Aldermen, Board of

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President Brian S. McCarthy presided; City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron recorded. Prayer was offered by City Clerk Paul R. Bergeron; Alderman Pressly led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 11 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Aldermen Deane and Tabacsko were not in attendance. Aldermen Chasse and Cookson arrived after the roll was taken. President McCarthy Alderman Deane contacted me to indicate that he had to work this evening and was unable to attend. The Mayor wished me to pass along that she is at the Community Health Assessment Focus Group, which is a larger gathering that was scheduled some time ago before we knew we were going to have this meeting. She is unable to attend. Mr. Galligani is here if we have any questions for the administration. PUBLIC HEARING R-11-91 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM AND REQUESTING A REVISION TO THE BROWNFIELDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE GRANT FOR COTTON MILL SQUARE, LLC Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire, Chair of the Human Affairs Committee, conducted the public hearing: Chairman Wilshire Thank you Mr. President. Tonight’s Public Hearing is on R-11-91, Authorizing the Submission of an Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program and Requesting a Revision to the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative Grant for Cotton Mill Square, LLC. I just want to point out for those who are here and listening that there is a possibility that later this evening we will be amending R-11-91. Testimony in Favor Eric Jackson, 5 Mack Hill Road, Amherst, NH I’m here tonight on behalf of The Stabile Companies. As many of you know we are the developer of Cotton Mill Square. We have worked very hard to try to provide as much information as we can to the Board over the last several weeks, but we are here tonight with several members of our team to answer any questions if you have any. We don’t have any prepared statements, but if you have specific questions we have some experts that may be able to help you with that. Testimony in Opposition Bob Burgess, 32 Bates Drive I don’t know which way to go on this. I think the building needs cleaning up, but I kind of wonder if this is safe for people in the City. One of the Aldermen the other night said well we have to let it all out. Well you put the pieces to the puzzle together. Thank God the other night Bob Borowski in his reading from the DES site opened the eyes of a few things. I went to the DES site. According to the owner of this building he bought it in 2006. It is very strange all of a sudden not only is the Cotton Mill LLC in, but it is the Front Street LLC that is Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 2 involved somehow or other. We split the lots up. Like I say the owner of this claimed he purchased in 2006. We go to 2009 on the DES site the developer, I guess it is from the Front Street LLC, I don’t know who it is, but sent a letter to DES and wanted to know the status of this building because it had so many solvents and things and the safety of the youngsters, which according to them wasn’t legal, the restrictions were that no youngster would be able to live in this facility. Like I say this wasn’t the developer that owns this property it was another developer three years later. Apparently this developer owns 25 Front Street I believe. If we look at 25 Front Street these lots were split up at the time for this development to go through. 25 Front Street in the paper today is being sub-divided into, I don’t know if he is selling it or renting it. It is very strange how two developers get involved; one is speaking for another developer three years later that apparently I don’t think he even owned the building. Why would he be contacting the DES for somebody else? That is on the DES site. We found out the other day from the gentleman here from the City, well we are thinking about putting the Broad Street Parkway, a ramp through there on the west side on the very end. This is no secret. Here is a two-lane road that we’re supposed to get the traffic out of town and now we are going to bring more in. Very strange things happen. Much talk I believe it was Monday or Tuesday night here we talked about the solvents in the ground in the area. I don’t know if the gentleman is here that handled those well. I would be curious, a question I would like to ask now if anybody from the Stabile people could tell me the two coaters that are in that building, the two coater heads was the soil checked where all of these solvents were being processed through onto the paper there? This is within the building 17, the Cotton Mill building they said, but this was where there were two coaters. Massive polly-wall was being used in there and MEK and everything else. We learned the other night the Mayor claimed she was in the toner building, a wooden floor, but the toner building has a concrete floor, very, very strange. We got a verbal agreement with the railroad we will have an emergency exit or entrance to this facility on the thing, but it was only verbal it is not in writing. I think it is important to get it in writing. Another thing I would like to bring up, my Ward Alderman said what a beautiful place this is going to be. After this meeting is over I would like to take everybody down, let’s walk Front Street from this site down to the downtown, we are going to have a beautiful walk, beautiful safe. How