2026-09-16 - Finance Committee

00:00All right, we're going to call the

00:01meeting of the finance committee to

00:02order on September 16th, 2026.

00:07Um, Mr. Clerk, would you please call the

00:09role?

00:09>> Absolutely. Alderwoman Smith

00:11>> present.

00:12>> Alderman Sullivan is here. Alderwoman at

00:15large Greg.

00:18Alderman at large Clemens

00:20>> here.

00:22>> Alderwoman at large Lori Wilshshire

00:24>> here.

00:26Alderwoman uh Cle Vice Chair

00:31>> um

00:31>> and Mayor Jim Donas.

00:32>> Alderwoman Cle contacted me to say that

00:35she has a health um issue and could not

00:38come tonight.

00:39>> We have five here.

00:41>> All right. Next issue is public comment.

00:43Is there any member of the public who

00:45wishes to address the finance committee

00:47on any of tonight's

00:50uh agenda items?

00:52>> Lori Ordano Nasha. Um I think the uh

00:55audit is the audit on the agenda. Yeah.

00:57I just had a couple things I wanted to

01:00mention about the audit. Um I'd like to

01:03try and understand why the report comes

01:06out so late. Like this is the 2024 2425

01:10report for the closing and it takes like

01:1315 16 months to get here which seems

01:16like a long time and longer than it used

01:18to be. And I'm not certain how helpful

01:20it is when you're doing the next budget

01:22cycle when it still takes two budget

01:25cycles to get the information. Um, so

01:29I'd like to and I think in the past it

01:31was done earlier. So there's something

01:33that makes it more difficult now to do

01:35that and I'd like to understand that

01:37back maybe three years ago I came here

01:39and I asked about discrepancies and how

01:42they get identified by the audit firm

01:44and I understand that the firm this

01:46isn't an audit it's a review and I think

01:49the firm depends on what the city

01:51provides it but I raised the issue of a

01:54$7.1 million loan that was taken out in

01:57support of the construction of an art

01:59center and it's not on the financial

02:01statements And if you follow GAP and

02:03Gatsby um for your own policies, I don't

02:06understand why this loan never got

02:10recorded on the books and never got an

02:12answer to it. There's also a $9.5

02:14million loan that the city of Nasha

02:16co-signed and that's never been entered

02:18into the financial statements and that

02:20was also relative to the art center. And

02:23even though that loan might have been

02:25prohibited under some of the RSA

02:27chapters when it came to loaning out

02:28money to a private company, the bottom

02:30line is we did uh it is a loan and

02:34somehow it doesn't end up on our books.

02:36Um, the other thing is in 2025

02:40January, I filed a complaint with the

02:42DOJ regarding co-mingling of funds in

02:45our trust funds. And in January of 2026,

02:48the DOJ came out and said there was an

02:50issue and the trust funds did have a

02:53co-mingling of funds. And I don't know

02:56how you come to realize this when you

02:58look at the 25 that was records based on

03:0124 and 25. I don't know if the trust

03:04funds are part of this financial report,

03:06which would be the MS9s and Tens. I

03:09think looking back at past um financial

03:12audit reports, MS9s and 10s were part of

03:15the um review process, but I'm not

03:17certain they are now. And how how does

03:20that get caught analyzed? What does it

03:23mean? And what's the correction to that?

03:25So, that's the co-mingling of funds that

03:27is not compliant with RSA 98 91. I mean

03:31the RSA and I don't know the chapter um

03:34the RSA is for um independent accounting

03:37of trust fund money. Um and the other

03:40thing is you know collecting outstanding

03:42property taxes. I wonder if an audit

03:45firm does anything to put pressure on a

03:48city to get those taxes collected.

03:51Wastewater bills.

03:52>> 30 seconds please.

03:53>> Um I think that's an issue too. And we

03:56are now um putting leans on people who

04:00are not paying wastewater. But that

04:02started in 2025. Prior to that 2024, we

04:06were not putting any leans. And we have

04:08a lot of outstanding debt going back to

04:112004

04:13on wastewater bills. What's the write

04:15off procedure to deal with those things?

04:18Um so those are some of my thoughts and

04:22questions and I'm done.

04:24>> Yeah. Thank you.

04:28>> All right. Um, we have next on the

04:31agenda is the pre Well, is there anyone

04:33else from the public who wishes to

04:34address the committee?

04:37Uh, if not, the next issue is the

04:39presentation of the audit. So, I will

04:42turn it over to uh CFO Enright and our

04:46auditors.

04:48>> Thank you, Mayor and Chair. Um, Don

04:50Enright, CFO. Um this evening uh we are

04:54here to talk about the um FY25 uh audit.

04:59You in front of you you have a copy of

05:02the report the ACRA that has been

05:06presented by CBIZ on the audit of the

05:10engagement. Um before we get into the

05:13overview of it I just wanted to

05:16introduce everybody to the uh new comp

05:19patroller for the city Lisa Carl. She's

05:22sitting to my left. Uh she has been with

05:24the city almost 10 years and has been

05:27instrumental in um the FY25 and all of

05:31the audits going forward. Thank you very

05:33much, Lisa, for all of your hard work.

05:36Um and to my left I have uh Lara Stone

05:40who is the um engagement partner from

05:43Cabbiz um that has been assigned to the

05:47engagement of the city of NSHA's audit.

05:50In the past you have always seen uh

05:53Scott McIntyre. I'm happy to report for

05:56him that he has retired as of a week

05:59ago. So um good luck Scott. And um now

06:03I'd be like to turn it over to Lara

06:06Stone.

06:08>> Thank you. Hi everybody. I just want to

06:10start off by uh thanking everybody for

06:12having me here today. Um as Don noted,

06:16most of you don't know who I am. I'm

06:17Laura Stone. I am a partner with CBiz.

06:20I'm here on behalf of Scott McIntyre who

06:22did retire about a week ago. Um he was

06:25the engagement partner on your fiscal

06:27year 25 financial statements. I'm here

06:30because I'm going to be the engagement

06:31partner for FY26.

06:34So, I do have his notes. Um, I did talk

06:36to him about the audit. I will do my

06:39best to answer any questions, but as I

06:41was not part of the 25 audit, I may not

06:43have the answer on the top of my tongue

06:46right now, but I'm more than happy to

06:47take any questions or anything that you

06:50want me to kind of go back look and I

06:53will get those answers to you or to to

06:55Don and who can give those answers to

06:57you. Um, so just want to let you know

07:00that that's kind of the transition um,

07:02from Scott to myself as the partner on

07:05the engagement, but I'm just going to

07:06kind of dive in, do a top high level

07:08overview of the financial statements. If

07:11you want me to dig into anything in any

07:13further detail, please let me know. You

07:14have any questions, please feel free to

07:16stop me along the way. Happy to take

07:18those questions as we go.

07:21So, I'm just going to kind of start off

07:23um, with your highle financial

07:25statements. So you have a set of

07:27financial statements that are the

07:28entitywide financial statements. These

07:30start on page 32 of the big report that

07:33you have in front of you, the annual

07:35comprehensive financial report. That is

07:37the statement of net position. It kind

07:39of goes on page 32 to 33. This includes

07:42your long-term obligations and your

07:45long-term resources. So this statement

07:47will include your long-term debt, your

07:50net pension liability, your net other

07:52post-employment benefit liability, your

07:54capital assets, those long-term

07:56resources that are only reported on the

07:58full acral basis of accounting. So

08:01that's what you will see on page 3233,

08:03the full acrruel, long-term resources,

08:06long-term obligations.

