Um this is a meeting of the Human Affairs Committee July 20th, 2026.

A meeting in the human affairs committee is held Monday, July 2026 at Okay, might have just started reading the script, sorry, at 7 p.m.

in the automatic chamber, and duly notice in two places, including the city's website in accordance with the requirements of RSA 91A to Roman.

Let's start the meeting.

Aldman Morgan present.

Alderman Sonnet is here.

Oldman Rivan.

Alder Woman Kelly, Vice Chair.

Here.

And Alderman Lopez, Chair.

I am here as well.

Also joining us this evening is Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

I also see Matt Sullivan, Director of Community Development.

We also have Alderman Gregg with us.

All right.

Director Bagley.

I did not see Director Bagley behind the podium.

Thank you for standing.

Director Health and Service.

Not appreciated what this level seating does to us, at least the presidential elevation.

We have four in attendance.

Next up is public comment.

Any members of the public wishing to make comment?

Good.

Because the only thing on our agenda today is a presentation, so you never want to comment on it before they present.

Presentation on resource center.

I'd like to recognize Director Cummings and or any other staff who'd like to approach.

Yes.

Would you like us to have a seat at the whole sheep?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's easier for the TV for a thing.

And I see Alderman Johnson has joined us.

Oh, she's right there.

Okay.

Really?

We just had that happen.

Yes.

That's it.

Are we scary?

Oh no.

There's more room.

That's less balanced.

That's funny.

Well.

Well, good evening.

Umpez.

Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services for the Rec.

Uh, here this evening, we're here to give a brief uh update on the resource center slash warming station project.

Um could you click to the next slide or do you want me to join joining me this evening?

I have uh Director Bagley and Director Sullivan.

Um we're hoping to keep tonight's conversation rather dynamic and conversational, but I did put a couple uh orientating or or table setting type of slides together just to kind of get us uh hopefully all on the same page before we open it up for for QA.

And if I may, Ms.

Chairman, I'll just go quickly through the slides uh uh this evening uh before we before we open it up for for questions and comments.

Okay, so I just want to introduce, and I'm sure you're gonna put a bell on this, but asking what have you done in such a broad stroke is sort of a difficult question because if they have specific properties that they're looking at, can't exactly show our hand if we have to negotiate for those things.

And if we have just turned down a whole bunch of them, then that's kind of awkward to present too.

So I appreciate uh turnout here and the willingness to engage in conversation.

Thanks thank you.

So um, you know, again, it's uh the purpose of the discussion is to provide a high-level overview and to um get some feedback and start start a discussion to ensure that we're all um uh aligned or orientated with our thought process on uh on the project.

And so if you were to click to the to the next slide, one more.

Um just to just to remind folks what we're what we're talking about here, the current project as as contemplated, and certainly this is always open for for discussion, is uh is a warming station with a priority to keep people out of out of the elements, and we're looking at you know somewhere around 30 to 50 individuals.

Uh a resource center and the thought process between this resource center is a seven-day a week type facility to connect in individuals with with support services.

And then the third programming element is is transitional housing.

And people may ask what is transitional housing, and that's temporary housing for people in a crisis.

It acts like a bridge between an emergency shelter and in a permanent home.

Next slide.

And so when when you're thinking about that type of program, uh it's probably good to conceptualize a budget.

And again, this is for conversation purposes, but it helps set the table so folks can understand what we're what we're talking about.

Um again, this is dynamic and it could change, but for planning purposes, we wanted to outline a few few cost drivers.

First is the real estate, a land acquisition cost, which you know would be approximately a million dollars, depending on the site.

Hard construction costs at $800 a square foot.

Now I'm suggesting at approximately 5,000 square feet, that puts you at about $4 million.

Soft costs and contingency is about $800,000.

That's gonna put us, you know, between a five and six million dollar project.

And so that is if we were looking at the program as conceptualized to date in what we're what we're working toward.

And so pivoting from there, let's talk a little bit about sources of funds and how we would try to um bring about this project to f fruition.

We know that we have a 1.2 million dollars secured and awarded, though we haven't accepted the funds yet.

Um it's my understanding we'd be looking to proceed with a grant application at the state level for approximately two million.

That represent about 50% of the funding, and then the other half uh as currently thought of would come from the city of Nashua as a local contribution of about approximately three million dollars.

Though I want to note the current ad hoc plan does not currently have anything set aside for that for those monies.

And so that's a point that I want to one to make explicit.

So uh you are aware of that fact in case you know there's uh an evolving thought process, because uh again, we would need to make up for uh 50 percent of the funding at at the at the local level.

And so next steps, and so you know, as you as this body knows uh we put before you a concept a couple months back, and um it was decided at that point in time that that wasn't the best site, and so we are now evaluating other sites as they come up in front of us, and we are in that real estate site selection process.

Um but I think it's also fair to say we want to make sure that a further discussion occurs.

I I welcome the conversation this evening to make sure that uh all the various stakeholders are aligned and the programming and budget is sound, and we are we are certainly marching in in the right direction that that folks are interested in in the goals that we've outlined in and in the project that that we're working toward.

I would be remiss not to also point out that we do have our 2649 legislation currently pending.

That's a gap analysis on homeless services.

That is certainly a welcomed contribution to this conversation.

Um I believe that legislation is a little bit more general than this specific topic at hand, but hand in glove they go one they go together, and so certainly understand um that that legislation may bring about additional discussion on this particular project or or strategy that we're that we're adopting.

And so um Ms.

Chairman just wanted to give you a quick overview as to where we are to date, and then happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay, and I will remind the members of the committee that Director Cummings prefers you start all questions with isn't it true that so that he knows you've done a reasonable just pointing out the earlier slides?

Um I noticed the the terminology for transitional housing is different from what is traditionally used and typically traditional housing refers to transitional housing, refers to um housing a program that's trying to get someone into housing stability, not an emergency shelter.

Is that gonna apply?

Is that gonna affect any grants?

Is there a reason that's the term being used?

That was uh if I may, Mr.

Chairman, that was just me trying to um paraphrase what transitional housing is to make sure folks don't understand it's not permanent housing.

The thought process is is this would be temporary type housing for someone who needs to be housed and then moved towards permanent housing.

Okay.

Well, um, in my experience, it usually is a program of maybe up to two years and it is intended to go to permanent housing.

That's not what we're trying to do here, which you clearly said in your definition.

I was just curious if we were trying to stay away from things like crisis stabilization, respite, those kind of terms.

Which would be more like a like a five to seven-day temporary stay thing to get into a sound direct.

I wasn't necessarily outlining a timeline on this because I do think it takes quite a long time to get into permanent into permanent housing, but wanted to articulate that this is transitional in nature.

It's transitory more more than anything else.

But I'll let Director Bagley speak if there's something that that's more accurate.

Thank you, Chairman Lopez.

Um Bobby Bagley, director for division of public health and community services.

And I just also wanted to introduce Jessica Connors, who is our housing services officer.

So some of you may be meeting her for the first time.

You say your name one more time.

Jessica Connors.

Thank you.

And so with the transitional housing, it is in fact housing component that we're looking at with units that will allow for people to have the opportunity to utilize this space until we can get them into permanent housing.

And Alderman Lopez, as you said, it may take up to two years for some people to get into permanent housing.

And so that's what we would be looking at, and we'll be focusing on keeping that time as short as possible, but sometimes it may take a little bit longer for some folks because of quite a bit of things that have to be done in order for it to secure permanent housing.

So we're not we're not looking at like seven days because it might be longer.

And some people may take seven days.

Some of them, like if they're gonna stay there for months, then you really need to have like a common area or a living room or those types of things, smaller stays, you don't necessarily need those features and place at the cost.

Yeah.

Um I also had a question about um I'm gonna let the other committee do it before we have another.

Uh direct um Alderman Morgan got there right ahead, Kelly.

Thank you.

Um is it okay, Mr.

Chairman, to ask I have a couple of questions or just one and passed along?

Okay.

I've just um so first question is why is this not an ad hoc if I may, Mr.

Chairman?

Yeah, uh Director Cummings.

It it hasn't been prioritized to date.

By whom?

By the board of Aldman.

Okay, and so how how do we add that?

What is the process to add that to ad hoc?

Again, Ms.

Chairman, if I may.

Yeah.

Uh so there have been meetings where there has been discussion um and priorities presented, um, but there's a uh a conversation occurring right now about updating that plan and prioritizing various capital projects.

And I would suggest that if it was of interest that you would want to actively um uh advocate for the project and ensure that it is added to the plan so it reads accurately.

That plan is dynamic, and so certainly if it's not included in the plan doesn't mean that you can't proceed.

Um you know, I again the the plan is uh looked at as like a living document.

So it can change, it can uh be edited along the way, but I do think it's fair to point out that we're having this ongoing policy discussion and it it has not been uh prioritized to to date, and of course that overall discussion is what's setting our policy uh setting our policy decisions about how much debt we really want to take on over the next uh few years, and so certainly want to try to be as um accurate as as possible.

Oh okay, yes, please.

Um so to summarize uh I guess my but bigger question is you pointed it out for a reason.

You pointed out specifically this is not in the ad hoc committee.

Please tell me your thought process into why you call that out specifically.

Are you looking for us to advocate?

So if I if I may, Mr.

Chairman, yeah.

Uh well it's certainly not my place to uh advocate per se.

Um I certainly know that it is it has been talked about as a priority, but it doesn't seem to translate into being outlined or articulated as such, and I think in fairness to the project and also in fairness to setting of the goals and priorities of the policy of the city, we should be recognizing all projects, whether it's this one or any other one, um, so it becomes embedded in the program, and therefore we can uh plan accordingly.

Um and if that may mean pushing some other things out to stick to the policy uh you know directive that has been previously articulated, then so be it.

Or does it mean we need to increase the amount of money that we're set spending on debt?

Certainly that that may be necessary, but that also may mean we have to pull back in other areas, and that's fine too.

But it's for you to have that type of conversation so we can we can hopefully implement uh accordingly.

Okay, one more if I may.

Um thank you for that explanation.

And when you're talking about other projects, we're talking about 30 60 million dollar projects, 28 million dollar projects.

This one is three, if the numbers are correct.

So three million dollars pulled from one spot or another.

Um I would assume that if there's a three million dollar change order on one of the other projects, we probably would have just pushed it through.

So my question then would be what is your confidence in the two million dollars from the state grant.

If I may that that last part of what you said, a three million dollar change order.

I'm not sure if there's a connection there, and so um because that's a pretty big change order.

Um, because a threshold for what has to go through finance committee anyway.

Well, I mean, it would need legislative approval.

Um my point is that when we're talking about 30 million dollar projects versus the three million and saying that it's not a priority, we're talking about a three million dollar project, no zeros at the end of that.

It's not 30 million.

So my question is if we're actually talking about six million or three million, depends on the confidence of the state grant.

I think that's correct.

Oh, and also the congressional spending, because we don't know whether the congressional spending is a drawdown or a reimbursement.

But to your point, I think it's a conversation of whether we're talking about a six million dollar project in some way or some other number, whatever that may be.

But nonetheless, yes, we do have to plan on some number, and we do have three million dollar type projects prioritized in the current plan right now.

Um, not just the bigger larger scale ticket items, as we're trying to identify debt service and and selling of debt that affects the general fund.

