done with within time to have any kind of warming station there.

So the sooner we start the better.

It was talked about all the commercial properties that are available, and while I agree there are a lot of commercial properties, I would rather see economic development try to bring in business to work on those commercial properties or developers to work on those, because those are larger properties, and to take property of that large off of the taxpayer roles, I feel would actually um be a deterrent.

It would be harmful to our um taxpayers.

We want to work to get bodies into those places, whether it's businesses or whether it's something like what happened with the Brady Sullivan uh building or you know, um you know, other things, clock towers or where they get repurposed for something else.

I would rather see commercial properties go in that direction than try to find um a commercial property that may or may not fit.

And to what uh my colleague um and chair of the PEDC said, he, you know, um it's right.

This is something that we we really do need.

It's something that we need to kind of start with.

Um, and I apologize because I lost my thought.

I looked down at my notes and and and forgot what I was gonna say, but um the the truth is that this is not perfect.

You know, I we we would not be honest with ourselves if we said it was perfect.

Um I feel that you know maybe there is something better around the way, but I don't want to wait for that.

We waited over and over and over again, and I'm frustrated, you know, with everything that's been happening, and I'm not frustrated at public health because public health has been bringing us ideas.

I'm frustrated with our own indecision.

I'm frustrated with, you know, people say we need, we need, we need, and the minute we do it.

Um, and in some respect, you know, I appreciate everything everybody had to say, and I do get you know, don't let this be the left.

I get their anxiety that you know we're gonna pat ourselves on the back, their fear that we'll pat ourselves on the back and say, okay, well, we did something.

But I also want this to be a conversation that continues that we bring in more partners, that we bring in um I I'm on the continuum of care um committee, and um I can tell you there's so many resources out there that we all work in collaboration, and we're just gonna be one portion of that.

We're not gonna be the everything.

We are not going to solve homelessness with this or a commercial property or anything.

We are just starting and we are trying to figure it out.

And um, while this is not the perfect solution, it is as my previous colleagues said, it is the one in front of us now, and I think we need to move forward with it.

And thank you.

Anyone else?

All of Greg.

Um, thank you.

Yes, I think that I mean, I think we're all kind of saying the same thing, but at some point, you know, we made uh the board made a mighty step this last year where we decided that we would have the camping ban and they would work more for resources versus just kind of throwing band-aids on things.

And this might be looked to some as a small step, but we have to also think about when we have any particular building, what is the staffing going to look like?

All of this has to be something manageable, and this is a step in the right direction.

So I am in support of this.

I would hate to see us do one temporary thing like Elm Street and do another temporary thing because none of that sets up stability.

One of the things we have to provide in this city is stability, and that's for those who are housed, those who are unhoused, and those are in the margins as well.

So while it's not perfect, I think it's a great first step.

I drove by the house the other day and saw it.

The location is really great.

Um it looks great.

I do like too that it's the city involved to make sure the people there with the building was being sold to the families living there, we have the commitment that they will help find them somewhere else to go.

So I think all around this is the right choice for the city.

Well, it said it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I apologize, I'm working a little out of order here.

I have a few things, but I want to make sure that you're main to the discussion.

Um starting with um 26019, uh, this is a bit of a leading question, but we're working with twin pieces of legislation.

So I I just want to put it out there so that we're um we're not letting one sort of force the other necessarily.

Um perhaps through you to uh direct your Cummings.

Um looking at these twin pieces of legislation, one authorizing the purchase of a property, the other authorizing the bond to purchase that property.

My question is if if the purchase uh authorization were to pass, but the bond were not, then what?

Um would we be able to, with the resources that the city has at its disposal somehow still secure this property within the time frame that's allotted?

If I'm in the Dr.

Cummings, no.

Yes.

Uh follow-up question.

Yeah, I I guess so.

Um my follow-up is more a question that I'm still gonna hang on to for 020, but um, I guess the the next question will be why.

Well, his answer was a no.

No, why wouldn't we be able to?

What why is it bond or nothing at all?

Director Jones.

Uh Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Um I would have to answer that by saying we do not essentially have the readily available cash that would be needed to be able to proceed with this uh purchase and and have an identified um uh source of funds.

Uh and that, and so therefore we're proposing that we do it through uh a bond author, a bond authorization.