08:09You can see on page 33, you know, your

08:11your big liabilities relate to net

08:13pension, net other post-employment

08:15benefits. Those are usually the type of

08:17liabilities everybody's like likes to

08:19talk about. Those make up about $39

08:21million um in your governmental

08:24activities related to those liabilities.

08:26That is why your unrestricted net

08:28position on page 33 is in a deficit.

08:31It's because of those long-term

08:33obligations.

08:36As we kind of work through the statement

08:38of activities on the following two

08:40pages, that's going to be your

08:42activities related to those long-term

08:44obligations and long-term resources. So

08:47all full acrruel information related to

08:49those changes in net position.

08:53Then on page 36, we kind of work our way

08:55down to the fund-based financial

08:57statements. So this is where you page 36

09:00here is your balance sheet. That

09:02includes your general fund or your

09:03general operations, your debt service

09:05fund, and you have a bunch of other

09:07funds that get co-mingled together into

09:09the non- major governmental funds. Now,

09:12you do have a comprehensive report. So,

09:14that column is broken out into further

09:16detail in the combining schedules in the

09:19back of the report. So, you have a lot

09:21of funds that are included in the back

09:23kind of broken out further detail that

09:25roll up into that non- major

09:26governmental fund. But individually,

09:28none of them rose to the importance of

09:30including them as a separate column in

09:33your financial statements. You can see

09:35your general fund unassigned fund

09:37balance is about $30.7 million.

09:40And your total fund balance is about

09:42106.4 million in the general fund. Your

09:45total unassigned is about 9% of your

09:48general fund expenditures, but you do

09:51have some fund balance included in

09:53non-spendable, which is mainly related

09:54to some prepaid expenses.

09:58And then on page 38 that is your

10:01statement of revenues, expenditures and

10:02changes in fund balance. So your

10:04activities related to those more current

10:07resources, your general fund more in the

10:09the modified acrruel basis of accounting

10:11that only includes short-term doesn't

10:13include any of the long-term obligations

10:15or long-term resources. You can see your

10:18general fund excess of revenues over

10:20expenditures were about 17.4 million,

10:22but your total change in fund balance

10:24was about 6.1. That's because you had

10:27about 12.4 million transferred out of

10:29the general fund. Half of that goes to

10:31fund about your capital projects about

10:34half. The other half went to subsidize

10:36the solid waste enterprise fund. So

10:39that's where that 12.4 12.1 million

10:42went.

10:44And then as we kind of walk through the

10:46the remaining pages of the financial

10:47statements here, page 42 and 43, those

10:52are your enterprise fund, your

10:53proprietary fund financial statements.

10:55You can see on page 43 that $6.3 million

10:59subsidy that I was just talking about

11:00from the general fund. That's a transfer

11:03into that solid waste fund. So you can

11:05see that that subsidizes that fund.

11:10And then page 44 that's the statement of

11:12cash flows for your proprietary your

11:15enterprise funds. The important thing on

11:16the statement of cash flows is just to

11:19um look at you know your your net cash

11:20provided by from operating activities

11:23exceeds your principal and interest

11:25payments on debt in in those individual

11:28funds including the subsidy in from the

11:30general fund on the solid waste fund.

11:36And then page 46 and 47, that's your

11:39fiduciary net position. Um, you have a

11:42pension trust fund, private purpose

11:43trust funds, and some custodial

11:45activity. Your pension trust fund

11:47relates to the small pension system that

11:49has the public works employees included.

11:52The other um liabilities related to that

11:54as part of the state system.

11:59And then page 48 and 49 relate to the

12:02component units of the city. We'll talk

12:05about that um in kind of towards the end

12:07of the presentation. I want to talk a

12:08little bit more about Penachuck, but

12:10that'll be towards towards the end when

12:12we kind of go through the rest of the

12:14financial statements here.

12:18That's it for the actual financial

12:19statements. You the next section is a a

12:22lot of footnotes which just provide

12:23further detail over the financial

12:25statements themselves. um they're they

12:28go into some some big detail about the

12:31individual information that kind of

12:33supports the amounts that are in the

12:34financial statements. So there's a lot

12:36in there. I'm not going to read through

12:37every single uh statement there, but um

12:40you have some schedules on page 110,

12:43starting on page 110. This is included

12:46your required supplementary information.

12:48So, it provides kind of 10-year trend

12:50analysis analyses over your net pension

12:53liability and your net other

12:54post-employment benefit liability. These

12:57trend schedules are good to look at

12:58because you can really see kind of how

13:00that liability has changed over the past

13:0210 years.

13:08And that's it for kind of I know I kind

13:10of flew flew through a high level

13:11overview of the financial statements. I

13:13do want to address one more item um

13:16related to the component units. I know

13:18it kind of talked about that when we

13:20looked at the component unit financial

13:22statements themselves, but if you turn

13:24to page 15, that's the opinion on the

13:27financial statements.

13:30Didn't have a chance to kind of flip

13:31there, but page 15 in a government

13:34report, there are um many different

13:37opinion units. So, there's an opinion

13:39unit over each column of the financial

13:41statements that we kind of just walked

13:42through. And you can see that each

13:45opinion has an unmodified opinion except

13:47for one about the third one down the um

13:50discreetly presented component units has

13:53an adverse opinion that is solely

13:55related to Penach Corporation and you

13:58can see on the next page about halfway

14:01through there's a paragraph in there

14:03explaining that adverse opinion and a

14:07summary of that is that it was

14:09determined this year that Penachuk

14:11Corporation given its relationship ship

14:13from a board perspective with the city

14:16qualifies to be reported under

14:18government accounting standards boards

14:20the framework under the gazsby model

14:23because of that they had to convert

14:26their financial statements to conform to

14:29that gazsby model and in doing so they

14:31realized that this is not what the users

14:34of the financial statements are looking

14:35for this is not what they're used to

14:37this is not what was used to kind of set

14:39the rates it's not what the bond

14:40agencies were looking for on penetr

14:42side. So they determined management over

14:45there determined that the users of the

14:47financial statements were more

14:49accustomed to seeing a fazby financial

14:51accounting standards board um model for

14:54their financial statements. So they

14:56elected to have a dual opinion. So a

14:59dual opinion was they had an unmodified

15:02opinion over the fazby financial

15:05statements. to all of their financial

15:07statements under the FASBY model and

15:09then they had an adverse opinion under

15:10the Gazsby model because they didn't go

15:12through the process of converting to

15:15Gazsby amounts in their financial

15:17statements. Because of that, they got

15:19that dual opinion

15:21because they are a component unit of the

15:23city. the city almost inherits that

15:26opinion and because that opinion

15:28included an adverse opinion the city had

15:31to report an adverse opinion only over

15:34the discreetly presented component units

15:37which includes Penachuk. So that that is

15:40why that occurred in the financial

15:43statements that way this year.

15:47That's all I had to talk about. I'm

15:50happy to take any questions. I will do

15:52my best to try to to answer them, but

15:54again, if I don't know the answer, I

15:55will get the answer to you.

15:57>> Alderman Wilshire.

15:58>> Thank you. Um, so the Fazby verse

16:02Gatsby,

16:04>> why why now? Why this year? What

16:06happened that they all of a sudden have

16:08to report under a different structure?

16:11>> Yep. So, it is my understanding this

16:12year that the there was a change in the

16:14makeup of the board that um the bylaws

16:16of Penachuk this year. Not that didn't

16:19change the solution or the the

16:22conclusion. What it did was it caused us

16:24to kind of look into that relationship

16:27re re-evaluate that relationship and it

16:30was determined that because of that

16:33relationship between the city and

16:34Penachuk that it should have been Penach

16:37was technically considered a government

16:39that should be reporting under Gazby

16:41standards. So that change that would

16:44that occurred in fiscal year 25

16:47caused us to re-evaluate

16:50that relationship.

