Search

City of Nashua, NH | March 11, 2016 Cartegraph

For the project, you will be responsible for appointing a dedicated project manager that will be responsible for:

e Reviewing the implementation scope of work

e = Allinternal aspects of the project including, but not limited to, internal change management, internal
documentation, staff coordination, task completion, and schedule commitment

e Ensuring all scheduled meetings are attended by invited staff

e Partnering with the Cartegraph Project Manager to ensure project success

e Providing leadership and insight on all relevant internal issues such as _ policy/procedure,
organizational structure, project stakeholders, technical architecture, data, and current systems

The following service items are not included in the scope of this project:
e Implementation of any custom modification or integration developed by Cartegraph, your internal
staff, or any third-party is not included in the scope of this project unless specifically listed above.
e Data conversion services from other software system(s) or sources (including Cartegraph
Navigator databases) are not included in the scope of this project unless specifically listed above.
e Any service items discussed during demonstrations, conference calls, or other events are not
included in the scope of this project unless specifically listed above.

Page 3 of 4

City of Nashua, NH | March 11, 2016

Cartegraph’s proposed fees for this project are included in the summary below.

Cartegraph

Date: March 11, 2016 Quote Expiration Date: March 31, 2016 Quote No.: #Q1601117
Purchase Type Citizen/Qty. | Unit Price Total Price
YEAR 1
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
Cartegraph OMS Advanced Work Management per-citizen 86,494 $0.15 $12,974.00
Extension Subscription
FIELD SERVICES
qupementation Fixed Fee Service 1| $3,400.00] — $3,400.00
ervices
Discount $ ($1,374.00)
TOTAL CosT $15,000.00

Not-to-Exceed Quote

Cartegraph will not exceed the total included in this Quote without written approval from Customer. In the event it
becomes apparent to Cartegraph that additional service efforts will be needed due to any changes in the scope of
this Quote, Cartegraph will notify Customer prior to exceeding the approved efforts and obtain written approval if

additional software or services are required.

Page 4 of 4

§ THE CITY OF NASHUA “The Gate City’

Financial Services

Purchasing Departnsent

March 10, 2016
Memo #16-119

TO: MAYOR DONCHESS
FINANCE COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: | PURCHASE OF ONE (1) NEW 2014 FORD TRANSIT CONNECT WAGON XLT
(VALUE: $24,357)
DEPARTMENT: 130 PURCHASING
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION: 2016 CERF-VEHICLES

Please see the attached communication dated January 28,2016 from David G. Fredette, Treasurer/Tax
Collector for the information related to this purchase.

Pursuant to § 5-78 Major purchases (greater than $10,000) A. All supplies and contractual services,
except as otherwise provided herein, when the estimated cost thereof shall exceed $10,000 shall be
purchased by formal, written contract from the lowest responsible bidder, after due notice inviting bids.

Purchasing attempted to buy this vehicle through the NH State Contract and MHQ in Marlborough, MA
but the lead time quoted by both was 120 days and we need to replace this vehicle now so we put it out
to Bid.

A Bid was sent to 5 area Ford Dealers. We received 2 Bids which are shown below:
Ford of Londonderry, Londonderry, NH $22,835
Stoneham Motor Co. Stoneham, MA $25,971

The low bidder, Ford of Londonderry, had no vehicles in stock and quoted 24-26 week lead time. The
next low bidder, Stoneham Motor Co. has offered an alternate vehicle from what they originally Bid with
options that match up with our original Bid specifications for a cost of $24,357. It is in stock and available
for immediate delivery. The purchase amount is less than the estimated replacement value of $25,699 in
David G, Fredette’s attached memo which was approved at the February 10, 2016 BOA Meeting.

The Purchasing Department recommends the purchase of this vehicle In the amount of $24,357 from
Stoneham Motor Co. of Stoneham, MA.

Respecttully, / oa

Sb. KEKE.

ae a : fine S

\ jDan Kooken
Purchasing Manager

om,

Ce: J. Griffin

229 Main Street » Nashua, New Hampshire 03061 © Phone (603) 589-3330 © Fax (603) 589-3344

City of Nashua

Office of The Treasurer
- 803
229 Main Street - Nashua, NH 03060 ren pees =

To: Board of Aldermen January 28, 2016
From: David G. Fredette, Treasurer/Tax Collecto:7 \ YG 4 ‘

Re: Purchase replacement for the 2003 Dodge Caravan
Capital Equipment Reserve Fund (CERF)

The purpose of this communication is to request approval from the Board of Aldermen for an item that
was planned to be listed in the FY2017 CERF Replacements list. Recently the 2003 Dodge Caravan —
messenger van, which was used by Purchasing for various tasks throughout the city, was totaled in an
accident. This vehicle was planned to be replace in FY 2017 at an estimated cost of $25,699.

