Search

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 6
MOTION CARRIED

PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED UPON THIS EVENING
Tracy Pappas, 12 Swart Terrace, Nashua

I’m here regarding O-17-31, relative to taking the wastewater fund out from under the Cap. It says all in or all
out. | grabbed the wrong pad of paper, but there is a state law that does not allow cities and towns to comingle
positions. In Manchester, they have a Spending Cap as we do. Although the director of public works and
other folks within that division do indeed perform tasks for the wastewater division, they do not charge for that
because it is not allowed under state law. As such, just as that ordinance states, all in or all out. | suggest that
we either send this back to committee or someone have the guts to say we will no longer have shared
employees. We have a city engineer, we have a construction and inspection engineering assistant, we have

deputy treasury/tax collector, we have deputy manager of engineering, director of public works, DPW billing
accountant, DPW collection specialists.

Alderman Siegel

You're a BPW Commissioner. That’s a personnel matter not in the purview of the Board of Aldermen.

Ms. Pappas

Am | out of order?

President McCarthy

Not yet.

Ms. Pappas

| am reading from a public document.

President McCarthy

Proceed, Ms. Pappas.

Ms. Pappas

Executive Assistant, Finance Administrator, Fleet Manager, Public Relations Administrator, which by the way in
the past, we’ve never had to have which is going to be charged 20 percent, Senior Manager of Accounting &
Financial Reporting. | think those are items that should be placed under the Cap.

As | have said before, I’m not saying there is anything nefarious going on, but there is a state law.

President McCarthy

| would ask you not to repeat that again because by saying I’m not saying there’s anything nefarious going on,
you're implying that there is something. | don’t want to hear ...

Alderman Moriarty

| disagree.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 7

President McCarthy

... trial by innuendos so please keep your remarks to the piece of legislation that is in front of us.

Ms. Pappas

Okay, you know the day that | ever am so disrespectful to members of the public to come to speak, | will never
run for office. | will quit. And, thank you, Alderman Moriarty for speaking out. | appreciate that. What do | get
for coming here? A lot of guff. | am here because | take very seriously my oath of office to represent the
people of Nashua. And it is not allowed under state law that we comingle funds. That’s why Manchester does
not charge their funds for the director of public works under their wastewater fund.

Perhaps we should have engineers that are 100 percent under the purview of wastewater. Perhaps we should
do the same as other municipalities and require our director and assistant director of public works to have an
engineering degree. For that matter, | think we have too many shared positions.

And frankly, | think the Board President should rule someone out of order by interrupting people all the time.
It’s done very regularly, and it is not right.

President McCarthy

And | will ask that it not happen again.

Ms. Pappas

Thank you.
Fred Teeboom, 25 Cheyenne Drive

I'd like to address two items from the agenda. The first is R-17-092, and the other is O-17-031. The Mayor
addressed both of those. Now | need to give you the rest of the story.

R-17-092. Before you is a basically 20 years of payments on $37.5 million borrowed at a cost of $11.1 million,
30 percent of principal. If all assumptions are made about grants from the state highway fund and motor
vehicle revenues, yes, it just pays for that bond. The fund goes down as low as $140,000 but builds back up to
about $5 or $6 million. However, that is not the full story.

| was the only person at the public hearing. It’s not look at as a five-year program at $7.5 million a year for a
$37.5 million bond. What’s looked at is a ten-year program at $7.5 million a year for a $75 million bond. That
in fact is implied in the amendment that’s before you that says this is the first part, five years of a multi-year
program, meaning five years of a ten-year program. Who is going to authorize the other five years of the
remaining $7.5 million per year? You are dealing with a $75 million program as proposed. There’s really no
answer to that.

| worked out a spreadsheet. The first five years for $37.5 million and then the next five years for $37.5 million
using the same scenario that Fredette proposed. Five one-years, $7.5 million bonds and then staggered one
year apart. | took 25 years and then 20 years and then you have another 20 years of program staggered. The
total takes 25 years to pay off, to pay the bond.