16:51>> Followup.

16:52>> Yes, of course.

16:53>> Is that because we we added two people

16:55from the city to their board of

16:57directors?

16:57>> Yes.

16:59>> Thank you.

17:01>> Alderman Sullivan.

17:03>> Thank you. Uh understanding that you're,

17:05you know, you're probably a week into

17:07this. Um, but did you see any warning

17:11signs, declining revenues, rising costs,

17:15deferred maintenance, anything that that

17:17popped out at you as you look through

17:18it?

17:18>> Nothing that popped out as I was going

17:20through, but I did not do a detailed

17:22review of the financial statements. I

17:24did not do a detailed review of the

17:26audit. I will in the next upcoming when

17:30is the 26th audit in December. So over

17:32the next couple of months,

17:34>> I will be diving in as the partner on

17:36the engagement into the 2026 audit that

17:40is occurring over the next couple of

17:41months and I will be doing that deep

17:43detailed review over the actual trends

17:47and the financial statements themselves.

17:49>> Okay. Followup.

17:50>> Yes.

17:51Uh so as we're going through this fiscal

17:54year and again you're going to be taking

17:57a deep dive but what what I want to see

18:01uh any trends that as we start to go

18:04into a new budget season that you're

18:06identifying

18:08um either something that we overbudget

18:11underbudget I mean that would be really

18:14helpful to take a look at as well.

18:17>> Absolutely. You do have your budget on

18:19um see here page 40 does have the budget

18:23to actual. You can see what kind of was

18:26turned back from total expenditures. You

18:28did turn back 11.2 million of what you

18:32actually spent versus what you budgeted

18:35>> and you over collected by 12 almost 13

18:38million. So you know in seeing that you

18:40did have some some turnbacks u related

18:43to your budget to actual. So what

18:46exactly makes those up? I I don't have

18:48off the top of my head. But just high

18:50level looking at the budget, you weren't

18:53overspending your budget, which is

18:56wouldn't be wouldn't be ideal here.

18:58Wouldn't be good. So the fact that

18:59you're not overspending your budget is,

19:01you know, that's not the red flag here.

19:03But you do have 11.2 million of

19:05turnbacks.

19:06>> Okay. Thank you. [snorts]

19:07>> Yep.

19:09>> Alderman Clemens.

19:11>> Thank you. Um, yeah, I'd like to and and

19:15it doesn't have to be tonight, but I

19:17would like to know a little bit more

19:19about the um

19:22the Gazsby verse Fazby standard because

19:25the

19:27Penach the way that the Penach is

19:30structured,

19:32I think you'd be hardressed to find

19:34another example of that in the United

19:36States. There's probably one, I think

19:39maybe in Georgia.

19:41Um, so you know, it's interesting to

19:46that that opinion that you've got that

19:49opinion. Um, because there's nothing

19:52really to base it on in in the sense of

19:54like looking at other, you know, cities

19:58that own a corporation. Um, so you know

20:03from from that point of view I I I guess

20:06I would like to know a little bit more

20:08about why that opinion or how that

20:10opinion was was formulated.

20:12>> Yep.

20:12>> Yes. So um the first thing that is

20:16looked at from that perspective is the

20:18AICPA's definition of a government. And

20:20I do have the codification section here,

20:22but um there are three bullet points

20:25that indicate that if you are in a

20:28situation where you match any one of

20:30those, you're automatically considered

20:32for Gazsby reporting. And the one that

20:35you qualified for was popular election

20:37of officers or appointment or approval

20:40of a controlling majority of the members

20:42of the entity's governing body by

20:44officials of one or more state or local

20:46governments. So the board has approval

20:50authority over well the city has

20:51approval authority over the board of

20:53Penerchuk and that was the defining

20:56that's it's clearly stated in the AICPA

20:59guidance this one bullet one two three

21:01if you qualify for any one of those you

21:03automatically are reporting under Gazsby

21:06statements

21:09>> Clemens and correct me if I'm wrong but

21:11I I my understanding was that once a

21:16that that is true for the initial

21:18appointment, but um but that it's not

21:22the majority of the board and that the

21:25board of directors actually appoints

21:26their own their own members

21:29unless we change that.

21:36>> You want me to answer that? Well, we do

21:40the the they they they nominate, but the

21:42board here uh has to approve the has to

21:46approve members. But my question

21:49following up on Alman Wilshshire is

21:53except that's been happening since 2012.

21:56So, we're 14 years or 13 14 years into

21:59this and why, you know, so suddenly it's

22:04an issue. Um,

22:06I think that's hard to understand.

22:09>> Yeah, that's understandable. Um, the

22:14information that I have on it is that

22:16the change this year that occurred

22:19caused the audit team of Penichuk to

22:23re-evaluate

22:25the determination that was made back

22:28when the purchase occurred.

22:32So that re-evaluation

22:35>> and what change did they make from Gazby

22:37to Fazby or FA? What change did they

22:39make?

22:40>> Penach ch that that caused us to

22:43re-evaluate was the the change in the

22:46makeup of appointing two more members to

22:48the board. So that change in the bylaws

22:50of Penachuk caused the audit team of

22:53Penachuk to re-evaluate

22:55the relationship of the bylaws between

22:59the city and Penachuk

23:00>> resulting in what I mean. Okay. So they

23:02re-evaluated but what change did they

23:05suggest or

23:06>> Yeah. So when we when

23:07>> the team re-evaluated that position went

23:11back to the ASCPA definition of a

23:13government noted that the first bullet

23:15point in that definition did constitute

23:19Penach that should have been reported

23:22under Gazsby. So Penachuk should have

23:25been reported under the Gazsby

23:26framework. And because that information

23:29was now determined

23:31and they didn't report under the Gazsby

23:33framework, they got an adverse opinion

23:35over Gazsby, but that dual opinion, they

23:38got a clean opinion under Fazby.

23:40>> So they're they they have been reporting

23:43under Fazby this entire time.

23:44>> Yes.

23:45>> And now they decide they should have

23:46been reporting under Gazsby.

23:48>> Correct.

23:49>> And they still want to report under

23:51Fazby.

23:52>> Correct. because they have various

23:54constituents who

23:56maybe want it or demand it.

23:59>> Correct. It is my understanding that

24:01management of Penach and I don't want to

24:03speak for Penach, but this is the

24:06understanding is that they um the users

24:08of the financial statements would be

24:10more accustomed to making decisions

24:12based off of Fazby numbers.

24:16That is my understanding. I again I

24:18don't want to speak for Penachuck and

24:19the decisions that were made on the

24:21behalf of the Penach team or the Penach

24:23management.

24:26>> Alman Sullivan,

24:27>> thank you. Just going back to that, I

24:30know we're really picking on this.

24:31>> Y

24:32>> and

24:33the the timing and and somebody

24:36refreshed my memory, but this was for

24:39fiscal year 25. It was I thought we made

24:43those changes in fiscal year 26, didn't

24:45we?

24:48Well, so my question is if if we made

24:51the changes if we made if we made the

24:54additions and the changes to the bylaws

24:56in a fiscal year after the audit is

25:01actually looking at

25:03it. Obviously, this isn't anything

25:05that's retroactive. This is go forward,

25:09correct? So it wouldn't have mattered

25:11when that decision was made because it

25:15should have been Gazsby before.

25:17>> Okay. All right. So you

25:21>> Okay. All right.

