Okay.

Sometimes it's just phone won't do it.

Okay.

Apologies.

Uh starting over to calling the role.

I I have Mayor Donchess recorded as being president.

Uh uh President Wilshire, I do not believe is in attendance at the moment just yet.

I have uh Alderman Clemens.

I don't believe Alderman Clemens is here just yet.

Uh Aldwoman Kelly.

Uh Alderman Clee.

Here.

Uh Director Photo is uh sends her regrets, she's absent this evening.

Director Sullivan here.

And Director Cummings is present.

I didn't add the golden rod.

I apologize if you put that in the meeting.

All right, so we have a quorum.

Um and uh we will I'll begin with tonight's presentation, so I'll turn it over first to um uh Mr.

Cummings, who I believe is going to bring or believe we're gonna bring uh Mr.

Smith forward, right?

Uh that the school department.

Uh that's correct.

Uh uh Mr.

Mayor, we have two items that we're gonna hear this evening.

We have the school department and we have community development.

Um, and I believe community development's uh specifically gonna speak to uh hydro operations.

Uh, but if we could start with schools first, I would appreciate it.

And we have uh Dr.

Andred.

Um Mr.

Smith and the president of the school board here.

So with that being said, Miss Mayor'd like to hand it over to uh Sean Smith to lead us through the discussion.

Also school administration buildings.

A little over two million square feet, three hundred and eighty-two acres of land.

Roman as of October was a little bit over 9,700 students, and approximately 2400 staff.

Next slide, please.

This may be a little bit hard to read, but these are all the schools.

Rather, the year they were built at square footage.

I highlighted four schools.

Bicentennial, Dr.

Crisp, Mount Pleasant, and New Searles.

Each of those schools was renovated at least 30 years ago.

And you talk to anybody in the industry, 30 years is about as long as a school should go in between major renovations.

That happens to be about the time a lot of the major systems start to fail, be they roofs, mechanical systems, pavement outside, that sort of thing.

So those uh schools are always on our list moving forward.

Next slide, please.

Just give you a little bit of history of what we've done very recently with the money that we've allocated through deferred maintenance.

We completed resurfacing on the North High School track.

We paved a portion of the North High School, starting up where DPW left off on Titan Way.

We conducted roof repairs at various schools to extend service life, replaced the PA public address and bell systems at two high schools and resurfaced the tennis courts at both high schools.

Next slide, please.

We'll talk about this a little bit later, but uh the colored portion of this uh map shows what we paved basically from so heegan drive into the school, both the bus loop and the parent pickup and drop-off loop.

Uh it leaves a lot of paper left.

We haven't touched yet.

So the parking lots, for example, were not touched so far.

Next slide, please.

Um the other big thing we've done this past year is uh with the funds you've allocated are developing is a facility master plan to help us all uh looking at schools in the future and anticipate when things will have to be replaced.

Uh also is looking at only physical plant but also the physical physical facilities and how curriculum and enrollment projections will uh be will affect that.

So we did a lot of visioning processes and speaking with the community.

We had three public forums, and so we've developed a footprint of what schools should look like in the future.

That study will probably be done this summer, I believe.

We're very close, they're just wrapping things up.

And we expect the report probably about mid-summer, late summer at the latest.

Next slide, please.

Uh the work we're currently working on is replacing the fire alarm system at Bice Elementary.

That was not part of our original deferred maintenance plan, but the fire alarm failed a number of times this past winter.

Luckily, we're able to do some jury rigging and keep it working.

But we've uh bid that out and expect the board of ed to award that later this month.

Uh also the school administration building.

Most of it is uh original to the building, which was uh about 1990, and we're looking to replace that.

Also bid out and also expect to award that you rating funds and deferred maintenance.

We're looking at partial roof placements at Fairgrounds Elementary School.

Or we could continue the paving program at the North High School.

I'm looking to see what I think I've just heard.

Deferred maintenance for FY uh 27.

That may push us in one of those two directions.

Next slide, please.

So my understanding of this meeting is to discuss our top three projects.

Um capital projects going forward.

I always lead off with deferred maintenance, and we ask for 1.2 million.

I think we're getting somewhere in neighborhood of 500,000.

Um bicentennial elementary roof replacement.

Remember earlier I talked about building systems reaching the end of their life after about 30 years, and we're right about there with bicentennial now.

And whenever we get a any sort of heavy rain, we get roof leaks.

Um it just moves around.

It's it's almost assured that uh when we get a gully washer over rainfall and have leaks.

And that uh that number is a high number.

Um Vendor we use about these uh tends to give us a little bit high numbers, but that provides us a little cushion as well.

