Budget Review Committee

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE AUGUST 23, 2010 A meeting of the Budget Review Committee was held Monday, August 23, 2010 at 7:04 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane, Chair presided. Members of Committee present: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson, Vice Chair Alderman Richard P. Flynn Alderman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Diane Sheehan Members not in Attendance: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Also in Attendance: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Chairman Deane Alderman Wilshire had a previous engagement and will not be able to attend this evening. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - None COMMUNICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-10-53 Endorsers: Alderman Jeffrey T. Cox Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman Diane Sheehan Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AMENDING THE USE OF THE TWO EXPENDABLE TRUST FUNDS FOR PROJECTS DESIGNED TO REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY THE CITY MOTION BY ALDERMAN COX TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Cox Over the past several months the two new co-chairs of the Green Team; Denis Gleeson and Lucy St. John have done a tremendous job in revitalizing, refocusing, mission, goals, statements, business roundtable, and a frustrating point that has hit over and over again has been just two wording changes in the expendable trust funds that we have. The first that we would like to change is actually striking “shall only be for items which provide a cost payback within five (5) years”. The second would be a change to the sentence: The purpose of funding projects designed to reduce fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions in city facilities. We would like to replace the words “in city facilities” with “by the city”. Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 2 The reason for this is there has been a tremendous amount of applications, projects, and great ideas throughout the city, but those two items have restricted the Green Team from working with the different departments whether it be the landfill for an HVAC project, the waste water facility for a solar electric golf cart instead of a truck that they were going to have to replace, etc. The only thing that they really have been able to take on was the Christmas lights that were new this year, which were the LED lights, which was a tremendous idea by Superintendent Caggiano. It fulfilled everything that was restricted there. There have been a tremendous amount of other ideas and projects that they would love to undertake, and these two things restrict that. Thank you. Chairman Deane Thank you. Alderman Cookson did you bring those questions that you e-mailed? Alderman Cookson I did. I had four questions that I was interested in obtaining some information for. I don’t know if Alderman Cox if you have the answers to these questions or if you can just capture them or I can forward the questions on to you. This resolution that we are reviewing this evening, R-10-53, is an amendment of R- 07-193. Alderman Cox Correct. Alderman Cookson And my questions relate back to R-07-193. Since that particular resolution as adopted by the Board of Aldermen, I was curious what today’s present value for the two accounts are the two expendable trust funds; the one that was established for appropriations and the one that was established for donations; what the current value is in both of those accounts. That was my first question. Alderman Cox I believe our current total, not exactly, but stands right around $23,000 between the two accounts. Alderman Cookson So the original legislation, R-07-193, appropriated $20,000 into one of the accounts. Have there been any additional appropriations by the Board of Aldermen into that account or should we assume that the donations make up $3,000? Alderman Cox You should assume that donations make up approximately $5,000. There are two expended projects one being the Christmas lights and the other, which is in process, re-establishing the solar panels that are on top of Nashua High School South. A company has chimed in and PSNH has chimed in and made donation for half and the other half is $2,500 out of one of the funds. Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 3 Alderman Cookson That really led to my second question which is what projects have been considered and reviewed by the Nashua Green Team? You just mentioned two of those, and I am sure… Alderman Cox The HVAC at the landfill project, which I don’t remember the exact details but that was brought forth by Sally Hyland and then the other one was the electric solar golf cart for the waste water facility. Alderman Cookson My third question was what expenditures have the Nashua Green Team made both the cost and item description? Alderman Cox I would have to get that information to you Alderman Cookson. Alderman Cookson Okay. And then finally with respect to the part of the language that has been suggested to be stricken, and that is about the five year payback – any expenditure needs to have a five year payback. I am wondering because this resolution is still in effect prior to any amendments that are being proposed, which department, division, or group is responsible for tracking and evaluating whether an expenditure has produced a payback within the five years as is stated in R-07-193? Who is doing that now because it is something that we are supposed to be doing? Alderman Cox The Green Team co-chairs. When they requested