Finance Committee

REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MARCH 19, 2014 A meeting of the Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, March 19, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Mayor Donnalee Lozeau, Chair, presided. Members of the Committee present: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Members not in Attendance: Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty, Vice Chair Also in Attendance: Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Richard A. Dowd PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Teeboom - 24 Cheyene Drive I am here tonight not to speak badly about Mayor. We like our Mayor. If she runs, we'll vote for you again and we'll keep paying for you again. I'm also not here to speak about the rejected contract changes by this Committee the last time it met which I understand it's going to be considered at a Special Board of Aldermen meeting tomorrow night. That's not my concern. That's not my business. I'm no longer an alderman. I am here to talk about the Finance Committee authority. I do so because when I was an alderman, I was an alderman for two terms. Particularly the first term following not too long after 3 aldermen went to jail. I came into the Board and after I got the spending cap defined, I became very concerned what I concerned at the time to be bid rigging, bid steering, and contract irregularities. In the second term when I was elected back in 2006, I spent a lot of my time clarifying contract purchase procedures that are ordained in the ordinances today. I was successful doing it and the Board backed me up. Let me begin by talking about the Nashua Charter. The Nashua Charter, Chapter 50, talks about a Finance Committee. It says very briefly, "The finances and accounts of the city shall be under the supervision of the Finance Committee composed of the Mayor, and three aldermen at large, and three ward aldermen, and the three ward aldermen and the 3 aldermen at large to be appointed by the President of the Board of Aldermen with the Mayor acting as Chairman." There's not a lot of warrant with the Finance Committee but it is a committee specifically mentioned in the Charter. It's quite unique. It's the only standing committee defined in the Charter. If you look at other Charters, they don't have a Finance Committee. If you look at the model Charter that the State has for anyone who wants to adopt a Charter, it doesn't mention the Finance Committee at all. Nashua is unique. In fact, we had a former City Attorney Alderman Bolton - did not agree with him but he held that because of the unique position in the Charter, the Finance Committee had complete autonomy from the Board of Aldermen. We didn't agree with him. In fact one of the aldermen says that the committee follows the rules of the Board of Aldermen and is a committee of it. So the question then arises what is meant by supervision over account and finances that are mentioned in the Charter? I'd like you to write this down because you probably haven't seen this before. If you look at RSA 47:6, State law, I did not mention that in my memorandum because I didn't run into it at the time. RSA 47:6 addresses financial supervision. Again, it's very brief and I'll read it. It says, "The city councils shall take proper care that no money be paid from the city treasury unless previously granted and appropriated, and shall secure a just and prompt accountability from all persons entrusted with the receipt, custody or disbursement of the money or funds of the city, or the care of its property." Now a significant amount then is two things. First of all, it reaffirms that it needs to check payments against grants and Finance – 03/19/14 Page 2 appropriations which gets consistent with the City Charter. It also says the following. It says, "It shall be accountable ability of all persons." Not just the Mayor. One thing that upset me when I served on my second two years as an alderman when Mayor Lozeau came in, she take the position and that was her position that she would answer all questions unless there was an outstanding reason for her not to appear before the board. Her position being because people work daytime. There's no need for them to be here at night. I can answer all the questions. That's not what RSA 47:6 says. The Finance Committee can call anyone before it that wants the question about appropriateness or whatever is before it. Any person responsible for the spending which would most appropriately be Directors. But it can be anyone of authority be it Chief of Police, Chief of Firemen, be it the Director in the IT Department, being anyone responsible to spending or the custody called before you. RSA 47:6. You could amend NRO 590 with that provision citing RSA 47:6. You'll get the majority of the full Board and the Mayor may decide to override that and then you'd need to have a 2/3 vote to get that passed. NRO 590 is the place to ordain that. If I was alderman, that's one thing I would do. Now the Deputy City Attorney Clarke, I see Attorney Bennett is here. I'm sure he would address this question too. RSA 90:46 United States Supreme Court case. It's Kearns v. Nute, 94, NH 216, 217 (1946). I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it. It was cited but not attached to the Attorney's memo but maybe you got a hold of it. I got a hold of it. It's pretty easy. Go to the NH Law Library and they'll send you a copy. It quoted pretty much backs up the position of Attorney Clarke. It says the Finance Commission - it mentions commission but it means committee, same thing - can undoubtedly prevent unauthorized illegal, fraudulent, or arbitrary conduct of a department which suspects expenditures. (inaudible) unauthorized illegal spending. It probably can cancel actions calling for expenditures not reasonably limited to appropriations. So if it's not appropriated, you can cancel it. Briefly the finance commission can stop conduct involving expenditures that is not within the sound direction, discretion of a department. Attorney Clarke slightly misquoted that. She said the following. She says, "The court also notes that the finance committee cannot stop expenditures that are within the sound discretion of the department." But the real quote is, "Briefly, the finance commission can stop contact involving expenditures that is not within the sound discretion of the department." Those of us who value structure of the English language, that's an important distinction. You can stop it as opposed to saying you cannot stop it and then turn the boards from negative to positive. That's an important structure. If you're really into this, you ought to get a copy if you don't have it. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling is about 3 pages and compare it like I did. Now in addition to these reviews of accounts and responsibilities, the Board of Aldermen designated additional (inaudible) review authority. That's not in the Charter. That was assigned by the Board of Aldermen. It says you can review contracts. It's a fine point too. In these ordinances of 590, "The finance committee is a committee of the Board of Aldermen. The full board can withdraw items from the finance committee with a majority vote. The Board of Aldermen has the contract authority to the finance committee for all contracts between $10,000 and $1 million." One million I'd think it would be reviewed by the Finance Committee but it has to be approved by the Board of Aldermen. "Between $10,000 and $1 million, the finance committee can approve." Like I said, the full Board can withdraw each item but it rarely happens. Budgets do not go into contracts. To say that you've thought you'd review a contract is a complete misstatement. You can review contracts but your review is limited. It is limited through the review and purchasing regulations to look for irregularities, to look for price fixing, to look for changes in bits or (inaudible), to look for bid rigging, to look for bid steering, to look for competitive bidding wherein (inaudible), to look for qualification of a bidding. I just mentioned a few of the items that apply to contract reviews. If you look at Item H, which is in my memorandum, it specifically says the following - this is in your ordinances. "For the sealed bids of a major purchase submitted and the (inaudible) paragraph 578, "The requesting department shall provide a purchasing manager with the tabulated comparison between the solicitor specification and the specifications offered by the recommended bidders noting differences." You don't have to find them. The Purchasing Manager identified to you any differences between the specifications on what's bid and there are many. You find them all the time. It may be legitimate but you should know where they are. Look at them and say it doesn't match up. Why not? If you don't like the answer, call in the department head responsible and have them answer to you. It if looks like there's some funny stuff going on in the specification, somebody has fixed it, somebody has rigged it. Rigging is easy to do. In my experience one time I remember the Public Works used to love John Deere tractors. That was many years ago and it applies today. They went out of their way to make special occasions such that only John Deere tractors could bid and win the bid. The Police Department used to love Ford cruisers. Read Finance – 03/19/14 Page 3 their bids. Only Fords could win and not Chevys. That's the kind of stuff they'll look for. The Finance Committee has very broad authorities over punishing the Police Department, the Fire Department, and all city departments such as Community Development, or IT Department, Financial Services, Legal Department. None of those departments have the purchasing responsibilities