Um years ago, I think back in the late uh teens, uh, was working with DPW to repave the North High School.

They recommended I go to a company called Stantech to get a better estimate.

I did that, I've been escalating that number ever since, and with the work that we already completed, I I figured it was about 1.4 million dollars left of work.

Um, next uh thing we want to do is upgrade our uh district wide security system.

That system was installed around 2012, give or take a year.

A lot of the components are still original to that.

Uh whenever we go, for example, to replace cameras, you just can't replace them in kind because you don't make cameras that simple anymore.

Everything's much more technical.

So then you have problems interfacing that new camera with the old system.

So we're we're looking the whole system when it was installed, cost 2.4 million dollars.

Uh so we're looking to do this in two stages where we're replacing components in that system.

Uh finally, the facility master plan.

I talked about that a little bit.

Uh the preliminary data they provided, they deed the work that was in there.

We did 12 years, and the number I have there for FY27 was a little under two million dollars.

So approximately 24 million is what they're forecasting.

Uh next slide, please.

Just to give you an example of what's behind that.

Uh we're requesting in a future fairgrounds elementary roof, is uh about the same shape as bicentennials.

Uh we initiated a project a number of years ago to install uh air conditioning dehumidification at Charlotte Fairgrounds and Letchby Elementary Schools.

That's basically the center wing, which is the art classrooms, the gymnasium, the library, uh, and also the back wing.

Um they just didn't receive it during our renovations, which are around 2013.

Just ran out of money to do it.

We actually already did the design work for this, uh, already have an architect on board, so as soon as we have the money, we can one of those shovel ready projects.

Um you can look at the realistic a lot of roof replacements, uh potentially go back to Panachuck and put in dehumidification of the old wings.

Um that's all far in the future.

The we talk about roof replacements, uh high school roof replacements, it's in a neighborhood of uh six million dollars for one school and about eight million for the other.

So whenever we get around to doing those, and they're keeping in mind they're already 20 plus years old, it's gonna be a hefty tag.

Um next slide.

Next, please.

So neglected to say, so in the handouts I gave you, one was this presentation, the other one was again a listing of the capital projects, which we just went over, so attached to deferred maintenance projects, so we have a list of feel for how we're doing with that.

And then the last thing I gave you is um is this, which is the building assessment that uh company called ARM consultants prepared for us, and they've done all the roof assessments for us and assessed probably about half of our school roofs.

Uh so two years ago they they did the assessment, they identified uh number of media issues which we did address last year, uh and the year before.

Those would extend the service life for two to three years, um, which is why I'm asking for the funds now with an eye towards hiring a design agent this fall to go through design and then award the actual roof replacement next summer.

Right, award it in spring so they're ready for summer.

Um their estimated cost was a little under 1.9 million.

Again, I'm expecting that's a little bit high.

Um we'll see what petroleum costs cost at that point.

Petroleum affects rubber roofs significantly, what they cost.

Uh next slide, please.

This just gives you a sense of looking at the roof from overhead, all those little dots were places we had to go back and do the preliminary repairs last year.

Um we addressed all of them.

Uh next slide, please.

So we talked about the North High School paving.

Um, pretty much talked to all of this.

We can either do it one of two ways, we can continue to try to do it in bite-sized chunks through deferred maintenance, or if we come up with 1.4 million, that should finish the project.

And then next slide, please.

There's some pictures of the pavement there.

You can see it's all cracked up and uh falling apart.

Um the work we did last summer turned out very well.

Everybody's uh pleased with that.

And next slide, please.

Talk about security already.

Um we've done an awful lot of work through grant funds as well.

We've done uh this whole lot of security vestibules in pretty much every school, another we've enhanced the camera system, that sort of thing.

Um but we're looking at a two-year project, 500,000 a year to address the rest of it.

Next slide.

Talk about facility master plans.

Do this when I get a presentation, I get ahead of myself before I get to the slide.

Um so we we've priorized what Verman has done so far.

Uh uh, we have ADA, safety security, environmental controls or our top three priorities.

It's about two million dollars per year if we address those.

I'll be able to fine-tune that once I get their final report this summer.

They gave me a spreadsheet as in a PDF, so I can't maneuver it, and it's super stalled print, so it's incoming attractions.

Um next slide.

That's it.

So that's my presentation.

All right.

Anybody have questions or comments uh for Mr.

Smith or anybody from the school department?

Um Alder Woman Kelly.

Oh, thank you.

Um I know you left the facilities master plan at the back here, but my question is around whether these will change based on what might be decided out of those.

I don't expect any major changes.

Um part of this will depend on what the school district does with its schools.

I want to say the closure work, but that that's it's hanging out there.

That could affect things.