Um I believe that that would be the uh the most appropriate way forward for this uh for this particular um procurement.

Follow-up?

Not on that, no.

Um, but uh for now I'll just say okay.

Um my next question would be to Director Bagley, and this is more just a sort of um high view philosophical question more than anything.

I'm not gonna retread anything that I brought up in the um the last meeting where we discussed this a bit.

Um but with the introduction of a lot of the concern regarding uh a low barrier shelter and this facility, you know.

I I looked at the whole plan that you had laid out with a lot of the different um options that the city has explored, and this one ticks a lot of the boxes, but it doesn't tick um you know emergency shelter beds.

Uh again, not a driving answer or anything, but if we could stand something up tomorrow, what would be more beneficial to the city?

This proposed resource center that is a long-term build that we're looking at right now, or a emergency low barrier shelter, Director Bagley.

So the answer that I would give for that would be if we could get a low barrier shelter up and running as quickly as we could, that would be ideal.

I will say this.

Oh, I forgot.

Director Bagley.

I always forget that.

Sorry.

Um consider in our city right now is that we have partnering agencies that offer some of these services already.

Ideally, what we want to do is be able to capitalize on all the resources that we have.

And so when I talked about the number of people that we see at our warming station right now, and that being anywhere from 42 to 50 some odd people, some of those folks opt to go there instead of going to these shelters that we have, right?

So we have some of these resources available that we need to work better to get optimum users out of those because of the size of our city, and because we continue to grow, and because of the economic conditions and some of the circumstances that some of our community members find themselves in, we are going to keep seeing an increase in number of individuals having housing instability.

We're trying to do that so we can keep people housed.

So we are seeing a lot of people just on the cusp not being able to pay their rent, get evicted.

Right?

And so you ask, you know, would a shelter be the best option?

Of course it would, because then that would allow for us to have temporary space for people to go when they get evicted or when they end up losing their housing immediately, but you still can't keep them in the shelter spaces.

You need more housing.

So the transitional housing gives us the opportunity to do that and then move people along into more permanent housing.

So I like what um Alderman Morgan said.

We need both and plus, right?

So we need we need all of it.

So we need to come up with a plan for this city over the next 10, 20 years where we're looking at all of those options because you're gonna have all of those things continue to present themselves in this community.

And it won't be because there are people coming from other places, it's just because that's a circumstance and situation that we find ourselves in right now in Nashua.

All right, thank you for that answer directly.

Direct Bagley.

I um I think that really illustrates the complexity of the issue here.

And yeah, I mean that it doesn't tick all the boxes, and it's um you know, we we definitely need to emphasize the need for the conversation to continue.

Uh I don't I don't get a vote on this particular one here tonight, but um, when it does come to the full board, I will support uh securing this property.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right, seeing no one, uh let the chair of PEDC do a roll call vote for our 2619.

Uh Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Uh Alderman Tebow is a yes.

Uh Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

And filling in Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

We have four yes votes.

Motion carries.

Next is R26020, authorizing the mayor and the city treasure to issue bonds not to exceed the amount of 900,000 dollars to fund the purchase design, pre-renovation work, and rent re renovations of a resource center at 14 Mulberry Street.

Again, this is uh everyone can talk to this, but only members of the budget review committee will be able to vote for it.

And we'll be doing a roll call.

We won't have to do a roll call because we're all here.

There's nobody online that can vote.

And so I'm gonna make a recommendation for final passage to the full board of Alderman.

Discussion, Alliman Woman Kelly.

Uh, thank you.

I had two questions.

Um, one was to Director Sullivan.

I wondered if you could explain a little bit more the comment you made about the uh congressionally directed funding.

I I don't know that everybody has the under full understanding of what choice limiting means.

Yes, Alderman Sullivan.

Yeah, sorry, direct the Sullivan's keep trying to promote you.

I'll take it.

It's different.

Um diversified now.

Um I I'm gonna start by saying it's always scary when someone says it's complicated because it sounds like you're avoiding answering the question.

But I'm gonna try to explain what a choice limit action is and and tell me if I don't explain it clearly.

So uh U.S.

HUD requires, and this is part of our regular CDBG requirements as well.

So we deal with these choice limiting action questions all the time.

When you have applied for HUD funding, um, and it can't it counts by the way when we've applied for congressionally directed spending and it goes through HUD.