that they find from the Board of Public Works in the Charter. No mention for them at all. Only the Board of Public Works has a great deal of authority. That's because it's a traditional role in the Board of Public Works. Look at the Main Street Bridge that says the Commissioners are engraved in the bronze plaque. The Board of Public Works used to be a very important part, probably more important than they are today. They basically ran the city. As a practical matter, all contracts and all purchases have been treated the same in this Finance Committee. You didn't say well this is the Police Department and we have more authority over the Police Department purchases than we do over Public Works. I don't remember that ever coming up. As a practical matter, they'd be treated the same and rightly so. The only exception of course is the School Department. The School Department, Alderman Dowd well knows, has autonomy by State law except for school construction. All contracts for school construction don't come under the Finance Committee. They don't come under the School Board. They come under Joint Special. This is a committee made of both board members - the School Board and the Board of Aldermen. So the School Board you budget for the School Department. That's it. They're on their own. They're the only department on that by State law. In summary, all city departments except the School Department, Finance Committee can check all spending to see if you are appropriated you can do so. You can certainly do so in the warrant. The warrant is that vehicle the old saying use that $5, 6, 10 million in it. Very few people look at it. It's got thousands of line items and that's why it's daunting. It's available to you on the internet. It's available to me on the internet to the public if you know where to find it on the website. You can pull any line item and question it. You said Alderman Richardson used to pick out these pizza party things. He'd go in there and find a $10 pizza and fine I said pull them out. Somebody had to justify next on the Finance Committee met we had a pizza party because we worked late. Okay. It was approved. You could have kept it out. Remember there was a newspaper spoke a lot about the lunches involved with Public Works. You could have pulled it out of the warrant and refused to fund it. That's your prerogative. That's in the Charter specifically. I mentioned you can look at others between $10,000 and $1 million to assure proper conduct of expenses. You cannot make a judgment as to form fit a function. The term "form fit a function" is a relevance to a term and contact (inaudible) specifically federal contract I'm familiar with. I've done millions of dollars worth of federal contracting. Its form fit and function. As an example, I remember way back there was an argument about whether the fence and the river view Apartments. The apartments next to Main Street next to Main Street Bridge. A nice wrought iron fence. Several aldermen didn't like it. They said it was too expensive and they voted it down. I remember talking to Kathy Hersh almost crying about it. She said that's not your job. I agree with that. I actually moved for reconsideration. We put the wooden fence in - the cheaper wooden fence, we put the wrought iron fence back in and Alderman Richardson didn't talk to me for 4 weeks. It's okay. It's not the proper will of the turn on that fence. It was not the proper role for the Finance Committee to ask what our utility vehicle is the proper size. You can ask it but you can't stop it based on the fact that you think the utility vehicle is too big, or too small, or not powerful enough. You cannot make a judgment of form fit and function. You can find only a consistency in the contract. I know it's a lot tougher to look at these details in the contract. You're all part timers. It's a tough job to find these inconsistencies by I saw Alderman Siegel questioning I think a termination clause in one of the contracts. Some clause and that was totally appropriate to ask for that clause. I remember hearing about that termination clause. That termination clause is to the benefit of the city. (Inaudible) you just terminate and you give them all the money irrespective of how much they've done. That's not a good termination clause. You need to catch that. That's the Finance Committee's responsibility. That's a tough one but that's the job he chose to do when he sat on this committee. My final words about the City Attorney. I sent him a memorandum - Attorney Clarke who wrote the memorandum. (Inaudible) I got the e-mail yesterday. You all got a copy. I said in all the years I've worked with her - I worked with her for 6 years. She's always been very helpful, very knowledgeable, legally precise. Her analysis if you read them are very precise and she's independent. She never said let me go check with the Mayor. I don't remember her ever saying this. She's an expert on municipal law. Nevertheless, we have a jurisdictional dispute between the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor and that's what you have in your hands. The situation of what authority the Finance Committee. You have a jurisdictional dispute. It is not up to the City Attorney to make that decision and here's why. Finance – 03/19/14 Page 4 Nashua's Charter Chapter 42 says, "The Mayor if consent of the Board of Aldermen shall appoint a City Clerk, a welfare officer, three assessors, a treasurer, a collector of taxes, and a city solicitor. Each of whom shall serve at the indefinite term at the pleasure of the Mayor." You cannot have an attorney making a judgment whether it's Attorney Bennett, Attorney Clarke, or any other attorney who works for the City..."all of who work at the pleasure at the Mayor". She's not pleased with them, she could fire them. (inaudible) They work at the pleasure of the Mayor. They work for the pleasure of the Mayor there's a built in conflict of interest. So the Board in this case can and if it continues to be an issue, you can ask for your own attorney. I moved several times as an alderman for the Board of Aldermen to hire its own attorney on a retainer. If you need them, you get them. The argument always was well you get two attorneys that fight each other and everybody loses. Well in this case if this conflict continues, it's not along the line, I've said this and this is just my opinion based on a lot of experience with this Board, see if the Mayor would agree with you and see if you can hire an independent attorney. As much as I like Attorney Clarke, she's being put in a very difficult - she's really been in a conflict of interest situation would be making judgment of the Finance Committee's authority is certainly up to the Board of Aldermen. Look at the Charter. Look at Sate law to make a determination. If you have a jurisdictional dispute, get yourself INDEPENDENT counsel. Hopefully the Mayor and the Board can agree to it. I thank you very much for listening to me. Any questions? Mayor Lozeau Thank you Mr. Teeboom. Commissioner Tracy Pappas - 12 Swart Terrace I'm a Board of Public Works Commissioner. I've come to speak before you to offer my thoughts on a relationship between the Board of Public Works and the Finance Committee. I'd like to state for the record I do not now nor have they ever had an issue with the role of the Finance Committee reviewing purchases in excess of $10,000. I think the Charter of the City of Nashua and the ordinances that have been adopted over the years give the Finance Committee clear authority over this. I also believe it would be irresponsible to ignore the many years of history and precedent that had laid the groundwork for this relationship beyond the Charter and the Ordinances that are in place. It would be irresponsible and unfair to the taxpayers of this City to eliminate a reasonable review process for the larger dollar items that are being purchased. Nothing about the Finance Committee's review of the 10 wheel truck purchases have been unwarranted or unreasonable. As far as I can tell, all they ask for is a few minutes from someone knowledgeable at the Division of Public Works to review the purchases with them so they can make an informed decision. I don't understand why this is a problem for the Division of Public Works. I also don't understand the amount of effort put into avoiding the conversation. It makes no sense to me that we have spent our time talking to City Attorneys instead of the Finance Committee. As much as I would like to come before this Committee and help to clarify the use of the trucks, it's not possible. The Board of Public Works has never had any review of the 10 wheel truck purchase. The only mention of the trucks was in the Citistat presentation which was only limited to trucks that were on a replacement schedule. No discussion was ever held regarding the use of the trucks. I would like to be able to find out myself how these trucks would be used by division staff. Unfortunately, division staff will not speak to me. I find it troubling enough that Aldermen are not speak to Division of Public Works employees. It's inexcusable that a sitting Commission of the Board of Public Works cannot speak with Division of Public Works employees. Unfortunately this is not a problem that the Finance Committee of the Board of Aldermen can solve. Thank you for your time and giving me an opportunity to speak. Marylou Blaisdell - 32 Webster Street I'm here tonight representing the Downtown Improvement Committee. The comments that I'm coming here to express from our committee tonight are those of any finances to do with the continuation of the downtown sidewalk project or the improvement at downtown. Many business owners downtown it's getting close to April. It's getting close to when the sidewalk project