Currently the city has to date purchased 19 of the approved items listed on the planned FY 2016 CERF
replacement schedule for $1,913,779 which is $151,159 below the planned replacement cost of
$2,064,938. As a result, the CERF has sufficient funding for the city to purchase a Ford Transit Van
for a net cost to CERF of $18,500 ($22,500 less $4,000 reimbursement from the Risk department).
The Purchasing department is currently using the Building Maintenance and Information Technology

vehicles to perform their work.

Pursuant to NRO 5-127.1 D Capital Equipment Reserve Fund, which states: “During that fiscal year,
the city may purchase that equipment, or equipment that will serve the same stated purpose as the
listed equipment as long as the price does not vary by more than ten percent of the estimated
replacement value. All purchases from the Capital Equipment Reserve Fund must comply with the

city’s purchasing approval process. Any other requests to use funds from the Capital Equipment
Reserve Fund must be approved by the board of aldermen.”

I respectfully request the approval from the Board of Aldermen for the purchase of a 2016 Ford Transit
Van used by the Purchasing department. The purchase would proceed through the Finance Committee

approval process.

Cc: Mayor James Donchess 16-002
John Griffin, CFO/Comptroller
Dan Kooken, Purchasing Department

BID SPECIFICATIONS
1FBO170-030416

TITLE: Ford Transit Connect Wagon XLT

Quantity: 1
Nashua Purchasing Department, 229 Main Street, Nashua, NH 03061

The City of Nashua Purchasing Department invites bids from qualified suppliers for one (1) new and
unused, model year 2016 Ford Transit Connect Wagon XLT.

List the exact manufacturer specifications for the vehicle you are bidding for In each of the

categories listed. If any additlonal Information Is to be suppiled regarding any item, please indicate
beside the Item and type the Information on pages to be attached to the bld submittal. Failure to

respond to any Item may be cause for the bid to be rejected as “non-responsive”.

Inclusion of manufacturer's specifications will not be considered as a substitute for filling in the specifications.

It is encouraged that the bid be supplemented by the manufacturers printed literature.
You are encouraged to elaborate on any aspect of the vehicle not listed in the bld specifications but such
explanations should be typed on supplemental bid paperwork. Equipment bld must be new and unused and

model year 2016.

Ail shIpping costs must be included In the bid. The vehicle is to be delivered to:

Nashua Purchasing Department
229 Main Street
Nashua NH 03061

The following specifications are minImum guidelines and, as noted above, must be filled in completely:
SPECIFICATIONS MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS

2016 Ford Transit Connect Wagon XLT Front Wheel Drive

Exterior Color Preferences: #1 Magnetic, #2 Deep Impact Blue,
or #3 Frozen White

Interior Color Preferences: # Medium Stone, #2 Charcoal Black

Includes all XLT Equipment Package Options

Daytime Running Lamps

Quickclear Electric Windshield Defronster

Rear Carpeted Floor Mats

Rear Cargo Liner Vinyl Floor Cover

All Weather Floor Mats Front and Rear

Vehicle ratings conform shall conform to SAE, EPA,
and DOT Standards

(FBO1 70-030416 Ford Transit Connect Wagon XLT
229 Main Street « Nashua, New Hampshire 03061 « Phone (603) 569-3330 « Fax (603) 589-3344