And if we're selling of debt authorizing some sort of bond, we're trying to get an understanding of what that may be over the next few years.

Sure.

So still the question is what is the confidence in that state grant.

I saw director um Bagley go up a couple times.

Can we just recognize her?

Thank you, Jeremy.

So those two those other two funding sources, it was always intended that um to support this project that funds would have to be breathed in.

And so the pursuit of the um congressional directed spending um occurring with the application and an award coming back, not at the same amount that was requested.

It was a 3.6 um million dollar project that was requested, they awarded us with 1.2 million.

Um pending acceptance, there's still some other steps that we have to take for that.

So we received the letter that says that the funding is there for us.

There's um other parts of that process that have to be submitted in order for us to um have HUD say yes, this 1.2 million dollars is yours to spend.

Um it can be both um drawn down or reimbursed, and so depending on where we fall in getting those certain steps accomplished.

Um if they accept the project based on the application that goes into their portal, if we comply with all of the other things that are required, um, such as that environmental review, if those things are taken care of, then we can start drawing down on some of the the soft costs on that.

Um with the state grant, and I'll let um Jessica speak to this because she has been a part of the New Hampshire um housing finance project with the two million dollar request that we need to put through.

This application is due in January.

There are quite a few things that need to be in place in order for us to even apply for the state grant, meaning we have to demonstrate that we have a project that is ready uh to be paid for.

Um and I have confidence in what we are planning on submitting that this is um the type of award that they would support, but we have to meet some other criteria before we can even apply for that.

Um, and then the three million again, there's been multiple applications that have gone in through the um the CIC, and because we didn't have anything that was shoveled ready, that's why it's always fallen down to a lower place as far as a priority areas on that.

And so hopefully we can get this project moved along to the point where we can demonstrate both to HUD and to the state and to the city that we have something that we that we need to go ahead and get funded and moved moving on.

Um that two million if we miss this window period for the January application, we don't get another opportunity for that because they'd have to go through another committee to request additional funding to support the New Hampshire finance um funding for housing for this type of project.

And if I may have just to add on to that as well.

Yeah.

Um, so that hi guys.

Um that will be opening in the early part of next year.

I'm not sure if it'll be January or February, but the project does need to be substantially moved along before we can apply for those funds.

We would need to have the project fully defined, we would need to have a building, things like zoning approval would need to be gone through by then.

So we're gathering bits and pieces of the application process at this stage, but unless this is a little bit more expedited than it has been.

Okay.

Thank you.

McKelly, thanks for being patient.

Oh, thank you.

I have quite a few questions in front of me.

So thank you.

Nice to meet you.

Okay.

So I'll start with ad hoc.

I'm on that committee.

We haven't been able to meet, but I would like to have us have this body come and talk to us about this project and update, just like we've had every other project.

So I don't know that there's a set date we're gonna sit through and go through all the projects, but I think we're through all of them at this juncture.

If I may, Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah.

Uh this was presented.

This was the first one that was presented to the ad hoc committee.

So long ago.

I'm just wondering if there's anything updated to update.

If I could just pause for a second.

Um Director Cummings has been here before, just so you guys know.

If I'm looking the wrong way or if I'm even looking at you, you should still probably say if I may, otherwise I may not notice your hands up.

Tim tries to help, but you know.

Director Cummings, thank you for reminding me.

I just think that there is what I just heard from Director Bagley was that there are some additional um things weighing on it and timing being very critical.

So I don't think it would be I know it's a lot to ask you guys to come in the evenings, but I think it would be nice to get an update as we go through that.

All right, so my questions.

Um we talked about this last, uh, we were talking about the congressional directives funding, and we weren't sure whether we had to keep the plan in place as you had submitted it to the Congresswoman's uh office in order to get all the funding.

Where did we land with that and what sort of restrictions are on that money?

What do we have to produce to get that one point two?

Um got a couple of hands up over here.

Oh what did I just say about speaking of?

Okay, sorry.

Uh who was first directory.

Uh Director Bagley or Director Sullivan, New Member.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, so right now what we have to do, the application uh process through HUD, there's still a component that has to be resubmitted to them.

And it has to define the complete project.

So what I submitted gave us the opportunity to have this letter of um, if you want to call it an invitation with this amount of money.

The original proposal was for 3.6 million and outlined certain parts of this project.

So with this 1.2 million, which is less than um almost um two-thirds less than what we originally asked for, um with the project being resubmitted to them, it will have the components which we believe that we can actually do.

So the original project outlined a three-story facility that had a resource center on the first uh floor level.

Um on the second floor level had uh shelter bed component, and on the third floor level had the transitional housing piece.

With the funding being decreased the way that it is, um, what I was going to resubmit in this application for them to approve would remove the shelter bed.

So I don't know if folks ever saw the other project, but it had about 30 shelter beds that were included in that.

Um, with the restrictions on the funding, the transitional housing and the resource center components as um director Cummings has outlined is what um comes up to that six million dollars.

Follow-up, please.

Did you remove the shelter beds because we don't need them or because you were trying to get within a reasonable project that we can do now?

Get into a regional project that we can do now.

Okay.

I have like some other questions, but if there's other people, go ahead.

Oh no.

You can keep going.

I'll probably ask and you'll keep the answer for me.

Okay.

So it sounds like the one point two from HUD, if we follow the guidelines that you guys are working through, that should come first.

Um, so next questions that I have.

Um do we need to use the funds by a certain date for HUD?

Yeah, Director Bagley.

Uh uh Director Bagley.

Yeah, Bobby Bagley.

So in the grant information for all the applicants, and I've been attending the meetings that they have for uh those that have received funding for this um time period.

We have up until eight years to use the funding.

Okay, we have to do that.

And have to present the final report with all of the things that we wrote in the project to be completed within eight years.

Within those eight years.

Okay.

And I guess a follow-on maybe to our new housing director is what is the funding look like for the state grants?

Does that have to be completed sooner?

If I may.

Hi, it's Jessica Connors.

Um, yes, so if you get awarded the the money from New Hampshire housing, ideally they like to see the project moving forward within a year of that award.

So they will grant extensions after that period, um, but they will not grant them forever.

So if it's not completed within a year to a year and a half, and you have not started construction by that time, they can take the money back essentially.

So we have to start construction, not finish it.

Correct.

Yep.

By January of 2028.

From a year of whenever you would be awarded the funds.

So if applications are due in January, they probably won't award funds, say until April.

It takes a couple of minutes, a couple months to process those applications.

So April.

All right.

I already addressed the ad hoc presentation.

I wanted to dig in a little bit about the homeless gap analysis.

I remember we at this committee had someone from COC come.

I know there's been a lot of changes in the COC and how they are working.

And I I do believe they mentioned that we had an analysis maybe in the last couple of years.

I think I asked for it, but I have not seen it come through.

So I'm wondering what's the COC doing, what's a refresh, and I'll just put right out there my concerns is that if we're doing this and also doing an analysis, are we going to end up at the same place with like Elm Street where we were doing this thing about whether we could do it, and then everything had to get put on hold.

Who wants to take that one?

Nice and light.

Director Sullivan.

Worth the try.

You came.

Socratic method.

Matt Solving Community Development Director.

I actually I can't speak to the homeless gap analysis, but in the interest of a cliche answer, I I would be happy to follow up on that if you'd like all Roman Kelly.

I do know that there has been some conversation in light of funding changes and other changes at the HUD level of sort of a reform of the COC at the Nashua at the local national level.

Admittedly, I think this is why we're so happy to have Ms.

Connors back on board.

Miss Mucioli was uh a critical liaison between the city and the COC in the past, and so I think there's been a bit of a gap there over recent months.

Uh but I think we'd be happy to chase down that gap analysis and have a bit more information about how the COC might be changing, perhaps at a future conversation, but I'm not prepared to speak to that tonight, and I apologize for that.

It's just on a meeting that I attend.

Could Director Bagley or Ms.

Connors tell me a little bit more about what's going on with COC?

Director Bagley.

Yes, Bobby Bagley, director for Division of Public Health and Community Services.

So currently we're in the process of applying, gathering the information so that we could apply for the um the um the NOFA that was put out.

And so what the COC has done is not so much look at a gap analysis just on homelessness, but looks at the type of housing, transitional housing, permanent housing that we have in place.

Um and so that is some information that we can get from the COC.

The changes that came through at the federal level uh through HUD is now more focused on transitional housing and supportive housing and the applications in the past, they basically focused on permanent housing, so that's what the assessment that we have at the COC level identifies how much permanent housing we have, how long people take to get out of homelessness, and how long it takes for them to get out of transitional housing into permanent housing, which we have not done a good job with in Nashua.

But it hasn't just been Nashville at the Greater Nashua, even the state of New Hampshire.

This has proven uh to be the case across the country, and so therefore there have been a number of changes that have been made to the COC applications now that focus more on transitional housing and projects.

These are special projects though that meet that directive as well as street outreach services that will address youth homelessness as well.

Um and then there are the projects that we currently have in place that they're gonna use about 60% of the funding to continue some of those projects.

So they're really looking to move towards addressing more transitional housing, more supportive services for individuals so that they can have better success once they are housed.

Well, I am chairing, I just want to add some context.

Um over the last 10 years or so, the housing first model has predominantly been what's applied statistically and you know, evidence-based, it shows that if you put someone in housing first and then you try to help them with you know case management, long-term housing, that types of things, you're more successful versus trying to locate them when they're in the community and often missing them when some kind of crisis situation happens or when they're in the wrong location and can't be reached, that type of thing.

So this is a pretty big paradigm shift.

The continuum of the last couple of years has been expanding its its permanent supportive housing programs.

Um the majority of them are run through um Harbor Homes, but there's other programs who do who run them as well.

So now we have a large population of people who are on permanent supportive housing, and we have a federal program that's saying we're gonna reduce that by as much as 40%.

So efforts are being made to make sure that we don't have an even larger surge in unsheltered people over the next year or two because suddenly their vouchers were reallocated to an employment program or to um other types of more service-oriented types of things.

So that's part of what they're working on.

And Director Bagley, you can correct anything I get grossly wrong.

But the paradigm shift in terms of funding is part of the NOFA application that's happening right now.

There was some realignment and reorganization of the continuum earlier this year, I want to say.

No, that is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

I have to.

So I learned from Gloria Timmings, our former alderman, um, not to step on the toes of liaison.

So I just want to recognize uh Alderman Greg if she wants to add anything to that.

Um she had one more question.

Do you want to let her?

I was trying to let everybody on the committee talk before I talked, since I'm not on the I got yellow at pretty much by Gloria's so not that sounds like Gloria.

Um, thank you.

Uh so my last question's going to be very straightforward because I was disappointed that we didn't do Mulberry Street, and I don't want people on this board to feel like we're rushing.

What is the timeline to find a location, get this approved, get it ready for the January application?

Like what is what do you see that layout?

You don't have to tell me what locations you're looking at, but I want the aldermen and anyone who's listening to understand what our timeline is to get this done because we have identified this as a really important community need.

Yeah.

Director Bagley?

Yes.

Um Bobby Badley.

So we never stopped looking for property or a place where we could land on this resource center.

So that's been ongoing.

So the uh sentiment around 14 Mulberry Street only allowed for us to continue to move forward.

So there wasn't a ceasing of activity.

We continued.