Um, I think what they will identify better for us is okay in 2031 they do to replace the boilers of this school.

Uh place um roofs, that sort of thing.

Okay.

If I could follow up.

Yes.

Maybe to Dr.

Andre or the president of the school board.

Um I know we have the Herman study.

When's that wrapping up?

And are there going to be decisions made about schools in the coming year?

Um thank you.

Maurio Andrade, superintendent of schools.

So that's our hope is that we would get recommendations coming this summer, and then once those recommendations, you know, start um rolling out those recommendations to the community so that we can have a decision September, October, especially even if it's partial.

Okay.

So we want to make sure that even if it's a recommendation to close one school or it's a phased in and whether it's A, B, C, or D.

But if we decide, uh if the BOE, I don't want to speak for the BOE, but if the BOE decides to close one school, we want to make sure that there's ample time for the community to be aware of that.

Uh we maybe have to um redraw some district lines and then um think about where students will be attending.

So I think it's kind of partial, but if we know that there's only going to be a one school closed, we like to do it sooner than later.

Um, I don't know if Miss Bishop has anything more to add.

She doesn't want to talk about your fine.

That was good into it.

But I think the long term, it's you know, like I think there might be more immediacy, you know, voting on our budget this year, you know, for the city budget, but I think the conversation about closing a school has to be sooner than later, even if we don't have the totality of the plan, whether it's A, B, C or D or E, there is an E in there.

Um yeah.

Um, but I think even if we need to have that decision, if we're gonna close one, no matter what plan it is, um that's that decision has to be sooner than later.

Follow up.

Yes.

Uh thank you for that answer.

Obviously, I Sean, I know you do incredible work, and our school department and our buildings are such assets to the city.

I just want to make sure that if we're investing in capital improvement, it's not a school that gets taken offline.

All right.

Anyone else?

Uh Alder Woman Clee.

Um, in the capital project plan, um, when it talks it's do I have the wrong sheet here.

No, we don't.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, it says like it'll list a school and then it says district wide um facility master plan MEP or district wide facility master plan ADA.

What is that?

So ADA, for example, is the American Disabilities Act.

Right.

I assume that, but I just why is that broken out?

Like um, uh for example, it'll have Charlotte elementary school, um, roof replacement, then underneath it says district wide facility master plan MEP.

So MEP is mechanical electrical plumbing.

So that would be through every school you would be doing that.

Okay.

Okay, that's those are placeholders.

Understand that because I don't have the data to divvy up those projects yet.

Okay.

But it's not related to the school that's above it.

That's the question I was asking.

Okay.

They stand on the room.

Thank you.

Yes, on the bicentennial roof.

Uh we had monies left over from the other school projects that have now been closed.

And I put in legislation to repurpose that money to do the bicentennial roof.

Uh Sean and I estimate that that may come in around 1.4 million, which is or a little higher, depending on where fuel goes.

But uh we have 1.6 million in in monies that we've already bonded for.

We're already in our debt service, and can be used for this project without impacting our budget whatsoever for 27.

And if the number gets higher because of we keep bombing her in, uh there's a couple things we can do.

They cover a small difference with deferred maintenance monies, or each one of these sections that you see on bicentennial are in different degrees of shape.

Uh one's not too too bad, and that one could be patched if we had to to reduce the cost, but we'll do it for that amount of money.

Anyone else?

Uh Mr.

Cummings.

Yes, thank thank you, Mayor.

So just want to clarify that last point relative to bicentennial bicentennial elementary school roof.

I'm hearing 1.6 is what the project is is being bonded for.

But I I believe I heard that you're going to do design this year.

So is it fair to say an FY27 you'll spend about 200,000 dollars ish, and then the balance the 1.3, 1.1 in FY29 or FY28?

Right.

But sounds about right.

Okay.

I just I just wanted to kind of clarify that.

And what whatever, whatever it is, but it's uh that's the plan.

Yeah, the major chunk is the actual construction first piece of design.

Okay.

Uh and if I may, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, go ahead, please.

Thanks.

Uh couple a couple other questions.

Just going back to the beginning of your presentation.

Uh I understand you're not ready yet to kind of think about new construction on the various buildings, but I note that the four buildings that you've bolded, three out of the four are relatively within the same time frame age, all in the mid-90s.

Are they all relatively in the same condition or you know, same same state, or is one worse than the other in terms of building um uh deferred capital maintenance or need.

So if you're just talking about the mid-90s ones, yes, put yeah, put the other one out because that's a little bit of an outlier bet being an 87.

But I'm I'm just curious between you got two and ninety-six and one in ninety-four.

Is it all fair to say is it is it safe to assume they're all three or roughly the average building assessment?