However, if you now look at the cost and what is going into that reserve fund, you know see there’s a deficit of
$26.6 million. To prove that , | sent to the entire Board at the Public Works my spreadsheet, and to Fredette
and to CFO Griffin my spreadsheet. And that’s still not the full story. In addition to 10 years at $75 million,
after 11 years you have to start maintaining what you have already done, and that is proposed at another $3.5
million a year. The consultant said it would be between 3.2 and 3.8 million dollars.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 8

| put that number into the equation in my spreadsheet and now at the end of 25 years, there’s a $79.1 million
deficit. How is that going to get paid? This Board cannot commit to any future Board to authorize a bond
payment. Every board is acting on its own, unless you, yourself, have another $37.5 million in bonds
authorized after the current $37.5 million that is before you. So this is serious business. How is this going to
get paid? You don’t believe me? | gave you the spreadsheet. If you find an error, let me know.

That is the financial part of the problem. Now let’s look at the technical problem. The consultant, Stantec,
made this presentation on the PCI, pavement condition index, 100 percent to zero. One hundred percent is
perfect, percent is, | guess, you can’t walk or drive on.

| put up this one chart. | hope you can see it, I'll be happy to point out where it is in the presentation. The top
is the PCI curve, starting around 80 for the aerial and collector streets, the major thoroughfares. They go up
fast. This is not ten years. | asked the consultant. The scale is 20 years. In about 8 years, you build up to
about 97 percent on the aerial arterial streets. Perfect. You spend almost $23 million on the arterial streets. It
doesn’t matter if you have a $75 million program or a $59 million program. If you look at page 3 of the
consultant’s presentation, you will see $23 million.

But the local streets which seems to be the attention of your sponsoring aldermen who had great pictures
when Mayor Lozeau, they wanted to concentration the local streets. But the local streets actually go from 77,
the PCI goes down. It degrades. We spend all this money and we’re getting degradation of the local streets.
Why is that? The money that they use goes to arterial streets. It favors arterial streets because the model
looks at the number of the drivers on those streets. Obviously you’ve got more drivers on arterial streets than
local streets. The model favors spending more money early on on the arterial streets. If the objective of the
sponsoring aldermen who criticized Mayor Lozeau for not paying attention for your local streets, who wants to
pay attention to local streets, this model doesn’t do it. This model isn’t doing it.

Clearly the arterial streets are being paid attention to and local streets degrade until about 8-10 years. That’s
on page 13 of the consultant’s report. | asked him those questions. I’m not against paving. | think we need to
pave. I’m against $75 million worth of bonding. |’m against this model. | think this hasn’t been thought
through very well. It hasn’t been discussed very much. The only budget meeting | was in, | was the only
private person there. This model isn’t doing it, not if you don’t pay attention to local streets.

The answer is send it back to committee. It’s going to take ten votes to approve this bond. Don’t vote for this
at this point. Go back. Mayor Lozeau, by the way, had a $17 million program. Nowhere near $37 million,
nowhere near $75 million. Take a look at that program again. I’m not sure why she got shot down. The
criticism was she didn’t pay attention to the local streets. This isn’t paying attention to the local streets, not for
the first 8-10 year period.

The next thing | want to talk about is O-17-031. That’s the famous sewer fund. I’m not going to talk about
comingling which is a state concern. Tracy Pappas addressed that. This isn’t the Board of Public Works.
What | would like to address is the misinformation in the budget committees. Let me not go over all the
arguments again, but let me briefly review Nashua’s Spending Cap. What is it?

The bond ratings agencies consistently mention the spending cap every year in assigning AAA ratings to the
City of Nashua. We don’t over bond. We try to constrain spending. That’s how you get AAA ratings. You
want to spend a lot of money, you want to bond a lot, you are going to be like Detroit or a country like
Venezuela. Bankrupt.