So when you've applied for HUD funding, HUD requires that you go through what's called an environmental review process.

And an environmental review sounds like a general term, but in fact it's not.

It's a very specific section of U.S.

code, the CFRs, as they're known, that each property receiving HUD funding has to be reviewed under.

And you look at things like contaminants and asbestos and uh other known environmental issues in a property.

So they require you do one of these environmental reviews.

If you've applied for funding and you haven't done an environmental review, you cannot spend any money until you have done that environmental review.

Can't spend anything.

You also can't enter into any contracts because again, you have potentially indicated how you're going to spend money before you've conducted the environmental review.

So it's sort of a very it's a vicious cycle in a way, in the sense that you can't really do the environmental review work until you've actually put the property under contract in some scenarios.

But this vicious cycle is real.

We deal with it many times over the year.

We've dealt with it many times over the years.

We've had many projects fail because of this environmental review process, or simply walk away from HUD funding or CDBG because they've entered into a contract already.

What matters here is signing a PNS and frankly closing, more specifically, is a choice limiting action because it indicates how we are going to spend our money before we've gone through the environmental review process.

Did that make any sense at all?

It made sense to me.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Can I ask a file?

It's a very frustrating portion of federal law, quite honestly.

It sounds very circular.

Yes.

Follow up?

You may not know the answer.

Yeah, I asked.

It was everyone was talking.

In your experience, maybe just in the time that you've been, how often have we gone the right way with that?

Because it sounds like it's near impossible versus not.

We've gone so the answer to that question if I mister Chair is uh we've we actually it's not like we violate that provision.

What ends up happening is often that we're trying to grant CDBG monies to an applicant, and they say, Oh, you know what, we're actually under contract with someone already.

We then have to deliver the very unfortunate message that because you're under contract, we can no longer grant you HUD funds.

That happens, I would say, once a year that that happens.

Um and we've had similar issues on larger projects across the city in the past.

So it's not like someone gets into it and then we say, oh, we have to pull the money back or something like that.

It just happens where someone has entered into a contract or they've purchased a property for a specific purpose, and we say, sorry, you're not going to be able to accept HUD funds any longer, or these specific HUD funds into your project.

And if I could follow up on the might be for you, might be for Director Bagley.

Funding-wise, are there other sources that we could find this if that becomes the case?

And what other monies have we walked away from while trying, or not walked away from, missed out on, I think is the better appropriate because we didn't have a location.

I I think I should let Director Bagley answer the specific question, but I and I think she indicated this in the prior meeting.

Um shovel readiness and project readiness has been an impediment for applying applying for multiple for multiple funding sources, particularly through New Hampshire Housing and Finance Authority who's had uh notices of funding availability in the past.

Um we frankly just haven't been eligible as an applicant, or we've known better than to waste resources on applying when we know that project readiness is incredibly important.

Uh but specifics I should leave to director and the housing services officer Latonya Musioli Housing Services Officer.

Um we have had to walk away from the New Hampshire Housing Opiate Abatement Funding opportunity as well as we weren't prioritized through the Capital Improvement Committee because we didn't have a location for the project.

Thank you.

I have one more follow-up, but it's not along this if I could.

It's what?

I have one more question, but it's not a follow-up to that.

Um my last question was around what actually Alderman um Senate was talking about.

I was wondering about the cash availability versus bonding, because it's under a million dollars.

I was wondering because I saw Director Enright come back, if you could explain that a little bit more, please.

CFO.

CFO now.

Good evening.

Yes.

I didn't realize I was so short.

Okay.

Don Enright, CFO.

So right now we would have the cash in our assigned fund balance to fund this purchase.

But it's more important that we look at our cap space in relation to this.

And we are very close on our cap space.

We have right now about $2 million, but we have several things that are we have a couple of things that are going to be coming up that we know we're going to have to supplementally appropriate to be able to meet some obligations.

So at this given point in time, we do have a balance of our assigned fund balance of about $23 million.

So that's the situation that we're looking at right now.

And if I could follow up.

This is following how we are also looking at doing the DPW, where we're going to bond the pre-construction first and then bond the project once we know the total costs.

Okay.

Thank you.

Director Cummings, I do.

I think it's going to be worth Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Sorry.

He was commenting on it being worthwhile for us.