that departments submit for any project or idea that they thought was suitable, i.e., the Christmas lights from Nick Caggiano. He had shown them the electric bill, the projected change in the electric bill, and the payback within the five years. Now we have this year’s so we know year one, obviously it is going to have to be tracked year by year, and they are doing that. They have the paperwork for year one and they will have it for all five years. They are also trying to incorporate all of that into the city web site to show the green initiatives and the things we are trying to do citywide. It has just been very challenging. Like the solar panels, without those companies chiming in with their donations and where do you put a dollar value on educational learning? This is going to bring a learning center right down into the school that will function off the solar panels. It is great; it is learning what dollar value do you place to that? Do you just put a dollar value that makes the five years happen or do you say this is the value that we see in it and it is – well you can’t just say priceless, but they do find a value in it. It is very tough to say it is value X that we can recoup within five years. Alderman Cookson So if we remove or strike this language as is being suggested, do we lose accountability? Alderman Cox No. Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 4 Alderman Cookson How do we measure whether we were successful or have succeeded at our green initiatives? Alderman Cox Everything else for fossil fuel reduction, everything else that is in there still has to be obtained. The accountability is still going to be managed the same way. To date we have had the Christmas lights. There are so few projects that we can actually accept and that fit in without this language change, we don’t have to worry about accountability because virtually nothing has been able to happen yet. Alderman Cookson Is it more meaningful to strike the language or is it more meaningful to leave the language, but alter the time period so that we do know that it is being tracked and that there is some accountability to it? Without it, it just seems like there is no requirement to keep a record of the expenditures and the payback. Alderman Cox I guess if you focus just simply on the five year payback, just simply the payback, you are correct. But if you focus on everything, there is more accountability than just the five year payback within the current Green Team resolution. Alderman Cookson Within R-07-193. Alderman Cox Within this one, R-10-53. Alderman Cookson What additional metrics have you put in place in R-10-53? Alderman Cox They track fossil fuel reduction, like the lighting and the electricity usage, the life expectancy of the LED lights. For less money we are getting that much more and paying that much less for it. They are tracking all of that just not simply the financial return within five years. Chairman Deane You don’t pay less for LED lights. I can tell you that. You pay a lot more. They don’t last forever either. Alderman Cox They have a ten-year lifespan. Mr. Chairman, the electric bill from this year was reduced. Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 5 Chairman Deane But you paid a significant amount of money… Alderman Cox For the initial purchase. Chairman Deane I know when we put them in the traffic signals on Main Street we didn’t bother doing the amber lights because they were about 6 or 7 times more expensive than the red or the green and their run time was inconsequential to the reduction in not only the use of the bulbs because it only would hit amber and then go to red. If you would like to continue. Alderman Cookson I will yield. Chairman Deane It seems to me they are finding out that this five year language really doesn’t work, that the payback on some of these initiatives aren’t going to be five years. Alderman Cox Correct. Chairman Deane Everything has a different payback and depreciation value to it I think is what they are finding out so they are limited by having the five year language in there to begin with. I think the initial legislation with in city facilities probably focused more on light bulbs and things of that nature than most anything else. Now they are going outside of that realm of energy, cost savings with things such as thermostats that dial back or fluorescent bulbs and fixtures that would be in facilities whereas a solar powered gold cart for the waste water treatment plant, who by the way we just bought a pick up truck to be used on the grounds last year. Alderman Cox Right. They had wanted the cart in place of, instead of the truck. Chairman Deane That truck is brand new. I remember when we bought it because it is not four wheel drive, it has no plow, it has nothing, it was just a stripped – I think it was a Chevy pick up truck for like $12,000 or $13,000. It just appears to me that they are struggling with the five years and are limited by in city facilities to requests by the city. That is what it seems like to me. Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 6 Alderman Cookson I would guess that they would also be limited by the funds that are available to them. I think you had stated that there was only $23,000 available between the two appropriated and donated funds so even if they do have a larger project that they might be interested in, they might not have the funds available to them to partake in it. Is that correct? Alderman Cox That would be correct. Alderman Cookson I guess I would ask then what projects are available within the scope of the funds that they do have that they are interested in participating in that would require the elimination of this language? Alderman Cox I would have to speak to the two co-chairs and get back to you on that. Alderman Cookson Okay. Chairman Deane Is there any further discussion? Alderman Flynn I liked this legislation when it first came in and I think I played a role at least in getting some of this five year language put into the legislation. It wasn’t in the original legislation. I’m struggling a little bit because it seems like this is evolving into something a little bit different than what we originally planned to do with this money. I think Alderman Cookson was right, I think this was intended to be small projects, that they weren’t meant to be supplementing departmental budgets, they weren’t meant to be HVAC projects originally for the landfill. I think those kinds of things I thought would have been taken care of through either the departmental budgets or through CERF appropriations or capital improvements monies, but certainly bigger projects. This $20,000 originally the thought was at that time, I think Mrs. Tremblay was leading up the Green Team initially, but it was supposed to be for not projects that I though the Green Team itself was going to bring forward not places where it sounds like the departments themselves now are bringing forward ideas, which I guess is good, but the departments themselves are bringing forward ideas, but they are beyond the scope of what we initially envisioned for this small amount. By the way I did look up the amount on the city web site as of 5-31 for dollars today and as of 5-31 there has only been one $100.00 contribution made or registered on the city web site. In terms of assets for the other account, we have $24,270.49 after the $1,000 that was spent on LED Christmas lights. One of the things that this opens up, one of the problems that I had initially four years ago was I wanted to not have this money end up being spent for perhaps a consultant to come in or for people to go to a Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 7 conference for green team support and ideas. I think that is where some of this terminology came in about city facilities was trying not to have any of it expended as a payroll expense or like I say bring in somebody as a consultant or send somebody to a seminar. I think we crafted this legislation with a vision in mind, but it is a four year old vision. That is my recollection of the background of where in city facilities came from and the five years I think at that time, like I say I thought I pushed that idea and I pushed it because I thought it would be consistent with smaller projects and what we wanted this Green Team to do to get their feet wet. I don’t think there has been much that has happened in four years with that money, it has really just been money that has been hanging around. If these are impediments to really getting some use out of that money. What would be the strategy going forward? This isn’t going to take very long, if you open this up into these two restrictions being taken off, what is going to be the funding source for this? We are not going to appropriate money on a yearly basis to an expendable trust fund are we? Are the departments going to, after this money is gone, have to find the money within their own budget? What is the longer term plan a year from today for this trust fund? Alderman Cox All of the other accountability issues that I mentioned when Alderman Cookson was asking are still in place. Nothing gets considered if it was a payroll item or any type of frivolous budget, and I say frivolous meaning it better be fossil fuel reduction, it better be energy efficiency, and it has to fit within those criteria to be considered as a project to be considered. Little things like the Christmas tree lights, well it is obviously not in a city facility, it is the tree out on the street – that is part of it. Some of the projects may be outdoors, may be somewhere but it has to be by the city. Not just anyone can apply not any outside business or anything else. All of that is in place, and to even come forth to the Green Team for consideration it has to be able to meet those measures. It has been so restrictive and you see that there hasn’t been any movement out of there. I was off a little bit on the monies, but it is right there. There have been plenty of great ideas. I can’t state all of them to you. Scott Pollock and Mark Sousa who were the two previous co-chairs, did probably a six month push sending out re-sending out, calling department heads, trying to get ideas, and they got a lot of good ideas, none of which could they consider because of not so much by the city, but by the first, the five year payback. Obviously we can go back and hopefully retrieve all of those applications so you can see what the different ideas were. The two that I brought forth were two bigger and didn’t meet the criteria, but they were great ideas. The Green Team though that they should be accomplished but we could not move forward with it because of the restriction. But you can still prove an annual payback to the city both financially and with fossil fuel reduction and efficiency. It just didn’t fall within five years. Alderman Flynn I’m going to support this because I see the money doing nothing of the intended good that we expected it to do four years ago. Like I say I still like the idea of some restrictions on it, but I am going to support this because I see there is a group of people that are working hard, want to come up with some improvements, and the language is a little bit too tough to move forward with. But again, the question I am asking is the kind of projects you’re talking about whether it be a golf cart or HVAC for the landfill, I don’t know what that encompasses, but pretty quickly you are going to go through $25,000 worth of money. Beyond donations, what is the intention to handle this through the budget process or something in future years? What is the Green Team’s approach because this money will move pretty fast without the restrictions? Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 8 Alderman Cox It shouldn’t. There haven’t been again that many high end. Those two were high end applications, but all didn’t meet the five year criteria. Some of them were smaller. And it shouldn’t. It should come forth with a report to the Board of Aldermen stating this is what we have expended to date, this is what we see as an annual return to the city, and everything else attached with it; the fossil fuel reduction, everything else, and then for your consideration we would like to re-appropriate, and it is up to the Board of Aldermen to be able to look at that and say this is great, these are green initiatives that I think are great ideas, I think it is paying off for the city although not within five years, but it is paying off for the city, and I think instead of that stripped down Chevy truck this golf cart was a much better idea and I think we should look at that in more places that it is feasible. That is the way they would like to move forward. Right now the $20,000 is the $20,000. I can’t give you an exact timeframe, but I don’t see it flying out the door. But I do see over the next couple of years for us being able to attack some pretty good projects like the solar panels on Nashua High School South that have been sitting I think three of them growing grass. Alderman Deane would know much better than I when the schools were built and those were put back up on top and however they were there to just sit there non functional is ridiculous. That project Alderman Flynn is a total of $2,500 to us. Again, they have worked hard to recruit companies to work with them. The company, you talked about labor or consulting or whatever, the one company donated that, donated $1,000 in their labor and $1,000 worth of material because one panel was totally shot so he donated a panel to us, and then PSNH’s donation. They are going to work hard. The business roundtable is working very hard to build that donations account to try to get more city green initiatives done not so much off us. But not matter what, even if we got a $10,000 donation this five year payback is still there and it is still very restrictive for the Green Team or it has been to date. Alderman Flynn I am satisfied. Thank you. Chairman Deane Is there further discussion? The motion on the floor is to recommend final passage of R-10-53. MOTION CARRIED R-10-55 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman Michael J. Tabacsko Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $371,228 FROM DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET ACCOUNTS INTO ACCOUNT #993-5315 “CAPITAL EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUND” MOTION BY ALDERMAN COX TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 9 ON THE QUESTION Chairman Deane Mayor would you like to join us? I just had a comment before you start; although we did have a meeting upstairs on the third floor quite some time ago, I’m reading the analysis and it appears as though there is somewhat of a lock on what is going on here I guess. This is how I look at it that a “re-organized CERF funding plan that will include updated ten-year analysis to identify annual costs as well as a cumulative annual cash requirement. It will be subject to annual changes in costs, specific vehicles to be replaced, inflation estimates and interest revenue estimates. The plan includes several funding options.” Where is the plan? Mayor Lozeau That plan was distributed at the meeting that we had on the fleet assessment as well as at the Budget Committee when we took up CERF. Chairman Deane When we met up there that was just an informational session right? Mayor Lozeau The meeting that we had related to the document that you all got… Chairman Deane Right, but that was an informational session right? Mayor Lozeau Yes. Chairman Deane We didn’t formally vote to adopt… Mayor Lozeau No. Chairman Deane … accept or adopt. That is all I wanted to know. Mayor Lozeau But Mr. Chairman we also passed out what we recommended me and CFO Gilbar for the new CERF model and the change in rules during the Budget Committee. It was one of the documents that I sent around with the little blocks saying how we proposed to have it happen, and then I told the Budget Committee that I Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 10 would bring it to the CERF Committee for adoption. The CERF Committee did adopt the change to the process. Now I could have left those dollars in the operating budget and transferred them at the time of purchase, but I thought it would be valuable for us to work together to say we like this new idea of planning for our capital equipment needs by planning long-term and by putting all of the money in one fund and not by carrying some in the operating budget and some there because what we discovered that process results in is that you are really managing CERF by department, not even by division but by department, and so this is a way to look at it comprehensively, which is why I brought in the legislation to kind of keep us all going in the same direction. That is the purpose. Chairman Deane Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Alderman