many women would dare and I mean dare walk down Front Street from the edge of this property? How many would dare walk along the river there? How many would dare have their daughter do this? I don’t think they would. We heard well maybe this will be for the grandparents. Going to bring in jobs. That is one thing we haven’t got in the City is no good paying jobs. The biggest employers are BAE. If we didn’t have the government contracts where would it be? We have the school department, we have the hospitals, and they are all low-paying service related jobs in the City. Another thing my Ward Alderman all of a sudden we are putting in an ordinance on the water here, 11-53. It states in here if this ordinance is not approved a proposal will require NH DES wetland permits for which the applicant already…I’m strongly firm keeping this here. I think we have to take control of all of the waterways along the areas in the City. I will put money on the next target for the next bombshell will be the Beazer site. It is funny how in the City these things pop up out of nowhere, but you dot the Is, you cross the Ts. There were two developers involved and not one. Thank you. Testimony in Favor – None Testimony in Opposition – None Alderman Wilshire declared the public hearing closed at 7:12 p.m. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 3 COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS BE READ BY TITLE ONLY MOTION CARRIED From: Brian S. McCarthy, President, Board of Aldermen Re: Special Board of Aldermen Meeting MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING Bob Burgess, 32 Bates Drive The funding on this project, it has been so up in the air with the City I don’t know. I don’t think they even know what it is going to be. It seems like we started off with millions and millions of dollars now we are saying we are going to drop this, add this, subtract this, add that. I hope somebody in the city really knows what is going on here, and this is all going to be approved. We have heard so many figures here; we started off with $3 million, $2 million, then we brought it up to five point something million, then we are down to $2.5 million. Do they really know what they are doing in the city here? I think we really have to get a commitment from the people for this project just which way we are going here. Let’s not railroad this through. Let’s get some real true accurate figures, don’t say well we will close this, bring this in, bring that in. I think we’re entitled to really have some accurate figures. I am a firm believer never railroad nothing through. In closing, one of the Aldermen was talking about grandfathers or grandparents a couple of meetings ago. Let me tell you I have two youngsters, they couldn’t afford to stay in this city. There are no jobs that pay. They had to move elsewhere. I have one that lives 60 miles away and one that lives 120 miles away, and I look forward to seeing those grandsons all that I can, but until we get jobs in this city there is no reason for anybody to come to the city. I would like to see figures on people getting out of college today how many of them stay in this city. We look at some of the people that stayed in the city, break it down, we have the father had a jewelry store, the father had a car business, another one had an insurance business, another one had a brewery. These are the people that stayed here that thank God that the father had the businesses here. But there are no jobs in the city that pay. Like I say I hope somebody could furnish us those figures on how many kids after they get out of high school and go to college stay here. Today with the service related jobs you have in the city I don’t see how any of them will ever have a house, will ever have a family. Maybe this is the housing you want to put it in, but I think as any parent would say we want our youngsters someday to have a home where those kids can get outside and roam around and not in a play yard next to a solvent farm. Thank you. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE Human Affairs Committee .................................................................... 02/28/11 There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the February 28, 2011 Human Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 4 UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-11-91 Endorsers: Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM AND REQUESTING A REVISION TO THE BROWNFIELDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE GRANT FOR COTTON MILL SQUARE, LLC Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO AMEND R-11-91 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA ON THE QUESTION Alderman Chasse Could the sponsor of the resolution please explain the difference between the original and the amended? Alderman Sheehan Essentially what was added was the City’s recommendations for what they were looking for in order to be supportive of the project, which are listed on the back, the 7. I could read them, but my contacts are really blurring and I can’t see them. Alderman Chasse Would you like me to read them? Alderman Sheehan I would love it if you would read it for me. Thank you. President McCarthy Before you do that I would also point out that it also deletes the reference to the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative or BEDI Grant. Alderman Chasse The seven points for this resolution are: 1) Evidencing the availability or commitment of all sources of funds on terms acceptable to the City and compatible with a feasible project, 2) Providing