Well, I because I think it would be worthwhile for us to also talk a little bit about uh uh municipal finances and and philosophically like how we should try to approach where we are in our fiscal year.

And so we are getting ready to close out our fiscal year, and so I would never want to recommend to the body that we look to supplementally appropriate this using cash at this time of year.

If we were in the fall and we were getting ready to go into a surplus season and we had a better understanding of our assigned and unassigned fund balance, I would be much more comfortable uh recommending a supplemental appropriation with uh assigned fund balance or unassigned fund balance or using some of our surplus cash at the end of the day.

Um but we're not there yet, and the only alternative to that would be is potentially looking to available uh appropriations already and asking others to to basically forego whatever it is that they had that money set aside for and basically transfer it to this use.

And because of where we are in our fiscal year, I just don't think that that would be a a prudent thing to do.

So I wanted to provide that additional clarity.

Thank you.

That was worth it.

Question for the treasurer, CFO, Julie.

Is that right?

I could be wrong, but I consider this almost like a mortgage on a house.

If we bond it, and for some reason, for whatever reason, we sell it later on, that money can go to pay off the bond, and property certainly escalates.

Um I think bonding is a more prudent way to fund, but I'll leave that up to you.

Bonding is uh Don Enright, CFO.

Um bonding is what's being recommended for the purchase of this property.

And your statement was actually very very correct if um for some reason it didn't work out and we did sell the property because it was bonded, the proceeds from the sale would go to pay off the bond.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

Um I have a sticking point with the bonding.

I understand what you're saying.

Um, and I do feel that where we're talking about four million, maybe four point five million to do the renovations in this building.

That's probably not gonna meet all our needs, and we're gonna have to look down the line.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

Did we have somebody say that we're taking appropriations from another area to pay for something else here?

Could someone refresh 10,000?

It was the 10,000.

Director Cummings.

Yeah.

So we did take it from somewhere else.

If I may, Miss Jim and Tim.

Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Um through an operating budget that was set aside with contracted services and appropriate use of those funds is what we utilize to be able to proceed with this uh purchase a sale agreement.

I I wrote it down, but I can't find where I wrote it.

But um I do have I have concerns, especially what Mr.

Sullivan was talking about with the HUD money.

Um, we didn't do probably our due diligence.

Did you talk more directly in your mic?

I don't think they're picking it up.

Okay.

Could I ask Mr.

Sullivan a couple of questions, please?

Certainly.

Director Sullivan.

Dr.

Sullivan.

Hi.

Hi.

I want to go back over the funding that we're not going to be able to get because of the fact that we did a purchase and sales before we did any asbestos, or we did it after.

That's what I'm saying.

Yep.

So I want to be careful about how we think about our ineligibility, potential ineligibility for the HUD funds.

The environmental review process that I'm referring to that we're required to complete for HUD, Alruan Johnson, is a very specialized specific set of studies that need to be done.

There's literally a checklist of these items that HUD asks us to look look at, many of which would not even be applicable to this property.

Things like is this uh in an airport hazard zone?

Is it in a flood zone?

A lot of it's not relevant to to frankly properties in the in the city of Nashua.

That's what the HUD specific environmental review process is.

I would not suggest that our lack of completing a HUD environmental review is a failure on our part to not conduct to conduct due diligence.

I don't think that the HUD environmental review is a good indicator of good due diligence in purchasing a property.

The HUD environmental review is simply a required component of receiving HUD funds.

And if we were to go back in time and we knew this congressionally directed spending money were coming in and we knew this property was going to come on the market, I would suggest we would have done the environmental review.

We would have taken the necessary steps, but frankly, time did not afford us that option.

This property came up very suddenly.

We were made aware of the congressionally directed spending request or award very close there too, and and timing simply didn't allow us to do the steps necessary to position ourselves to accept the HUD funds.

I don't think there's anything that the city could have done to avoid where we are relative to those monies right now.

May I do follow up?

Follow up.

How long does it is the process with HUD once you apply?

Well, so that's that's that's a great question.

The process is that we apply through a congressional through a member of Congress, right?

And the money is allocated as part of the budget.

That congressionally directed spending process takes six months to nine months, and we the award notification is sort of interesting.

We receive sort of a soft notification and then we ultimately receive a letter of award.

