Nashua committee hears plan for resource center and warming station; federal, state grants leave city share unsettled

City staff presented a concept for a combined resource center, warming station and transitional‑housing program to the Nashua Board of Aldermen’s Human Affairs Committee on July 20, outlining a $5–$6 million planning range and pressing for quick site selection to meet grant deadlines.

Tim Cummings, the city’s director of administrative services, told the committee the project as discussed would serve roughly 30–50 people in its warming‑station function, provide seven‑day‑a‑week resource and case‑management services, and include transitional housing “to act like a bridge between an emergency shelter and a permanent home.” He set out cost drivers as land acquisition (about $1,000,000), hard construction at roughly $800 per square foot for a conceptual 5,000‑square‑foot building (about $4,000,000), plus approximately $800,000 in soft costs and contingency.

“That puts you at about a $5–$6,000,000 project,” Cummings said, emphasizing those figures were for planning purposes and could change depending on site and scope.

Bobby Bagley, director of the Division of Public Health and Community Services, told aldermen the city had originally sought $3.6 million in congressional/HUD‑directed funding but had received a letter indicating an award of $1.2 million. “We received a letter that says that the funding is there for us,” Bagley said, but she cautioned that HUD still requires additional submission steps — including environmental review — before funds can be drawn down or reimbursed.

Housing Services Officer Jessica Connors explained the timeline attached to the state funding the presentation referenced. “If applications are due in January, they probably won’t award funds until April,” Connors said, and New Hampshire Housing typically expects a project to be moving toward construction within roughly a year of award. She warned there is no rolling application: “You have about, I believe, a month to submit your application, and if you miss it, it’s over.”

That deadline framed much of the committee’s questioning. Several aldermen pressed staff on site selection, asking whether the city could use existing properties such as Elm Street Middle School, the previously proposed 14 Mulberry Street location, or portable/mobile classrooms as interim or phased solutions. Bagley and Matt Sullivan, the city’s community development director, said Elm Street can serve as a warming station but lacks code‑compliant infrastructure — showers, sufficient bathrooms and partitioning — to function as an overnight shelter or full resource center without substantial investment.

“You can recline there, but sleeping triggers additional code requirements and would require renovation that would be quite costly,” Sullivan said, describing the safety and fire‑protection upgrades that would be necessary to host an overnight residential population.

Staff also described a low‑cost interim approach: a proof‑of‑concept arrangement with a community partner that would host some resource‑center services (Bagley said the partner had offered space and the city had drafted an MOU). Bagley said the city could launch some daytime services and distribute laundry cards and other supports this fall while pursuing the capital project and grant applications.

A central planning tradeoff alders returned to was whether to pursue a single comprehensive project or phase construction. Cummings proposed a phased approach that would secure a site option (he cited an illustrative option cost in the discussion), commission a limited level of design sufficient to support grant applications and then move to construction authorization. He said acquiring an option and a short design phase would not prevent simultaneous pursuit of federal or state funding.

Several committee members urged caution about rushing to spend capital dollars without better information. One alderman advocated a short, focused gap analysis of local homelessness services — a 90‑day study to identify unmet needs (for example, services for medically fragile or elderly people) and to prevent a reactive project that might duplicate existing providers’ work. Bagley said the division and partner agencies had been studying best practices for years and that the proposal was intended as a coordinated, citywide response rather than a unilateral city program.

No vote or formal action was taken at the meeting. Committee members suggested next steps: prioritize site selection, consider a phased option/design approach so the project could be shovel‑ready for a January state application if possible, and continue negotiations on interim partner space. The chair said the Human Affairs Committee could schedule additional meetings and bring a fuller plan back to the Board of Aldermen.

The committee adjourned at 9:10 p.m.