The Nashua spending cap, described in Nashua Charter par. 56-c, places a limit on spending, not a limit on
taxes. Both taxes and fees fall under the Nashua spending cap; there is no exclusion for fees. State law does
not have exclusion fees. You can exclude state law certain accounts, but there is no exclusion for fees .
Certainly Nashua does not have an exclusion for fees. Taxes and fees fall under the Spending Cap. You can
laugh and smile, aldermen, but that’s the fact. It is.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 9

There are no exemptions stated in Nashua charter, 56-c. Zip. Not a single exemption. The only exemption
under the Cap, to get out of the Cap, are ten affirmative votes by the Board of Aldermen. It used to be 2/3 but
referendum made it ten votes. | think in 2005. That’s the only exemption. There is no other exemption. The
Nashua charter par. 56-c is crystal clear in what comprises the Combined Annual Municipal Budget subject to
the cap. You know what it is? This is what itis. It is all in the white pages, the yellow pages, the green pages,
and the pink pages. All adopted by the Board of Aldermen. The only thing that is not part of the combined
annual municipal budget are in the blue pages. That’s because there is no department request. They are trust
funds, CERF, fund balance. Only the blue pages are not part of the combined annual budget. Everything else
is. Anybody who says it is not, is wrong.

A city ordinance cannot conflict with the city charter. The city charter is clear and unambiguous. On the
question by the Mayor Donchess repeatedly: “should the sewer fund be ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the budget cap,”
there can be only one answer. The entire sewer fund is subject to the Cap. There is no other answer.

We all understand the real purpose for O-17-31. It’s not to set up a new fund. It is to contrive an end-run
around the Cap to make a $9.1 million space under the Cap without 10 required votes. It’s an end-run. It’s an
illegal end-run. It's an improper end-run. | urge, in conclusion, to amend O-17-031 to strike the entire Section
2. It’s really irrelevant to the sewer fund. It’s just a discussion about the Spending Cap. Strike the entire
Section 2, and | urge you to do it to avoid possible legal action against the city. And when you do take this
vote, please take a roll call vote so we know who votes which way. Thank you.

PETITIONS — None
NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS
Joint Convention with Woodlawn Cemetery Board of Trustees

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared that the Board of Aldermen meet in Joint Convention
with the Woodlawn Cemetery Board of Trustees for the purpose of electing two trustees.

President McCarthy called for nominations.

Trustee Niles Jensen nominated Michael McLaughlin and Dana Farwell for five-year terms to expire
March 31, 2022

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the nominations closed.

A Viva Voce Roll Call vote was taken on the appointment of Michael McLaughlin and Dana Farwell to the
Woodlawn Cemetery Board of Trustees for terms to expire March 31, 2022, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy
Daniel Buslovich, Dana Farwell, Niles Jensen, Jr.,
Mayor Donchess 19

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Michael McLaughlin and Dana Farwell duly appointed to the Woodlawn
Cemetery Board of Trustees for terms to expire March 31, 2022.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 10
Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel Steven A. Bolton to Dana Farwell.
There being no objection, President McCarthy declared that the Convention now arise
REPORTS OF COMMITTEE
Budget Review Committee... cccccccccccecccsteseeeeeeeeeeeeestseeeeees 03/27/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 27, 2017, Budget
Review Committee accepted and placed on file.

Budget Review Committee. ............. cc ccccccccccceccenteseeeeeeeeeeeeestseeeeess 04/04/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 4, 2017, Budget
Review Committee accepted and placed on file.

Finance Committee. 0... cece ccecccececceeeceeeececeeeceeaeeesaeeeraneetnaneetanees 03/15/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 15, 2017, Finance
Committee accepted and placed on file.

Finance Committee. 0... cece ccecccececceeeceeeececeeeceeaeeesaeeeraneetnaneetanees 04/05/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 5, 2017, Finance
Committee accepted and placed on file.

Human Affairs Committee. 20.0.0... ccceccececcecececeeeeeeeuuseeeeveeeuneennaneees 03/13/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the March 13, 2017, Human Affairs
Committee accepted and placed on file.

WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS — None
CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-17-091
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
DISCONTINUING THE CAPITAL RESERVE FUND FOR BUILDING REPLACEMENT
OR RENEWAL DUE TO DISUSE
Given its second reading;
MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-091

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 15

Nay: 0

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 11
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-17-091 declared duly adopted.

R-17-092
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED
THE AMOUNT OF THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($37,500,000) TO FUND A MULTI-YEAR PAVING PROJECT
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO AMEND R-17-092 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH THE
GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Deane

I’d like to reflect the amendments that | made. The first one was in the title where after the word “fund” we
added “the first five years of a multi-year paving project.” And in the first paragraph down below, we added the
number “20” after the number 15. Those were the two amendments that were made.

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman McCarthy 13

Nay: Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty 2
MOTION CARRIED

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-092 AS AMENDED BY ROLL CALL

Alderman Moriarty

Without reviewing everything that we discussed at the most recent Budget Review Committee, | would still like
to touch upon the highlights and try to simplify things for anybody who might be new to this. If someone was to
come up to you and give you a presentation and say | am going to building you a car that has 500 horsepower,
and then the person on the same team and says I’m going to build a car for you that gets 50 mile per gallon,
you would immediately know instinctively that those two cars are not the same car. Then you would ask about
it and at some point if you wanted to resolve if it were the same car, you would instinctively understand that
you can’t get the 500 horsepower and the 50 miles per gallon at the time. The presentation that we got at the
Budget Review Committee is analogous to that.

We had a presentation that was a good presentation. They used software and quantified the results of it. The
presentation said that if you spend this much money the roads will improve. Right after that person gave that
presentation, the same group of people, the same staff, gave a presentation and presented a cost, a budget
that showed taking a bond out for five years and spending 20 years to pay it off. After looking at the two |

CITY OF NASHUA NEW HAMPSHIRE
TRUSTEES OF
THE EDGEWOOD CEMETERY
Incorporated March 24, 1893
June 17, 2016 Azo oD
Patricia Piecuch, City Clerk eile seu, 2.aG
229 Main St. aR GS Rigen ome

Nashua, NH 03061-2019
Ms. Piecuch,

The Edgewood Cemetery Board of Trustees wishes to meet in joint convention with the
Board of Mayor & Aldermen for the purpose of electing 2 trustees. The trustees intend to
nominate Thomas A. Maffee, 18 Colony Way, Nashua & Carl Andrade, 12 Mt. Laurels
Dr., #203, Nashua to 5 year terms expiring March 2021. Both are incumbents. Please

notify me when this has been placed on the agenda.

Sincerely,
| yaw
H upt.

Jeffrey Cs

107 Amherst St., Nashua, NH 03064-2578 / Telephone (603) 594-3327

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 12

asked a couple of questions, and eventually got the question confirmed that the presentation contemplates
spending $7.5 million a year for 11 years. The budget that was presented spends $7.5 million for five years
and then spends the following 15 years to pay it off. The two were so far apart from each other. Essentially
the presentation said if you spend $82.5 million dollars the roads will improve greatly, but we’re only going to
figure out how to pay for $37.5 million of it. Which lead, and I'll take some credit, to changing the title. At least
the people in the audience recognize there’s an inconsistency there. The assertion is we will figure it out later.
Let’s change the title that what we’re doing now is only budgeting for five years but we'll figure out the rest of it
later is the assertion.

| don’t like the idea of the presentation and the budget, the sales pitch and the cost being so far apart from
each other. If you look at the quantitative numbers, there is a better way. There is ahappy medium. We don’t
need to spend $7.5 million every year for the next 20 years. We could get away with $4 million. We can get
away with $5 million, and that we can afford. The problem with the $7.5 million bond, which the vote today is
for just this bond, that’s all we’re voting on today, and even if you have faith that we will figure out how to pay
for the rest of it, the current bond obligates all our available road paving resources for the next 20 years. The
current bond vote is we’re going to spend all that money in five years and we will have nothing left for the next
15 years. That’s what this vote is for. That’s the reality of it. That's the black and white.