Um that we're stores still somewhere in that process.

Then, after we receive a letter letter of award, we ultimately are connected with the federal agency that's going to administer the money.

In this case, we know it's going to be HUD, but HUD has not directly given us a grant agreement or said you are getting these monies.

But we we functionally know that we're getting the money, and we are pretty pretty confident, 99.9% confident that HUD is going to be the one administering it.

But it could be anywhere from six months to a year before we are actually in a position where we could even accept and spend the HUD monies, even if we did the environmental review.

And that's because the HUD disbursement process just takes a long time.

Congressionally directed spending requests are great, but they are designed for projects that are very early in their conception.

Uh we need you need a longer runway in many cases, or you need to use those monies, or I should say maybe your money is a transportation project based project, and therefore you're not required to meet all of these HUD standards.

You're instead being administered through DOT.

So I'm kind of going all over the place.

But the bottom line is there's a long runway to be able to deploy these monies for a project like this.

Thank you.

Director Sullivan, uh could those monies be allocated to a related but separate project associated with housing with home homeless housing.

I I think that's a con uh conversation.

It's a great question.

It's a conversation that we need to have with the Congresswoman and with HUD directly.

Uh I think that both the agency and the Congresswoman are committed to what the city is trying to do.

Uh I know that sometimes there is flexibility with congressionally directed spending monies, but I think they're going to look for us to accomplish a similar uh objective or goal, if you will.

But we have not had that conversation yet.

Um but is it possible they could allow us to spend the monies in a related way?

I I think it is possible, but not on this project, at least as of what we understand today.

No, but could be in the same subject matter, but just the difference.

Possibly possibly.

Okay.

I have Alderman Clee.

Sorry about that.

I keep trying to find my unmute.

Um Chairman Dowd, I I think you kind of asked the question that I have for um Director Sullivan, but I'm I'm going to ask it again because I think I'm asking him in a little different way.

Um Director Sullivan, if if I may, um Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

The question that I question that I have is although we entered into this contract, and I have a thing the answer is going to be no because of that six months to a year delay, but we'd to the contract to purchase this.

Um we are we're talking about getting design and so on.

But if once we purchased it, we've done the environmental um uh review, et cetera, and then we were to move on to after the the design, we were moved the actual construction of it.

Would we be able to use this towards the construction?

It's kind of, I think what Chairman Dowd had asked.

Um, but at the same time looking at it, this project where we're piecemealing the project.

We're doing this 900,000 now, and then we talk about possibly additional bonding to be able to do the construction.

Would we be able to use potentially use that 1.2 million for that, even though it's on the same project, we went under contract to purchase.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Alderwoman Clea, unfortunately, the answer is no.

HUD looks at these projects as being one project overall.

Uh I did actually ask that direct question of the HUD rep that I spoke to.

Uh and you know, their their position is that if the acquisition is for a property whose use is going to be the same as what the construction dollars will be spent on, you you can't expend the monies.

Uh so we can't really split the project into two parts.

Uh, an option that I am absolutely not suggesting, I'm simply laying it out as a hypothetical is if we were to suddenly walk away from this property, and then it would came on the market again in a year, and we were to able to get we were able to go through the environmental review process in the interim and get a HUD grant agreement signed, we could then potentially acquire the property with HUD monies.

But we're not in a position where we have that luxury, and so it's not really an option.

We would really have to start over in order to put these monies into the project, at least as I understand it.

Thank you, um, Director Sullivan.

And Mr.

Chairman, may I make just a comment?

That's permissible.

Um I while I appreciate this, and I I'm am sad that we're gonna lose the 1.2 million, uh, much like I voted on the other one, and I don't get to vote on this one.

I do still think it's worthwhile.

Um I too aren't thrilled with bonding something than um a million dollars, which is something we had agreed to, but I think ultimately this bond is gonna be more than 900,000 because we're looking at the bond of the others, and I also do understand what director um uh Cummings had mentioned about the being late in the year and and doing that.

Um so I I do hope that uh the budget committee will give a positive vote on this, and thank you.

Alderman Senate.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um not to belabor the issue of bonding too much more because I understand why we are where we are and everything.

But um I did want to ask um relative to our our long-term bonding plan.

I know that the ad hoc committee has recently reconvened and begun discussing this again.