25:22>> The previous board makeup and the

25:24previous relationship between Penach and

25:27the city. Um that wouldn't have changed

25:30the adding the two members didn't change

25:31the determination that it qualified

25:33under that first bullet under ASICPA.

25:36>> That was my question. Mayor,

25:38>> what was it? Do you want to?

25:39>> No, she just answered my question.

25:41>> Okay.

25:42>> Thank you.

25:43>> One follow

25:44>> Alman Sullivan.

25:45>> Thank you. Uh public comment uh

25:46mentioned about the timing as far as you

25:49know we're in fiscal year 27 now. This

25:51is fiscal year 25. Can you speak to

25:53that?

25:54>> I can't speak to the timing of the 25

25:57audit. I know that the penachuk

25:59determinations were being made. Um but I

26:02don't know if you want to speak to that.

26:04>> Yeah done and right CFO I can speak to

26:07that. um everything was was going

26:10smoothly and then in March when the

26:13issue arose with Penachuk uh the audit

26:17firm need needed to pull their staffing

26:19off of the city of Nshawa in order to um

26:23give attention to the issue with Penach

26:25because without the financials for

26:27Penichuk they couldn't complete our

26:29audit. So we were delayed due to the

26:32issue that had arisen with Pendachuk's

26:36uh financial statements.

26:37>> Okay.

26:39>> Thank you.

26:39>> Yeah.

26:44>> Um I did have a question. You at the

26:46beginning you pointed out that um

26:49there's some significant liabilities

26:52uh particularly the pension liability.

26:55Um

26:57and um I believe what you've what you're

27:00talking about is that um as uh because

27:04the city is part of the state pension

27:06system that the

27:10um underfunding of the state pension

27:14system uh the Nashville share of that is

27:18being attributed to us as a liability

27:20even though we don't have nothing to we

27:22have nothing to do with it but except

27:24that our employees are within the within

27:26the pension uh within their pension

27:29system. Correct.

27:31>> Correct. Yes, you are you are assessed a

27:33proportionate share of that liability

27:35and they are scheduled to be fully

27:37funded by I have it here 2039. So by

27:40[clears throat] 2039 the state plans to

27:42have that fully funded. Don't know if

27:44that will happen but that's the current

27:47funding schedule.

27:48>> Theoretically that's what they say. Yes.

27:51Um, all right.

27:54Uh, anyone else have questions?

28:01All right. Do you have anything to add?

28:02Uh, Miss Enryight?

28:05>> I do not. Thank you.

28:06>> Miss Carl, anything?

28:07>> I do not. Thank you.

28:08>> Anyway, well, thank you for coming.

28:10>> Thank you.

28:11>> Thank you.

28:31All right, we're now on to

28:33communications. Uh, first communication

28:35from Amy Gerard, purchasing manager,

28:37Alderman Sullivan. I'd like to make a

28:39motion to accept, place on file, and

28:41approve a one-year contract with Palmer

28:42and Sicard Incorporated for service and

28:46preventative maintenance on HVAC systems

28:49at all of the fire department facilities

28:51and the amount not to exceed $25,710.

28:55Funding will be through Department 152,

28:57Fire Rescue Fund, General Fund54

29:01Property Services.

29:05>> Hi, good evening. Go ahead. assistant

29:07fire chief. Uh this is our I believe our

29:10fourth year uh utilizing Parlard. We've

29:13had a great relationship with them. Um

29:16the increase over last year is about

29:19$510, which considering uh the way

29:22things are increasing in price. I don't

29:23think that's bad. Uh the hourly rate has

29:26gone up about $10 an hour. Uh but still

29:29far below market value. And most

29:32importantly, when we have an issue, we

29:34get same day service for them. Our

29:36relationship with them has been really

29:38good. They recognize that we're a

29:3924-hour emergency services provider.

29:42We'd like to stay with them.

29:46>> Alman Sullivan,

29:47>> thank you. Does this include the does

29:49the 25,000 does that include parts and

29:52labor or just labor?

29:54>> Uh, it includes

29:57everything listed on the second page. Um

30:00they come out twice a year preventative

30:02maintenance. They change belts. They

30:04change filters. Uh they take readings on

30:06the the equipment, make sure it's dialed

30:08in. Um filters and belts, stuff like

30:11that is included.

30:13>> Okay.

30:14>> Um some of our equipment requires them

30:15to rent a lift as well to access it.

30:18>> Okay.

30:20>> Just follow.

30:20>> Yes, of course.

30:21>> So during th during those visits, if

30:23there's any anything that they identify

30:26that that needs replacing, that's over

30:28and above. Correct.

30:29>> Yeah.

30:29>> Yep. I get a work order from them every

30:31time they do something on site. If they

30:34find something else, it's sent to me a

30:36work order with a quote to uh repair it.

30:40>> Thank you.

30:45>> All right. All those in favor of the

30:46motion say I.

30:47>> I.

30:47>> Opposed. Motion passes. Next

30:50communication from Amy Gerard,

30:52purchasing manager. Alderman Sullivan.

30:54like to make a motion to accept, place

30:55on file, and award a contract with New

30:57England Holiday Light Company for the

30:59installation of Holiday Lighting in

31:01downtown NSHA in the amount not to

31:03exceed $26,100.

31:06Funding will be through Department 183,

31:09Economic Development Fund, Downtown

31:11Improvements, ETF68,

31:14other expenses.

31:19>> Liz Hanam, economic development

31:20director. Um the downtown improvement

31:22committee is um recommending use of this

31:27amount to um do permanent lighting on

31:30the trees in the downtown. Um they have

31:33um usually done it just for the holiday

31:36season and have decided that they would

31:37like to add a little bit more flare

31:39regularly downtown. Um, and then there

31:42will be another contract to um do things

31:46like the the um the tree the planters

31:49that are outside of city hall and um

31:52more of the the wreaths and things like

31:55that later. Um, but this would just be

31:57for the 50 or so trees that are

31:59downtown. Um, I think it's only 35 of

32:02them that actually have electrical

32:04available to them, but this would be

32:06year round permanent. Um and they um are

32:10recommending that that you approve this.

32:18>> All right.

32:19Uh all those in favor of the motion say

32:21I.

32:22>> I. I.

32:22>> Opposed. Motion passes. Thank you.

32:26>> Next communication from Amy Gerard,

32:27purchasing manager. Alderman Sullivan.

32:29I'd like to make a motion to accept,

32:31place on file, and award a sewer flow

32:34metering and capacity analysis contract

32:37for a casino project on Tara Boulevard

32:40to Hazen and Sawyer, PC in the amount

32:44not to exceed $34,880.

32:49Funding will be through a department 160

32:51admin engineering fund financed by the

32:55casino project applicant.

32:58>> And Mr. Hudson is on Zoom.

33:01>> Yes. Good evening. Dan Hudson, city

33:02engineers. So, as described, this is a

33:05contract that will be funded by the

33:06casino applicant. Uh we they they'll it

33:11will hire Hazy and Sawyer, who maintains

33:12our sewer model. Uh Hazen and Sawyer

33:16will be engaged to expand that sewer

33:19model and calibrate it in the area of

33:21this proposed casino. um so we have a

33:24better understanding of sewer flows and

33:25just ensure that we have sufficient

33:27capacity for this development. I'd be

33:29happy to address any questions.

33:32>> Alman Sullivan,

33:33>> thank you. I just want to clarify, Mr.

33:35Hudson, as I read it,

33:39the city's going to hire the people to

33:41do it, but the casino is going to pay

33:42for it.

33:44>> That's that's exactly right. The

33:46contract Hazen will have will be with

33:48the uh but when we pay them, we'll

33:51withdraw money from uh an account that's

33:53been funded by the casino applicant.