Um, and so the timeline we're really trying to land on is making sure that we could put this application in for that two million dollars through the New Hampshire um finance um authority because that allows for um the additional funding that's needed.

It was always intended in all of the applications, they all have the same language around the congressional funding, the state funding, um, and then the funding that we would get through um, you know, the city.

And so, as far as I'm concerned, that the timeline is tight because we have to have certain things in place that we can actually say we're doing when we submit this application um to the state.

Can you tell me what those things are?

Or maybe this conversation.

Jessica Connors.

Um, so if we were hoping to hit that application deadline, it would be imperative to start this as soon as possible to be quite plump about it.

Um, certain parts of the application process can take months to get together, such as zoning approval.

Um, these things are not quick and they are not fast.

I'm sure Matt can vouch for that.

Um we're very quick.

So if we want to hit the application round in January, it needs to happen as soon as possible.

Um, you have another question.

I'll let everyone weigh in, and then if you don't answer, I'll just very quickly if I could, Matt Sullivan.

I I think Jessica's absolutely right, we do need to get moving quickly.

Um I think part of the process though is sort of the conformatory conversation that we're having tonight, and so I think we're happy to be having it, and that is that you know, we want to make sure that we get the scope of services being provided or planned for just right.

You know, we've looked at many different sites, and it's sort of like the three little bears in my mind.

Like some is some are too small, some are too large.

We just we're looking for that just right size for a property and a site because whether it's the shovel readiness requirement for the state funds, whether it's the need to have a site selected to do the environmental review for the HUD funds, we need to know the site sooner rather than later.

And frankly, to even go pursue ad hoc ad hoc funding, the site selection is absolutely imperative.

And so I think we really need to make sure tonight, recognizing this is a a subcommittee, but an important subcommittee, that this scope of work is right.

And I know certainly that pending other legislation, there'll be other conversations about that too.

Uh, but you know, when Fult 14 Mulberry came to be and that conversation happened in a fairly expedited manner, we got a sense of how the board feels about these services that are being proposed in transitional housing resource center, but we need to make sure that that's exactly what you'd like to see moving forward.

And I hope we get that feedback tonight.

If I may, Mr.

Chairman, yeah, talk to Connors.

Uh to be a little bit more of a downer on this, I think it'll be very difficult for us to be able to make uh a state application in January based on where we are today.

If we are required to provide certain certain elements that it sounds like we're being asked to provide, just because we do not have enough of the project defined or done as Director Sullivan has has outlined.

But I do think we need to kind of have this conversation.

I'm gonna again make it a little bit more explicit.

We came before you looking for for four-ish million dollars, and we heard a mixed message as to whether that was too much, not enough.

Uh, we heard a mixed message as to the site was wrong because it was too small.

Um we really need to get good understanding as to are are we looking at about a six million dollar project?

Are we looking at a five-ish thousand square foot site?

Um, you know, because that is really gonna drive the project and what we're gonna be working toward.

And so uh tonight is that I don't know if we can take tonight's conversation and say that we have consensus from the community, it may take a few more conversations, but we certainly need to get that direction to be able to move, move the various applications forward and to be able to move the legislation forward necessary to be able to be able to move move this project along.

Now, to answer the more specific question about timeline.

If we were to identify a site, and if we were to start design, so in this conversation, I'm gonna say spring of 27.

Uh spring of 27, we would need about a year of just design before we started construction, which would put you in spring of 28.

And depending on the construction necessary, I'm gonna say it's a six to month to a year construction process process.

You're probably not looking at an occupancy until spring of 29, maybe a little bit sooner than that, but that's that's if we were to start in earnest in spring of 27.

Any follow-up?

Yes, okay.

So what I heard were for steps for application site selection, it has to get through zoning, would need to be doing the environmental review.

And and design would have to start because it would take a year.

So it is do they miss anything on that list?

Yep.

Um, if I may, it's Jessica Connors.

Um, so there is a list of other requirements that go along with the application.

It's not quite as straightforward as that.

Um they would be looking for us to make sure that we had all of our other financing completely ironed out, so we need to commit the three million.

Correct.

So that would need to be committed.

Um, and there are there are just a long list of other requirements that we would need to work with an architect team, a development consultant, all these relationships would need to be starting right now.

And and we're talking in like high-level abstract right now.

Some of these things can be toggled and could be shorter or less, depending on the site.

What I'm hearing is when you hear say zoning in place, what I'm really translating that in my mind to being able to get a building permit.

And to be able to get a building permit is it it depends on the site as to what is required.

Some of that quote unquote zoning may already be in place depending on the site, but we need to be able to get a quote unquote building permit.

And that is all very site-specific.

And so the design period may be truncated and shortened once we pick the site, and then maybe under a year of design, but we just don't know yet.

And so until we have something identified, you know, we can't necessarily say it could be shorter because I'm kind of being very conservative in that in the broad strokes that I'm painting, because I want to be a little realistic.

But again, we can toggle some of these levers back and forth.

We're saying approximately six million dollars right now.

It certainly could be less than that, because maybe we look at a building that is less than 5,000 square feet.

But what we're trying to do is set out a broad framework for us to work with it.

And I just had one follow-up.

I know I've been taking up all of the committee time.

Um we had talked about I lost it.

It's gone.

Yeah, uh come back to me.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Umce we got on the topic of site selection and all that, not the difficulties that we're facing.

I just wanted to touch on a couple of questions I had on that.

I I know we had we need to speak broadly in regard to site selection because we don't want to play our hand, things of that nature.

So I guess as broadly as possible.

Um, in this in the search process, are there currently feasible sites that have been identified as possibilities?

If I may, Miss Jim, uh I'm gonna say it's too early to be able to answer that question.

We need to do more due diligence to be able to answer it.

I don't think we can say at this time anything is out or in.

Okay.

Uh follow-up.

Yep.

All right.

Um with that ongoing search and understanding that you know, we may not want to play our hand in regard to specific locations and everything, and at the risk of sacrificing even more of my time and my colleagues' time.

Is it possible using some sort of you know, non-public element that we've used in the past for the board to be kept more abreast of how this search process is going?

Because I I can't speak from my own uh for my colleagues, but just for my own edification, it was 14 Mulberry Street, and then you know, Director Cummings, you and I had a discussion, and now we don't know.

And I just, you know, if we were able to get out in the open and say, well, no, there's no sites, or yes, there's these sites, we're looking at this, this, and that.

This is why this one's too small, this one's too big, this one's not just right.

I I think that would help us as a board understand more of the process.

So if I may, Mr.

Chairman?

So I I absolutely agree with you, Alderman Senate, but I also want to back it up a little bit and say, is there agreement that we're talking about a six million dollar project?

And is there agreement that we're talking about approximately a five-ish thousand square foot building?

Oh, you set up my next question.

I mean, and I think that is a good public conversation to have.

For sure.

And I think that would help us immensely.

My next question was actually going to be um looking at what other municipalities have done over the years.

Um, I know there's been changes, especially in Manchester recently with the resources they had, but I know for several years at one point, their resource center, quote unquote, for lack of better terms, was really at least warehouse space, which isn't ideal.

I recognize that.

But thinking on along those lines, is it possible for you know, with all this consideration grants that we want to apply for and anything, to develop a site on a rolling basis so that just for lack of a better term, today we could set up a daytime resource center to have these drop-in resources available to folks while we develop on that site uh some of the grander elements that we want, uh such as transitional housing.

I mean, I have a few thoughts, but uh I mean, Director Sullivan.

Uh sure, happy to and I think Director Cummings and I may say similar things, maybe not.

Um Matt Solving Community Development Director, that certainly is possible uh to sort of incrementally build out a site.

But of course, I'm stating the obvious shareal incentive, so please forgive me, but the site needs to be selected with sort of the highest and most intense use in mind, and so we would still need to decide what our sort of end goal is so that we can plan around that.

And then, of course, the challenge is you know, it's sort of an economy of scale argument, if you will.

Um, you know, what is the most efficient way to make the improvements to the site in light of all of those uses that you'd like to you'd like to see?

And ultimately you will find you'll save substantial money if you accelerate the build out into one phase overall.

But certainly you could phase something out.

The other challenge is that many of the needs that we would see for some of the more intense uses, such as transitional housing, will exist no matter whether we're simply establishing a resource center or transitional housing.

And so the use of the mechanical systems, the code compliance, many of those needs will still exist.

So I would argue that phasing the project in this specific context, as I at least understand the board's interests, may not have the savings as a traditionally phased project for some other type of development.

So the bottom line is I think you could do it, but I'm not sure it would be the best use of resources based on what we're proposing here, or based on my understanding of the project.

I don't know if Director Cummings agrees with me, or we're winging it on the fly.

So then we agree.

I'll just add that everything I I agree with everything Director Sullivan said.

The other thing is you have to look at your funding sources and seeing how you can get the funding sources to align.

And so, you know, that I'm not going to say yes or no, but it's again another complication to ensure that the funding sources that we've identified can work in that manner, and it certainly may be a possibility.

I don't I don't know.

Yeah, I got one more.

And I I recognize that I'm just kind of bringing up the pebble in everybody's shoe, but as the discourse out in the public carries on and we you know kick this stone down the road, it just has to be brought up because it's the probably the most common thing I hear from my constituents.

Why not Elm Street?

And I I know we've had this discussion before, but I think it's just worth revisiting again.

I I think there's a public perception that we have a very large uh relatively empty building adjacent to downtown Nashua.

What is preventing us from making use of that site in the meantime beyond the confines of the winter warming station?

So I guess that's more for me to answer than anything.

Um again, it goes back to what the project is, and I was gonna say you never have transitional housing at the Elm Street Middle School.

No.

Um and then air go, I don't know if the 1.2 million dollars would be available to us.

And so I think and and certainly the two million dollar grant wouldn't necessarily be uh available to us.

Uh so uh uh certainly something we can look at.

Um, but I'm just saying that that's how all this is kind of interconnected.

Um yeah, so uh again I I recognize that in this discussion we are talking project-based.

I I guess I'm thinking more interim solution-based um band-aid, if you will, for lack of a better term.

But would using Elm Street in the interim, as it hasn't been sold yet, for some sort of expanded resource.

Are are we locking ourselves away from doing that by just saying we can't because of these funding sources that we want to tie to this project versus calling that the end all be all.

I'm not saying Elm Street is the end all be all, and that's our project.

I'm just thinking as a band-aid because right now the perception is that as a city we we have a gap that we're not filling.

Oh, Director Solomon.

Uh I I do have some comments, but I'll defer to Director Bagley and then I'll I'll add on at the at the end.

Director Bagley.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Um, and so in addressing the issue of why we are not why we're not using um Elm Street.

Um Elm Street meets a purpose for the warming station, which is at best minimal because of the nice amount of space that's there.

But for some of the other things that we need to have in place, even at the warming station, it doesn't meet the bill.

Um and I don't know if the city is interested in investing any more money on a band-aid at Elm Street because it would be a significant amount of money that needs to be put in there, especially if we were going to do it as an ad hoc resource center until we started the other parts of it.

Um at the resource center, what we were hoping to have is a shower space.

We're hoping to have laundry facility.

We're we're hoping to have the opportunity for our partners to be there to be able to provide services.

So where we are right now, and I think you've been over to the warming station, that does not allow for us to be able to do that.