a contract from a qualified building contractor, evidencing the adequacy of the construction costs, 3) If projected development costs have changed, a revised development budget acceptable to the City, 4) Provision of an appraisal from a qualified appraiser acceptable to the City indicating an opinion of value for a loan to value of no less than 80% for the total of Section 108 and other permanent debt with higher priority, 5) Sufficient collateral - including a secured position the real estate as well as a mutually agreeable guarantee of any exposure or liability that the City may have with respect to payments on the remaining balance of the Section 108 Loan in the unlikely event of default, 6) Identification of a qualified management agent acceptable to the city; and 7) Provision of an operating pro forma acceptable to the city demonstrating debt service coverage for Section 108 and other permanent debt with higher priority, of at least 1.15. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 5 President McCarthy You all heard the motion to amend. Is there any further discussion of that motion? Alderman Flynn How does this affect the next resolution R-11-92? Is R-11-92 still a viable resolution? But it is not being amended with any of these provisions. Alderman Wilshire It is not. The next resolution stands on its own. The next resolution is the application of HOME funds. Those aren’t covered in this R-11-91. HOME funds have their own set of rules and regulations that HUD puts forth that they have to comply with. Section 108 is a new loan guarantee program that the City is applying for, and that is why there are more stipulations in this than there are in the next resolution. President McCarthy My understanding is that the way the Section 108 loans work is that we are pledging in the event of default that we will pay back the principle from our Community Development Block Grant over subsequent years. The conditions that we just added were to satisfy the City that we are guaranteed that the loan will be repaid and that our CDBG funds will not be at risk under the terms of the Section 108 loan. Alderman Flynn So this vote is only to accept the amendment right? President McCarthy The current vote is yes. Is there any further discussion of the motion to amend? Alderman Cookson Could you just make recognition of my attendance? I came in after the meeting began. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-91 AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly Thank you Mr. President. I’m going to be supporting both of these resolutions tonight. However, I have some major concerns and they have nothing to do with the applicant or the project or the quality good, bad, indifferent of the project. I have a major objection with the process. To learn at the last hearing that this project has been going on since ’05, ’05, goes back a long long time, how come we are just getting it now? I don’t understand that. The Mayor the other night said it was supposed to go to the Planning & Economic Development Committee. I’m on that committee. We have never had a meeting regarding this. I appreciate the fact that there are deadlines with the funding and we need to meet those, but we should have had this a month ago. I am voting for these with a major objection as to the process and how this came about. The other objection I have is going to be in the form of sort of a contingency. I believe, based on what we learned the other night, that there is a possibility that the Planning Board did not have full information to make their decision. It has to do with the stipulations that they would be likely to put in. I think it is really important Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 6 that, if we want to go ahead and get this funding going, but I intend to request the Planning Board to take a look and to consider the information that was given. A project of this size, this scope, this scale, deserves to be done absolutely thoroughly. I am supporting them knowing that they have a financial deadline to make with the understanding I’m going to be communicating, if others would like to join me that is fine, to the Planning Board asking them to take a look at the information that was introduced, I believe for the first time, the other night. To say just once again, I really deeply resent deadlines of this nature and that we as the Board of Aldermen seem to be the last to learn everything. I don’t know what we do about that, but after this evening I’m hoping that we can start to do something. There is no reason in the world that we have to have emergency meetings with a project that has been in consideration for the length of time, this one has been for years. Why are we just finding out about it now? Thank you very much. President McCarthy I want to clarify; am I mistaken in believing that the meeting where this was presented to Human Affairs was a joint meeting between the Human Affairs Committee and the Planning & Economic Development Committee? Alderman Pressly No it wasn’t. President McCarthy Oh it was not? Okay. I will point out with regard to the Planning Board that our ordinances require that the applicant certify that they are in compliance with all state and federal environmental laws, and as I understand it from having asked that the environmental study and the stipulations were in fact submitted to the Planning Department as part of the application, and that is conveyed to the Planning Board as part of the report. It is not a stipulation we put on it, it is a legal requirement to certify