33:56>> Thank you, sir.

33:57>> Welcome.

34:00>> All those in favor of the motion, please

34:02say I.

34:03>> I.

34:04>> Motion passes. Next communication from

34:07Amy Gerard, purchasing manager, Alderman

34:09Sullivan. I'd like to make a motion to

34:11accept place on file and award a

34:13contract with TransDev Incorporated for

34:16the transit operations to include fixed

34:18route and paratransit service in the

34:20amount not to exceed 9,789,870.

34:26Funding will be through department 186

34:28transportation fund transit service

34:31operations 55 other services.

34:37>> Mr. Sullivan.

34:38>> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Committee members,

34:39Matt Sullivan, community development

34:40director, here on behalf of a $9.7

34:44million uh new contract with the city's

34:47transit operational provider, TransDev.

34:49Uh I've actually given you a little bit

34:51of background on this because I've been

34:52before you for two amendments over the

34:54last three months to talk about this uh

34:56and sort of I updated you on our

34:58contract negotiations during those

34:59discussions. and we are we're very very

35:02close. But I'm going to get to uh what

35:03the contract is before you and what some

35:05of the remaining items are that we look

35:07to uh resolve over the next year. Uh but

35:10before you quite simply is a uh a $9.7

35:13million contract. That $9.7 million not

35:15to exceed value is for 2.75 years. It's

35:20from essentially October 1st through

35:23June 30th of 2029.

35:26Uh the reason for that is that we are

35:27currently three months into our

35:29operating year and so we're rounding out

35:32that and ending the fiscal year in 2029

35:34uh with with this contract. At that time

35:37we'll have the option to opt into two

35:40each being a separate decision

35:41additional extension years uh bringing

35:44the total potential contract length to

35:46seven years. It's sort of similar to the

35:48way we'd structured our contract in the

35:50past with transdev. We had in fact a

35:525111

35:54which was was an 8-year maximum. We're

35:56now doing a seven-year maximum 322. Uh

35:59the reason for that is that we have

36:00found and you have experienced if you've

36:02been on the board during the last couple

36:04years, we've found that CDL pricing and

36:06wages are are fairly volatile. We've had

36:09to be responsive to transit in the past

36:10to based on the market in the region,

36:12particularly during COVID. and we

36:14actually believe that a shorter term

36:16contract allows us to do that while also

36:18ensuring the city's negotiation position

36:20is strong uh when going back to the

36:22transit provider. That said, the 322 in

36:26front of you, we we do have guaranteed

36:27pricing for the three years and then the

36:29two years that follow. Years six and

36:32seven, if we choose to opt into those at

36:34a later time, we would have to come back

36:36to you, of course, uh, and with pricing

36:38in hand. It would be subject to further

36:40approval from the finance committee and

36:41obviously the board of alderman based on

36:43the value. But I just wanted to give you

36:44that sense of structure before I talk a

36:46little bit about what's changed in this

36:48contract. Um, as folks are aware,

36:50Transit provides both our fixed route

36:52services, the regular bus routes that

36:54you see in the city. They also provide

36:55our ADA paratransit. They also provide

36:58all of the support to our uh contractual

37:00services with municipalities and area

37:02agencies as well. um based on the fact

37:05that they are operating both CDL and

37:07nonCDL equipment. One critical change in

37:09this contract that we're bringing to you

37:11is that we're actually proposing to bill

37:14uh their hourly variable rate as it's

37:16referred to at two different values

37:18today. Our current contract, they bill

37:20us one flat variable rate and it could

37:23be either a CDL or a nonCDL driver

37:26that's operating. Obviously, a CDL

37:28driver is more expensive. NonCDL is

37:30cheaper. We're seeing more nonCDLs

37:33deployed based on our current vehicle

37:35fleet. So what we'd like to do and what

37:37we agreed to ultimately with transdev

37:39with this contract is to actually bill

37:41at separate rates. So what we're getting

37:42build is reflective of the vehicles that

37:44are out on the road. And so in the event

37:46that we need to have more nonCDL

37:48vehicles out, it's cheaper for the city.

37:51If we have more CDL vehicles, yes, it's

37:53more expensive, but generally the trend

37:55has been that we have more nonCDL

37:56vehicles on the road over the last

37:58couple years. And so that's a new uh

38:00structure that we've built into this. It

38:02will require a little more review on our

38:04end of invoices uh but certainly

38:06something that we think is best in the

38:07interest of the taxpayer and of our

38:09operations moving forward. Um perhaps

38:11the biggest change that won't

38:13necessarily be uh too meaningful to

38:15everyone around the horseshoe and I

38:16don't mean any offense by that but we

38:18actually attached a 24page supplementary

38:22condition document to the contract

38:23before you this evening. It's very in

38:26the weeds about how we are going to work

38:28with the contractor over the next three

38:30or potentially seven years. Um we have a

38:34lot of areas uh where we think service

38:36could be improved. And so we've

38:38established some performance measures

38:39and some very clear uh guidance to both

38:43the contractor and the city about how

38:44this relationship is going to function.

38:46And to be honest with you, it's based on

38:48a fairly long-standing relationship. And

38:50while we have a good relationship with

38:51this contractor, we went out to bid. We

38:54had a couple of very very viable

38:56proposers. While we ultimately have

38:58selected Transdev, we see a lot of

39:00opportunities to improve the service

39:01that they're providing for the city. And

39:03so over the last frankly four to five

39:05months and Amy Gerard's been a critical

39:07part of this as well as director

39:08Cummings and Miss Koreah, transit

39:10administrator, we have crafted this

39:1224-page document that lays out those

39:14understandings. And so if you want to

39:16ask me questions about it, I'm happy to

39:18to address them. But uh it's a little

39:20bit unusual as far as documents that you

39:22typically see at this committee, but

39:23something that's really important for

39:24MTS, particularly with this being such a

39:27large section of our operating budget.

39:28Obviously, this is not a small contract.

39:31Um the last thing that I wanted to just

39:33emphasize is that um ultimately this is

39:36a not to exceed contract. The $9.7

39:39million that you see in front of you

39:41oper uh represents a absolute maximum of

39:45operating hours, maximum non CDL

39:48deployment, maximum ADA paratransit. We

39:50typically spend less than this uh but we

39:52really wanted to get authorization this

39:54evening based on our current operating

39:55hours and our potential service for the

39:58maximum allowable. And to that point, I

40:00wanted to touch on something and I

40:02promise this is my last comment that I

40:03discussed at the last meeting. We have

40:06been negotiating with the operator to

40:08potentially use their insurance for the

40:10term of this new contract. This is

40:11something I mentioned uh at the last

40:13meeting where I presented this. We are

40:15still headed in that direction. We're

40:17working closely with Mr. Shaes down in

40:18risk management and director Cummings.

40:21That is the best position for the city

40:23to be in moving forward to shift the

40:25risk liability onto the vendor. That's

40:27typically how transit systems like this

40:30are structured. What we have found, and

40:32I don't want to speak for everyone

40:33involved, but I think f folks would

40:35agree, is that's a very complicated uh

40:37set of terms and conditions that need to

40:39be put in place. So, we've been working

40:41actively on this, but frankly, the need

40:44to have that in place versus the need to

40:46have a long-term contract in place, the

40:48need to have a long-term contract in

40:50place is is higher right now. And so,

40:51what we've written in, and this is

40:53actually in the supplementary

40:54conditions, is that over the next six

40:56months, we are going to commit to

40:59working these provisions through. and

41:00that the city will have the choice to

41:02opt out of the contract after year one

41:04if the insurance provisions cannot be

41:06agreed to. And so we are very much

41:08headed in the direction of having the

41:10liability shift to the vendor which will

41:12come with additional cost and that's

41:13contemplating the not to exceed but we

41:17want to make sure that everyone is

41:18accountable and that when this contract

41:20goes into place hopefully with your

41:21approval and alder manic approval we

41:23don't lose sight of the criticality of

41:26shifting liability on to the vendor. And

41:28so that's a very unique provision that's

41:30written in here. It represents a not to

41:33exceed value, just the insurance alone

41:35in the contract that you see before you

41:37in years two and three of about

41:40$800,000.