ee

pt sane

MOTOR VEHICLE JDEALER CYC”) STONEHAM MOTOR COMPANY INC. |
PURCHASE CONTRACT 186 MAIN STREET
FLEET SALES STONEHAM, MA 02180 www.stonehamford.com
LL 781-438-0490 FAX: 781-438-2148 _]
DATE Moree NO, STOCK NO, SALESPERSON
3/7/2016 141685 PAUL J BETTENCOURT
PURCHASER’S NAME(S) (‘I or "Me") STREET ADDAESS
i CITY OF NASHUA 229 MAIN ST
CITVISTATE/ZIP HOME PHONE | BUSINESS PHONE
NASHUA NH 03061 603 589 3333
ENTER MY 1 1 NEW FORMER USE DEMONSTRATOR [ POLUCE CAR [J REBUILT INSURANCE TOTAL [)
ORDERFOR (QUANTITY) USED (IF APPLICABLE) FORMER LEASED CAR (} FORMER DAILY RENTAL [] Taxicaa
Your Make Model Name Body Styfe/Type Model No. Transmission {Speeds} | Cyl. Pass. | Doors
Standard
2014 FORD TRANSIT CONNECT MINI VAN ESF Automatic 4 5
Vehicle identification No. Color ist Interior 1st Top Odometer Delivery Date
2nd 2nd I,
NMOGE9F76EL1144630 a¢ Ss WHITE a@_ STONE km. C]
Yoar Make WARRANTY INFORMATION Social Security No.
Model Type Color This vehicle carries an express war- | Date of Birth
VIN, fanty. Purchaser may obtain a copy of Employer ID No,
such warranty from the dealer upon
Odometer (mi. ‘km.(3) | request at time of order and will receive | E-mail Address
Transmission [] Standard (Speeds) DAuto the warranty at time of delivery. Price of Unit 3
No. of Cyl. |Pass. Doors.
Salvage Title Yes] _no(] REGISTRATION FEE/TITLE FEE
SALES TAX Additional Equipmentiitems
INLCUDES ALt SEA
City/State/Zip Application for Title
Application for Reg. (] New [1] Transfer
Address Registration No.
City/State/Zip Registration Fee | $
Acct. No. | Titte Fee $
Mass, Seles Tax | $
LIENHOLDER
Address * Sales Tax amount is included in
City/State/Zip right hand column only whe n
dealership check is issued in
ENS URANGEICS: payment of Mass. Sales Tax.
Agent/Branch
Address/City
In the event I fail to take delivery of the vehicle purchased by me within forty-
eight (48) hours after | have been notified by you that it Is ready for delivery and
pay the total contact price in the manner indicated, my deposit in the amount of
$ may. at your option, be retained by you to
compensate you in whole or part of any loss sustained by you. Your right to
tetain my deposit shall be in addition to and not instead of any other right or
remedy provided by applicable law Including, without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the sale of the car or truck | agree (o purchase. If the amount of
my deposit exceeds actual damages sustained by you, you will promptly refund
the difference to me.
Purchaser's Initials { ]
ALL REBATES AND SALES INCENTIVES OFFERED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR
DISTRIBUTOR ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO THE DEALER. Total Price $ 24,367,
Purchaser's initials [ I Discount $
This contract is not binding upon either dealer or purchaser until the follawing conditions are met! Trade-in Allowance $
{1} The contract is signed by dealer or his/her authorized representative; SS
(2) Other, Rebate(s) Cosas
{3) Other: | | $
Price Difference $ 24,357.00
Sales Tax $
PURCHASER MAY CANCEL THIS CONTRACT AND RECEIVE A FULL REFUND AT
ANY TIME UNTIL S/HE RECEIVES A COPY OF THIS CONTRACT SIGNED BY AN |_(8). Inspection Sticker s
AUTHOR-IZED DEALER REPRESENTATIVE. PURCHASER MUST GIVE WRITEN | (2,3), Registration
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION TO THE DEALER $
(E). Door to Door Delivery Charge $
The front and backof this order (8). Freight in From Trading Dealer ;
compromise the entire agreement
between the dealer and purchaser, and Purchaser's Signature (8). Courtesy Delivery Fee $
no other agreement or understanding (1). Plate Processing Fee $
has been made or ententered into.
Co-Purchasers Signature Subtotal $ 24,357.00
Ooposit $
Authorized Dealer Representative TOTAL PAYMENT $ 24,357.00

3. BIDDER QUESTION:
Question: A question was raised at the pre-bid meeting proposing changes to the
temporary pavement patch detail.

Answer: The City has decided that the details and construction requirements for
temporary pavement patch shall remain as indicated on the plans.

4. INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS:

The Deadline for Vendor Questions is changed from Tuesday February 01, 2022 at
10:00am to Thursday, February 03, 2022 at 10am.

Vendor question answers will be posted by Friday, February 04, 2022 at 4:00pm.
The Bid Due date remains the same: Thursday, February 10, 2022, 4:00pm.

- END ADDENDUM-.

2022 Sewer Replacement Project Addendum No. I
Nashua, NH

REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
MARCH 2, 2016

A meeting of the Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, March 2, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Aldermanic Chamber.

Mayor Jim Donchess, Chair, presided.

Members of the Committee present: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson, Vice Chair
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien
Alderman Benjamin M. Clemons
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Ken Siegel

Also in Attendance: Mr. John L. Griffin, CFO
Mr. Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager

Mayor Donchess

We have had some technical difficulties and the sound was not on for the first five minutes of this meeting. To
recap what has happened we took the roll call and we accepted a communication from John L. Griffin, CFO,
regarding the audit prepared by Melanson Heath.