that they are in keeping with those laws, and that was done on this project. Alderman Pressly May I respond to that? That may be absolutely true, but from what we were told this was new information that had not been presented, and I think in all fairness given the size, the impact on the community that the Planning Board be fully apprised of all the circumstances relative to this project. And again it is not the applicant’s fault necessarily it is just the process that things weren’t there. President McCarthy I do not believe that an error took place in the process. Alderman Pressly I’m not saying that. President McCarthy I believe that the Planning Board and the planning staff who comments to the board on whether that compliance is there was fully aware of the stipulations that are there from DES and the plan to comply with them. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 7 Alderman Pressly Further explanation then, I have been told that they just reference a number, and I think it is important for the members of the Planning Board to know explicitly what these reports say, and you and I can debate this on and on. I just want to say that I will be writing a letter and welcome other members of the board to join me, that they just do a review and make sure that all of the specifics that were explained to us are understood by the board and they feel comfortable with the stipulations that they have. Alderman LaRose The Planning Board saw these plans a number of times. I know I saw them a few times over the years. The plan that was presented to us February 17th was primarily the same plans that they had before except that they sub-divided some of the land and concentrated on the Cotton Mill building. We spent 2 hours and that was the only thing that was in front of the Planning Board that evening. We spent 2 hours discussing the plan. I believe there were 15 stipulations from staff and we added 1 stipulation about having an area for the children to have a recreation area. I think that the Planning Board did their due-diligence, they understood what the plan was, they understood the contamination that the developer would have to take care of any contaminants on the project under DES rules. There is not much more we can do. Alderman Clemons Thank you. I would like to just briefly explain the reason why I was proud to be a sponsor of this resolution. The reason for that is because it is not everyday that you have a developer come forward that is willing to take a site that is contaminated and turn it into something that is going to be beneficial both economically and also for the enjoyment of the public and that is exactly what we have here. When this project is completed we will have a new building, which will house Section 8 homes as well as homes for those who are a little better off as well. In addition to that, the area will be cleaned up, it won’t be a dangerous place to walk anymore, it will be a safe area because there will be new lighting, the riverbank will be cleaned up, it will be a place where people can go and enjoy downtown Nashua. I think that furthermore this is going to, in addition to cleaning up the area and providing housing, it is going to provide jobs as well. When the buildings are torn down, when they are rehabbed, that is going to create jobs in the area, and some of the hardest hit sectors are the plumbers in Nashua and the carpenters, people in demolition. Those are the people that need work because people have been holding back. To have something like this come along gives those folks an opportunity to work on this project. There are a lot of benefits to this. What we are being asked is, I think, a no brainer. This is going to be a catalyst that is going to help propel our downtown forward, it is going to put upwards of 200 people now in downtown, which is going to stimulate the economy of the downtown. There are just so many beneficial things that it is really hard to list them all off the top of my head. I am really really proud to sponsor this. I hope it earns the support of the board tonight. I think we are doing the right thing here by funding this request. Thank you. Alderman Chasse I’ve got some mixed emotions on this. There are certain pieces of property, if we go quite a few years back we built the school on a landfill and they had air quality problems at that school, and I believe in this City along Beazer’s is probably another piece of land that could never be developed because of the creosol in the area. The other one is Hampshire Chemical or W.R. Grace. I worked 16 years at W.R. Grace. I know all about chemicals. Anything that ends with end, Toluene, Benzene, any of those suspected carcinogens, they don’t go away. You just can’t pull them out of the ground. They have methyl ethyl ketone, another one on the MSDS sheet, Material Safety Data Sheets, suspected carcinogen. I don’t care what they do over there, I believe that Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 8 they are going to have a kid’s playground over there; they are not going to be able to get these chemicals if they are in that ground. They will not be able to bring them out. It is a beautiful piece of land down at Hampshire Chemical, can’t develop it. The only thing you can put is something on top of it, maybe some kind of stores or something like that or a mall, but you can’t dig into that ground. I don’t feel safe. I think it is a great project, but I don’t feel safe and it is going to be about the safety of the people. What happens in a few years when people start coming down and