41:42But that's new cost that we will have to

41:45ultimately budget for within the transit

41:47budget. But remember that our our

41:49transit budget is largely grant funded.

41:51I'm going to stop there. I've said a lot

41:53of information. I know it's a longer

41:54overview than you typically get

41:55typically get, but this is a substantial

41:57contract. It's a long-term contract and

41:58I want to make sure that everyone has

42:00[snorts] as much information as

42:01possible.

42:05>> Alman Clemens,

42:06>> thank you. Um, so my question is in

42:10regards to the insurance, can you just

42:12explain um where the cost savings is for

42:16the city

42:18uh by not having

42:21not not Yeah. by having it not be

42:23self-insured as opposed to using the

42:26carrier's insurance.

42:28>> Yes, Mr. Mayor, if I may respond,

42:30Alderman Clemens. Alderman Clemens, I

42:32I've learned in talking to Mr. Shayes

42:34that this is all about risk um and in

42:37the sense that

42:39>> uh currently the city's self- insurance

42:41in years where we have very limited

42:43claims is a very good thing for the

42:45city. It saves us money. We spend less

42:47money through self- insurance and it's

42:50been wonderful for the most part to

42:52date. However, when accidents do happen,

42:56we had a a bus bicycle accident a couple

42:58years ago. We had a fatality a couple

43:00years ago that was sort of related to

43:02the transit system. The city's exposure

43:04is incredibly large in those situations.

43:08And so

43:10it's that risk and the mitigation of

43:13that risk that is a a significant

43:15financial liability for the city. The

43:18other pieces and this is I don't want to

43:19suggest any change in behavior by the

43:23drivers that work for transde or

43:24anything like that. But when the city is

43:27holding the insurance and is responsible

43:28for repairs and the like, one could

43:31argue that it changes the way that

43:34drivers might approach some of their

43:35behavior versus when the vendor is

43:38actually holding and responsible for the

43:40costs such as tires rubbing on curbs,

43:43mirrors clipping telephone poles. When

43:46the vendor is actually responsible for

43:48the risk coverage, there's a more direct

43:50connection between the costs of

43:52insurance and driver behavior. And

43:54again, I'm not suggesting there's been

43:55anything that's attributable to that in

43:57the past, but it's something that we see

43:58as a real opportunity here. But longer

44:00term,

44:02we it's really the risk of those larger

44:04events and the potential payout that the

44:06city would have in those situations that

44:09is a liability that it's difficult to

44:10quantify for us. And we believe putting

44:13the vendor's insurance in place would

44:15better protect us. What you might want

44:17to know is is details about claim

44:19history, that sort of thing. We actually

44:20have several claims pending right now

44:23with transv so I wouldn't be able to

44:24give you an exact number but again if

44:27Mr. Shaes were here and I'm happy to get

44:29her input prior to alder man approval if

44:31that's something you'd like to to see

44:33she would argue that the risk liability

44:35is more significant than what the cost

44:37is of having the vendor carry carry the

44:38insurance

44:41>> it's it's a gamble quite quite honestly

44:43I hate to say it that way but it is in

44:44some ways a gamble.

44:47>> Can I ask a further followup?

44:49>> Yes. is so if if this proves to be

44:54um

44:56I guess is this going to be so I

44:58understand that you're going to

44:59negotiate that first year and then we're

45:01going to go on to the carriers the plan

45:03is to go on to the carriers uh insurance

45:06in the second year.

45:08Is there going to be a cost analysis

45:10throughout the the course of the

45:13contract to so that we can evaluate

45:16whether or not it makes sense to

45:18continue with

45:20their insurance or go back to self

45:22insurance?

45:24>> Yes. Uh the answer the answer is yes.

45:25And I want to add one more detail that I

45:28that I should have mentioned in my

45:29overview.

45:30I've included a number for carrying for

45:33insurance in year two and three. Um that

45:36is the initial estimate from the vendor.

45:39Um we expect based on the discussions to

45:42date over the last couple months that

45:44that number will actually drop. Um so

45:46I'm going to be very clear with this

45:47committee that represents a conservative

45:49high-end cost to the city. That's

45:52frankly what was in the vendor's bid

45:53that was submitted to the city. That is

45:56subject to further negotiations. It's

45:57acknowledged in the insurance section.

45:59So, one, I think we're going to be

46:01analyzing claims throughout the

46:02throughout the contract and we as we

46:04prepare for later years, we're going to

46:06need to come back to that. But two, and

46:08I actually can think of a few things

46:10that Mr. Chase has mentioned to me,

46:12there's a few things that the vendor is

46:14carrying as far as insurance that we

46:16don't think they need to. Uh, and so I

46:18think this number is going to come down

46:20uh through negotiation. Um but we have

46:22we have now we have a little a little

46:24more time to do it right I guess I would

46:26say versus rushing it and potentially

46:28getting the wrong arrangement in place.

46:31>> Yes.

46:31>> But ju just so but just just so I'm

46:34clear you will be analyzing that

46:36insurance data from them

46:39>> to say okay we had they had this many

46:41claims

46:42>> and then look at that well what would

46:44the city have incurred had we had had

46:47this been us I guess.

46:50>> Yes. And I can assure you that's going

46:52to happen particularly because when we

46:54started this conversation and I'm going

46:55to be totally, you know, again frank

46:57with the committee, we had different

46:59perspectives across city departments

47:00about which was the better deal for the

47:02city.

47:02>> Um so I think we have an interest in

47:04what the trend line looks like long

47:06term. Um but what we what we know is

47:09that the best practice is moving in this

47:11direction, but you better believe that

47:12we are going to be looking at how the

47:15data stacks up uh versus the current

47:17arrangement that we have in place. But

47:19it is it is interesting. You know, the

47:21the claims in some years are are

47:23nominal, right? There's there's really

47:25nothing. And that's great. We have a

47:26good performance year. It's very safe.

47:28Uh less winter storms, that kind of

47:30thing. And then you have one incident

47:31and suddenly there's a massive

47:33liability. That $800,000 for the next

47:36three years could be one incident that

47:39the city could be responsible for. And

47:41and and again, I think we have all the

47:43systems in place to try and avoid that.

47:44But accidents do unfortunately happen

47:47and we're trying to remove that

47:48liability in its entirety.

47:50>> Okay. Uh, no, thank you for Thank you

47:52for that. And, um, yeah, I just wanted

47:55to make sure that it wasn't something

47:56that we were going to

47:58I I want to make sure it's something we

48:00were going to continue to look at so

48:01that we can, you know, I'm all for I'm

48:04all for doing it in theory. I'm all for

48:06doing it for a few years as long as

48:09we're looking at

48:11>> is this really the right the right move,

48:13right? and and compare real data. So,

48:17thank you,

48:18>> Alderman Sullivan.

48:19>> Thank you. Uh to Alderman Clemen's point

48:21though,

48:23if if we've been doing business with

48:26this company for a while, I mean, we

48:28should have a trend. We should we should

48:31identify a trend already in terms of

48:32liabilities and what it's costing the

48:34city. Correct.