Flynn Is your intention to go over this a little bit more with us at some future meeting? I remember when we did this upstairs. As was stated, it was pretty informal at that time. When something is presented to you, that particular evening you really don’t have an awful lot of time to – I don’t think you want to waste everybody’s time with a lot of frivolous questions you kind of have to wait through the whole presentation and everybody is a little tired by that time in the evening. When these things are handed out a little bit more ahead of time it is a little bit easier to start to – you wish you had more opportunity to understand what the big picture is. I have this spreadsheet that you gave us that shows us all of the vehicles. All of this is developed year after year. You might have a ten year plan and I think I certainly under other administrations kept asking where is the plan. I’m pleased that there is a plan coming forward. I really recognize that ten years probably will be changes in a lot of people that sit in this room and probably people that might sit in your desk over the next ten years. There will be a lot of changes and how this holds together over time; the commitment is only for one year at a time quite frankly. Once we appropriate money either one year at a time or there is a bonding portion to it, the commitment is only one year at a time and you never know what you are up against the following year. I am glad to see there is a plan that has come forward. I would really be interested in asking a few questions. I don’t know if tonight is the right night to do that, but if there might be another opportunity, not so much you and I face to face, but as at an appropriate time perhaps to talk about what is that plan over these ten years. It appears there might be some bonding that is going to happen. I don’t know how the big equipment, like I say 3 months ago I don’t remember what happened 3 months ago, but it seems to me as I look at this now there is some bonding for the bigger pieces of equipment that probably are broken out, and now it looks like we might be bonding things like fire trucks. I don’t recall that discussion that evening and I don’t think we want to discuss it tonight. Will there be an opportunity somehow to bring in whoever you think is appropriate but at least go over the plan in a more public forum and give us a chance to really see what the plan is. I am glad you have one I would just like to understand it a little more clearly. Mayor Lozeau Certainly Alderman Flynn one of the reasons that the language that Chairman Deane read was put in the resolution is because as you have described; annually things could change, technologies could change, our needs could change, but we did think that it was important to come up with a ten year plan with a goal. The first assumption that I am hoping everybody is making with me is that the determination that there is a way Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 11 that we could do this differently that may serve the city better is by putting the money into the CERF account and treating it like a capital equipment reserve account the way that it should be treated and out of the operating budgets. That is the first premise. The remainder of the plan is exactly as you have described. It is going to have to come in and be approved as part of the budget process again. It is my expectation that as next year’s budget comes in we will sit down again and talk about what is this year, what are you putting into capital equipment reserve this year, what will be bonded and what will be cash, which can change depending on our financial status. Under the sheet that you held up, we are not looking at using any bonded money until FY12. That is I believe off the top of my head a fire truck, a very expensive one. I think Tower 1 is the truck. There is a combination here of cash and bonded debt in order to ensure that we don’t end up with vehicles that are long past their lifespan, but it will be revisited annually. If you are looking for a forum to talk about the ten years prior to the budget, I can certainly set something like that up. Alderman Flynn I have better questions now than I did three months ago, but I would like to talk a little bit more about that bonding idea. Over the course of this ten year plan we start with a $5 million CERF account and at the end of the ten years it is down to $700,000. I really don’t know what is the condition of the equipment or where we really stand in year 11. I think there would be some value to get an idea of the robustness of this plan even though it is only approved one year at a time. Mayor Lozeau It is a pretty robust plan. If you look at that spreadsheet that I distributed to everybody, it really has the departments all laid out across the ten years. It is my hope to maintain a ten year plan. As we get into next year, we will add a year onto that plan so it is always a ten year plan is our intention for that plan. Alderman Flynn Beginning in future years as departments need or feel that they have to replace equipment, they won’t have money in their own budget; the police department won’t have money in their own budget to do automobiles right? Mayor Lozeau That is correct. Alderman Flynn The budget will be reduced by whatever – it is a big expense certainly in the police department budget, vehicles are a big expense. It is their 2nd or 3rd biggest expense. That money will come out of their budget one year at a time. For next year if you continue to go forward with this, that money will not appear in their budget at all and when they come to Finance where would that money come from? Mayor Lozeau From CERF. Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 12 Alderman Flynn They will have an agreement from the CERF Committee and the committee will have some kind of a sign off that they can use that money for that year? Mayor Lozeau Exactly. With the exception of police, it is no different than it is for every department as it has been up until now. Every department will tell you that they are going to buy X vehicle in the coming year and I approve it and put it in my budget or I don’t. What I am hoping to have that will be different is there will be a new sheet in your budget that will follow the CERF budget and it will lay out which vehicles are going to be purchased this year, what department they are attributed to, and in formation like that so you will be able to look in the budget book and say oh this year we are buying ten cruisers and a parking enforcement vehicle and a new trash truck and whatever else. It will all come out of CERF. Alderman Flynn Good. Mayor Lozeau I think we are going to have to look at doing the same sort of thing for a capital account for our facilities as well. We are putting a new roof on City Hall this year and in 20 years when that life is gone, someone will be sitting in this chair saying I need to replace the roof and a good manager has set up a way to make that happen without looking for some big chunk of money to make that happen. If I can get this one under our belt and put us on that course, then I think we can look at facilities and do a similar thing and how we will do that and build it into our budget going forward. Alderman Flynn And CERF and SWERF are still going to exist I imagine right? Mayor Lozeau CERF and SWERF and WERF so waste water equipment, solid waste equipment, and CERF. That of course plays into the whole discussion; it would be so great if we didn’t get into tonight, enterprise funds and their equipment. Alderman Cox As we are looking at all of these vehicles to be replaced, are we making every effort to marry up with your other plan on fuel reduction, flex fuels, and CNG? Mayor Lozeau Absolutely. Compressed natural gas (CNG). As a matter of fact transit is looking at a plan going out, and they think over the next five to eight years we will have 30 buses that can run on the compressed natural gas, which will be pretty great. Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 13 Alderman Cox Thank you. Mayor Lozeau You are welcome. Chairman Deane Are there any other questions? The motion on the floor is to recommend final passage of R-10-55. MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES - None TABLED IN COMMITTEE Chairman Deane Alderman Pressly asked me if I would continue to hold O-10-23. I believe she had talked to both Alderman Melizzi-Golja and Alderman Cox. Does anyone have an interest in taking O-10-22 off the table? O-10-22 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy ELIMINATING THE INCREASE IN THE MAYOR’S FY2011 SALARY O-10-23 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Barbara Pressly ESTABLISHING AN OMBUDSMAN FOR THE CITY OF NASHUA AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $60,000 FROM ACCOUNT 591-86005 “FY2011 GENERAL CONTINGENCY” INTO ACCOUNT 501-53 “MAYOR’S OFFICE – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES” GENERAL DISCUSSION Alderman Cookson I just wanted to express, back to R-10-53, I think my only concern about the legislation and the reason I voted against it this evening was I wasn’t comfortable with the accountability; the particular language about the five year payback being removed. If there had been some payback whether it be ten years or some other one, but the idea of removing that I didn’t think was a good idea. I liked it in the original legislation. That was the reason that I voted against it this evening. Chairman Deane I wanted to comment briefly on R-10-55. In my mind, we received an informal presentation on the CERF program. The last sentence in the analysis of the legislation states “The plan includes several funding options.” I don’t want to be down the road and say well you voted for this so you must have been in favor of the rest of the unknown funding options. I think it is an important program to have in place. I think an informal gathering of the board and a presentation was nice. I think this board should formally adopt a plan Budget Review – 08/23/10 Page 14 for CERF itself. I think this is kind of a loose way to do it. In my opinion, I think something should be established and we should move forward with a plan that is adopted by resolution not by bits and pieces; now here is a transfer, here is one of the many ways that things may happen. It is subject to a lot of change, which I understand, but I don’t want to get stuck with a $5 million bond coming in to buy vehicles that run on natural gas. We are out now talking with UPS and other people about a natural gas station. I don’t know what the payback is on that. I think we need to have a cost benefit analysis done on it before we go out and do that. When I was in Boston last Sunday night I talked to a bus driver who drove one of those buses and I said to him how is the maintenance on these things. He said they run nice, but they break down just as much as the old diesel buses do. I was kind of surprised. I figured they would hold up a little better. Thank you. Are there any other comments by any of the members? Thank you. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN SHEEHAN TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 7:46 p.m. Alderman Richard P. Flynn Committee Clerk