Yes, I would say that bicentennial should be our first priority.

Okay, um, followed by uh new Searles and then Dr.

Chris.

Okay, so then new Searles and then Dr.

Chris.

Okay.

And that and then if I couldn't, Mr.

Mayor, just a couple other questions.

So I hope we just it's fair to say that you have the bond authorization pending for bicentennial, and then you have roughly 500,000 of the 1.2 uh again, 500,000 pending for the deferred capital maintenance, and then other priorities, it sounds like 1.4 million for paving, a million for security system refurbishment, and then the master plan life safety uh and security projects for two million dollars.

Those are all still pending.

And I think it if I could on the last one, I think it'd be safe to say we're probably looking at FY28.

That's what I wanted to know.

We have to synthesize it, prioritize everything, develop little projects and a better position a year from now.

So the last one, the facilities plan for two million dollars is more like an FY28.

Yes.

Just one other thing.

So we're all on the same page.

We're not putting out a new bond for Bicentennial, it's repurposing already existing bond money.

And so then paving at 1.4 and then 1 million for the security refurbishment and those would be outer years 29, 30, whatever it may be for.

I'm just trying to understand in terms of priority.

Like as if I just heard you say 28 for the master plan, I can only assume the other one.

Do you are those going in 28 as well, ideally?

I was hoping they're in 27, but it depends on where the money is.

Got it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Anyone else?

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

Appreciate your coming over.

Um I believe we're going to hear from uh community developments.

Minister Sullivan.

Tim, could you switch over the input to desk right?

Yep.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor, members of the committee.

Uh I'm Matt Sullivan and the community development director for the City of Nashua.

Uh we're going to present primarily on the hydroelectric facilities this evening, which I know have been a topic of conversation certainly during the budgeting process.

And to do that, I'm actually going to pass off to Deb Chisholm, who was formerly the city's waterways manager, currently the city's sustainability department manager to walk through the fish passage and other improvements contemplated at the minefalls and Jackson Mills projects.

I'm going to rely on her to cue me when she needs me to change slides, but I think we're going to encourage you to ask questions throughout the presentation as we go through this.

So thank you for having us this evening.

Hi, good evening, Deb Chisholm, sustainability department manager, overseer of both hydroelectric facilities here in the city.

Got a couple of nice pretty pictures up there.

I will give a shout out to uh Seth Dewey for the one of Jackson Mills on the bottom left with the nice sunset.

Um the purpose of being here tonight is to sort of give a general overview of what the hydroelectric facilities actually actually do, a little bit of history on them.

Um we're gonna go over some of the expenses and revenues associated uh with those facilities.

We'll I will mostly be talking about them sort of in a combined um in combined amounts, not necessarily um by facility uh per se.

Thank you.

Um we're gonna jump right in here.

Um I know that there have been various folks who have been talking about the uh efficiency um et cetera of these facilities.

Um I'm not necessarily putting these up here for everybody to be able to see every single uh number on here, but I do want folks to know that we do have actual power generation data.

Uh this is not theoretical data that we're basing our our costs on.

We're basing them on our power generation and and our actual revenues are really more based on real numbers as opposed to assumptions tonight.

I've got um two slides that show the power generation for minefalls because I did want to make sure that people were able to see that we had power.

We've got power generation records um back from starting in 20 um 2000 um through 2025.

Um and you can see based on the on the bottom there that our average annual generation is um just over 11 million uh kilowatt hours.

That translates into about a little over uh a thousand homes worth of data per year just from mine falls.

Next slide, please.

Now that you've got it all set up so people can read the actual numbers.

This one's even better.

Um this is data that dates back to 1988 when the facility was um just getting up and running.

The city didn't own it then.

Um but you can see down down on the bottom you can see average uh generation, and I'm happy to send this um packet out to everybody at the end so you can take an actual look at the at the actual numbers on there.

But the power generation on average for Jackson Mills is a little over 4.1 million kilowatt hours per year, and that equates to about 385 homes.

Timelines for these, next slide, please.

The timeline for Minefalls facility was built in the mid-80s, just like uh just like Jackson.

Uh the facility was constructed and operated by Seward Construction.

The city bought out the existing lease uh in 2016.

In 2018, we initiated our application to the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission for a new 40-year license.

Um spoiler alert, we have not received uh the new license yet, still waiting.

Um that might be a good thing, but we'll hold that for the a little further discussion a little further in.

Um so we have applied for a new license.

The original license expired in 2023, and we've been uh granted the uh approval to continue operating in the same manner until a license uh new license is actually provided.

Um despite the fact that we don't have the new license, we have the draft um uh information from FERC on what the requirements will be.