You can believe that that is silly to think that we’re not going to do any paving for 15 years after the first five
years. | agree. But that’s the part where you try to recognize the difference between a 500 horsepower car
and 50 miles per gallon. We have something that looks allegedly self-contained that isn’t going to raise the
taxes but when you actually go and reconcile how you are actually going to pay for the paving beyond the first
five years that’s when the devil is in the details. | mentioned this at the Budget Review Committee. | said this
is a great idea of paying for some money upfront with a bond so you can catch up with the roads, get them in
position so they are not failing so quickly, but don’t let the bond be so large that you have exhausted every
penny available to you. Why not go somewhere in-between? Use the simulation to think about it more. Find
an approach we can actually afford that actually accomplishes the maximize of it. That was discarded out of
hand.

| recommend highly that you vote no for this particular bond. There is a better way. Thank you.

Alderman Siegel

Let’s look at where this came from. With all due respect to my colleague, a grizzle veteran of two budget
committee meetings came in and did not understand where this came from. $7.5 million is sort of a magic
number because it is the most amount of paving that we can actually accomplish per year in the city given the

Alderman Moriarty

By the way, personal privilege. May |?

Alderman Siegel

In the middle of my sentence?

Alderman Moriarty

Personal privilege, the motion takes precedence over the current speaker. Some people often misuse the
phrase...

President McCarthy

Alderman Moriarty, move on to your point of personal privilege please.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 13

Alderman Moriarty

Thank you. | was given the presentation at the Budget Review Committee before | even started talking, | was
admonished that dare | make fun of anybody, which | went out of my way not to do. | made a point of giving
the presentation systemically like an engineer. | tried to speak clearly and highlight facts and did everything
within my power not to go out of my way and insult somebody. | ask you that you apply the same rules to my
colleague, Alderman Ken Siegel, who started his comments by insulting me.

Alderman Siegel

| apologize. Let’s just move on. Thank you. Now, let me gather my thoughts again and hopefully | won’t be
interrupted. The $7.5 million has to do with what we can do as a city paving because we have issues with
utilities, we have cut throughs in the streets. There is a whole lot of other logistics that happen. There’s been
several things said that were flat wrong. As the DPW liaison, I’m familiar with all the discussions that have
been going on. I’ve seen the paving presentation multiple times and have discussed this, including the older
presentation that Mayor Lozeau had suggested.

To address Mr. Teeboom’ s concerns, in fact, the local streets do not get choked off. They, in fact, do get
taken care of and that’s part of the plan. This is not a $75 million program. We are voting on a $37.5 million
five-year program in which we are spending $7.5 million to catch up and repair our infrastructure. This is what
we are doing to prevent to kick the can. Our streets are degrading every year. That’s just a fact of life. We
live in New England, things decay. If you have seen the paving presentation, and again I’ve seen it multiple
times, once things go below a certain level, it’s not a linear function. In other words, you go below a certain
paving index and now it’s a multiple of what it cost before to fix because you're using different techniques.

We are at the point now, actually, in a lot of our city streets where we are going to slip to that level. If we do,
there is little or no way we can dig out of it. This is a responsible way to approach the maintenance of a key
component of our city. | can’t emphasize enough that we really are at the point of what | wouldn’t say no
return, but we are at the point where we can spend this money and get a return on our investment that gets our
streets back to the point where they are reasonably maintainable. To not do so now risks a huge amount of
money and an inability to catch up.

Remember as a city, we can’t really do more than about $7.5 million a year in paving because of the logistics.
What happens if we get to the point where that’s well underneath what we have to do? We're now then faced
with a situation where the roads really materially degrade and we actually have little to no hope of doing them
again. It’s areal potential logistical nightmare.

| understand the budget issues. As far as the 4 or 5 million dollars being an appropriate compromise, it’s not.
The consultant these specific figures. There’s some very, very smart people that work on this: the consultant,
there’s a lot of people at DPW that have gone over this. We have a brand new software program. Remember,
one of the things we didn’t want to do when Mayor Lozeau proposed this was two elements. It wasn’t just that it
dealt only with the arterials. That was a big concern because the neighborhoods weren't going to be taken
care of. But the other thing that was very, very important is we had purchased a software program and what
we wanted to do was implement that program and populate it with data to understand what is the real condition
of our streets. Rather than rush in and adopt a bond and not know correctly how to deploy our resources so
we are most effectively deploying the capital to hit the streets at the right time to maximize our return on
investment, we decided not to do that.