usually begins. They need to get their businesses ready for whatever block is going to come next. The fear is through reading in the newspaper and we have Finance – 03/19/14 Page 5 talked with some of you in regards to this basically some of the expenditures that need to be taken place for this project to get going have not been approved. Our fear is that we are going to slow down the sidewalk project for this year and we don't want to see that happen. We were off to a very good start. Downtown businesses want to see it completed. I get calls from downtown business frequently on what's the update from the committee? Where are we? Is it going to continue? It does impact all of us downtown when it starts. We all do need to make arrangements for our businesses when that project starts on how to reroute customers, and to reroute parking, or whatever we may need to do. So as the Chair of that Committee I just come to you tonight asking you to really consider the impact delays have with the downtown project and to please encourage you to move forward with funding the downtown sidewalk project because it's crucial to all of us downtown and we really want to see its completion. Thank you. COMMUNICATIONS From: Robert Gabriel, Purchasing Manager Re: Legal Services for Abatement Appeal Change Order #1 Requested by the Assessing MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDER #1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH ANTHONY AMBRIANO, ESQ. FOR A NET CHANGE IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO- EXCEED $18,000. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN DEPARTMENT BS 1000, OVERLAY; GENERAL FUND ON THE QUESTION Mayor Lozeau This is actually why the City Attorney is here tonight in case there were concerns or questions about contracting for these services. Alderman Deane The only request I have after reading this Mayor on the second page it explains the legal services that this not exceed $18,000 exclusive of disbursements. Is there any way we can get a copy of the fees and expenses that the attorney will submit to the assessor on monthly intervals. Can we get a copy of that? Mayor Lozeau The invoice that would go with the record of expenditures? Alderman Deane Well he's going to delineate the fees and expenses separately in a document. It's going to be submitted to the assessors in monthly intervals. Any chance we can get a copy of that? Mayor Lozeau Yes. I can ask if the... Alderman Deane Something must have happened by now because they already had a prior. Finance – 03/19/14 Page 6 Mayor Lozeau So you want to go back for ones that they had already had or are you talking about this moving forward Alderman? Alderman Deane I'd like to see what this one firm, this one individual has charged us to date with everything. Just the itemized. Thank you very much. Alderman Donchess Is this the same person who handled the appeal regarding the Radisson? Attorney Bennett A different firm is handling this and several cases are split between several firms. Alderman Donchess Now this guy is from Boston I see. How was he selected? Attorney Bennett Our office had worked with Mr. Ambriano before - in this case when we were looking for attorneys to handle several of these cases, we went out in the community - the other lawyers - asking who they would recommend. We contacted I believe 4 or 5 firms. A lot of firms had conflicts with the City and didn't want to take on the City as a client. They'd have to give up other clients. Mr. Ambriano came highly recommended and that's how he was selected based on looking at the charges, his fees is the way you look for a lawyer I guess. Alderman Siegel It's my understanding that this attorney had some success already in this particular case is that correct and that we're sort of just going back to a different year? So he's continuing on a case he's already familiar with? Attorney Bennett Just briefly. There was a request for an abatement filed for 2011 I believe it was which was settled. The issue that arose was that unless you file a new request for abatement first with the City and then with the court if it's turned down, the agreed upon assessment for the prior year doesn't carry over. In this case, that wasn't done but the court ruled that it would in fact carry over. That's actually the issue that we're going forward on is the court's ruling on carrying over the assessment from a prior year. Alderman Siegel To me it makes sense to stay with the same attorney because the start up costs to get familiar with a case are fairly substantial in my experience. I would definitely support this based on what I'm seeing. Finance – 03/19/14 Page 7 Attorney Bennett I think you're correct on that one. It would save us considerable money. He's essentially already outlined the issue with the court on a Motion to Reconsider. It was denied but a lot of the research has already been done. Mayor Lozeau Further discussion? Thank you Attorney Bennett. MOTION CARRIED From: Robert Gabriel, Purchasing Manager Re: Main Street Light Poles Change Order #3 (Value: $43,352); Department: 161 Street MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDER #3 TO THE CONTRACT WITH UNION METAL CORPORATION FOR A NET CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,352. SOURCE OF FUNDING IS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS – STREET FUND; MAIN STREET PROJECT ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane Thank you. The front page of their quotation where it quotes the B99-190-B571-Y1 is says "less street sign bracket". Is that street sign bracket those poles that stick out of the side of it or the bracket that sits on top of the mast arm? Mayor Lozeau No that's actually a bracket to be able to put a street sign. We've not chosen that model. So we could buy that pole with that bracket that would allow us to put street signs on the poles. Alderman Deane So it's an extra? Mayor Lozeau Correct. Alderman Deane Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED From: Robert Gabriel, Purchasing Manager Re: Main Street Lights Change Order #2 (Value: $13,485); Department: 161 Street MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AUTHORIZE CHANGE ORDER #2 TO THE CONTRACT WITH KING LUMINAIRE FOR A NET CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,485. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS – STREET FUND; MAIN STREET PROJECT Finance – 03/19/14 Page 8 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Deane I had one quick question Mayor. Maybe you can refresh my memory. Are there photocells for these so they come on when it's dark and go off when its light? Mayor Lozeau That's my understanding. I know for certain it is that way on the mast arms. I believe it's that same way on the street light. Alderman Deane So the light that's up on top of Library Hill in front of The First Church is on almost all the time. Mayor Lozeau Sometimes what that means is the sensor needs to be adjusted because it could potentially have a shadow on it. I will bring that to their attention. Alderman Deane And the light on West Pearl Street just doesn't have power to it is that...? Mayor Lozeau Correct. MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS Communication MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECONSIDER ITEM #8 FROM THE MARCH 5, 2014 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING A COMMUNICATION FROM ROBERT GABRIEL, PURCHASING MANAGER, CONCERNING MAIN STREET ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR BLOCKS 4 AND 5 WEST SIDE, VALUE $17.905, DEPARMTMENT 161 STREET FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, STREET ACTIVITY, MAIN STREET PROJECT. BALANCE AFTER PURCHASE $334,000 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE, AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO JOHNSON ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. FOR MAIN STREET ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS, CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR BLOCKS 4 AND 5 WEST SIDE, VALUE $17,905, DEPARTMENT 161 STREET FUND, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS STREET ACTIVITY, DESCRIPTION - MAIN STREET PROJECT. BALANCE AFTER PURCHASE $334,000 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel I think it makes sense for us to have another discussion about this. I know that there's plans currently on the table for a special meeting tomorrow to discuss this. I think this is something that perhaps we can Finance – 03/19/14 Page 9 discuss here and not put our fellow colleagues in the position where we're not really voting on a specific issue but we're voting on the concept of I guess you might call it judicial review or the split between the Mayor and the Aldermen. I think that's probably not wise. It probably makes sense to consider that business here if that makes sense with everyone. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECONSIDER ITEM #9 FROM THE MARCH 5, 2014 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING. COMMUNICATION FROM ROBERT GABRIEL, PURCHASING MANAGER, CONCERNING MAIN STREET CURBING CHANGE ORDER #5, VALUE $15,182, DEPARTMENT 161, STREET FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. STREET ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION - MAIN STREET PROJECT. BALANCE AFTER PURCHASE $319,000 WITH CLASSIC CURB MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE, AND AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF MAIN STREET CURBING CHANGE ORDER #5 TO CLASSIC CURB - VALUE $15,182, DEPARTMENT 161, STREET FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS STREET ACTIVITY. DESCRIPTION - MAIN STREET PROJECT - BALANCE AFTER PURCHASE $319,000 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE THE COMMUNICATION FROM ROBERT GABRIEL REGARDING PURCHASE OF TWO FREIGHTLINER 10 WHEEL DUMP TRUCKS FOR THE STREET DEPARTMENT ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel I believe that we had some requests for information and I understand that's in process. I know we go some information as we walked in. I don't believe that based on the amount of information we've received so far that not that much has changed since the last Finance Committee meeting. So I don't understand how taking this from the table would forward or the ability to come to a resolution on this without the information requested by myself, and Alderman Donchess, and Alderman Deane. I don't know what other communications were made. Those are just the ones that I saw. Alderman Chasse Yes there was a request to have somebody to come in front of us and explain about the 10 wheelers. I don't think that's a very tough thing to do because if we look back at other things when the Police Department changed their cars or they couldn't get the Crown Victoria any more, you had the Board of Aldermen come in front of them and explain to us and there was some questions about that. I don't really think that's a request that should be just put underneath the table. I'd like to make an honest decision on these 10 wheelers and I would love to see that individual that they requested to come in front of us and maybe it's going to help me make my decision or it's going to lead to enlighten me on what they want to do with these trucks or what they're needed for. For that reason if it comes back from the table, I will not support it until we get satisfied and the individual comes in front of us. I know you're dead set against it but you know we can request people to come in front of us. I think it would be a great idea. This would just calm the waters because I'm sitting in the middle and I don't like being in the middle. If I want to make an honest decision, I want to hear the questions that Alderman Deane has, questions that Alderman Siegel has and ask this individual. So that's where I stand on this position. Thank you. Finance – 03/19/14 Page 10 Mayor Lozeau I have asked just so we're clear. I have asked for what the questions are so that questions could be answered. The Director has responded. There was more information asked for today from Alderman Deane about fit up. We don't have the answer to that yet but we'll certainly have that before the fit up comes here if not sooner. Perhaps when we come in with the fit up legislation with the contract for the fit up, we'll be able to have questions that are necessary answered. Alderman Chasse Okay so it's going to snowball. So Alderman Deane gives you questions and it's going to come back here and it brings up another question from Alderman Dowd. It brings up another question from anybody. So then you're going to do it again and go back. In the process, these aren't being purchased. I mean they're probably not needed right now because... Mayor Lozeau No they are needed. We have two trucks off the road. Alderman Chasse Well then the fastest way to get this done is to bring the individual in here because his question might lead to another question. Doing it by e-mails is not the right way to do it. Mayor Lozeau I agree it's not the right way to do it. It wasn't done through e-mails. Alderman Chasse Whichever way why can't we get the individual in here? Mayor Lozeau Alderman Chasse I'll talk to the Board of Public Works again. The Board of Public Works felt that it was not appropriate for them to come in and justify a purchase that has already been justified. So if you may recall - I'm just laying out... Alderman Chasse All right. Mayor Lozeau In April of 2010, a full fleet assessment was done. That meeting was one of the first joint meetings that I put together of the Board of Public Works and the Board of Aldermen which by the way I've done quite frequently. I was told that it hadn't happened before. That meeting was designed to have people come in and understand the assessment that we were doing in an effort to try to actually fund the CERF program to its full potential so that we were on schedule and we were budgeting accordingly. After that meeting in 2010 when all these vehicles were talked about justified and actually think we're at least 20 vehicles left than we had when we started. We then put a budget together, put the CERF plan together. We brought the CERF plan in. That went to the CERF Committee. That was voted in the affirmative. It went to the Budget Committee to put the money in the CERF plan. That was voted affirmatively. It went to the full Board of Aldermen as part of the budget and those items had been talked about. CERF plan was presented. Those Finance – 03/19/14 Page 11 vehicles were scheduled to be replaced in 2014. That was adopted. I'm just telling you the thought process that people are having. Alderman Chasse I understand perfectly how the system works. That's not what I'm questioning. I'm just saying to calm the waters, they have questions that probably never came up when all the work was done, and the budget was made up, and everything was appropriated. Very simple things to bring somebody down here and fire away with the questions and get it over with. I hate sitting in the middle and I hate going to extra meetings because of things like this because they should be done in our committee and not with the full Board. The easiest way to get it done but no, we'll do it...I will not support it. I'll tell you that right now. Mayor Lozeau Alderman Chasse what I just was when it goes back to the Board of Public Works for the memo related to fitting up those trucks, I will talk to the Board of Public Works and explain the Finance Committee's concerns and we'll see...remember they are an elected Board. They have the authority to make decisions about that. We had an alderman in here before that said as a member of the Fire Commissioner, and elected board, they wouldn't come in and justify a vehicle to the Finance Committee and that I think is the crux of the problem here. You have another elected board who has the authority to make decisions around the vehicles needed to carry out their work. The reason the police came in is because I called the Chief and said I do not want aldermen to find out that we've gone from a car for a cruiser to a utility vehicle. I don't want them to be surprised and there's a reason for that difference. We're going from a 15 year old 10 wheel dump truck and we're replacing it with a new 10 wheel dump truck as planned and scheduled. What the police planned was something not planned. So I provided that opportunity for that conversation. I will ask the Board of Public Works when we take up the fit up. We have that price, have that discussion, and that comes to the Finance Committee, I will ask the Board of Public Works if they would be okay with a staff member coming. They have expressed their concern. I'm respecting that. Alderman Chasse I commend you with the Police Department. I think that was a great idea so that we didn't find out about it in The Telegraph or someplace else. I think it was a great idea and we learned a lot. We now know that a Crown Victoria is not going to be made any more. So they had no choice, no option, and I commend you for that. Like I'm saying, hopefully you can get somebody from the Board of Public Works on here, get this thing done with, and get it over with and make it easy for all of us - the ones that are sitting on the fence. Thank you. I'm done. Alderwoman Brown I personally believe that this discussion is somewhat absurd especially in light of the fact that we all received a legal opinion from our own legal counsel. From the opinion and from reviewing the Charter, it seems clear to me and to other individuals here that our authority is limited. We cannot sit here while another body that was elected makes a decision on an item. It's already been approved, already been appropriated. The Board of Aldermen approved it and here we are, it's a year later that we just say we don't think you need it. I believe that that's been clarified in the legal opinion. I've seen in the paper someone stating well of course we even had a discussion here. Of course the legal counsel reports to the Mayor. Yes that is true but so what are we going to do? Is the Board of Aldermen going to hire an attorney to have this big legal fight just to discuss this and see what our authority is? Right now I think we've seen enough in the paper. This is not really good for our city and I think we need to just keep that in mind. If you look at our Charter as aldermen, we're here, we're supposed to work together, and we're supposed to follow the Charter. To me it just seems absurd and I wish we could just move on and I believe do the right thing. I believe that is to approve this dump truck. We did get information. If several of you require an individual to come in and answer further questions, fine. I just think it's absurd. Thank you. Finance – 03/19/14 Page 12 Alderman Donchess Well we could debate this legal issue for a long time. I could come in here and make an argument that the Finance Committee's way of doing business for the last 50 years at least is totally legal and consistent with the Charter and with State law as Mr. Teeboom argued. I could say that the rule that we can't talk to city employees violates the City Charter. I could say that the decision not to send a person here that we request at the Finance Committee violates the City Charter but I'm not going to get into the details. We could debate this around, and around, and around. The way this came up is we're looking at a major expenditure. This is several hundred thousand dollars, including everything that's ultimately going to be required for these trucks. Probably more than $300,000. Alderman Deane who's a colleague of ours and who - I have to say knows more about trucks and equipment than I believe anyone else in the room, says hey I think that the 6 wheelers are more flexible. The State uses them on the major highways and we could save a lot of money with the 6 wheeler. Could we talk to someone about the justification for buying a much more expensive truck? It seems reasonable to me. Aren't we here to try to save taxpayers money when we can? Maybe it would be $100,000 which to me sounds like a lot of money. I don't know anything about trucks really not in detail. The capabilities of a 6 wheel versus a 10 wheel, I don't know. I think Alderman Deane does. We simply ask could we just have a guy who supervises the work in the Street Department, the Superintendent just come in and explain the vehicles and what the point of the 10 wheel decision is. To me, it's so elementary and instead of just allowing us to talk with that person, we get into all of this large legal dispute with legal decisions issued on like 10 minutes notice over turning the way the city's been doing business for decades just so a guy doesn't have to come to the Committee? It just seems totally out of proportion to me because to me it seems like a very common sense question. I would renew the request of the Board of Public Works and I would go there and ask them myself if - I don't think I'm going to be in town at their next meeting but in any event, I hope the Board of Public Works will decide to allow us to talk to this individual. He may very well explain why the 10 wheel decision makes sense and we may go along with it. I would echo Alderman Chasse and ask that we be allowed to talk to this person and get on with business. Alderman Siegel Just a few points. First off I want to make it clear, we have not made a decision. We have tabled this and the current discussion centers around whether we even bring it off the table. So whether or not there's a legal issue that belongs in the court, after it's all said and done, only judges decide what is right and wrong. It doesn't matter what lawyers say and we haven't made a decision. There's nothing to say that we won't make a decision that makes everybody happy but we just need information. To correct about Alderman Soucy's statement was yes he said he supports the Finance Committee's right to say no and he also supported the Finance Committee's right to review. I just wanted to add that. I also wanted a couple of other things. Commissioner Pappas came in here and her statement indicated that the only thing that's happened is there was a review of a replacement schedule. It's not clear to me since I was at that meeting and in fact I have e-mails back in February where I mentioned to Director Fauteaux that that wasn't a discussion. That was merely a slide put up on a wall. I don't know that that would be defined as policy. Sort of somebody coming in from Citistat saying here's a schedule, next slide please. It's open to interpretation. To me that's not a type of thing that would constitute policy making. Finally let's keep in mind that we're talking about a cab and chassis. We don't really have a complete purchase here. So it would be like going to a home site where the foundation is poured because it is a cab and chassis and in and of itself, it's not useful. So you go to a home site and there's a poured foundation and you're told well the foundation looks good and the engineer that poured it says its okay, and we have the money to pay for it. So you have to buy the house on it and you're like we'll I don't know what that house is going to be. Yeah but you have to buy it because the foundation is legitimate. I think it's very much like that here. We just want to know what it's going to be used for and even now I've heard that they're still working on the information required to complete the fit up specifications. So we're really not even deciding on a complete entity at this point. I'm very much looking forward to seeing some more information and that's really all we've ever been asking for. More information. Thank you Madam Chair. Finance – 03/19/14 Page 13 Mayor Lozeau I'm just going to take a moment to say that first of all the staff at the Public Works Department has looked at this. Discussions have taken place on replacing those trucks. The determination was made in 2010. I handed Alderman Deane that assessment when I came in tonight. It says who was present, who presented, the staff that came in. The whole point of that discussion was to allow give and take between the two boards to talk about what we thought the plans were going forward. There's this constant struggle about whether I allow people to talk to staff or not talk to staff. I don't think that that is fair at all. I don't think the sport that's made in other committee meetings about this, well that person doesn't work for the Mayor maybe we can get them to come; or that person doesn't volunteer for the Mayor so maybe they can come in. I have looked through just some of the things that we have done. There's more than 70 times since like 2009 that we've had presentations in single boards, joint boards, staff, other things. Staff is available. I'm surprised by the comments made this evening that a Commissioner at Public Works doesn't think that they can talk to staff. Staff is present at the meetings. They sit at the table when their items are up if there needs to be discussion. Legal counsel was here tonight. IT has come in. Depending on what the issue is, it makes sense to bring staff. When there's a time for that, we've done that multiple, multiple times. The Director of Economic Development has come into PEDC, he's come into Infrastructure. We've had joint meetings in the auditorium or on the Broad Street Parkway and the Millyard. Staff comes to that. The Director of Community Development has come in. When it's appropriate for staff to be here because they can add to the conversation and we can't provide you the information in another forum or as you're describing Alderman Chasse, one question may lead to another, they have come in. The legal opinion that was provided 10 minutes before our meeting the last time puts me in really a no win situation. A Commissioner at the Board of Public Works meeting asked for the legal opinion. I passed on to the Legal Department that this Commissioner requested it. The answer was sent to him at the end of the day. Before I came into the meeting I went to shut off my computer I saw that that e-mail had gone out to the Board of Public Works from the Legal Department. I thought well I'm not going to wait because I don't want to forget. I'm going to send it off to the full Board tonight before I come into the meeting. If I wouldn't have sent it and in the morning it would have been discussed somewhere and I hadn't gotten to it, then it would have been well why didn't you share it with us? How come it just went to the Board of Public Works? I didn't think that was going to be taken up. That wasn't even something I was - it was simply a response to a Commissioner that asked for it. That's why that was done. Alderman Deane You didn't have to send that legal opinion to anybody but the Commissioner that requested it. Mayor Lozeau Alderman Deane there are often times where I don't have to send things out to people but I... Alderman Deane I'm just saying that - if I asked for a legal opinion from the Attorney's office upstairs, I don't expect them to be sending it out to everybody. If I want to share it with people - I do that but I mean you have the attorney/client privilege. You two as far as I understand you and Tim Lavoie had asked for it. It was basically your property to do with it as you please. That was a decision that you decided to make. Beside the point, I've been asked about our attorneys and their conflict because they work to the pleasure of the Mayor. My response to anybody and everybody is that I have the utmost respect for our Legal Department. They have integrity. They're asked to produce a document. They do. Their document is an opinion. I've never weighed out the fact that Corporation Counsel works at the pleasure of the Mayor and that what would be generated out of that office would lean towards the Mayor's position at all. I don't think that's the case. I think we have a very good group of legal folks upstairs and I think there's a lot of integrity there. I might not agree with what they have to say but it's an opinion. They were asked to do something and I think they put everything aside, and they sit down, and they review what they need to review to come up with Finance – 03/19/14 Page 14 their opinion. I don't think that's ever the case that we get this lopsided opinion because of the Charter language and who they answer to. I don't think that's the case because they'd lose a lot of credibility and I wouldn't do that. It's part of their profession. My question Mayor is on the fit up costs. The CERF documents you gave shows $181,913 per vehicle. The vehicle cost that we were given for approval was $111,102 which leaves us almost $71,000 to finish. Are they purchasing sanders, or are they going to have the pneumatic devices, or are they going to have the drop in stainless sanders in the back again? Mayor Lozeau They're going to have live bodies which means that it's almost a conveyor belt... Alderman Deane You're getting good with these acronyms. Alderman Deane It's going to have a conveyor belt in the body. Mayor Lozeau They call it a live body. So the bed of the truck will move and distribute the salt and sand in a more precise... Alderman Deane Into a disk so there's going to be a conveyor inside the body that moves the material down to the end. Mayor Lozeau Exactly. The money for CERF as you know when