We're still going to use Elm Street as a warming station.

Um we have had one of our partners introduce a proof of concept model for us to take a look at in the interim period before we start doing some of this build-up construction work for this resource center.

For some of the other places that are in the state in Manchester, places that we've gone up in Concord, none of them have what we're trying to put together here in Nashville with all of these different components in it and on site, and in enough space where people can actually work and be able to do that effectively and efficiently.

And so at this point in time, one of the partnering agencies has offered their space for us to be able to do the resource center components, including having shower, including having enough bathroom, not the laundry piece, because people can still use laundry at the National Super Kitchen shelter.

But we have thought of that, and those have been some of the things that have been taking place and the interim while we're working on this piece.

So I know that it may have seemed like things shut down and there was nothing happening, but there have been things that have been happening since April.

And one of them is this proof of concept model that we're planning to try and implement in September.

And I know things seem like maybe to some people it seems like wow, that's quick, but that's just how I operate.

If we can get something done, let's go ahead, let's start moving, and let's make these things happen.

Some of the constraints with the funding sources that we've identified is that they are timed and there's certain things that have to happen before we can move forward.

And then if I may, Mr.

Chairman, um I think as you just heard from Director Bagley, there's probably uh better suited options than the Elm Street Middle School.

I'll also just point out the timing issue that would inevitably rise up.

Um in the sense that we've been working very hard to get the Elm Street Middle School in a place where we can dispose of it and dispose of of the property.

We have more recently focused on trying to answer the community's questions around the key auditorium, and I believe we are getting to a place where we can close out that conversation, which would put us in a place where we could dispose of the property if we were then to introduce this element in uh or variable into the conversation that may push that may push us back on a more strategic level of trying to uh dispose dispose of of the property in a in a timely manner.

Um my comments, I would point out that in all of the timelines that you've given us, Director, you said that none of these ongoing projects and what's being presented here tonight is all of the desires in one building, none of those are even going to be able to be applied for until January.

So why haven't we been looking at what we can do for the next couple of months?

We've talked about the costs of development programs in terms of the developers' perspective.

We have not been looking at the cost in terms of continuing to have people unsheltered, the decisions they're gonna try to make, the city resources we have to use to address those.

So I've been focusing, if I may, Mr.

Chairman Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

I kind of framed this conversation on the capital projects, but if you now want to pivot and talk about more operational, um, I believe Director Bagley can talk about some of the more operational service delivery.

And and in yes, Bobby Bagley, sorry.

Um, in this time period of being able to at least um offer uh resource center activities, we will be able to do that out of this um proposed comp proof of concept model that we're trying to implement that will allow for um there to be some relief at the library because currently, right now, what we have is even individuals that are sheltered at seven o'clock in the morning, they have to leave that shelter.

If they have a job, they go to work.

If they don't have a job, they go and they are in other places.

They may go over to Hart's, which says allow for folks to be there for a certain number of hours during the day.

They may go over to the day cafe for a couple hours, and after those things close, or if there's not enough space for them, they go to the library.

So right now on the daily basis, there's probably about 40 or more individuals that go to the library if they don't have a job to go to.

The thing with the library is that there's certain um days when it's closed, and so then those individuals are outside.

Um, and so by meeting with one of our community partners and looking at opening up a resource center space where some of the activities that we want to provide will be available and accessible to folks as early as we can get this started.

And we're trying to get that done for this fall.

And and we have an identified source of funds through the uh trust fund.

And so and so when we are ready to proceed with this, we we would use the uh resource center trust fund that we that we set up.

Okay, so my my reflection of that is you are not planning to wait until January, and that was the capital project that you initially presented on, and we are taking those steps to add to that though.

And we are taking those steps.

To add to that though, I would ask is there a plan or strategy contemplated for people who might be trespassing the library, transfers from the bus station, even people who can't go to the soup kitchen to use the washroom dryer.

We actually sorry, I'm sorry.

I I like to flow in conversation, so each time I have to do this other piece of it.

I know that it is like the rule of the chamber, Bobby Bagley director.

Yes.

Bobby Bagley, director of Division of Public Health and Community Services.

We have the opportunity, so one of our other partners has invested in laundry cards.

And so we actually have laundry cards that we give out to uh folks in the community so that they can get uh their laundry done.

And so again, these are all pieces that we've been able to pull together, um, and it's sort of fragmented, and that's why having the resource center makes up makes this a little bit more accessible for folks, and so we're gonna get there, but in the interim, we've been able to address some of the things that would be helpful to people in the community.

So we do have uh laundry cards that comes from one facility, um, sorry, one agency, um, and we will have the uh the resource center space where people can come in during the daytime.

We will also continue to use Elm Street on starting November 15th as a warming station, so we will have those components.

The other piece of housing, that's a harder piece to address because we don't have housing availability for folks and the places where we do have space where it's low income.

We have a pilot program that we're working with, 23 Temple to try and keep as many people housed there as possible.

We get as many people as we can into the um single room occupancy there as well, and so we continue to work on all of those uh components and those pieces.

There are going to be some individuals that may end up uh being asked to leave the library because of certain behaviors.

There are going to be individuals that will not be able to go into the national soup kitchen shelter because of certain behaviors.

Um we will still have those same type of responses to individuals, even when they're going to the resource center, um, if there's certain behaviors that require for them to be asked to leave for a short period of time, that will also happen because we need to make sure that everybody is safe in all the places and spaces that they are in.

We also have to make sure that we um are able to sustain and maintain and keep properties that we're using usable, right?

And so if there's damage that's done, or if there's uh like the bathroom facilities are um damage, we have to make sure that we can ensure that those things at the for the most part there'll be limited opportunities for those things to happen.

So there'll be a lot of work that we'll have to do with individuals, the community you know itself, as far as um education expectations on um you know behaviors and all of these spaces where we are.

So to follow up on that cost uh effectiveness point, if you give people laundry um cards and they can go do their laundry, you've solved one problem.

But if you could have them do their laundry at a resource center and then provide case management while they're waiting for it to go, they're there, you can talk to them, you can use your time effectively.

So the resource center does represent certain efficiencies, and I think it's important to point that out before people might dissect the different elements and say, well, we could do this a different way, because there's a reason we want to have it as a help.

Correct.

Um I also just want to run back because one of the things I forgot to uh that I was thinking about saying earlier and didn't is earlier, Director Bagley.

I don't think you intended any particular slight, but you pointed out that as a community and as a continuum, we haven't necessarily done a good job on placement in long-term or permanent housing.

And I would just point out, you know, for everybody who already knows it, honestly, we have a housing shortage.

So over the last six or seven years, you could have we've had vouchers that we've had to increase to 150%, 200%, and still we can't find openings, we can't find places to put people, so they sit at the shelter, families stay in transitional housing until they can find a location that is viable, and it really takes a community-wide effort because even when we find a place that has a lot of openings, if that landlord prefers to sort of collect security deposits instead of assure that their tenants are able to stay, they'll do that, and you'll have people who spend months trying to get on into a uh an apartment, finally get into one, and six weeks in, seven weeks in they might get kicked out because they brought bed bugs, and you can see air quotes if you can't see that on TV.

And the reality is the landlord's never gonna tell them the last 15 residents at them.

So there's a lot of complicated factors where people are not necessarily thinking of the larger good of natural, and they're not, I guess, obligated to, but they are conditions that affect your soup kitchen or your your bridges program or those types of things that are just trying to get people into preference supportive housing.

If I may, Alderman Lopez, that comment was made with respect to how we've scored on our past consume of care applications.

We have always had a lot of transitional housing, which is actually now a plus.

In the past, it wasn't.

That's what I meant by we haven't done very well because they were looking at the fact that you guys have transitional housing, you have a lot of it, and you have people that stay in transitional housing up to two years when you should be moving them into permanent housing.

Well, you can't do that if you don't have the housing.

So that was a ding for us in the past.

It's not a ding now, because now what they want to support is more transitional housing.

So that's if that didn't come across that way.

No, and I know you didn't intend it that way, but it's worth pointing out to the public that might be kind of tuning in and still learning about this.

Even as far back as 2016, I was running an emergency shelter that was supposed to be a temporary emergency shelter for 90 days, and it is hard to hit that goal.

It's hard to give have somebody come in, and even if they find the job in the first week, they have to save enough to get into an apartment that may be up to 2,000.

So it's it's a difficult target to hit, and that's why we need that hub to pull together all of these different agencies because we can do it if you can open the right doors and you can connect the right people, then we definitely have the resources in our community to help people.

But more often than not, what holds people up from getting out of an emergency shelter situation or even an unsheltered situation is just they didn't know where to go at the right time, or the door was closed too early.

Um I think I monopolized some people's own seven.

Oh, Alderman Kelly.

I remembered my question.

Thank you.

Uh I'll just comment that I agree with um Alderman Senate asking around the transitional.

That was one of my questions was what are we doing for now?

Because what I heard was that the most aggressive timeline, this will be open in 2029.

Um, and that's three and a half years from now.

Um, my question that I remembered now was the state funds.

We talked about this timeline because I really wanted to be very clear on what we need to do and how quickly we need to do it.

Um the state funds, you said January is when it opens.

Is it a rolling application?

So if we don't hit that January, it just pushes, or it's like it closes in January.

If I may Jessica Connors, um you have about I believe a month to submit your application, and if you skip if you miss it, it's over.

There is no uh rolling application.

This is likely the last time New Hampshire housing will have these funds available.

They may apply to the state for more funds from the opioid commission, um, but that's not set in stone.

So unfortunately, the application has a very set deadline.

Okay, thank you.

All of her thank you.

Um, so I think I'd like to talk a little bit about the gap study because I think that question came up earlier and the why and the kind of what I'm looking at.

So the gap analysis to is to really look at changing the pattern of how the city has handled homelessness.

Not that we don't have amazing people working in a lot of different areas on this, but I think we continue to be very reactionary, and we go from one crisis to the next.

We saw it when we had um behind Dr.

Crisp and people are getting shot at.

We saw when we had the encampment and it became untenable there.

Um we saw it with Mulberry Street and having to indefinitely postpone that.

So it's it's really about getting the full picture on the table before we make have an action, um, not after what services exist when we had Mulberry Street come up, you know.

I was pretty new to the board.

I we actually even the camping ban, I was on that when we when we voted to reconsider whether or not we're gonna reconsider that.

So I started looking at things then and talking to the different service points around and what they were doing, what they were at as far as like why they weren't performing, let's say their target goal of what services they were giving and stuff, and then looking when we started talking about the city standing up its own resource center.

Did those look duplicative?

And a lot of them did.

And when and when we talk about having our nonprofits, our partners staffing this, and I asked them why are you not at capacity for what you wanted to do?

And they say staffing, right there.

I worry about how that connection point's gonna happen because if they can't staff their own place there, how will they staff this larger resource center?

So my big concern becomes we have a group of people who cannot handle one more millions of dollar promise that's not gonna add what they need to add.

And we don't frankly know what we need to add.

I am on the board of the continuum of care.

I've talked to them.

Do we have a gap analysis?

Well, no, not really.

I think you know, we we kind of know this.

I mean, we know just offhand, we don't have anything for medically fragile.

We really don't have anything for elderly.

But these are not things that were addressed.