So we've sort of started a little bit early here in 2025 to initiate our conceptual design for what our upgrades are going to look like uh to the downstream fish passage at Mine Falls.

Uh upstream fish passage, so far so good.

Um we use a fish elevator there, and everybody seems okay with it.

So uh all we're looking at for minefalls is downstream passage.

Um of the things that we've done recently is start looking at fish-friendly turbines.

It was one of the alternatives provided to us by um our engineering firm that's doing the evaluation of options and essentially conceptual to 100% design for both of our facilities.

Um the fish fish-friendly turbine is kind of a new thing.

Uh, I believe that in the United States there are only two facilities that have this fish-friendly turbine installed.

Uh, but I do know I've just heard from the vendor that there are probably five or six hydro facilities in New England that are currently evaluating this new um this new uh process.

Um we're hoping that that new license for minefalls shows up this year.

Um it may be on hold, and I say that because we are in the middle of uh acquiring a new license, and I have prov I have requested from FERC some guidance on whether changing the turbines out to new turbines is better off done before the new license is provided or after.

I'm suspecting that it's before, um, so there may we may be able to put that on hold depending on what the feasibility uh of using fish-friendly turbines uh looks like.

Uh next slide.

So again, Jackson Mills also built in the mid-80s, uh, acquired uh from Nashua Hydro Associates in nine in 2014.

Um, Nashua Hydro Associates uh was doing business as Nashville Hydro Associates, they now do business as Essex Hydro.

Uh that is the company that we have hired to do the operation and maintenance of both of our facilities.

So they are super familiar with Jackson in particular.

Some of the folks that are on that project have been on that project since the mid-80s, so they are very uh uh in tune with what's going on out there.

Uh 2019, we initiated the replacement of the turbine generator and uh controls uh the with the idea being that we wanted to make sure that we were starting on replacement of older equipment before the equipment actually broke completely.

Um we'd been struggling a little bit with Jackson relative to, and Jackson I will tell you has one turbine.

Minefalls has two turbines.

So when Jackson goes down, it's down completely, not generating any power.

Uh so we decided we would start there.

Uh we um applied to FERC in 2019 to get an amendment to our license exemption.

The facility is small enough that it doesn't need an actual full-on license like Minefalls does.

So we had requested an amendment to the license exemption, and that was approved in 2023, and we completed that turbine project in 2025.

So we've been operating that facility that new facility now since uh July of 2025.

We've also initiated conceptual design alternatives for upgrades to upstream and downstream fish passage.

And I will take this time right here to explain that we're not just replacing upstream and downstream fish passage here and downstream at Minefalls because we think it looks good or we think that it needs to be done, we're really doing it because it's required by FERC.

Our amendment to our license exemption and our new license at Mine Falls both require updated fish passage.

That is the basically the projects that we're that we're here talking about tonight.

That work uh needs to be done in conjunction with federal and state agencies.

I refer to them as the fish agencies, but that's U.S.

Fish and Wildlife, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department are all basically playing a major role in reviewing all of our design documents for our fish passage.

Next slide.

So to go a little bit deeper into our expenses and revenues.

I didn't want to go back to 1988, and frankly, I don't have a whole lot of data for those older years.

But for 2018 through 2026, uh March of 2026, I presented here the operation and maintenance expenses.

And uh I think an important thing to note here is those expenses there are those are rev, those are expenses that we have paid out to Essex Hydro, who has been again the vendor for doing all of our operation uh maintenance repairs since 2018.

Um those are expenses that are paid to them that include whether it comes out of the general fund, whether it comes out of the hydro reserve account, or whether it comes out of bond accounts.

So those are the total expenses.

I will say the amount that we pay to Essex to do operation and maintenance covers about 90% of our general fund budget.

The rest of the budget in the general fund covers uh port a potty rentals and uh trash hauling uh communications, etc.

Um, but so I thought that it'd be best if we presented just the OM expenses uh to get a better understanding of what those expenses look like.

The next column is the thank you to uh Dawn and her financial services team, the debt service payments uh that we have paid annually since 2018.

I think we only had debt service, I think 2017 may have been the only other year where we had debt service that's not shown on here, and of course, future debt service.

Um but those are the annual payments that we're paying.

And then that last column uh are the revenues that we receive for both power generation and for selling our renewable energy certificates.

Um the power generation is based on uh a rate uh per kilowatt hour that we're paid and the renewable energy credits are those are uh certificates, those are purchased, those are sold by Essex Hydro, who is our contractor.

They sell those to places that need to have uh renewable energy in their portfolio as a as a requirement.

So we sell those renewable energy certificates to others.

Um I guess I don't have too much more to say on on this slide, and again I'm happy to answer any questions that folks might have.