it goes in we estimate the cost of the truck and the cost of the fit up. Sometimes we're less. Sometimes we're more but there's an estimate there and funding goes into CERF. When we started CERF this year, we had I think $2.3 million in the beginning. The numbers that they have been looking at are somewhere between $70,000 and $80,000 a vehicle. The analysis that they're trying to figure out is how much time would it take for staff to fit up the vehicle and whether it's worth it for them to put that time in or if it's worth paying a company to do the work. Much like the Fire Department goes through and things like that. So that's what we're waiting on is to figure that out. I would anticipate at the next Board of Public Works meeting this month that that answer will be there and presented by the staff. Alderman Deane You have a five percent escalator built in. Mayor Lozeau I believe so. Alderman Deane I'm looking at it right here. What it calls for is a 10 wheel dump with plow and wing. So if the chassis and the cab are $111,000 and now from what you said the dump body is $70,000, we still have a wing plow... Finance – 03/19/14 Page 15 Mayor Lozeau I'm shaking my head Alderman Deane because I'm talking about total fit up. So all of those items, the live body, the plow, all of the things that need to be done, the cost of the fit up, everything is somewhere between - I think the numbers are going to come in somewhere between $70,000 and $80,000 per truck. Alderman Deane I anxiously await the findings. Thank you very much Mayor. Mayor Lozeau Alderman Siegel I just want to finish my comments that I gave Alderman Deane a chance to ask me a question on. If you play out the idea of not providing the legal opinion to anybody but Commissioner Lavoie, I didn't ask for the legal opinion. Commissioner Lavoie asked for it. I merely passed on his request. It was asked for in a public setting. I think people wanted to know what the results would be. Had it not gotten distributed, I think people would have been concerned with that. If somebody would have asked for it and then one person got it but not another - I mean that sometimes legal opinions may be asked for that aren't for public reasons or that people know were asked for as you were attorney/client privilege. I thought I made the best decision to have the information out there. That's why I did that. Alderman Siegel I just want to remind everybody that I think we still have the motion whether to remove from the table. I don't know - I guess we have a fairly wide ranging discussion here. It's almost as if it's come off the table and is sort of half off. It's rising. At this point it seems to me that I will reiterate, there's work that appears to be happening in process to get us more information. Clearly we're not clear on the exact fit up cost, whatever this may be I think it's to the benefit of all concerned to leave this on the table and let the people that are working on this get us the right information as we've been requesting and let's take it from there next time. Alderwoman Brown Thank you Mayor. Would it be appropriate for us since the Special Board meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow since we've already voted these two times, would it be appropriate for us to take up this issue with the full Board and hopefully by then we could have someone come and speak to us and answer questions so we could move on this? If the Board of Public Works is down two trucks, then you know they need them. The sooner the better I would think. Mayor Lozeau I think the question was directed at me so let me take a shot at answering. Imagine that. I do not think it would be appropriate to take it up tomorrow because the subject matter of this Special Board meeting that I called was based on the two items we've already dealt with tonight. So I don't think that that would be appropriate. I would agree that timing is important. We have to do the fit up on these trucks. I think we have time to bring in the fit up. We have typically in the past done it both ways - just cab and chassis knowing that the fit up was not far behind because there was some lead time, and getting the truck in to get the work done. Other times we've been able to do it all at one time. I think either way is possible. This gives us an opportunity to, again, go to the Board of Public Works, see what's going to happen, see what the cost is of the fit up, bring it back, ask the question about staff coming in here, and have the full discussion. I don't think there's any harm in waiting that extra time. I appreciate you asking the question. I also wanted to make sure that everybody did have the February 28th memo from the Director of Public Works which walks through the use and the need for the 10 wheels just because I think that might be getting lost in the conversation. It was in reference to a question raised at the Finance Committee for the Finance – 03/19/14 Page 16 Division of Public Works and it talks about that the Division had 4 ten-wheelers which are used for both efficiency and safety purposes. First priority during a winter event is to keep the mains open and safe. The 10 wheelers are used in the major corridors of the Daniel Webster Highway, Broad Street, 111A on Amherst Street. The 10 wheelers can hold 15 yards of salt and sand versus a 6 wheeler which only holds between 7 and 8 yards. Of course it's critical during a winter event because the trucks can stay in their routes instead of having to reload which could take a truck out of the route for almost 45 minutes. If the major corridors are not maintained properly - I think everybody knows what that means. They're used by the Division during the construction season to haul materials for projects and of course just like with the salt and sand can haul twice as much gravel, sand fill with the 10 versus the 6. Instead of sending out two 6 wheelers with 2 drivers, they send out one 10 wheeler with one driver. I just wanted to make sure that people had that memo if anybody wants a copy. We can certainly provide it. With that being said, back to the motion on the table. Alderman Dowd I'm not sure what questions were asked and certainly I can agree that you can ask whatever questions you want relative to a purchase. I agree with the speaker earlier, former Alderman Teeboom, as to he mentioned form, fit, and function. What that means is the Finance Committee can approve or disapprove the 10 wheelers based on the fact that they're not being competed correctly. They don't meet the specifications that they're trying to fill or there's something illegal with as contract. This Committee I don't believe in my opinion can say okay we're going to approve 6 wheelers versus 10 wheelers. I think that would have to go back to the Board of Aldermen because the 10 wheelers were approved in the budget. I don't think that decision can be made by the Finance Committee. I'm not sure what all the questions are and what the answers to the questions would lead to the items that can be decided by the Finance Committee. Are the questions relative to the ultimate cost? That's a fair question. Are we going to be able to meet the budget that was set? Was it competed correctly so that we get a fair price for the trucks? Is the contracts that we're about to approve have any issues with them relative to some of the different aspects of the contract? You have to read that and look at it and see it if meets it? Quite frankly, I think that's probably more a legal opinion but certainly if somebody finds something, they can have Legal take a look at it. As far as form, fit and function, the form would be a 10 wheeler. There may be other times but these are the prime ones that I see as I deal with form, fit and function every single day. Fit is the size of the load. A 10 wheeler holds twice as much as a 6 wheeler. You can't replace it with a 6 wheeler because it's not meeting the intent of what was approved by the full Board of Aldermen and is in the CERF. As far as function, plowing is one of them. I'm sure hauling dirt and stuff are others. Do the trucks actually meet the requirements of the functions that they're supposed to fill? You could ask that but I'm not sure. There's a lot of differentiation between what a truck can do. Those are these things. I think that's the crux of the question. Again you can ask whatever questions you want but in accordance with what I heard from Alderman Teeboom if you have to maintain form, fit and function, substituting a 6th wheeler for a 10 wheeler, I don't think decision can be made by the Finance Committee. I think it would have to go back to the full Board and change the CERF. Alderman Chasse Just to let you know, I'm not against the 10 wheelers. Some of the questions that were asked about the bells and the whistles that are going on there and that's my concern. I wanted to hear the questions that Alderman Deane was going to ask him about the bells and the whistles. Are they going to have green lights on top, or purple lights, or yellow lights, or things that like whatever? That's what I wanted to hear. I'm not against the 10 wheelers. Let Debbie know but I still think it ought to get those questions answered. We'll let the Mayor try to see if we get somebody from BPW down here and take care of everybody's concerns. Thank you. Finance – 03/19/14 Page 17 Alderman Donchess Yes at this point I'm neither for nor against the 10 wheelers. I just want to know more about them. In regards to the remarks that former Alderman Teeboom made, he also argued that as a matter of State law under the Charter, we have the right to bring anyone in the City government before the Committee without anyone else's permission. He did argue that. If we accept his position fully, then we can have whoever we