Even the other night when we had our um we had our lived experienced people coming in, they weren't saying, give me some place during the day.

They were saying I need a place to sleep.

So I really want to look at how this gap study to really see what is missing because right now we have a collection of really good people doing really good work, but it doesn't look, it's not that collective thing that we that we need, that agreed plan, that agreed strategy on how we tackle this.

There have been many other cities, many other states, many other countries that are dealing with the exact same thing, and there are studies on what the city's role is with community partners and how this best serves the most people.

We have a continuing crisis here, and I think before we continue to be reactionary, reactionary, we need to stop, come up with a solid plan on how we do this whole thing.

There is a 90 day limit on this gap study because I think it's that important that we get it done that quickly, and I think we have a lot of the people with the answers, we just have to bring them all in the same room and get these questions and answers going.

So I think the people that need us the most right now, we owe it to them to not be reactionary on this.

And I hear this like, well, we're gonna lose this money, we're gonna do this.

I mean, this is the same thing when somebody tells me I have to give, you know, buy two and get two free or something, you know, like that.

Like there's all this pressure right now, but if we're not taking the time to make sure this is actually what we need, and this is actually the right path to get these people help, then I'm not sure if even that two million dollar grant is the right thing for us.

I'm really really concerned after all of the I I mean, I talked to so many different of our community um providers and partners, and to Director Bagley, she was gracious with her time and talked to me for a long time.

And I I just feel like we're continuing to be reactionary, and it's hard not to be.

We all really care about these people that need help and we want to do the right thing.

But I think we have to take a step back and really come up with a solid plan here on what's best, what the city's involvement should be with our community partners.

Is it standing up our own thing, or is it investing back in our partners and and helping them you know reach the level that they should be reaching?

So anyway, that's what the gap analysis is, and I think it's fair to talk about that.

I appreciate being invited to come and say that because it's certainly something we should be thinking about as we're thinking, do we rush to find this next thing?

Because I want to help just as much as you guys do.

If it's the right thing, great.

But I just have not seen any answers that point me that this is definitely the right thing.

Instead, I've got a lot more questions, and including from community partners.

So we will be taking up the gap analysis at the personal administrative affairs committee, I believe.

Mr.

Salah, Alvin Kelly.

Um chairs, uh Dr.

Beck, do you have a comment?

Yes, if I may, Bobby Badley.

So this is not a reactionary thing that we're doing.

We've been looking at this for um years.

Um we have done our research on best practices with this as well.

Um the funding, you know, is one component of it, but it's something that you do need to have.

We've had we've had this conversation with some of our community partners as well, as far as um, you know, a response, and you know, we use the collective impact model across all of our partner agencies that we work with.

Um, and what we have found, what we have seen, what our experience has been over the past at least three years, has been that the opportunity for doing some of this has been presented at different agencies, and it just hasn't been done.

Um the difference in how we're trying to roll this resource center out in the services is to work together with our partnering organizations, and so there is a one-stop place where people are going.

But what we currently have, and you know, what we've had traditionally here is that in an agency may have certain components of services there provided, but it's been that agency and it's limited to that agency and their capabilities, their workforce or lack thereof to be able to provide these services.

When you pull together collectively a group of agencies coming in together, um, there is a reliance upon shared resources, and so even in this resource center, it wouldn't be necessarily that one agency has to be there to staff all day, but they can use block time.

We've actually seen that demonstrated in the warming station when we've opened that up for what we want to call resource days where partner partnering organizations will actually come in and will have some of their staff there for a certain period of time.

This is how this will operate as well.

Um, the staff from the division will actually be there for the most part because we're gonna hire some additional folks in so that we're not trying to add anything extra onto our partner organizations except for their availability in this particular setting to be able to do this.

It may seem like it's reactionary because we have moved really quickly with trying to stand something up over at Full 14 Mulberry Street because we were asked to move this thing along right and so we've been working on this for a number of years.

We've been working with our partners for a number of years.

I really believe if our community based organizations could do it, they would have done it.

I believe by taking this approach it allows for us to collectively come together and invest in this together to do this.

So it's not just I don't see this as just a city thing or it's just a division or administrative services or community development.

This is still a citywide response to this that brings our partners in to work on it together.

To that point you wouldn't know it because I step on every single political rig in the parking lot but I have an alderman for like 11 years and for me notice a disturbing trend that whenever we say we're going to do an analysis everybody uses that as a reason not to do something next because they're waiting for the analysis is that a problem if we apply for grants or funding that they'd say well what's your analysis say no because we have we have the evidence that shows that there's a need for this type of a process to take place and we've looked at other communities and towns that are not necessarily in New Hampshire but in other states that they use this resource model as a way to get people connected to services right down in Massachusetts this is the process that they have.

So without getting bogged down in this one topic because you can be in a whole meeting of it anyway we had an ad hoc kind of response committee when we had the um when I first started as Alderman it was I was on it before I was in Alderman even substandard yeah substandard living conditions committee because they did a documentary on I think it was Country Barn and Motel 6 and so the Alderman got involved and they wanted to know what was going on and we needed to thoroughly study the issue and I mean that was not a great example because it went longer than 90 days and they didn't even think to immediately put a a deadline on it.

So there's there's value in that but it was also a committee that like it continued on beyond necessarily a result it was an opportunity for us to thoroughly explore every single scenario where there could be substandard living conditions and when I took over as alderman and wanted to make sure the committee was still fully doing its work we did start moving into things like you know pest control and tenants' rights and that kind of stuff things that were reabsorbed into this committee.

So the at the proposed temporary committee could certainly explore new areas it could engage new partners new stakeholders I just would want to make sure that it's being presented in a way that the public doesn't feel like it is either diminishing or marginalizing any other groups that are doing it.

So where you have multiple city departments participating you have multiple stakeholders you should have multiple aldermen and you have people with life experience the continuum does fulfill that role but if this is another way to do it that gets different attention to it the continuum doesn't broadcast or or take minutes or things like that that alone could be a reason to kind of move forward with it.

So there's a lot of pros and cons for that I think just because I just made all the comments I should let others do so but I don't want to get caught in that part when we could be talking about these things.

Go on.

Thank you.

I just wanted to lend my own thought process around this as being someone who's been an alderman for almost 10 years and on the soup kitchen board for as long if there is reactionary things happening it's because this board has chosen not to do things and many of the community has taken their project and will and whittled it and whittled it down even now I don't necessarily agree with removing 30 shelter beds.

I think it's actually really important that especially when we have a ban on sleeping in the street.

So I think that the work has been done economics have shifted and this staff continues to have to change and jog here or drag there based on what the board directs them to do.

So I'm glad it came out tonight I think if this board chooses to do the gap analysis then we should tell them to stop doing all the other things because it won't it'll hit in 90 days and it may align with what we have and it may not but I don't want them to waste a ton of time running down this path if we're going to go study it.

There are people who are living in the streets right now they've come into our every single day we put our own timeline on this by putting that camping ban in and I appreciate the idea of looking at what we have and really being thoughtful about it but we need to act just as a point of curiosity Director Cummings or um Bagley before the Mulberry Street came up we had it floated that we could use the two portable classrooms over on the Maple Street parking lot.

Is there a reason we aren't able to look at that as a two to three year project while developing a longer term solution?

So I'm gonna first uh preface my comments by saying that would mean you'd be missing right off the bat the transitional housing element of the program.

And so I again I just want to kind of put that out there.

Um I'll leave my comments there in case Director Bagley wants to add on, but um yeah, so uh Bobby Bagley, the classrooms were going to be used again as a temporary, so there was gonna have to be a nice financial investment in that to the tune of close to almost a half a million dollars just for that, and that would have just been to allow for our staff and staff from our community agencies to be available for individuals again for that engagement piece to get them connected to services, and that's all that would have been able to be provided.

The funding that we're getting that we're uh looking to get from the congressional directed spending, because we wrote in this piece around the transitional housing, we have to be able to demonstrate that.

We wouldn't be able to apply for the two million dollars from New Hampshire Finance Authority because you have to be able to show that you're providing some housing for um individuals that have opioid use disorder, and so that would knock those two funding sources out all together.

So um we could I could rewrite the uh the um the um application for our capital improvement for the classrooms, but it would only limit us to being able to provide that as a service.

And and then again, I'm ignorant of how those classrooms work.

To me, they just look like mobile structures.

They can't be modified so that one of them does provide housing.

You can't put a bathroom or shower in, you can't put a washing machine.

We could, we'd only get like 10 people in the yeah, I was gonna say I think part of the issue, uh, Mr.

Chairman again, Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services, is part of the thought process between that temporary solution was the fact that it was so turnkey, and it would be something that could be stood up relatively quickly, but it had a very limited scope, and the scope was very narrowly defined to be for a resource center.

And um I would caution that this temporary solution is you know between 500,000 and a million dollars.

I I don't know if you want to make that type of capital outlay when you're gonna be working towards this lot longer term goal when it's that very narrow programmatic type use.

I don't believe you could get the transitional housing that you'd be looking for in those classrooms due to code issues that that would arise, not even looking at the the the build-out and fit up costs that would that that would be that would be incurred.

Because I think stepping stones managed to do it in a place that has no residential background, so I mean I would do it, but that's just me because I'm like, let's do something right now, let's get it done.

Um and I would say figure out a plan for putting two of them up and have one be the warming station immediately, another be like uh maybe a different type of program like the resource center, and then work on a plan to phase that in.

But again, that's can I tell you how to take 10 over none?

Can I tell you what my fear is over that solution is we would then uh again, Tim Cummings, director of administrative services.

We would then be uh cutting our nose off despite our face and the fact that we would create um a potential solution, but it may not be the right solution for the community, and we would take all our ambition away to try to solve the problem.

And what and you what you'd see is something that was quote unquote temporary, be permanent.

And I don't know if that's fair to the community either, and I think that that needs to be discussed.

I mean, I do not disagree with that because we had a whole bunch of mobile homes that were temporary solutions that the public decided was not good enough, and now that we don't have those, so not actually addressing homelessness is something that the city I think has has now started to mobilize, and largely only under the leadership of Directory Bagley.

Um, and it needs to be a citywide approach.

So I don't disagree with your logic.

I do think that there's personally, I think there's a danger in not doing anything because we're trying to do everything.

Um other committee members, uh, director.

I mean the element done.

Director who's the director of all the work.

I'd rather direct nothing.

Um I I want to back up for a little bit, um, Director Bagley, just to your response to that last question regarding the uh portable classrooms, because I think I heard you correctly, but I don't know if I interpret it correctly.

So 500,000 to a million dollars to put those in place as a temporary fix to set up a daytime drop-in engagement center, we'll call it for lack of better terms.

Doing that would prevent us from still forging on with a project that would allow us to apply for these grants.

Uh Bobby Bagley director.

So if our city has lots of money that we can use to do this, I would say do that, because then we wouldn't need to worry about the other 3.2 million dollars.

I mean, if if we had unlimited funds, we could do a lot of things, right?

And we could set that up temporarily, but we wouldn't be able to use that funding for it.

No, of course not.

Yeah.

I I I don't think anybody advocating for that is under the impression that that is the fix.

I know that's the fear that we put that in place and then that's perceived as the fix and we stop the pursuit of something more permanent.

But I I I almost see it as an ability to walk and chew bubblegum.

We need to do something now.

And I I don't know, I don't have Ms.