Um I've just got to oop.

I was just gonna ask that uh when down the debt service.

Even if we stopped using the hydroelectric, we're still gonna have to pay the debt service, right?

Correct.

You better pay off the bond, one of the two and we would lose all our revenues.

So that 889,000 is going to be an expense to the city if we don't have the revenues to offset it.

That's going to be pretty expensive for us to bear.

Uh the other question I have is the fish ladders.

Even if we close the service to the dams, the dams are still there, uh, we still gonna be required by the federal government to put in the fish ladders, even if the hydro generators aren't working.

That's a good question.

Um and I will say that we haven't really.

And I will say that we haven't really, I mean, we have been talking for years about uh where's the balance relative to what our debt service payments look like, what our revenues look like, and whether or not the the facilities should be sold, should be shut down.

Um we haven't really gone too far into understanding the details of what that actually entails, but it is certainly you can't just turn them off and then just walk away.

Um there are specific requirements that I am uh you know, I'm I'm happy to get up to speed on what those are if that's uh uh something that people want to investigate further if I may just address uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

We we have, and I think I articulated this the other night.

We we have expected a conversation about the future of these facilities for several years.

Deb and I were just talking about this yesterday.

We've been talking about what the anticipated debt service that will come along for both fish passage and for the minefall turbine replacement projects for many years.

We have begun engaging our consultants, particularly uh Essex Hydropower, on exploring the possibilities for these facilities.

And we are I will say just broadly, we are looking at everything from closure to sales, uh, to understand the options because we know those questions will ultimately come.

I think in the end, our recommendation is likely to be that the city continue to own these assets and operate them because of the revenue and the green power source that they represent.

But we know that for this body, for the taxpayers, we need to explore all the possibilities that we have in front of us.

And so um, you know, our angle tonight, if you will, is to make these capital upgrades, improve the assets.

But certainly we know we're going to need to have more specific answers about what closure might look like and what the value of the assets might look like in the event that we choose to sell because we know those questions may come.

Alder Woman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um and just kind of to the um the ask about whether or not it's something that we we would like.

I I would say that yeah, if if it's possible to get that information, because we're getting a lot of um, I I hate to use the word noise, but we're getting a lot of questions and and um from different people saying, why are we bothering to keep this?

And I'm glad that um Alderman Dow brought up the cost of the debt services and um and the potential for the the fish um downstream and so on.

And just like I say, when we close a school, we still it goes from the school budget to the city's budget.

So if you close this down, we still have all of this cost without any revenue coming in to cover it.

You know, I I'd like to see what that would look like.

Um I don't want to see it close.

I think that from a sustainability, even if it costs us a little bit in the long run, it's better for the you know, green and and and so on.

So um, so that's not my why my ask is.

I just like to be able to say, hey, bottom line is um without it, this is still what the cost is going to be.

And I think ultimately the cost would be higher without without running it because of the debt service and and so on.

And running it means maintenance.

So thank you.

Alderman Kelly.

Uh thank you.

Um I obviously support the green energy and have been on the energy environment committee, so I understand all the thinking behind it, but some have predicated um that you know this is a losing, losing scenario.

If we were to do walk away, what does that look like?

I know we already talked about we would still have the debt service.

Are there buyers for these types of things if the city wanted to no longer have uh operate them?

Are we in any way, shape, or form um even you know, uh a good thing for someone might look at to buy?

I will say that there are there are always companies that are looking to buy.

Um there are companies, uh Patriot Hydro, um green power, own multiple facilities and to have uh and have multiple hydro facilities you know in their portfolio.

Um so are there buyers out there that would be interested in these?

Clearly that I I can't answer that.

Um but I I think one of the issues with uh with selling them is if you're selling them and transferring the license or the license exemption, it comes with the fish passage requirements.

So I guess I'll just I'll leave it at that.

Uh I I don't know, you know, we have an estimate on what we think that fish passage is gonna cost.

Um and you'll see that in a couple of slides.

But I I think that that kind of makes it a little bit harder to to sell if it comes with uh an extra price tag for additional fish passage.

Are there more slides that you'd like to go?

Just a couple.

Yes.

Um and so these are this is basically giving you an idea of what these what this fish passage is gonna look like.

This is Jackson.

Um this is the um upstream fish passage, the river runs from left to right on the on the screen there.

Matt, if you want to just keep keep kind of keep going.

This is what the proposed upstream is gonna look like.

We've got a sort of a 3D model that provides a little bit of modification.

Um basically the existing facility that we have for fish passage is made out of wood.

Uh so the idea is to replace that wood with something a little bit stronger that has a little bit more longevity to it.