PUBLIC COMMENT - None
COMMUNICATIONS

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE THE COMMUNICATION REGARDING
THE MELANSON HEATH PRESENTATION
MOTION CARRIED

From: John L. Griffin, CFO/Comptroller
Re: Melanson Heath Presentation
e Tabled 2/17/16

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE
Mr. Scott McIntire, Shareholder, Melanson Heath & Company, PC

| am one of the principals responsible for the audit here | Nashua and the gentleman to my left is Mr. Ed Boyd
who is one of our audit managers who manages the day-to-day execution of our audit of your financial
statements. We are here to give you a quick walk through of not only the financial statements but even more
importantly than that, an overview of how our audit went because we do think that is perhaps the most
important communication we can make to you. We provided you with a governance letter which in essence
tells you really what | am going to orally communicate tonight which is essentially how the audit went. | am
really pleased to be able to report to you that our audit of your financial statements for the year ended June 30,
2015, went very well and in essence what that means is we found the books and records to be in good working
order. The key reconciliations, the cash, receivables, long-term debts and accounts payable; that those key
balance sheet accounts were reconciled on a regular and timely basis and as a result of that and of our audit
procedures we did not need to propose any significant audit entries. The numbers that you see here in your
financial statements are directly traceable back to the books and records of the city and they get uploaded

Finance Committee Page 2
March 2, 2016

through a system and inputted into this comprehensive annual financial report. Each one of these numbers
can be drilled down into and you can actually see the specific general ledger of accounts from your financial
management system. A couple of other quick things in the governance letter and again they are required
communications so | need to take a moment to relay them to you. There were no disagreements in how to
apply generally accepted accounting principles; those are the rules that you use to complete your accounting
and financial reporting. In terms of accounting estimates, there were definitely a couple of significant estimates
in these financial statements and one | suspect will get a fair amount of conversation tonight. The two most
significant estimates in there are the city's net GAAP obligation and the city’s net pension liability. East of
those are actuary determined so there are certain actuarial standards that go into and they are professionally
calculated and they are now require to be presented in your long-term prospective financial statements. With
that overview, | would like to start with our opinion of your financial statements which is on pages 15-17.
Everything else is in this document is directly traceable back to the books and records here in Nashua. In
summary it says that after following the various audit standards that we did, in our opinion, your financial
statements are totally in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for local governmental
entities here in the United States of America which is no different than prior year but certainly a key highlight
and a key take away from the audit. Following that on pages 18-32 are your management discussion and
analysis. It's a great resource to go back to at a later point in time to understand why certain key account
balances change. I’m going to talk orally about some of those and that’s why | think the MD&A is a great
resource to go back to at a later point in time. That brings us to page 33 and that’s where I'll start looking at
some of the key accounts on the balance sheets and the operating statements or the income statement,
although that’s really not a term that used in the governmental financial world. Before | do that, there are two
very distinct financial statements in here and that’s the model that you folks are required to follow by the GASB
or the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. One model is the long-term perspective financial
statements and that begins on page 33. The second model is what | would refer to as the short-term
perspective which begins on page 36. | learned a long time ago that when | say there is a long-term
perspective and a short-term perspective that | need to follow-up by saying that it’s not as if the city has two
sets of books, it’s just a long-term perspective way of looking at those with certain accrual-based entries
associated with them and in the short-term basis financial statement are not quite a cash basis but quite
similar; there are more definitions in the notes to the financial statement should you choose. The long-term
perspectives again, beginning on page 33, a significant portion of any exit communication that | have had with
my audit clients for the year ending June 30, 2015, have focused on long-term perspective financial
statements. That’s because for this year end, June 30, 2015, it is the first year that you and all of the cities and
towns in the state and throughout the country were required to implement a new accounting standard called
GASB 68. Essentially this standard required that for local governments to reach out to... you are contributing
employer to the New Hampshire Retirement System and that system has a piece that is unfunded. There is an
unfunded liability with that particular retirement system. Essentially what this new accounting standard is
saying is that while it’s not a liability of the system it is a liability of the underlying employers because the
contributions that have gone into the system don’t yet match the expected benefits to be paid out to the
retirees. This new standard requires the NPL or the net pension liability that you as a contributing employer,
you are about a 5% member of the New Hampshire Retirement System. That translates to, as you see on
page 33, and it’s a couple of inches up from the bottom in the first column of numbers, you see an account
description called the net pension liability. In that first column of numbers it’s about $185 million. That is a
very large number and as a result | think it’s important to talk about it tonight. A couple of the things that |
would like to point out to the group here is while this balance sheet here as of June 30, 2015, it’s the first time
it's present on this page. It’s not as if, in our opinion, and in the opinion of rating agencies that it’s a new
liability; rating agencies have always known that the pension system not only here in this state but throughout
the country have an unfunded piece. They have always known that the unfunded piece of the liability is
attributable to the underlying employer’s, the City of Nashua. While it’s the first time you see it here on this
particular page, and of course as your liabilities goes up your equity or net position goes down and you can
see that in the first column of numbers; the second number up from the bottom that’s in parentheses, while it’s
the first time being present here, again it’s been a known liability to the credit rating agency communities and to
the financial institutions. | was speaking with Mr. Griffin earlier tonight and he reminded me that the credit