Now we are at a position where we fully inventoried our streets. We have the data. Now we have to do
something. | got to tell you, having been exposed now for several years of working this stuff at BPW, we really
don’t have a choice. | don’t really like spending this money. | really don’t. But do you know what | really, really
don’t want to do? Spend $100 million more in a city that is pot-marked and cratered. | strongly urge you to
consider that in voting for this. This is very important.

Board of Aldermen — 4/11/17 Page 14
Alderman Clemons

| have a question through you to Alderman Deane. Alderman, you have in the past have expressed your
distaste for bonding paving. I’m curious as to your reasons why you felt this was important to do because |
respect your opinion, and | think | would like to hear it.

Alderman Deane

After seeing the presentation and the indexing that was brought in and the conditions of our streets, it was time
to move forward with the plan. | am really happy that Alderman Siegel has answered that question that has
been asked time and time again about Mayor Lozeau’s plan. It wasn’t a plan. We had purchased that
software. There was a lot of data to collect. They had to input all the data to come up with the indexing that
was done that was made part of what brought this resolution forward.

People are throwing these questions around that you can’t commit future boards. | got on this board in 2002.
My then colleagues, Alderman McCarthy, Alderman Bolton, | think Lori was here, you guys had committed me
as an alderman who had never served before to a couple of high schools, the stadium. All of these things
were in the budget. Well you know what? | look at that as there were previous boards, there were people that
were here, and those were the decisions that they made. Citizens elected those people to make those
decisions. And they made them. Whether you liked them or not or whether you showed up your first day on
the rodeo and you’re going to be complaining about it, but to sit there and say this is the first bonded paving
project, what about the Broad Street Parkway? There was $40 million or Lord knows what the figure is, it’s up
and down all the time, that were committed to future boards for a big paving project. Right? Where’s the
maintenance plan for that? There isn’t one.

So to sit there and throw rocks at this, we’re in a position now where we have to do something. | urge you
folks. | was down by Exit 4 today. Come up Exit 4 up off Harris Road. You'd be tripping from the ruts in the
street. When we look at the comment about the arterials. Get on Daniel Webster Highway. That’s a little bit
wider than say Taylor Street. If we had to reconstruct those roadways, the cost would enormous.

We're retiring debt every year, every year. You can look at bonding in many different aspects and the
availability of cash and things of that nature, but | like this plan. | think it is a good plan. | was disappointed
that the amendment that | had to make wasn’t included in the original piece of legislation because it should
have been. | wanted to put it in there. Nobody is hiding anything from anybody. Decisions are going to have
to be made. It’s time for us to do something.

| was up in Concord the other day. Their roads are atrocious. | have two colleagues here that drive up there
all the time. You go through those back streets of Pleasant Street and up through there, it’s unbelievable. |
think it’s a good project, and | think we should move forward.

Alderman Clemons

| appreciate your response, Alderman Deane. Thank you very much. I’m compelled to support it as well. |
look at the roads we drive on every day and the conditions are bad. They are bad in my personal
neighborhood. We do have to do something. One way or the other, we are going to pay for it. You're either
going to pay for the roads through your taxes by doing this or you are going to pay for it when you pothole and
you have to realign your car, replace a tire, pay a higher price for auto insurance. These are things that you're
going to pay for one way or the other. We might as well do it right and get the streets in good condition so | will
support this.

Alderman Dowd
| agree it is a lot of money, but how did we get here? We've been ignoring the streets for so long taking money

out of previous budgets. The paving we did do, Tinker Road is a good example. About a year ago they skim
coated it and it looked great until the first winter. The plows dug it up and now it is like going through a mine