48:35>> We we do have some of that data and I

48:37can provide that to you before your your

48:39automatic meeting. I didn't provide it

48:41with the contract tonight. The the the

48:43trick there, Alderman Sullivan, is that

48:44some of those claims are not yet

48:46settled, and the ones that are not

48:47settled are the more substantial ones.

48:49So, we don't actually know the I mean,

48:52truly, we do not know the final expense

48:54to the city. Um, some of these things

48:56are are currently in a form of

48:58litigation, and we have not settled on

49:01final amounts owed. Um, so I can

49:05I'm sure I could work with Mr. Sheay to

49:07ballpark this. Um and certainly one data

49:11point to consider is that claim history

49:13over time. Uh but

49:16unfortunately

49:18it's only that it's a claim history over

49:20time. It's in no way a predictor of what

49:23could happen on the street tomorrow. But

49:25it's absolutely a data point. It's

49:27actually one that I relied on quite

49:29heavily when we first started this

49:30conversation. But

49:31>> Maches explained this more and more to

49:34me, this concept of risk. And I I

49:36struggled with it quite honestly, but I

49:38now understand that particularly in

49:40light of driving behaviors and

49:41everything we've seen change over recent

49:43years that the risk of an accident has

49:45increased. And so I I do I buy into the

49:48fact that this is the direction we need

49:50to move move in moving forward. It's

49:52going to be a more stable regular

49:54expense to the city, but it will avoid

49:56the es and flows of some of what we're

49:59seeing when it comes to appropriating

50:01funds to risk management and other and

50:03other areas. So that that's my elevator

50:05pitch, I guess, for it, but I'm a I'm a

50:06believer now based on what I've what

50:08I've learned from that the insurance

50:09team.

50:10>> Alman Sullivan,

50:11>> one more on that. If we're putting fewer

50:14CDL drivers out there,

50:17>> does that speak to experience, training,

50:20etc., etc. Does that open up

50:22liabilities?

50:24Uh

50:26does it does does that, you know,

50:28increase that liability because maybe

50:30they're not as well trained? Mhm.

50:32>> I would respond by saying it's actually

50:34not

50:36>> you you can't really correlate nonCDL

50:38CDL with experience. We have many nonCDL

50:41drivers that simply do not want to get

50:43their CDL. Okay.

50:44>> Uh but they're quite experienced.

50:45>> Okay.

50:46>> No question more nonCDL drivers are

50:49newer to the profession. We have many

50:50folks come on board that are getting

50:52trained and they are on the nonCDL side

50:53of the house. Um but I would not suggest

50:57that the increase in deployment of

50:58nonCDL vehicles is an issue. Part of

51:01that is we're [snorts] actually in some

51:04cases bringing in drivers from outside

51:06of the market which is a real strength

51:07of this company. They come with a decade

51:1015 years of experience driving nonCDL

51:12because many of the other systems around

51:14the country are operating as sort of

51:16this microtransit smaller vehicles

51:19point-to-point transportation. So you're

51:21actually seeing tremendous experience

51:23built but not in the huge buses that

51:26we're accustomed to seeing because

51:28transportation service is changing.

51:30That's actually the other reason we

51:31structured this this way with nonCDL

51:33versus CDL. We expect our service could

51:35change. Quite honestly, we expect that

51:38our fixed route service could lessen at

51:40some point in the future, but access

51:42would actually increase because we're

51:44providing more microtransit, meaning

51:46point-to-point transportation with

51:47smaller vehicles. So, I think this sure

51:50the contractor will hear this at some

51:52point in time. I actually think this

51:53contract could benefit the city because

51:54our service may change in favor of

51:56nonCDL drivers, which are cheaper.

52:00One more followup. Yeah.

52:03>> Uh different subject. You mentioned the

52:0524page supplement.

52:07>> Yes.

52:08>> So here is a So here is a long-term

52:10vendor for the city that you've

52:13negotiated several contracts. Now all of

52:15a sudden you have a 24page

52:18supplement

52:20with metrics.

52:23uh if you're not at liberty to say to

52:25characterize how that negotiation went,

52:28I can understand that that must have

52:30been

52:31uh a little bit sticky.

52:36>> It it actually it wasn't. Um and and

52:39there there were parts certainly there

52:41were parts but generally um for better

52:45or worse our relationship with this

52:47provider has been um

52:51forgive the term but like a marriage in

52:53some ways. There have been good days,

52:54there have been bad days. There's been

52:56lots of of challenges. We've had issues

52:58with service over the last five years.

53:00They've been through this with us. We

53:03know where each other's weaknesses are.

53:05Um and but we operate a tremendous

53:08service from an on-time performance

53:09perspective and we just went through a

53:11federal audit and it went perfectly. Um

53:16that said, what we really needed that is

53:19now in this contract is a level of

53:21accountability. A lot of what was in the

53:23prior contract and we had a similar

53:25supplemental condition document or prior

53:27contract a little more general was a lot

53:29of the city will or the contractor will

53:31try to do this but the city has the

53:33right to wave it right that you know

53:35there's a lot of sort of uh mutual

53:37agreement provisions. You will see in

53:39here we have some of that still but we

53:41also have a section that is literally

53:43performance measures and timelines for

53:45producing documentation to the city that

53:48we need to have in place. And so there

53:51were a couple things to your point that

53:52we really have struggled with over

53:54recent years. Uh I'll give one example,

53:57not to be, you know, too openly critical

53:59of the contractor. Our uniform policy.

54:01We've seen changes in what folks want to

54:03wear when they're driving equipment.

54:05People want to be more comfortable

54:06versus wearing the old formal uniforms

54:07with a tie, right? That's great. We want

54:10to compromise, but we also want to make

54:12sure that the standard doesn't drop too

54:13low and that our drivers still look

54:15professional when doing their jobs. We

54:17don't want folks to be outside vaping

54:19when they're driving their bus and

54:21seconds before before they get on. Some

54:23of those little things that matter a

54:25lot, frankly, to me as I walk around and

54:27see the service and I know to Camille.

54:29>> Um, we felt the need to memorialize them

54:32just so we had a clear sort of line in

54:33the sand that we're not going to

54:34continue that kind of behavior moving

54:36forward.

54:37>> We're all on the same page. And so you

54:39the level of detail you'd see in there,

54:41you probably would laugh at some of it

54:42because it's so nitty-gritty

54:44operational. But we had to negotiate

54:47these things if we were going to move

54:48forward with this vendor and we were

54:50really close to moving another direction

54:52and the contractor knows that that we're

54:53selecting. But ultimately this

54:56relationship and experience was the sort

54:58of the game changer. But that's not to

55:00say that they're perfect. Not to say

55:02we're perfect either. And so that's why

55:03we have this document now.

55:04>> I like it. Good. Good for you. Thank

55:07you.

55:09>> Uh Alderwoman Smith.

55:11>> Thank you. Uh my question is somewhat of

55:14a followup to Alder um Man Sullivan's

55:16question. It has to do with the CDL

55:18versus the nonCDL. Does that would that

55:21not potentially increase the city's

55:23liability by having you know and I know

55:26you said there's a trend towards that,

55:27but I'm like if I'm seeing a trend

55:29towards non CDL,

55:32you know, drivers that potentially if

55:34I'm the insur person who's going to be

55:36insuring the individuals that would also

55:38increase the cost of insurance.

55:40>> It sort of the same answer. It's not

55:42that simple. And one of the other

55:43factors I didn't mention is that part of

55:45it is the driver and their experience.