there is a high Cancer in that area, they are going to look back at the City and say well did we make a mistake, did we do the right thing? Sometimes we have to think about the safety of the people that are going to be living in that area. I have mixed emotions on this one. Thank you. Alderman Cox Thank you Mr. President. I agree with the comments of Alderman Clemons earlier except for one piece; that it is a no brainer. I think there was a lot to take in on this project. It is a major project. I would like to thank Alderman Wilshire and the Human Affairs Committee for drawing out the information that we should have and needed, and also Mr. Jackson for forwarding a lot of information that we had to go through for this project. There is a big impact in the City. I think it is a very important project. To Mr. Burgess’ comments of who would walk down that street, well that needs to change. This is bringing about change down there. Again, compliments to the Human Affairs Committee for getting us the information that we needed to make a decision and thank goodness we have a great developer in Mr. Stabile that is willing to make a change down there. Thank you. Alderman Flynn Thank you Mr. President. We have a lot of hard votes in this room. I can remember a lot of hard votes. This is another one tonight. I don’t have any problems with what the Planning Board has done certainly. I don’t have any problems believing that the DES is going to give proper oversight and make sure that their stipulations are met. I recognize that there are a lot of benefits to this project. My brain tells me it is a good idea. The project itself is certainly not objectionable. But when you look at the other pieces, as Mr. Burgess told us, we have to look at all of the pieces to the puzzle. Certainly when you look at Item #5 on this resolution that we adopted tonight it talks about sufficient collateral including a secured position in the real estate, really the City doesn’t want to own any real estate. I don’t know what we would do with a position or have some kind of lien or some kind of financial tie into the property if for some reason…we do borings all the time as a city and I imagine that they have done extensive extensive borings trying to decide what they are going to do about this property. I know in our own history of city projects we find things that we just somehow didn’t see when we first thought we were going to undertake the project. I don’t like the idea of the city owning real estate, that doesn’t seem to be attractive to me. If you look at some of the real details of the payback on this loan, the City’s responsibility, the City would have to pay back $170,000 a year for 20 years with the 20th year being a big balloon payment. They don’t really tell us what it is on the 20th year, but I imagine it is probably $300,000 or something. Btu the City would have to pay back $170,000 a year if the developer weren’t able to make the stipulations given to him. If the City is collecting, I don’t know what we might be collecting five years or ten years from now, but you would think that if it is in the $700,000 or $800,000 range if we are lucky enough to stay there it still would be a 25% hit to the normal CDBG efforts that benefit the City so well. That is a big commitment, $170,000 a year for 20 years with a balloon payment. President McCarthy Alderman Flynn as I understand the payback it is essentially all of our CDBG commitment for a period of years until the loan was paid off. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 9 Alderman Flynn I read that today, and I thought it said …I believe that, but I think when I read into the details today I don’t believe it really says that. This is from Mr. Galligani. He might be able to clarify that, it is his note. Thomas Galligani In the case where this project failed typically we couldn’t pay a Section 108 loan back to the federal government, that payment that was due each year so as Alderman Flynn indicated, the $170,000 in most years, that would be taken off of our annual CDBG allocation until the loan was exhausted. President McCarthy Just the yearly payment or… Thomas Galligani Correct. Alderman Sheehan Five years. The amount in default. Thomas Galligani The amount in default that year, that payment that is due. Alderman Sheehan For only 5 years. Thomas Galligani For as long as that is in default. What we put in, requirement #5, we’re hoping to provide additional backup, additional collateral to make sure that never happens, and that is what the developers agreed to do is to make sure to guarantee that is not going to happen so if the project does fail, he is going to provide a guarantee that he will make those payments, there will be a legal mechanism in place to make sure that those payments are made so that the City never has to be short. President McCarthy While you are here, the terminology of a position in the real estate does not imply that we would ever take ownership of it, it implies that if it is foreclosed and sold we would have a position that is well within its likely market value so that we would get our interest back before creditors stop receiving money on it. Thomas Galligani Sure. We would be one of the smaller lenders on this project so correct if it was foreclosed upon we wouldn’t be the ones taking title to it, it would be the larger lender in a higher position than us. We would hope to get paid from the proceeds of the resale of that property, but we wouldn’t have to handle any of that. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 10 Alderman Flynn Thank you. But that is pretty iffy, this thing being sold to someone else. If they pull out of it for whatever serious consequences or if they fear going forward, it isn’t going to be that easy to get that money back or we have someone else come in and step up and take over that project and us get this $170,000 commitment for 20 years off our back. The other thing I was going to say about Mr. Burgess’ comments, he talked about trying to put the puzzle together. There are other pieces to this puzzle coming down the line. One of the pieces he alluded to was I don’t know if it would be an entrance ramp or probably more likely an exit ramp, but there is going to be consideration what are we going to do about the Broad Street Parkway and are we going to wait for the parkway to be built to recognize that this is coming forward or is this going to be an additional cost or an add on to some kind of bond to be able to do that? That discussion isn’t on the table tonight, but you must recognize just as he does that is going to have to be a consideration, the City is going to say why are we going to not recognize this is going forward; there will be a discussion about how we are going to pay for that. I remember that the Broad Street Parkway was a contentious vote, and frankly one of the reasons that the Broad Street Parkway finally passed is because we got out of the Cadillac model and scaled it down into something that was somewhat affordable and could somehow garner enough votes to pass. Now there is certainly a possibility of a re-discussion of what would be prudent for the City to do and who would pay for that, the developer or the City to add that exit ramp out of the Franklin Street area. One of those pieces of the puzzle might be still out there. Not part of the puzzle, it is right in the memo that we received from the Stabile group. All of us got this memo forwarded to use from the Stabile group about this project and actually Mr. Jackson I called him up and he was very helpful. He spent enough time with me on the phone to answer the questions that I had at that time anyhow. We hadn’t really had any meetings here so it was a little difficult to do everything over the phone. But one of the things it says on here, and this is from the Stabile group, it says additionally consistent with the proposed community revitalization tax relief legislation that is anticipated to be under the City consideration shortly, we will be seeking tax relief whereby property taxes for the subject property would be held below full assessment for a period of years. That is another consideration, another piece of the puzzle. At least it has come forward to us, basically it is not on the agenda tonight so you can’t act on it tonight, but it is like he calls it, it is always looking to try to see, and there are people that are working very hard every day to try to make things better or try to meld things together in whatever is the best opportunity, but recognizing that there could that for, I guess there is legislation for up to 5 years you wouldn’t get any additional tax benefit from this $23 million additional investment. I don’t know if you wouldn’t get any taxes at all if you were paying $170,000 a year for 20 years either. This is a hard vote tonight. The project itself seems fine to me, but the financial part, the City’s commitment to the financial part, the other pieces to the puzzle. If you vote for this tonight I think you are going to have to consider why wouldn’t you support an exit ramp. If you vote for this tonight I guess you have to agree that he is telling you he is going to have a hard time making this project successful if he doesn’t get the tax relief so if you are reading this and you are voting for the project then you are pretty much saying you want this project to be successful then you are going to have to support these kind of ideas that he has told you are part of the framework that makes this a viable financial investment for him. There is more to the puzzle, but the project is a good project. Thank you. Alderman Sheehan Thank you. I am one of the sponsors as well. I wanted to talk about why I was supporting it just to clarify and retouch upon what I said the other night. I have walked Front Street and Franklin Street and that whole area, and what I said is this area could be nice. Right now it is a slum, it is blighted, it is an area that needs some change. What I said was if we don’t change anything nothing is going to change. If we do what we have always done we are going to get what we have always gotten. Right now it is a toxic mess according to Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 11 everybody. It is a nuisance property; it is on a very attractive area that has some problems. Nobody has taken any initiative in all of these years to clean it up. Everybody who is upset that there are chemicals in the buildings; the two buildings that are most contaminated will be removed. Nothing is going to happen if we don’t build. What is before us tonight is do we want to allow them to apply for a loan that says we endorse it, a 100% collateralized loan. It isn’t spelled out yet how that is going to happen, but it is 100% guaranteed. Whether that is a personal guarantee or a line that we are in for a lien holder, that is not spelled out yet, but this legislation says can we allow them to apply for a loan that we back up that we have 100% collateral on. Most bankers would think that is a good idea. If they don’t want this money, they have approval from the Planning Board; they can go and