And Alderman Clee actually just made a really good point that a 900,000 dollar bond is really just the start of what this is going to be.

So with that all in mind, and the fact that we're looking or re-looking, I suppose I should say, at our our five-year bonding plan.

Um, maybe through you to direct your Cummings.

How does this affect some of the things that really had kind of already had their heels in place on that um on that plan, specifically some of the larger capital projects that um even in the in the prior sheet had been prioritized?

Um obviously some of that would have to shift with the contemplation of this bond and what's yet to come.

Director Cummings.

Thank you, Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

That's a great question.

Um and I think uh there's two answers here.

Um first is our current selling of the debt uh for this year, rough numbers is 17, 18, maybe 20 million dollars, well under the 25.

And so in theory, if we could authorize this debt now, and then it would be eligible, it would be uh available for sale, we would still be um in a in a lower than the 25 mark, and so well on well within our our uh trajectory, if you will, because we're not we're not selling as much debt as we had anticipated.

Um and so that's that's the first answer.

But to the second answer that I want to make sure I bring up, this project will have to be accommodated.

So other projects most likely would need to be pushed out.

This project was not originally on the ad hoc plan.

And so folks need to be aware of that.

Now I will say that that was that plan is a living document.

It changes.

Uh, but you you do need to be aware of those trade-offs.

Thank you.

Did we not, Director Cummings?

Did we not?

I don't know if we voted on it, but we talked about the 25 and 30 million limits on that expanding with the cost of living.

Should we act on that yet?

We have not acted on that, Mr.

Chairman.

Certainly I hope that uh over the coming weeks through the ad hoc process, that's a policy directive that we're given that would increase that roughly on average to 25 million of sale that that we're looking to to accommodate year over year.

That would give some more capacity.

Technically, we haven't arrived at a at a at a decision on that point.

Okay.

Thank you.

Follow up, Alderman's on it.

Yes, thank you.

More just a comment than anything, and thank you, Director Cummings, for that answer.

Um that's really what I just wanted out on the floor here.

Is you know, I I understand the perception out there is that just want to have our cake and eat it too, you know.

And you know, sometimes I understand it can feel like that, but you know, there there are projects that we need to do.

I I think this is a project that we need to do.

Um, looking ahead, there are other projects that we need to do, and you know, unfortunately, some of that may have to get pushed further toward the back burner, but uh you know, I I I think it would be not outlandish to say that many of us when we were um seeking the favor of the electorate last November certainly pointed out that this was this was a need and a pressing concern for the city.

Um I I'm not nuts about a last-minute bond.

Again, I understand the nature of why we're here.

Um I could soapbox more about the fact that we're um in such a precarious spot with our cap space that we can't just um draw on our cash reserves because I I feel it's a more um appetitable way to go, but that's neither here nor there.

I I hope looking forward with um future expenditures we can avoid putting ourselves in this situation knowing that we have these needs that we're not meeting yet.

So I'm uh I'm happy to send this um this consideration to the full board.

Um I also have the benefit of having another week to chew on it, and my mind changes like the New England weather, so we'll see what happens next Wednesday.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My mind doesn't usually kind of stays there focused like the New York.

But that's okay.

Um I have some concerns about this, and I'm not saying we don't have the need for this, which we do.

But my concerns have been the same thing from the beginning, that we didn't do an inspection on the house.

I'm afraid what we might find in the house because it's an old house.

I'm afraid there could be asbestos.

I'm afraid that could even be cracks in the foundation, and that then what's gonna happen, what we're talking about four to five point four point five million dollars can go up even higher.

I'm gonna reserve, I'm not gonna vote on this bond because I don't feel, and I understand the cap space, I don't feel that small money like this should be bonded.

The money should be for long-term and bigger projects.

I know that there's projects coming up, and I think this board's gonna have to make hard decisions in the fact that this is going to take over another project because this is an important project.

But we need to now make the face the reality of this is that where we're going with the bonding and what projects are going to be important.

We've got DPW garage coming up, we've got the fire station, which is important coming up.

Um we have the library that's coming up, probably, and then other things that are coming up.

So we have to address what is our priority now in all this bonding, because it's so easy to say, well, we're gonna bond 25 to 30 million dollars, and we're below the 25 million, and we're only at 17 to 18 million, but you know what?