want here. I would disagree to some extent the point that these 10 wheelers were in the budget in the sense that if you look at the budget, there's no 10 wheelers. We did not appropriate money to 10 wheelers. What happened is that over the years the Board of Aldermen made a general appropriation into the Capital Equipment Reserve Fund. So what appears in the budget is simply an appropriation to CERF. Then to find these 10 wheelers, you have to go - so there was no discussion or debate during the budget last year or the year before of should we buy 10 wheelers and here's why or why not. What we did is we appropriated a general number into CERF and then if you look at the hundreds of vehicles in the CERF account, you could probably find these 10 wheelers, although I've been looking at this record for a few minutes and I still haven't found them. Mayor Lozeau Four pages in or so. Each page is... Alderman Donchess All I'm saying is there was no specific discussion of these 10 wheelers at the time of the budget. We simply assigned money, appropriated money into this list and that was it. At some point, someone might have gone over this with someone but not with the Budget Committee or with the Board of Aldermen at least in the last two budget cycles. Alderman Dowd I have no problem with you asking questions. That was fine and having somebody come to the meeting, that's fine as well. That's a different issue. As far as the CERF report, yes we did. We went over the CERF report in a lot of detail. Alderman Deane asked a number of questions about different vehicles. I don't remember this 10 wheeler specifically but there was a whole bunch of other vehicles that they had questions on. So we have gone over the CERF report. In the CERF report, it dictates what's going to purchased in this budget year. So when we approved the budget - monies for the CERF for this year that was in there. Mayor Lozeau Yes it was Alderman Dowd. Alderwoman Brown Well thank you. This has been quite the learning experience for us. Unfortunately this decision was made to table this motion two weeks ago. It would have been nice if we could have gotten our questions together and submitted them but we didn't. Maybe it's because there are new members on the Board so we're just learning. Oh yeah so it was approved. In detail it was explained. Maybe the Finance Committee right now we need all that detail up front. Especially for such a huge expense like this. I hope that we can maybe discuss this at the full Board meeting next week. Would that be appropriate since its been approved by the Board? Finance – 03/19/14 Page 18 Mayor Lozeau I certainly wouldn't say what is appropriate or not for a full Board of Aldermen meeting. I was speaking specifically to tomorrow night's meeting because that was a meeting I held some responsibility for having called it. Again, I would say that it is worthwhile at this stage knowing that the other piece of the truck is coming along to wait it out, have the conversation at the Board of Public Works, get the final numbers for what we're putting on the cab and chassis, find out if the Board of Public Works doesn't have a problem with a staff member coming. It would be appreciated to have the information and then we'll take it from there. It's important to get the trucks on the road but it's going to take some time for fit up. I'm not happy that we're waiting but at this stage, I think it's the right thing to do. Alderman Deane Yeah let's understand something. When we buy the cab and chassis, we can't do anything with it. It sits. We've purchased trucks before that have sat down at the Street Department parking lot for months on end. It didn't move because they hadn't specked out other components to make the vehicle whole. So it's not like we're in a crisis situation on these trucks. I agree with the Mayor. Let's figure out what the rest of it is - the cost of the rest of the stuff is and what the vehicle is complete. That's all. We have $181,913 per vehicle and that's for the dump body, the plows, the wing plow, the plow in the front, and all the sanding attachment along with the fit up. The dump body takes more than just 4 bolts to hold it on. So there's a lot of work associated with building one of those trucks into making it functional and it's a big piece of equipment. I don't - like the Mayor said, there's no harm in waiting and she's going to discuss with the DPW folks. I really don't think this is a discussion to be had at the full Board of Aldermen's meeting. I think once the Mayor comes back with the rest of the stuff and maybe by then, the components associated with the rest of the truck will be presented to the Finance Committee. One never knows what can happen in the next couple of weeks. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Lozeau Thank you. I think we all when we start learning new things. So when I got here, one of the first things I learned was the CERF program wasn't funded, and needed to be purged, and gone through, and each department - I mean it was a long exercise. It was more than a year to go through that exercise and then come up with a plan that we have before you and then fund it. Alderman Donchess I actually agree with Alderman Dowd's general description of what happened. I think we made the appropriation into the CERF account. We did talk about - I'm sure Alderman Deane asked questions about some of these items but I don't think we discussed the 10 wheel dump trucks. I don't think that came up. So yeah there was the ability to probably figure out that we would have something like this but you know we spent an hour on this or whatever the amount of time is out of six weeks of every night until 10 o'clock. The only point I'm making is no one said okay here are the 10 wheel dump trucks. They're in this year's budget. We're going to be buying them and then we said okay why do you need them. There was nothing like that. There was nothing like that that's all. Mayor Lozeau I guess the point that the Board of Public Works is trying to make, I think that is not necessarily something being accepted is. It's not up to the Aldermen to decide if they have 10 wheel trucks, or 6 wheel trucks, or 2 wheel trucks if one could get away with that. It's the responsibility of the Board of Public Works to determine the equipment that they need. If the Budget Committee and the Board of Aldermen gave them $100,000 and said this is all you get for vehicles this year, then I think that that Board would be able a little stymied and they'd have to look at other things. The CERF plan was done in good faith with both departments. There's never been a time that I think any of us can recall where somebody took a vehicle or Finance – 03/19/14 Page 19 something that the Board of Public Works determined was a necessary job the funds have been appropriated for and then said we want you to explain why you have it. I mean that's the bottom line fundamental disagreement here. That's what took the Board of Public Works aback. This reports been done. The information has been out there. The Board made the decision. This is what they think they need. It's just a circumstance that they were taken aback with and thought why would we - I would disagree then. It would have to go back to the full Board of Aldermen if they changed from a 6 wheel to a 4 wheel or a 10 wheel. It would have to go back to the Board of Public Works. I think that's where the struggle is. I don't think this struggle has occurred before because this situation hasn't arisen before. It's always been a very cooperative thing. When you look back and say boy for 50 years the Board of Public Works contracts have been coming to Finance. Why wouldn't that keep happening? Well it happened. I don't know why but it was always a very cooperative thing. If it's not going to be a cooperative thing, I think that's when people ask questions and that's when boards get into struggles on where one's responsibility ends and another's begins. The Board of Public Works has certainly had a lot of attention since I've come along because - and it's not because I've come along I should clarify that - because of the projects that have happened since I've been here. Take an $80 million road project like the Broad Street Parkway. That came along and the Board of Public Works it's the first time they had to look at building a road of that - having the oversight for that. So there was some struggle there. As a matter of fact, the Board of Public Works voted against the Broad Street Parkway some of you recall. So it had to come back to the Board of Aldermen for the Board of Aldermen to take a vote to say, we want to build this road. Now you have the oversight of that road. Now the Board of Public Works could have said well we're not going to vote for any of the contracts for the Broad Street Parkway because we voted against it and they didn't do that. Legal told them you don't to say we're going to stop it this way. You said no. The Board of Aldermen said yes. Here's the money do your job. They did their job. Then along comes the Main Street sidewalk project. First time it's been done in 30 years. Who's responsible for that? Oversight goes to the Board of Public Works, again. So you take a couple of very prominent projects and it's bound to have some struggle. I have faith we'll figure it out. Alderman Dowd I do agree with Alderman Deane on point if you want to address the entire cost of the vehicle since you're right. It's not usable until you fit it out. To address the two costs together, that makes sense. Mayor Lozeau Particular because CERF is an estimate. Alderman Chasse would you like to take a vote on the motion before us? Alderman Siegel Just a point of order. So a no vote would be to leave it on the table? Mayor Lozeau That