build regular whatever without this loan. They are already covered. They don’t need the Board of Aldermen for anything other than the federal funding from what I am seeing. They have the Planning Board’s permission; they have a plan with DES. I want to see it cleaned up. One of the things that has been pointed out is New Hampshire is going grey, the graying of the community. We are losing our multi-generational attractiveness, which is what brings companies. Companies will not move to where there is no workforce. I believe the one speaker opposed tonight point out that his family all left because there is no place they can afford to live. Well with this, there are 101 places they could live that are affordable. That is the point of this, workforce housing that is attractive to younger people. Communities and Consequences is a book that some people at UNH put out and one of the things stated is you need to have a place that is walkable to a downtown that has different modes of transportation and is a bikeable community and a walkable community. They also like rail, that is another night. But this is very close to an area that is being revitalized. If we put this in it is going to be very similar to Clocktower Place, which is right across the river and nearly full all the time. It is our best retail example in the City. It has a younger demographic, it is full; there is a waiting list to get in. It is mixed income so we don’t have a concentration of poverty, which we have seen what affects that has on our community. If we don’t build up our community stock in affordable housing I see problems with trying to reduce density in other areas, which is something else that we are going to be looking at. We need to do some holistic revitalization. The Broad Street Parkway gives us an opportunity to really address what has happened in the overcrowded, dense areas. If we don’t look at that as an opportunity to make some sweeping changes like this that will clean up an area, make what is an ugly, dangerous nuisance into something that is attractive on the tax rolls and a productive part that will bring up the area around it, then we’re wasting what we are doing with the Broad Street Parkway because this can really help change the dynamic to make it an urban, safe, vibrant community, safe being the key word. We need to have places that are occupied daytime and nighttime and have a mix of people in there; some people in there during the day working and other people at night living so that everything is occupied, well lit. There is going to be infrastructure improvements. Getting in and out of that area right now it is very dark, very narrow. The intersections are going to be improved and the lighting is going to be improved. I am not happy that there are a lot of chemicals there, but they are there and they have been there, and they are not going to go away unless someone addresses it and starts the work. This is how I see that happening. DES will oversee it and it will be cleaned up this way. If this isn’t done, I don’t see it getting cleaned up. I think it is a big leverage point for improvement in my ward in an area that is extremely blighted and is a problem. I am supporting this. Alderman Wilshire What I heard the speaker who was opposed to this say is that there were no jobs not that there wasn’t enough affordable housing. Also what I wasn’t very happy about was the developer coming in at the last meeting Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 12 saying that he was just going to use the Section 108 loan as a placeholder. I don’t support the Section 108 loan because it takes the CDBG funds that the City has enjoyed for the last 25 years and uses them as collateral. If I were running a business here, which I think we are, it is called the City of Nashua, and someone said I guarantee that, I don’t see anything in writing. I don’t see any guarantees. I know they are saying there is 100% guarantee. I’m not convinced. I’m not convinced that this is similar to Clocktower. It is stuck behind a big ugly building on Franklin Street, it doesn’t have the same curb appear as Clocktower, it doesn’t have the same windows as Clocktower. It is going to have windows that you can barely see out of because they are way up high, not residential friendly windows. I also don’t support that tax break at the end of the day. It kind of feels to me like it is double-dipping. I did ask the question the other night about the next piece of legislation that will end up folding into the mix of this project. My understanding is that here was legislation passed that we do tax properties now that use HOME funds, and then all of a sudden there is a new piece of legislation coming in, probably because of this project, that says we are not going to tax them. So I can’t support it. I cannot support this project for that reason. What I do like, I like that there are 42 units of affordable housing coming in. I don’t like the mechanism that we are using to get there. With all of the other talk about the contaminants on this site, I’m not sure I would want to put anyone in that environment. I know that they are going to comply with DES; I know that they are required to; I don’t think I could live in that building. To be honest with you I don’t think I would want my grandkids growing up in that building. I’m supportive of the project really; I was not supportive of the funding mechanisms they were looking for. That is what I didn’t agree with, and I still don’t agree with them, and I’m not going to support it for that reason. Alderman