People have to pay for this.

And in the process, what is our priority here and what we're gonna bond?

I'm not gonna vote on this end on the 900,000 bonding.

I want to see how the project's gonna come in because that's where the most important piece of this is gonna be for that bonding to get this center off and running.

And I just want to see where we're going and what how much renovations and how much is needed in work in order to get this up and running with the beds.

I don't feel this is gonna be big enough.

I feel we're gonna we're shorting ourselves.

I understand we couldn't find anything else.

But when I listen to how many beds and where we're gonna be, I just want to see how this project is gonna, and this building is going to be laid out on paper, and how we're gonna start meeting the needs of our homeless population.

That's not saying I'm not gonna vote for the project, but what I'm saying is I can't consciously vote for $900,000 in bonding like this.

When this to me is small change money that should not be bonded for 30 years on a project.

Bonding should be for the bigger projects, not for smaller pieces like this.

Thank you.

T Boo.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I have a question for Director Sullivan.

I'm going to put them on the spot, and it's he's probably not gonna like the answer this one.

Um but before he comes up, I just want to say thank you for everybody that spoke tonight.

I know some people have left, and I know everybody here still has a the everybody here has a good heart, and I know we're all trying to solve a complex problem that the whole country is trying to solve in their cities and towns all over the all over the United States.

So I appreciate the uh keep coming back and keep speaking.

I I get it.

Um and we want you to keep doing that, keep putting pressure on us.

And I want to thank you know, Bobby Bagley, Director Bagley, and uh Ms.

Mucioli for the work they've done.

They are the champions, they are the ones doing the real work out there for for us.

We're just sitting behind desks.

They're doing the work.

So thank you, thank you, thank you.

Director Sullivan.

I I was giving you time to walk up.

I was filling the time.

But I do want to thank everybody.

I appreciate it.

And you're giving up your nights to come in here and and speak, so I know it's important to you.

Oh, you have a question?

All right, my question.

Um the planning board, I heard a little birdie told me tonight that this came before the planning board tonight, and this gave it an unfavorable response or a favorable unfavorable recommendation.

Can you please explore me why?

Because I didn't get the whole why on it.

Yes, the well, the birdie was correct.

And I'm actually, I'm glad you asked this question because I think it would be remiss if we didn't discuss it.

Um Director Cummings is conveniently leaving.

You didn't want any part of it.

But thanks anyway.

He's aware of this issue, and now he's gonna be upset at that game of our time.

Um so the planning board had a great discussion this evening, and I want to start by saying that uh I would I would ask board members to remember that the planning board is being asked to weigh in on an issue that they have not, they have not been a part of this discussion.

They have not had a discussion about the needs of the unhoused residents in the community.

That's not to say that they don't they don't have grave concerns about those needs and they're not aware of the situation, but they have not been engaged in the same level of dialogue that you have over the past two plus years with Director Bagley, Ms.

Mucioli, and the rest of the entire community.

So I want to start by saying, and Alderman Morgan, I'm gonna rely on her a bit here to confirm what I'm going to say, they are very aware of this need, and they were fully supportive of the fact that the city has to find a location to do this.

They were asked to weigh in specifically in the context of the acquisition process in the real estate in front of them.

And ultimately they voted two to three for a favorable recommendation, meaning that three members were not supportive and two members were.

The reason they weren't supportive, and you're gonna see a communication in your uh packets next week when you consider this, is they felt that the timeline was incredibly accelerated, that additional information related to due diligence needed to be provided.

And remember their function, right?

These are not surprising concerns.

Um and they similarly just wanted more data about the property before proceeding with a favorable recommendation.

I think they were uh we had a 50-minute discussion or 45-minute discussion about this one recommendation.

They took it very seriously.

They're aware of the weight of their recommendation.

Uh and frankly, they they ended the conversation with again saying that they appreciate that the board is likely going to choose to do this, and they were fully supportive of that.

But they had technical concerns about the due diligence process.

Um I I hope I'm representing that accurately.

Uh, but you know, I I'm glad you actually raised the question because I'm concerned that it will be brought up next week, and the argument will be well, they're totally against this.

That that's not the case.

Um they ultimately voted not to recommend this specific acquisition, but they believe this is likely going to move forward anyway, and they just want to draw a line in the sand that adequate due diligence does need to be done for for purchases in a traditional scenario, but they understand that this project is on a different timeline and trajectory than the normal project.