N right here in front of me.

Um, but I feel that for a temporary fix, the resources are there to do that while still chewing the bubblegum on the pursuit of a more permanent project that is longer term, further out, you know, requires design like further design.

I I feel like that is something that we could do here while still in the pursuit of something greater.

And I'm concerned that when we when ideas are bandied about and we keep coming back to the you know the the congressional funding and everything, yes, that's something we don't want to lose, but we're we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot over that.

Like we're we're getting so narrow vision when I I just I don't feel like this is a topic where we and and I it's a very collective we.

I'm not saying you know, Director Bagley, why are you so narrow visioned, you know, but we we we just don't have that privilege, you know.

If I may I would question if we have an organization that's gonna let us use their space for the resource center component, why would we want to spend half a million dollars to put classrooms together that would be temporary as well?

I guess that would since I suggested that because I don't know what that organization is and it hasn't been announced publicly.

And I if I could, I would I was actually gonna respond similarly that that goes back to my request of this being a more frequent and ongoing discussion, because I feel like when we do get our feet to the fire on this, we're getting into these irregular meetings and these irregular updates where we're learning new information, and that's good information that I think it's great that one of our community partners has that vision in mind.

But if it's new to Alderman Lopez, I'm guessing it's new to all of us in the room, and so you know, not knowing that and wanting to brainstorm ideas, the right hand doesn't know what the left one is doing, you know.

So if I may, um the organization just approached us two weeks ago, two weeks ago, not that long ago.

Um, and we've been able to have some conversations, drafted MOU.

The only reason why, again, when we put things out in the public, and this is a public meeting that is recorded, information then goes in places where it's like, well, we need to be able to manage the information that we're sharing.

So we are very we're in we're in a place where I think we can almost make the announcement, maybe at the next meeting, we could.

We're still um at the space where we've drafted it in MOU for them to take a look at.

We have to still bring that back to legal here for them to take a look at it.

Um I don't want to put that out until we know that we're gonna go ahead and move forward.

We're we're at the point, and you could say we're like it's like right there, like this is a if a yes, but if something happens and it gets pulled back, then it's already out there.

Um and so I'd rather have that affirmed, confirmation, and then at the next meeting, we can meet next week.

We can meet every night if you guys want to.

I know you don't want to do that, but we can have some information that does call me.

We can have some information that actually does come back very, very quickly with regard to that, especially if we're trying to get this done by September.

So we can't.

I just wouldn't want us to go down, start start having conversations about classrooms, because that it's not gonna be a quick project.

Even that was gonna take a while for us to do that.

And if we really want to get something, you know, in place sooner, then this lowest hanging fruit.

I mean, like that pomegranate is like right there.

That we could just pick off this tree and move forward with it.

So I just don't want to say the organization yet until it's completely confirmed, and we may have that information by tomorrow.

I don't think we meant to press you.

I was just clarifying.

Oh, I don't think we're suggesting other things too.

Yeah, and you said it was people didn't know that's because I'm good at keeping secrets.

Well, but also you were saying you didn't know why we would suggest alternatives that we were aware of, is because we're all trying to do something.

And until we the ink is dry, yeah, we're gonna throw everything we can.

Absolutely.

Oh, yeah.

And that and that's that's my perspective as well.

Is that you know you you would use the analogy of the low-hanging fruit.

Well, if that fruit doesn't bear, then I'd really like the opportunity to reach to the next branch and be ready to pick what's next, you know.

What do you mean, Kelly?

You saved me from making a joke about the tree of knowledge.

Go ahead.

I'm not gonna make an analogy about the tree of knowledge.

I'm not.

It's not felt that way tonight.

Um so this is what I could see happening so that we can have a bigger conversation because I will tell you that we do not have a quorum of the board at this meeting right now.

Um I would say if you're starting to get the information around this potential, you know, mid-aid organization, and this, and we could have a special before our next full or something, so that the board of Alderman as a whole can hear all these updates.

I think that would do us some good in terms of what do we do next?

What do you guys want us to do?

Because we can tell you as a committee, but there are 15 aldermen.

Just a random nod at Alderman Greg before we go.

Um, if she had her standing ad hoc committee, then we have two chances.

Um thank you.

If I may, so it sounds like to summarize kind of everything we've talked about.

We're moving in the direction of possibility of everything all encompassing, which is great.

Um, we moved the warming station earlier this year, which is great.

And it sounds like there's the potential of a resource center, you know, kind of temporary coming together.

So it leaves us with shelter during COVID, which you really shined.

That was when you really came to the to the plate and made public health the most important part of our city.

Um we were able to get beds from National Guard like that if we needed them.

Um what prevents us from setting up beds at Elm Street for people to actually sleep?

And I know that maybe everybody else already knows this, but I do not, so I appreciate the time being able to explain why we can't use Elm Street also during those months as um a place to sleep.

If I may, yes, and so the reason why Elm Street is not um it being able to use as a shelter is because there are quite a few components to a shelter that are not set up, and unless again we're gonna spend the money to set that up.

That's the only reason why.

With the bathrooms, um, we have and I invite you guys to come over and visit us when we open up so you can see that with how the warming station is set up.

Um, but we'd have to have uh more bathrooms available for shelter.

Um we'd have to have um the shower, there's there's a whole bunch of other components to actually have in a shelter that we don't have at Elm Street, unless we invest some serious money into that.

Um I think also because of the what is the word that we use because it was a school and it wasn't housing, there are some other uh zoning things that would have to take place as well if we were to try to turn that into a shelter space, and that's why we use it as a warming station.

Um we don't say it's a shelter, even though individuals are able to recline when they rest.

It's because of some of those limitations of what a shelter true definition of a shelter is.

Yes, uh Matt Sulvan Community Development Director, just to follow up on Director Bagwood's comments.

Um I think we've been very careful about how we've described the use of the space in Elm Street for for just these reasons.

Um and I think often of you know comments Mr.

Keating has made and others have made about sleeping at the current uh warming station.

We have allowed individuals to recline in some cases, but sleeping, in fact, triggers additional code requirements and would require renovation of the Elm Street space.

That would be quite costly.

And we looked at that, particularly, I want to say three years ago when we were first establishing the resource, or sort of rather the warming station there with fire and building.

And it is based on the fact that Elm Street holds many different types of uses or occupancy, and there isn't really adequate partitioning in place, nor the systems adequate to ensure that fire protection can be provided in the way necessary to actually have an overnight real residential use.

And so we I think we've gotten as close to that as legally permissible.

Bobby's giving you the nod over there that we have.

But establishing a large-scale assembly residential use would require additional protections to be put in place that you know could certainly be discussed, but would require investment in a facility that I think we all recognize has a potential future reuse that's a bit different.

Quick follow-up, if I may.

So when we're talking about potentially spending 500 to a million dollars on mobile units, um classrooms that would be temporary with the idea of temporary and a band-aid, what was that dollar amount that it would take to be able to get it into shape enough that we could legally use it for people to sleep?

And why does it go up at every meeting?

Correct.

So I'm Matt Sullivan, I want to address Alderman Lopez's comment.

Time is a very interesting thing, Alderman Lopez.

And time, no, I obviously construction costs have been inflated with time.

But I want to be really transparent about this, and I'm I'll ask my colleagues to correct me if I'm wrong.

We never went through the exercise of actually determining that exact number all room and mortgage and we never did uh you know, sort of a conceptual design to understand what the build-out would need to be.

To be frank about it, I think we understood in talking to building and fire, and sort of at that time we understood it would be a costly improvement.

What number?

I I can't I can't answer, but it would be more than you know a hundred thousand dollars, I think, to improve the space.

But between where, you know, a hundred and a million, I don't know where exactly.

Um we didn't chase down that answer.

I do think we're in a very different place, and we could certainly look at that, but again, I think it's all a question of are we going to be there for another year, two years, six months, and there's a question of whether that value is worth it long term.

But we never put an actual price tag to the improvements that would need to be made.

Okay, so I had a very similar conversation to this earlier last week, I think, uh, with a community partner, and I was accused of giving information, so there was like drinking out of a fire hose.

But um, I have worked in large-scale emergency shelters and short-term emergencies.

So if you take a large room, for example, what they did at the old Keystone Hall, you have to segregate it into small areas, otherwise, people are coming and going, waking up, going to the bathroom.

If you put more than say 10 people in a room, they're gonna constantly be waking each other up, and your residential incidents are gonna go up a lot.

That was the largest room capacity that they had at the old Ash Street shelter, and it was pretty much the room we always had to keep our eyes on in terms of you know, staff literally checking on it.

When you have people staying in emergency shelters, you can't restrict their movement, like you can't lock the door, but you also have to make sure they're actually still in there and not leaving and coming back.

So you have to physically check the beds, you know, look at them, don't beam them in the face with a flashlight, make sure they didn't decide to pile a bunch of pillows up or whatever.

So you have to have a a small enough population that you can keep an eye on it and you can manage it, but it also has to be somewhat cost effective.

So those are some of the considerations in place.

And right now the warming station is just in a big cafeteria, so you can't have the awake warming station and people sleeping without segregating space, and if you do, it would probably be a meaningless segregation.

Like you can put office dividers in there, but you can still hear people, the lights aren't gonna be like zoned.

So those are some of the challenges that they have.

And if you try to expand things and you try to say, okay, well, there's adjacent classrooms, and we can put people in this and people over here, then you're running into now.

We need more volunteer capacity, and can't I mean sorry, staff is you cannot have just volunteers managing overnight residential things.

The um the recipe for exploitation and disaster is ridiculously simple.

So you have to have people who have had their background vetted, you have to have people that are fully trained and you know are going to show up reliably.

So those are some of the challenges that we have in just adding a emergency shelter to um street.

I do think it could potentially be done, but it would have to be something that everybody is on board for, and it would probably be better done by a partner agency or somebody who can focus on that rather than also the outreach and also the public health and also the other things we have to do.

That's my two sense a little too much.

Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services, and so to that point, um Chairman Lopez, I think absent that we haven't actually had that policy level conversation because it is a much different scope of service delivery for an emergency shelter versus a warming station, and I think we would need that type of conversation to occur to understand what it is that this community would be looking for for the very reasons that you just pointed out.

I would definitely ask, on at least my own behalf, that you look at that plan, because I have a few, I suspect, that last year we saw a wave of people coming into the warming station right on the end, or right at the beginning of the you know, the no camping ban and all that kind of stuff.

Now we've had a whole year for people to spread out, go everywhere, and then almost definitely will still coalesce back downtown.

So I think we should start developing a emergency plan because it gets very cold.

We weren't just doing this out of charity, we were doing it so that we didn't have people starting fires and any event and building they could find or you know, aggressively looking for shelter.

I do think we should at least have the meeting to contemplate what we would do if we had to stand up some kind of emergency situation.

I just want to echo some of the points around a large population of people being in one spot.

I know Director Bagley has talked about the warming station being exceptionally hard because you have one room with all these different needs.

And if you think about it, it's really like taking the encampment that we all agreed was too you know scary and there are too many people in one place and just putting them under a roof.

So we really have to think about, you know, and and and you know, being on the super kitchen, we've talked about it.

We put in more family beds and ones that could be transitioned because depending on the size of the family, if we don't have room for them in the shelter, then we have to go and do the resource where we you know we pay for it at a hotel.