would be correct. Alderman Siegel Thank you Madam Chair. MOTION FAILED Finance – 03/19/14 Page 20 From: Robert Gabriel, Purchasing Manager Re: Purchase of 2 Freightliner 10 Wheel Dump Trucks For Street Department (Value: $222,204) Fund: Capital Equipment Reserve Fund; Accounting Classification: 81 Capital Outlay Balance After Purchase – $3,436,950  Tabled 2/19/14 NEW BUSINESS - None POSTPONED TO A TIME DEFINITE O-14-011 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Michael Soucy REGARDING FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENTS  Postponed to Next Finance Mtg – 3/5/14 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGELTO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-011 ON THE QUESTION Mayor Lozeau You may recall we postponed this to the next Finance Committee meeting. MOTION ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO AMEND BY DELETING THE LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST LINE OF 591 "BE AMENDED AS TO ITS TERMS OR SCOPE OF WORK" SO THAT IT NOW READS "NO CONTRACT OVER $10,000 MAY BE TERMINATED OR BE AMENDED AS TO INCREASE SUMS PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR WITHOUT FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVAL" ON THE QUESTION Mayor Lozeau Let me just clarify so I understand. So you're saying any sum? Alderman Donchess Yes. Mayor Lozeau So not for changes that have no financial impact whether it's scope, terms, or length of time, you're concentrating simply on any dollar amount? Alderman Donchess Or termination. You, Madam Mayor, last meeting raised the issue of the - I asked for an example of when would this cause a problem. Then you raised the issue of the asbestos situation with the Broad Street Parkway. There was a need to adjust the scope of the work there or something like that. I think that that could have been handled - if this Ordinance as originally drafted were in place, you still would have had the out to make a written finding which can always occur and this is not changing. The amendment is required Finance – 03/19/14 Page 21 to avoid substantial financial loss. I think still that situation that you described could be handled even with the unamended version but you did make the point. I understand what you were saying. So based upon the example you gave us, I have suggested an amendment which would accommodate that example that under the amended version that I just proposed, you would be able to make that adjustment in the scope of the work in the way that you described. What's left is if you want to increase the amount of a contract in an amount of money or if you want to terminate it, you need Finance Committee approval. That's the amendment that I've offered. Mayor Lozeau I'll just say I appreciate you giving some consideration of one of the concerns I raised. I would, however, say that many of my other concerns still remain particularly no dollar amount. I think the $10,000 amount is not unreasonable. I understand that you and others are concerned about what happened with the branding initiative. It was not intentional on my part to do something that would have concerned the Committee. As a matter of fact, I think the Committee and the full Board would have been perfectly fine with what the Director proposed and what ended up happening. I was trying to think of some other examples so that the Committee would understand that every document that comes to the Finance Committee has backup information. It all takes time to put together. Whether it costs nothing or something, it still takes an amount of time to put things together. The deadline is two weeks before the Finance Committee for things to come on it and then the week that the Finance Committee meeting happens, it occurred to me the work being done upstairs in the auditorium there was a $500 change order. To stop that work, to have that company go do another job while we wait the 2 to 3 weeks to get through the Finance Committee for $500, you lose your place in the cue with the company and they're not going to charge you just $500 now for that part that they can pick and do while they're here. They're going to charge you for leaving, and coming back, and any disruption. You're going to have people that are going to overbid things. I was asking different business folks. What do you do in those circumstances? Well you overbid the job a little bit so that if something happens, there's not a problem. I don't think we want that to happen. I also don't want to send the message that the City is locked down and not open for business. This Finance Committee in the 6 years I've been here has on more than one occasion brought up the issue about well how come only two people bid on this or how come only one person bid? Why aren't more people interested? Because sometimes the message that our actions send is not we're open for business. It's not easy to do work with the City. I don't want to see everyone punished because there's an incident that concerned the Committee enough that they want the Mayor to say listen up. This is what we want to have happen. I just think that we should take that into consideration. The staff time and all of those things that happen on projects for zero change. I think that that's important to consider as well. Alderman Siegel Thank you Madam Chair. Actually I am pretty sympathetic to some of the arguments that you made. I'm pleased to see that Alderman Donchess has made some changes. I have thought about this myself and I understand how things can be somewhat difficult. The problem I have is I'm trying to reconcile this and I'm puzzled over this legislation and how best to satisfy the dual needs of some flexibility but also some measure of oversight because what concerns me is whether or not there's dollar amounts. We've seen specific instances where there were material changes to contracts. In particular branding initiative. Not so that it was terminated or not but the thing that was put in after Finance approval which changed the copyright ownerships which actually didn't cost anything per say. Nobody was charged money but has a material change in our rights even though it was in conflict with the boiler plate. I'm trying to figure out a way for myself to reconcile this notion of wanting to do business and be reasonably flexible. I think your example the painting is a good one and one we should pay attention to but I hope that there is some sensitivity on the other side where we've got these issues where through no fault of their own, I don't think anybody necessarily means to do something malicious but they'll make a change to a contract not understanding its deeper meanings and potentially cause some real grief. Now with the smaller dollar contracts, this may not matter but $10,000 is the threshold but very often we've got contracts that are quite large in scope. These minor changes could echo and be quite costly. At this point, I'm sensitive to both Finance – 03/19/14 Page 22 what Alderman Donchess is doing in changing this but also what you're saying also. I personally would like to spend some more time thinking about this with the arguments that have been so once again we can come to the best possible decision. I don't think we're just done yet. That's my opinion. MOTION BY ALDERMAN DONCHESS TO HOLD O-14-011 IN COMMITTEE MOTION CARRIED DISCUSSION RECORD OF EXPENDITURES Alderman Siegel In going through, I'd like to thank Mr. Griffin for answering several of my questions. I did have one question. I saw a line item for Kiplinger letter for the Board of Public Works. I'm just not clear why an investment letter needs to be put in the Admin. section of that. Perhaps you can clarify what the Board of Public Works is doing with a stock investment letter. Mayor Lozeau Well it's actually not the Board of Public Works that looks at it. It's actually the Director and some of her staff. My understanding is the value of that is understanding the commodities market when they're looking at things like paving and they're planning for trends, and they're looking at cost of goods. My understanding is that's been a report that they've had some luck using. I want to say it's under $100 for the subscription. Actually I think it's closer to $50. Alderman Siegel The line was $56. Mayor Lozeau So when we look through subscriptions when the budget is put together and we review them, it's just one that made sense to us. Alderman Siegel Thank you. I guess I'm not so much concerned about the dollar amount because I think we can all agree that that's not a huge amount but knowing the content of that particular periodical and that it comes out once a month, I guess I would be uncomfortable basing any strategic decisions on what's contained in there. It would be like James Kramer report based on my experience. Mayor Lozeau Who's James Kramer? Alderman Siegel The crazy guy on Mad Money. Mayor Lozeau Well I never knew his first name. Finance – 03/19/14 Page 23 Alderman Siegel That's my point. I think it's useful to certainly have information and definitely I understand the notion of paying attention to the futures market but one could argue the Wall Street Journal which comes out on a daily basis with pricing information which is a lot more useful than something as wildly speculative as the Kiplinger report. Just felt like I had to throw that out there. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CITY CHARTER AND ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE RECORD OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2014 TO MARCH 13, 2014 MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC COMMENT – None POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The Finance Committee meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Alderman Ken Siegel Committee Clerk