Finance Committee Page 3
March 2, 2016

rating agencies have affirmed your rating quite recently, even after they have seen this long-term perspective
balance sheet with now this net pension liability of almost $190 million. | think that sort of supports the
assertion that while it’s new to the balance sheet and never having been on this particular page of your
financial statements before, the credit rating agencies communities have always known that liability existed
and very likely have factored it into past ratings as they are incorporated into current ratings as well. That
really in the nutshell is all | wanted to speak about on the long-term perspective financial statements. I'll touch
quickly on the general fund and if the committee has questions on the NPL then between Ed and myself we
can answer them. At this | would like to turn your attention over to page 36 and this takes us from the long-
term perspective financial statement to the accrual based financial basis over to page 36 which is a more
traditional looking balance sheet for local governments in this country. Even with your MD & A and the long-
term perspective financial statements, this really is the first page that most readers are going to turn to, the
general fund balance sheet and they are going to focus on that first column of numbers, the unassigned fund
balance as of June 30, 2015, with an account balance of about $27.7 million. To put that into perspective, that
account balance is virtually unchanged from the prior year. It’s up about $400,000 but as a percentage it’s not
much of fluctuation from the prior year. Another way to look at that number is what is that unassigned fund
balance as a percentage of your operating expenditures and as disclosed in your MD & A. That $27.7 million
represents about 11% of your general fund operating expenditures for the year ending June 30, 2015. It’s
essentially unchanged from the prior year. The only other specific page I’d like to draw your attention to is
page 40 and this is a budget and actual comparative statement. The next page people will very likely turn to
are the budget and actual comparative statement. You'll see in the last column of numbers is the variance
between your actual results of operation on a budgetary basis compared to the final budget. You can see in
the last column of numbers that revenues came in greater than anticipated or greater than the budget by about
$3 million. Moving down the page the total expenditures and other uses, you can see that there were unspent
appropriations or turn backs of appropriations of about $1.7 million. Collectively the excess revenues of $3
million and the unspent appropriations of $1.7 million give you that number of just under $4.8 million from
budgetary results of operations. How does that translate into essentially your unassigned fund balance being
unchanged? One of the things that you have to factor in on this particular page in the budget versus actual
page is that one of the financing sources that the city used for its FY 2015 budget was that it used some of its
fund balance; it used about $5 million of its fund balance as an anticipated financing source. In essence you
anticipated that your outflows of dollars were going to exceed your inflows of dollars by about $5 million. When
you factor out approximately $5 million from this $4.7 million and | recognize that | am using some round
numbers but all of the detail is available in the disclosures to the financial statements but if you look at those
positive budgetary results of about $4.8 million having essentially softening those by the use of your fund
balance of about $5 million you are coming to within essentially a break-even point for the fiscal year. There is
a wealth of other disclosures in this document on the cash position of the community, the receivables, the long-
term debt and the payout of your long-term debt which | know in the past has been cited as a credit strength
because of the rapid payout of your long-term debt. Very often credit rating agencies don’t just look at the
amount of long-term debt but how much is being paid out generally speaking in the next ten years; they look
for a rapid payout of the bonds payable that exists in communities and Nashua has always showed up very
strongly in that credit classification. That is a very quick walk through of our audit and just a couple of the
highpoints in your financial statements. In summary, as | indicated our audit of your financial statements went
very well and we did not need to propose any significant journal entries as a result of the test work that we did.
The long-term perspective financial statements; the issues that you are facing are the same as every other
government in the state and essentially throughout the country with implementing statement 68 and presenting
and effectively recognizing this liability called the net pension liability. On the short-term perspective or the
general fund, in summary | think it’s a very stable balance sheet and | think that’s supported by what the credit
rating agencies have said. It being stable means it’s consistent with the prior year in that 11%, that unassigned
fund balance representing about 11% of expenditures is consistent with communities that are similarly rated to
the City of Nashua. With that | will open it up to any questions that the committee may have.