So there are needs, and each individual, you know, you'd have someone who might be struggling with substance use next to someone who's in recovery, all of that comes together when you do large congregate uh sheltering.

So in a true emergency, sure, you need a head over your, you know, a roof over your head, sure, but for long term and for nightly, you know, management from a staffing perspective and a safety perspective, it just doesn't make sense.

Alderman Lopez.

I mean, sorry, Director Cummings.

Thank you.

I I'd love to pivot the conversation now at this point and actually ask you all what based on what you've heard this evening.

What are your thoughts on a six million-ish dollar project, the program we've talked about, five-ish thousand square foot project?

I I would I would welcome to hear whether this is something of interest to to you all.

We don't have 15 aldermen, but we do have what six, and it would be good to kind of get a sense from you all as to what your thoughts are on uh on the current project.

Elderman Johnson.

Thank you.

I've sat and listened to everything tonight.

I think everybody made a lot of good points.

But I'm looking and thinking back on Mulberry Street.

The house was listed for I believe $689,000.

We often they took 730,000.

I know I kept asking about doing a home inspection, which is really important.

And I spoke to a lot of my friends about why would you do a home inspection, especially in a multifamily home?

We've been in the business for longer than me.

I also asked to get to see the title search, which I wasn't allowed to see, which I can't understand because that's public information anyway, and a title search.

We were going to then have bond $900,000 and spend $4.5 million to renovate the building.

To me, it sounded almost like a teardown.

I'm sure there's city property or city land that we could probably build for less.

I mean, if you're talking to me about what is my priority in one of my projects, and that's what I keep asking here.

What is the priority of this city on all these projects that are coming up?

We got DPW garage, we have a library now, where you have a fire station.

I've said use the library because they were already there.

People say, Oh, you can't.

And you know what?

I'm getting positive comments about that, the library.

You could add onto a library for another section for the library and a newer section, the library.

They're already congregating downtown already.

There's plenty of room in the library.

You could probably set up everything that you need under one roof.

You got your bathrooms, you'd have to put some showers in there.

I'm sure you can put some laundry facilities in there.

But to do and how I can't remember the exact square footage on that home on Mel Mulberry Street for $4.5 million.

I was in shock with that number.

I don't know, in my opinion, excuse me, Mr.

Cummings, but everything comes in in the million dollar project.

4 million, 5 million, 3 million.

It's always in the million, and it's going to take a year for design and the architects.

Well, you know what?

I've seen communities being built in less time when it has to be done.

You know, to me, if this is so needed, three years is a long time to have a project going.

And the longer the project goes, the more money it's going to cost.

And who's going to make the money?

It's not the citizens, and who's not going to benefit from this, it's not going to be the homeless population.

So I hope if you're going to bring something to the board, you're going to bring something to the board that's reasonable, square footage, and a good reasonable time frame, not a three-year time frame, because in that three years, a lot can happen.

And a lot of people can have catastrophic issues in a three-year period.

So I just don't buy any of this.

What's going on here?

And I've listened to everything here tonight, and I've kept my mouth shut.

I've heard all the questions, all the answers, but to me, for $4 million, $4.5 million, and to do something like you were going to do at Mulberry Street.

And I've heard a lot from not only my constituents.

Like I said, today I said to my husband, when I was at work, it was like almost old home week.

I was running into everybody I knew, and then some.

And people tell me their thoughts.

I don't ask for anything.

They tell me their thoughts.

This is the right way to go with money.

I think something really needs to come to the table.

We have, I'm sure there's still city buildings, we take properties for back taxes.

We got land.

I've even talked to Director Bagley about what they're doing in other states' warehouses and putting up like little cubicles for that transitional living area with the resource center and working with the people to get out to kind of rebuild their lives and to get them job to get jobs and to retrain them.

A lot of the people need to be retrained because of the situation they've been in.

So that's just my two cents or three or four.

Thank you.

So if I may, Mr.

Chairman.

So so I'm hearing six million ish is a little too rich, maybe not the right amount.

The purpose of discussion.

You know what?

Why don't you be a little bit more than a little bit more?

Oh, sorry, Alderman Johnson, you were saying something?

I was saying something to my colleague about respect.

Sensitive audience.

Everyone who would like the project to be as cost effective as possible, regardless of the ultimate need.

Raise your hand.

Okay, so people want to waste money.

Yeah, so I just I mean it sounded as though six million was a little too I again the word I used was rich, uh, but but basically it's off off point, so maybe something less than that, either by using uh existing assets that the city owns to to knock some money off of the project or reducing the square footage down, which would in turn reduce the program or certainly try to find a building where we could do it under $800 uh a square foot.

I think that that's essentially what I'm hearing uh to try to to drive drive the price price down.

Yes.

Okay.

So other than Sam.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um the where I'm struggling with six million is it's um it's the feather floating in the wind right now.

Just try to catch it and get it right.

Um it was the issue ahead with Mulberry Street, too.

We we had a building in front of us with a nice listing and uh and a cost, but I don't know what that building needs once we get in there.

None of us did.

So we we're saying, you know, four and a half million best guess.

Estimate, you know.

It it's hard to say that this project will cost six million when in front of us right now we don't even have a building.

We don't know if that building is going to be an existing uh residential use today versus a commercial use, which may be more build-ready for us, you know, which may have some of the infrastructure inside it in place already that we need.

There's so many unknowns to be able to just sit here tonight and say, yeah, six million sounds good because it's it's a target I can't see.

And without without being able to see the target, how could I possibly put a cost on it?

I don't know.

Alderman or uh director Sullivan has been glaring at me while I've been talking.

Just um I think I saw hand up before back and forth.

Um Alderman Kelly.

Uh thank you.

I didn't raise my hand during the division because I think what I want to see is a plan that meets the needs of the community.

Obviously, every time we're in this trimmer, we're trying to make sure that we're fifth we are stewarding taxpayer dollars in a way that's fiscally responsible.

But I think if you look at it, and I understand, like not knowing exactly what the building is, that all makes sense.

But if you look at it as total cost to our city, what does it cost to continue to repair the library?

What does it cost when people are put into jail?

It costs more money every single night that someone's in jail than if they're in some sort of transitional housing or support system.

So if we're if if if six million dollars feels scary, like you also have to think about the implications of inaction and what that actually costs us.

It doesn't feel tangible, but it still costs us money.

Could we back it up to the slide before?

Yep.

This is the one that says the numbers on it.

Yeah.

And the only reason why I raise that is because to uh Alder Woman Kelly's point, I mean, maybe then the conversation needs to shift about the program.

I mean, that's and that's fine.

But let's let's make sure we understand what the program is that that that you're thinking about to quote unquote meet the need of the community.

I would represent to you, and I'm not the expert here on this front, but I would submit to you that I believe we did have a project that met the need of the community.

This is something we've been studying for for at least three years, maybe longer than that.

Um so so I thought we were doing that, but to to Alderman uh to Alderwoman Kelly's point, maybe we need to refine this, and I would welcome those comments and and thoughts.

If I could follow up, yeah.

I think I mentioned this before, I'll just reiterate it that I really struggle with losing the shelter beds.

I know that our shelter is at capacity.

We have told people that it is illegal to sleep outside, and we have 40-ish chronically homeless people who are just floating around.

So while I appreciate you whittling it down to something that feels tangible and you know relatable for aldermen, I think that those shelter beds specifically, and I've said this before when Manchester did their camping van, I'll call it a camping ban because that's what it is.

Um, they put in shelter beds.

They did at the same time.

We have not done that as a community.

Alderman Kelly?

I would uh Alderman Morgan.

Thank you.

Couple of things.

Um, going back to the question of what what do we want?

Yeah.

Um I'll agree with everything my colleague said.

It it's hard without knowing what's in front of us.

Um I'll describe it, a building that once I start to describe it, y'all know what it is without me having to say the address.

Um adjacent to public health, large parking lot.

Um building was recently reduced by a million dollars.

Um, as is, I was personally in that building maybe 10 years ago and saw the state of it.

Then I can't even imagine what it is now.

It's probably a complete teardown.

What could happen is you could go up five, seven stories there, perhaps.

So you have a mutual community benefit, a mutual community need.

We need more parking.

So you have first second story parking, and then you have your warming station resource center, transitional housing and and whatnot.

So now you're you're solving several issues, or some of it's perceived.

I don't personally think parking is an issue, but I won't get into that.

Um and it transforms that area into um frankly, that building should be condemned.

It's at that point right now, um, and and it takes it back to something that is usable and not an ISOR for the city.

Um, so that's my answer to the six million.

I don't know what that looks like.

I don't know if that's feasible.

I don't know if that building is even available.

Um, and I forget what the second part was, so I'll just leave it at that.

Greg, you got an opinion?

I want to make sure we're going around every year.

Oh no, I'm good.

I'm not on this committee, so I just I'll just listen.

Thanks.

If I may, uh Alderman Lopez.

So um just kind of bracketing it, what I'm hearing that's that's more like a 15 to 20 million dollar project.

Um assuming two-ish levels of parking, and then assuming, you know, one to two floors of some sort of use that is slash residential slash open space, right?

Um so uh I'm just kind of I'm trying to conceptualize the program of what of what we're essentially talking about.

I mean uh I don't have an exact number for you, but we could certainly study that and we could come back with a project, but that project is much different than this one.

And I think that that's if that's what the community is interested in seeing, we need to have that conversation, and then we need to start building a plan towards that project.

Um, but that's materially different.

I remember my second question.

Thank you, if I may.

Um that was hypothetical, as an example.

Um I think I could speak for at least the constituents and community partners and fellow aldermen that I've had this conversation with.

We want what is, and it sounds ridiculous to say, fastest to get people a place, a roof over their head, the resources that they need as quickly as possible while still being financially responsible for for the city in the best interest.

And um, and I think that has been a very clear directive from the very beginning as to what we want and what we're asking for, and then we hand it over and say, no, now make it happen, which is the hard part, right?

Um, but I don't think that we've we've changed our direction or tone on what we're looking for.

It's what we can get the quickest that's the most effective and the most efficient.

So if I could, Altaman Lopez.

But the project I just heard you describe would not be that project.

Of course.

That would be like the ideal scenario.

If we could just it's like it's totally blue-skying it, like this would be in the ideal world.

But what could be more realistic and achievable is the current project at hand.

And I think I've outlined a two to three year type window.

I mean, I certainly think we could try to bring that down, but I do want to be realistic of what it takes to try to do any type of development, any type of real estate development.

It takes time to to put the project together.

I think I would I don't think we could do it in under two years, certainly.

Um three years may be a stretch.

I understand that, but you know, you're not gonna see anything in under a under it and 18 to 24 months type type type period, even if we were to go as as as fast as we as fast as we could.

So speaking for myself, I don't think I have a problem with the six million dollar price tag if it's a good plan.

Um I do think that just saying here's the amount that you can spend up to, go for it, is never gonna be what the board applies for uh subscribes to.

But I think there's a sense that we would like to try to get something shovel ready and you know at least solid enough that we can apply for the state funding if possible, but I am also going to be with other Alderman who said we're not necessarily gonna expect the state of New Hampshire to pull us out of this.

Any further comment from the board?

Can I ask one more question?

You just did.

Oh, one more.

One more.

Um hearing those those comments, um.