There are modifications that have to be made on the the angles and the you know the water flows, et cetera.

Um this is what the this is the currently what the downstream fish passage looks like if you drain most of the water out of the river.

Uh there's a whole lot of rusted equipment going on there, and that would all be replaced.

Um you can go on to the next one.

And it would look a little bit more like this.

So a little bit wider entrance to allow bigger flows in and to um what the fish passage, the fish agencies are really looking for is a rack in front of basically it's like a screen door for the water going into the turbine and the um and the exit uh ramp for the fish.

They want a very small small space on the rack so that the very small fish don't go into the turbine and get chopped up.

Um that's basically that's what downstream fish passage is in a in a nutshell.

Uh but that also will reduce the amount of water flow that's going in and may reduce the power generation of the facility.

So what we do is try to look for a balance on on how to make that happen.

Um this is what minefalls downstream fish passage.

This is what the whole facility really looks like.

The water runs from right on the right hand of your screen to the left.

Um, and the changes that would need to be made for downstream.

Um go ahead to the next slide.

Um this is what the water, this is what those racks look like.

This is where the water goes into the facility.

Um that whole rack system would need to be changed.

Um but one of the things that we are thinking about for the downstream fish passage currently, uh, because as you may remember, we came here for a supplemental appropriation uh a couple of months ago to make repairs to one of the units.

Um there's a picture here of what happened to one of those blades that basically ripped.

Um so that that work is actually being done currently, uh, but it leads us sort of to believe that the um facility equipment is coming to towards its end of life.

Again, built in the mid-80s.

Um so these facilities are are needing some upgrades.

Um the one thing that we are looking at is one of the alternatives is go ahead to the next one, is fish-friendly turbines.

These turbines operate very similarly to the other ones, but they have a very rounded edge so that when the fish are going through them, they're not being cut by the sharp edge of the blade.

The blade is rounded, which to me sounds super simple, but apparently it's uh it's quite a feat to be uh designing these things.

And again, only I think there are only two facilities in the United States that currently have these, uh, but the fish agencies are on board with it.

Um so we have hired um a company that does they're the ones that design these fish-friendly turbines.

They currently have five or six other facilities that they're doing designs for right now, um, including one for Essex Hydro, who's our um OM vendor.

Um so we're hopeful um that the installation of fish-friendly turbines would then exclude the requirement for downstream fish passage because they can just swim right through the turbines.

Um again, it sounds super simple, but I it's I wish it was as simple as I thought it could be.

Um I wish it also was not as expensive as um next slide, please.

So what we're looking at here for estimated costs, and I will say these are these are still pretty early in the in their development.

Um for Jackson uh we started off our Jackson design with upstream and downstream fish passage separately and have decided to combine and got approval from the fish agencies to combine both of those projects into one set of designs and to do them simultaneously.

Um our experience last year with the um coffer dams at Jackson have really made uh us decide to try to do it all at once and not separate them out and have to do coffer dams um two years in a row.

The estimated costs that you see on there are for each, one for upstream, one for downstream.

So the idea of combining those together into one, we are hopeful to achieve some savings uh doing it that way.

I will say that we are at 30% design right now for upstream and downstream fish passage, and are expecting to get some more finer tuned cost estimates uh for that fish passage by the end of the month.

Um Jackson uh uh minefalls downstream fish passage.

Um we had the contractor provide us with some alternatives.

Um and once we saw what those alternatives were and saw that fish fish-friendly turbines was one of the alternatives, we kind of put a uh a hold on doing any more further design until we can get a feasibility study uh completed.

I'm expecting something in January, and that feasibility study will help guide us uh to determine whether or not we're eligible to even uh provide that fish-friendly uh passage at Minefalls.

Um we provided two scenarios here, one up on the top with the total cost of a little over uh $33 million would cover upstream and downstream fish passage at Jackson.

It would cover upstream and downstream, uh downstream fish passage at Minefalls, and it includes turbine replacement.

And I will tell you those numbers came from um nowhere.

We have just those that three million dollars and the 17 million dollars did not come from our engineering vendor.

We just kind of put them in there as a placeholder, uh, knowing that the the overall cost for Jackson uh one turbine was just over six point five million dollars for one turbine.

Um so to do minefalls um that's pretty much the estimate that we're kind of going with at this point.

Umce we can get back on track, once we know whether the fish-friendly turbines will work for us, then we'll have a better understanding on what those actual costs look like.

But that scenario one includes both downstream fish passage and a traditional turbine replacement.

Scenario two basically has the same information for Jackson, but it includes um turbine fish-friendly turbine replacement, uh, therefore excluding any of the other costs that are found in scenario one for downstream fish passage, which can basically, if we're looking at the costs that we have listed up there, we're looking at a little over five million dollar savings by going with the fish-friendly uh turbine replacement.