So this their uh input is just advisory to our board.

That is correct.

Uh you know, holding anything up.

Um it could have gone the other way three, too.

And by the way, I believe the city engineer was in favor of it, so the city engineer was in favor.

Uh, frankly, until the vote happened.

I did not know how the vote was going to go, quite honestly.

I mean, it was truly there were concerns expressed, but there was no one really saying adamantly this is a bad idea.

Uh one member, particularly with real estate experience, an active commercial real estate agent, expressed concerns about the due diligence process and whether or not an existing site was preferable over a new build.

I spoke to those concerns.

There was disagreement, very good, positive, respectful discourse, and ultimately that person chose to vote against the specific property, and I completely understand that.

If I may Alderman Morgan, if I may add um just a a little bit of clarity to that, and I think your your response was very accurate in the representation of the conversation.

Um the planning board typically looks at a fully prepared and formulated plan of a property, including many different drawings, including um land elevation and different letters from um a butters and through very particular nuances, um, including direction of the sun.

And is it uh is if you're adding a second floor, is that going to block the house behind it?

So those nuances to which we didn't have any because we don't own the property yet.

So um, so it was it was a little bit tricky for them.

Um and it weighed heavily on them to make that decision, and uh did end up in the in the results with all of the stipulations that um that we had asked, and frankly, they asked a lot of questions that this board asked for clarification on as well.

So everyone's in the same same direction and same thought.

Yes, Alderman Kelly.

I have just a couple comments as I hope we're wrapping our conversation, but um I am struggling with the it's too fast, it's too slow, it's too this like at this point.

We do not have the luxury of inaction.

We've been talking about this a lot.

We've had a lot of plans put in front of us.

Our city officials have pivoted and pivoted and pivoted and pivoted, and there have been a lot of people who have said, well, we need to run the city like a business.

What's the business plan?

But well, you know what businesses do, they take risks.

I'm an entrepreneur, I take risks.

I'm not saying that the city is taking a huge leap of faith here, but we are buying a property that is directly across the street, and the pros and cons list to me looks like an appropriate decision for us to take.

Um and then my second comment is the idea of return on investment.

And I want to just put out there the return on investment is not necessarily a monetary thing.

It is not our job as elected officials to raise revenue.

We are supposed to figure out the amount of services that are needed in the city, raise the appropriate amount of taxes, and break even.

That is our job.

That is our job.

Keep an eye on it, keep it thoughtful, think it keep it fiscally responsible.

That's our job.

But sometimes return on investment is well the library, having a beautiful place for people to come that attracts families to our city, that attracts um, you know, people who are well educated, that's a return on investment.

Our center for the arts, how many times do people throw up roadblocks?

We we don't need that.

That people won't come.

That's the wrong property.

It happened all the time.

But we're seeing that return.

People are coming to Nashua because we have a center for the arts.

So return on investment is a term that is a business term, but I think we also have to think about the return on investment for a community can look very different.

O'Brien.

Yes, uh Mr.

Chairman.

I would like to uh move the question to a vote.

Vote on the question.

Okay, the motion on the floor, which is not debatable, is to move the question.

All in favor on the budget committee signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Move.

Okay.

The question is moved, and now it's the recommending the full board final passage of R 26020.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Motion carries.

Okay.

New business ordinances.

There's none.

Table and committee.

There is none.

General discussion.

Seeing none.

Public comment.

It okay.

Seeing none.

Remarks by Alderman.

None.

Alderman Timo, you want to do the I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

Do we have to go by roll call?

I roll call.

Yeah, by roll call.

Yes, yes.

Yes.

Yes, I'm doing the roll call.

Um sorry.

O'Brien Sr.

Oh yes Alderman at Large Soshana Kelly Yes Alderman at Large Alicia Gregg?

Yes Alderman Derrick Tebow says yes Alderman Paula Johnson Yes Alderman Tim Senate Vice Chair No C Alderman Richard A.

Dowd, yes uh Alderman Patricia Clee Yes I appreciate Alderman Large Amber Morgan Yes and that's it uh one two three four five six seven eight nine to one motion carries and we're adjourned at nine oh eight p.m.

Good night everyone good night everybody