And I'm about to ask this understanding I might get tired and feathered.

Um brought mine actually.

Um but is there a reason why we haven't done like a um a feasibility study yet?

Or uh, you know, spending 20 to 50,000 of getting a certain level of design to answer some of the questions that I think are making some of us a little uncomfortable because it's uh an unknown and getting even getting to a 20% level of design might help give some level of confidence to unlocking some of the some of the dials here to move to move the project forward.

And you know, I think that I'm asking the question is has there been any thought of trying trying to do that?

I mean, I think that that might be something that we could pursue, but that would add time, it's another study, it's another plan.

I could certainly understand the consternation over that, but it's not very clear that with this consensus on six million dollars.

There is not speaking for myself.

I wasn't elected to add extra money to everything.

So usually when I hear a feasibility study or design or something, it's you're the one who's suggesting it.

It's not wrong.

For other board members, uh directly through you to Director Cummings.

I think it's an interesting thought.

I think it would give more you know detail to people who are feeling like, well, we how can we tell you six million dollars and we don't even know are we are we re-retrofitting something that exists?

Are we tearing down?

Like, but I think it would have to be a step once you've identified a location, right?

And then you would do that.

And then is the two million dollars worth keeping everything you know in flux to try to get it for junior?

I don't know.

But I do think what I've heard with white Muller didn't pass, and what I'm hearing from some of the aldermen here is like how do we how do we say this six million dollar figure?

Maybe you've even been suggested that you just kind of make those up on the fly.

But like, how do we know that that's what it's gonna be?

And are there unknown unknowns that are gonna take this build this project?

And this is where people get nervous and make it a 12 million dollar project, because by the time we get in there and we look at the foundation or whatever it is, now we're you know, now we're really attacking on all these change orders.

And I think that has been the hesitation for a lot of people on this board.

I'm gonna abuse my chair moment for a moment and say we had a really long feasibility study done after like a decade of trying to figure out a performing arts center, and Alex closed right in the middle of it, and the feasibility study thought we were supposed to have an arts district over where we're looking at a warming station.

So that also happens.

You had some thoughts?

Well, I I mean, let's so let's play out this scenario to try to advance this conversation.

So let's say we identify a piece of property and we're able to put it under agreement.

I think just for conversation purposes, the the board needs to be able to spend at least a million dollars on just securing the the land and the the building, you know, for for the for this for this.

And then let's say if we're willing to do that, spend a million dollars to acquire or or at least get an option on a piece of property, and then we were to go out and do a level of design.

That's gonna take I'm gonna say 90 days, assuming we're in relative agreement on the on the program.

Um so that puts us to January.

I mean, and then you'd be able to have some sort of confidence, but we would we would have an option in place, or we've acquired a piece of property and we've we've studied it to a certain level that then we could move forward with what I would say phase two, which would be the construction and the authorization of of a construction financing of of some sort, and whether that's two million dollars or four million dollars, we could certainly move forward when we were ready for that, and that might not be for a while because we would have to put that plan together, but I guess my question is why it why don't we look at breaking this up into phases and we do a phase one to get the project going?

Would that be of interest to this to this to this group?

And I understand you don't speak for the Board of Alderman, this is just six members of the board, but I'm trying to thread the needle to try to advance this project.

I mean, does everything stop if we start doing that and in 90 days and then we start again?

Nope, nope.

I think that they're separate initiatives, so you could continue moving forward with the grant down one path, separate and apart from an effort to try to identify a piece of property and start a feasibility or quote unquote limited design type of contract where then you could have some sufficient detail in front of you to be able to make a decision.

My initial reaction is that's an interesting proposal.

Um I do think I'd love to hear you call it limited design and not feasibility.

Um in all honesty, if I could uh uh uh older woman Kelly, is I think if we have a piece of property in hand, it does change from a feasibility study to a limited design, because then you'd be very specific.

I like specificity.

And then we don't have the idea that it could be unfeasible.

Correct.

I mean, there's a part where we have to say we do need to do this one way or the other, so it should be how, not if so that if I could, the trade-offs on this scenario is um you have less freedom.

Worst case scenario, we buy a piece of property that we end up holding because we don't actually move forward with the full project.

Or we put a property under agreement for a certain period of time and we pay that price for this conversation.

I'm gonna say a hundred thousand dollars.

But it's in that range, and then we may decide not to move forward based off of what we get.

And so that's the trade-off for this type of scenario that I'm that I'm talking about.

Well, I don't think anybody wants to see you use 100,000 and blow it.

But I do think that there's definitely valuable or value in pursuing additional strategies to just keeping on hoping that we'll get somebody to give us money, keeping on hoping that uh piece of property will just descend in the heavens.

Maybe we need some additional planning.

Are there stakeholders you can engage?

Yes, and everything I just described right now would not preclude us from the 1.2 million.

I think that that could still be on the table, though I wouldn't necessarily use that money.

I think, but I do think we would be trying to move a project forward with an eye towards being able to access those those monies when the when the when the time came.

And so under this strategy, under an option agreement, we would we would basically be using local funds to be clear, um, but with an eye towards making sure we were doing it in a way that we are federally compliant to be able to use the HUD monies.

Um a question of Director Sullivan.

Um who did the traffic study that we always quote?

Was it Grand State organizing project?

Or was it uh national redevelopment?

Alderman Lopez, which traffic study are you referring to?

There's a traffic flow study we used for years.

The downtown circulation study, perhaps that was done by VHB.

Yes.

Are you aware of any other similar organizations that might be willing to partner with us to do this quicker?

Well, I'm not sure uh that the scope of work that Director Cummings is discussing would be something that would be in the remit of a consultant like that.

Uh but certainly we have design consultants that we work with regularly that we could we could work with to develop such a scope.

Um but yeah, it would be a different realm of consultants that we'd be working with for design services like this.

Okay, but no partners that might have access to them.

Not any that come to mind specifically.

Um partners in that realm are not something the city typically works with.

We typically will pay a fee for services for something like that.

Um I think I saw other working.

Yes, I just want to say good job, Tim.

That's exactly what we've been asking for.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just had uh a little bit of a follow-on on the prospect of um you know seeking out the property, potentially holding it, yada yada.

Um understanding that the the real estate market still is what it is in this time and place.

Um I guess my question, and maybe it's maybe it's rhetorical, I don't know.

But is would any of the takeaway from the discussion and ultimate fallout of 14 Mulberry um shape our decision making a little to perhaps understand that we have to work with some sense of urgency, but maybe not the sense of urgency that led us to the table with 14 Mulberry without any sort of um property inspection or anything built into the purchase and sale agreement because best of my knowledge, I haven't checked this week, but last I checked that property is still in the market.

And so while we we wanted to get in there, maybe the urgency and the demand wasn't quite there, and maybe we could have built some of those things in that maybe would have sold that project to um the residents of Nashville a little softer.

So if I may, Ms.

Chairman, uh Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

So what I would be suggesting with this limited uh design scope, it would be a much higher level than uh than a quote unquote home inspection.

It would be um rather detailed plans to help us understand what the order of magnitude cost would be and what we would need to do to provide a code-compliant um piece of real estate that met our program needs, and we wouldn't necessarily go as far as putting construction documents together.

Um that would probably be a second iterative phase that we would do when we were to quote unquote move into the construction portion.

Um but you would have enough level of due diligence done that you could decide that yes, we want to proceed with this because this meets our needs and also is within the the price point that we're interested in spending.

So this would be pre-purchase.

In the ideal scenario, if I may, Mr.

And we would not get it credited to the purchase price.

We would forego that money, and then we would walk away if we weren't happy.

Or we would exercise our right to purchase it for specific price.

All right.

All right.

Any further questions?

I don't want to stay here all night, but I'm gonna ask a question because we came up.

What about current city properties?

Have we identified and looked at anything that's in the proper realm that could be I mean other than the imaginary one we discussed?

Is there anything that we're not looking at in terms of that land acquisition and or placement of the resource center?

Uh I mean I I'm thinking right now and I'm trying to think of a I mean uh of a site that we could potentially use.

I mean it's very the It's very hard because I don't think that there is.

We've as you might expect, we have had these conversations several times uh at the staff level.

Most of the sites that make sense based on their proximity to resources and other things, you know, transit routes, etcetera, other facilities that might be of need to to this population.

The sites that are available are parking lots.

They're used actively parking lots downtown.

Um and while we could debate underutilization, highest and best use.

There's there are parking lots that would need to be that parking would be displaced and need to be located elsewhere.

Um I'm gonna throw one out we haven't talked about in detail, but the Spring Street's parking lot, for example, will be a prime site, but it has a use, right?

And it's part of our downtown master plan or master plan.

So certainly there are city owned properties that do exist, but uh it's a question of how we would then find an alternative site for the current productive use of those sites.

And I don't know that we've found one that doesn't face us with that problem, I suppose.

Um the few other sites that we have talked about have been out of the downtown core, and they simply don't align well with I think what Bobby and her team are looking for and what what this community needs.

Um I can say just by one quick way of example.

You know, certainly when Stepping Stones was located at Danny Webster College for the brief period of time.

They were able to operate there, but transportation needs were a significant issue.

Um so we anticipated that being a problem, and sure enough, the inability of those folks to access resources downtown was a major issue.

And so I don't think we would choose to locate a facility like this or home like this outside of the downtown core.

And so we we've really struggled to find a city on site.

And timing is an issue in the sense that um all of our assets are pretty much used, and so we would have to basically be we'd be backfilling into someplace.

And I just don't see the any any asset that we have readily readily available, and that includes the tax deeded properties, because we're certainly keeping an eye on the tax-deed properties too and asking these questions.

Follow up.

So someone might ask, couldn't we just put the parking below the building?

I'm happy to respond to that.

We certainly could.

Uh Odin Lopez, if I made uh Matt Sullivan, we certainly could.

The project costs would change substantially.

Uh and there would still be a displacement of parking throughout the construction of the project as well.

So certainly, you know, back to I think Alderman Morgan's grand vision here.

I mean, I I have to be honest, I can't help but disagree that would be sort of a great mixed use build-out if we were able to accomplish that downtown.

But it's a significantly more costly project.

Thank you.

But this is a great conversation, actually.

This this type of conversation helps us immensely.

So I really appreciate taking the time tonight to kind of have this conversation to help inform the work that we're doing.

You are welcome to come to any human affairs committee and have this conversation.

And I'll even put a special in.

Okay.

I think we're at a good resting point now.

Oh, the one that I can read?

Yeah, yes.

Um okay, so we did this questions, uh communications.

There are none.

Unfinished business.

There is none.

New business resolutions.

There are none.

There are none.

I'm gonna pause and say city staff who are paid right now, can go if they want to.

Um table in the committee.

There's none.

General discussion.

We've had so much.

Okay, no more, thank you.

Public comment?

No public.

Hang it.

Remarks by the botherman.

Is there remarks by the way, not discussion?

I've said all the things.

I don't even have any.

I would just like to say thank you for letting me be here and uh speak a little bit.

You're always welcome.

I realize some committees don't let uh other men speak, but I do, so whatever.

Okay, well I don't even actually have any announcements.

So um can I get a motion?

No.

Move to adjourn.

All those in favor of adjourning say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

And we are adjourned at 910 p.m.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See you don't oppose adjourning your own meetings.