55:47But the other major part of the of a CDL

55:50versus nonCDL is literally that it is

55:53>> it is much harder to get in an accident

55:56with a nonCDL vehicle, a van.

55:58>> There's more space. You're more like a a

56:00car driving on the road. Drivers are

56:02more um

56:05are less likely to make contact with

56:06those smaller vehicles. And so what you

56:10maybe lose in potential inexperience

56:13with a CDL, a nonCDL driver driving a

56:15van, you actually gain in the lessened

56:18risk of accident that comes with a

56:20smaller vehicle. Buses are great. We

56:22have really experienced operators

56:24driving them. But sometimes it's not the

56:26operator, it's the car that tries to

56:29make the turn around the around the the

56:31bus. It's the um the the the telephone

56:34pole that's leaning a little more one

56:36day over another. those buses actually

56:38do bring their own risks and so I would

56:40say generally it's kind of a wash as to

56:43CDL versus nonCDL which is really bus

56:46versus van I think it even evens out for

56:49the most part.

56:50>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

56:56>> All right. All those in favor of the

56:58motion say I.

56:59>> I.

57:00>> Opposed? Motion passes.

57:02>> Thank you.

57:03>> Thank you very much. Uh, next

57:05communication from Don Enright, Chief

57:08Financial Officer, Alderman Sullivan.

57:10>> There being no objection. Uh, Chairman

57:13Donas accepted the communication and

57:15placed it on file.

57:16>> All right. There being I don't see any

57:19objection, so that'll be placed on file.

57:22New business resolutions, ordinances, we

57:24have we don't have anything tabled in

57:26committee. There's nothing. Record of

57:28expenditures. Alderman Sullivan. I'd

57:30like to make a motion that the finance

57:32committee has complied with the city

57:34charter and ordinances pertaining to the

57:36record of expenditures for the period of

57:3928 August 2026 through 10 September

57:432026.

57:46>> All those in favor of the motion say I.

57:48>> I.

57:48>> Motion passes. General discussion. Is

57:51there any general discussion?

57:56Uh if not public comment. Any member of

57:59the public want to address the finance

58:00committee?

58:07>> Lori Orano, Nashua. Um, you know, the

58:10record issue of trying to find the

58:13trauma counseling uh persists and

58:15continues with the next response coming

58:18in October. And I think at the end of

58:20the day, there are no real records that

58:23pointed to the trauma I created in

58:26employees.

58:28um from being me and um you know I

58:34had an identity. I'm a person, but I

58:37couldn't have the narrative I think I

58:39deserved by the city because people like

58:42you, Attorney Bolton, Tim Cummings had

58:45to create a narrative. And that

58:47narrative was I was a criminal. I sued

58:50everybody. I'm a liar. I'm not

58:53trustworthy. I'm dangerous. nobody can

58:57talk to me and all doors are locked.

59:02It was never the proper narrative, but I

59:04had to live with that. And when I

59:07identify myself, when I write my my

59:09right to knows as your city I do

59:12it because it's the label you gave me.

59:15It's exactly how you identified me for

59:18six years. And I tried my damnedest to

59:22be professional and to try to work with

59:24this board and the right to know issue.

59:27I made no headway at all. And you have

59:32absolute immunity to sit there and make

59:35any statement you want. And it there's

59:38no defamation claim. If you wanted to

59:40announce you saw me having sex with a

59:42goat in a pool, you could. And I would

59:44be here to say it's not true, but

59:47there's nothing I can do about it. You

59:49can label me as somebody who who gives,

59:52you know, trauma to city employees and I

59:54can do nothing about it. When attorney

59:57Bolton was placed under oath for a

59:59deposition in 2024, and he was asked by

1:00:02my attorney, does Mrs. Orlano swear a

1:00:05lot in city hall? And but Bolton said,

1:00:07yes, she does. He goes, well, where does

1:00:09this happen? Where does she do it?

1:00:10Public meetings. 10, 12 times. every bad

1:00:13word in the book from 2019 to 2024. We

1:00:17couldn't find those records. He he

1:00:19claimed he was called the c-word. You

1:00:21were called the c-word. He was called an

1:00:23in public meetings on the order

1:00:24of 12 times. Could not find those

1:00:26records anywhere. But he got to say it

1:00:28under oath. What he didn't say under

1:00:31oath is she does this in city hall when

1:00:33she comes in and works with employees.

1:00:35Never put that on the record. And then

1:00:38all of a sudden they come out here

1:00:40>> and I'm labeled. I'm owed an apology.

1:00:44And now your lawyer, 500 bucks an hour,

1:00:47files with court a protective order

1:00:49because I shouldn't be able to sign my

1:00:51right to nose that way. It's offensive.

1:00:53You got to be kidding me. You've called

1:00:56the police to come monitor the halls

1:00:58when you think a bad word might be used.

1:01:01We have the pottymouth police come to

1:01:03Nasha.

1:01:04That's done by city hall. You're a

1:01:07disgrace. You really are total liar.

1:01:12For the record, um, no one has ever

1:01:14called you the C-word, and you have

1:01:16called both me and Attorney Balden the

1:01:18Cword in a public meeting. So,

1:01:20>> go find it and send it to me. I'm going

1:01:23to ask you to do that.

1:01:24>> It was in a finance committee meeting.

1:01:26>> I never addressed Attorney Bolton. He

1:01:28wasn't even there.

1:01:29>> But you said that he was a cword.

1:01:31>> No, I didn't. And not even you. Let's

1:01:34pull that up.

1:01:35>> That was never even addressed in the

1:01:37federal court at all. Even in the

1:01:40federal court, they said it was said

1:01:42once

1:01:43and then you brought it up at the

1:01:45finance meeting.

1:01:47[clears throat] But but then again, he

1:01:49said called him an a dozen

1:01:51meetings. Go find it.

1:01:54>> All right. I won't correct the rest.

1:01:56>> I will not correct the rest of the

1:01:58misstatements. And u it's just not worth

1:02:01it. And your public comment is

1:02:03concluded. So, next item is remarks by

1:02:08Alderman

1:02:10Alderman Clemens.

1:02:11>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I wanted

1:02:14to um bring up a subject um that

1:02:18[clears throat] I found concerning. Uh

1:02:22there was state rep Heather Raymond

1:02:25posted online uh recently that the

1:02:29adequacy grant for the city of NSHA um

1:02:34came out and that NSHA is on the order

1:02:37of losing almost $5 million

1:02:41compared to what we received last year.

1:02:46So that is going to put the city in

1:02:50quite the spot

1:02:52as far as the budget for next year.

1:02:56Um and you know I I think

1:03:01yet again we are seeing from conquered a

1:03:05downshift in the costs

1:03:09um to the people of NSHA

1:03:11and uh this time it could be

1:03:15catastrophic

1:03:17because six $5 million is nothing to uh

1:03:22to just wave off.

1:03:25So, I think people should know that. I

1:03:28want people to know that. I think people

1:03:30should question their state reps. I

1:03:33think people should question their state

1:03:35senators. And I certainly think

1:03:38that the governor owes the city an

1:03:41explanation as to what and why this

1:03:45happened. Thank you.

1:03:48>> And I agree that's going to be a major

1:03:50concern going forward next year.

1:03:54$5 million represents 2% on this tax

1:03:56rate right there.

1:04:01All right. Any other remarks by

1:04:03alderman?

1:04:06If not, uh,

1:04:08oldwoman Wilshire,

1:04:10>> motion to adjourn.

1:04:11>> All those in favor say I. I.

1:04:14>> Opposed. Motion passes and the meeting

1:04:17of the finance committee is adjourned at

1:04:188:04

```*