Alderwoman Clee.

Just a quick question.

You were talking about the um combining at Jackson Fality up and the down.

That's not on this spreadsheet though, right?

So the the costs on there are the the first line is Jackson upstream fish passage, 4.4 million.

The Jackson downstream is up to 3.17 million.

So we're hoping that the cost by doing them together is going to be less than that that total of 7.5 million.

Yeah.

So okay, so you're looking at being if we combine them, it would be less than the 7.5 million, which is the fiscal year 27 expense that you're looking at.

Okay.

Correct.

Okay.

And the other one in the um in scenario two, it would be the same thing.

It would be the same.

Jackson will stay the same regardless.

Regardless.

Okay, thank you.

Olderwoman Kelly.

Uh thank you.

Um Thank you for doing the work to see if uh newer technology could work.

It definitely sounds like a five million dollar savings would be lovely here.

Uh my question is, and I I did a quick Google, but I was wondering how new these fish-friendly turbines are.

Are we sort of late stage or are we new technology and it might shift?

Oh, these are these are new newer technology.

Uh I think that uh I would say that there are probably more fish-friendly turbines in Europe than the two that we have here in the United States, but I'm pretty sure that the vendor that we're using for our feasibility study has a very long queue of folks who are looking in that direction.

And to know that the fish agencies are on board with moving forward with something like that is really that's kind of the the thing that allowed us to decide we would move forward with that.

Okay.

My other um follow-up, if I could.

Yes.

I'm just I'm gonna say because all the department heads are here.

When you guys have slides, can you print them for us?

That's really hard to see sometimes when you're talking us through them.

Thank you.

Yep.

I hate to kill the trees, but to read that.

Thank you.

I know I just came in and I apologize, but I see the estimated costs.

What is do we turn on our investment on that?

How much money are we going to see coming from all this?

Are we going to be in a deficit situation?

Are we going to be in a positive situation with all this work?

Well, to the revenues that we receive from both of those facilities average about 1.5 million dollars a year.

And for the expenses and the revenue and the debt service.

It's gonna put us in the red.

It will.

So we're basically gonna have to subsidize us out of the general fund, basically to cover all of this.

It will it will be subsidized by the general fund unless rates change, unless uh the gained efficiency, which we've heard so much about from certain individuals is realized by replacing these turbines.

There are factors that could improve the return in revenues.

But based on what we know of the historical performance over our time owning them, these would run in the red, absolutely, if we were to take on a new debt service.

Okay, so we take on any new debt service is gonna run in the red.

Will that be worse?

Currently it does run in the black, but new debt service.

That's right.

That's correct.

But a profit nonetheless.

Yes.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

Well who uh I think I will look to Mr.

Cummings.

Yes, thank you.

Uh Mary, it sounded as a weird it sounded as though we were getting ready to adjourn.

I just wanted to cut note that we are scheduled to meet again on June 18th, which I'm gonna ask that community development come back to finish uh the conversation because I do know the division has more than just this as a priority, and I want to provide them an opportunity to discuss what their other priorities may be.

Thank you.

Uh but I I also am hoping on the 18th we can cover uh admin services and financial services.

And then I'm gonna suggest we add another ad hoc committee meeting on uh the week of uh the 22nd, uh which uh besides the Tuesday meeting with the Board of Alderman, I believe on the on the 23rd is uh in speaking with uh Donna Graham is a uh there is some availability that week, so uh I'm gonna work with her to try to schedule another ad hoc meeting that week is as well besides the 25th.

So try to do two in that in that week if if possible because it is a lighter week uh if that's acceptable to the group.

Um so I just wanted to kind of put that out there, uh uh Mr.

Mayor, because we're we are trying to wrap this up.

Um time in the June, early July time frame.

I would like to try to present an updated plan to you all um over the next couple weeks so we can have something to work off of um by the July uh 14th Board of Alban meeting.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, I think it is time for adjournment, so I will what?

Oh, older woman Kelly.

Uh thank you.

Uh Director Cummings got to a question that I was going to have, which is that we seem to be scheduling these with maybe a week's notice.

That's exceptionally hard, especially this time of year.

I can't make it on the 18th.

Um can we do a little bit more couple week planning out so that we can get those in, maybe push it.

But I'm one one committee member, but I am finding, especially with the budget meetings with seven meetings this week.

Um time to adjourn.

Um Wilshare.

So sorry, the only agent.

Um you're here.

That's let's adjourn.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

So sorry.

And the meeting is adjourned at 6 59 p.m.

Um,