Melizzi-Golja After our meeting the other night and Mr. Borowski’s information he presented to us about the activity and use restrictions, I contacted Director Hersh because I was concerned about the AUR still being in place based on his research, and where that was. Today I had some e-mails and I know they have been shared with people on the Human Affairs Committee, but basically it goes along with what Alderman Wilshire was saying just now, The Stabile Companies have a plan in place that EPA has approved and that was what was taken to the Planning Board. Once they complete the higher level of clean-up of the soil it will then allow those restrictions for residential use to be removed. I was concerned about the conflict between we can do this and we have a plan but yet the research that was brought before us by Mr. Borowski said well no the AUR is still in place. Just for some clarification Director Hersh had Ms. Chisholm, our Brownfields Coordinator get that information to me, and I just wanted to share it with those people that hadn’t received it electronically. I was concerned about are we going to put a residential facility there if we have this AUR in place. Once that plan is implemented it should address the situation, and if it is implemented successfully then those restrictions for residential use will be removed. I just wanted to share that in terms of what I had received today. President McCarthy The motion is for final passage of R-11-91 as amended. A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Vitale, Alderman Pressly, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Cox, Alderman Sheehan, Alderman Cookson, Alderman McCarthy 9 Nay: Alderman Craffey, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Chasse, Alderman Flynn 4 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-91 declared duly adopted as amended. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 13 R-11-92 Endorsers: Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons RELATIVE TO THE USE OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FY2011 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDS BY COTTON MILLS SQUARE, LLC Given its second reading; MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-11-92 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Pressly I just want to say that I will be supporting this also with the same objections that I have expressed before. One thing I did not mention on the plus side, I am pleased that we are saving a mill building. It is part of our industrial history and I understand there was a previous plan that would be taken down. I think that is a plus, but I object to the process, and I think it is important that the Planning Board be fully aware of the extent and types of contaminants that are on the site. Thank you. President McCarthy Is there any further discussion? A Viva Voce Roll Call was requested, which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Vitale, Alderman Craffey, Alderman Pressly, Alderman LaRose, Alderman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Cox, Alderman Sheehan, Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Flynn, Alderman Cookson, Alderman McCarthy 12 Nay: Alderman Chasse 1 MOTION CARRIED Resolution R-11-92 declared duly adopted. President McCarthy Before I ask for a motion to adjourn, if the board will indulge me for a minute, this morning I read with considerable sadness the obituary of Donald High who was a constituent of mine when I was the Ward 5 Alderman. He was probably one of the first constituents I ever spent much talking to. I met him during my first campaign and talked to him numerous times over the years. He will be missed, and I want to express my sympathies to his family. I did sort of want to relate the last conversation I had with him. It was last summer I think during the healthcare debate in Washington. He called me one afternoon and asked if I would stop by to see him, and I did and I think it is one of the few times I ever saw him appear to be actually angry. We had a conversation that I thought was very interesting. I will paraphrase somewhat the rather colorful way in which he described his feelings about the Federal Government. Basically be was disgusted with the tenor of debate at most levels and pointed out something that I think we lose site of fairly often in terms of the way we do things that in fact it is not the people who are involved in politics that matter, it is not the people who are involved opinions of each other, it is not their opinion of the process, but the only thing that matters is the value of the outcome to the people who are governed. I thought that was a fascinating point for him to make. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen – 03/03/11 Page 14 I then pointed out that I had little to do with the healthcare debate at that point in time, and he said yeah but you are the guy whose phone number I have. I really did enjoy the conversations I had with him over the years and will miss him a great deal. Alderman Craffey On Monday, March 7th the City is holding a Proposed Improvements to Pine & Palm Street portion of the Broad Street Parkway meeting open to the general public. It is going to be in the atrium of the Palm Square building located on West Hollis Street between Palm & Pine. It is 57 Pine Street. The meeting starts at g6:30 p.m., and it is open to the public. Thank you. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN LAROSE THAT THE MARCH 3, 2011 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Attest: Paul R. Bergeron, City Clerk