Finance Committee Page 2
July 20, 2016
Alderman Cookson
With that statement, what are you going to do with the new 2016 hybrids? Are you doing to take care of them
or are we going to let them sit out and rust? It’s only 74,000 miles. Come on, most people have their own
vehicles for well into the 150,000’s if not higher than that. This is literally half that mileage. | understand it’s in
CERF and we’ve geared them up to come in and out of service. One is using ’16 funds, one is using the °17
funds. But this mileage is relatively low. | think people would go out and purchase a used vehicle with maybe
that would be the max of the mileage that they would be looking for. | don’t think it is that high of a mileage. |
have questions about that just for that sole reason.
Alderman Wilshire
Having a fleet of vehicles where | work, myself, it's not always the number of miles but the type of miles. Most
of these are inner city. They are not highway miles that a lot of vehicles get. From my experience, the age of
these vehicles kind of speaks to that. Mileage isn’t always the telling factor.
Alderman Siegel
Is it reasonable for us to get some additional information about the nature of the repairs? | have a similar
question. I’m used to seeing vehicles having rust with relatively low mileage. It’s kind of annoying, but it’s a
function of us not having proper wash bays. However, | do agree with Alderman Cookson, that the other
vehicle just doesn’t seem to have the type of obvious problems that the first one might have. We don’t know
what the repairs were so I’m not sure there’s a real time urgency to this. If we tabled it and got some additional
information that might be helpful.
Alderman O’Brien
It seems like the Ford Taurus we don’t’ have a question with. Reading the letter from Director Bagley it says it
has 80,000. Yet the vehicle in question is the Chevy Malibu at 74,000. We're only talking about 6,000 miles.
To be accurate to the people who do not see this letter that is before us, she says in her letter that the car has
some major repairs but is also 14 years old, no longer reliable and also not used outside of Nashua. Repeated
breakdowns of this vehicle are very inconvenient and always expensive. If we look at efficiency, | think is what
we need to look at, the city is not the shade tree mechanic. If we’re spending a lot of money for repairs on a
vehicle that’s not really that road worthy, and I’m seeing only 6,000 miles between the two vehicles, | can see
where they would come up at the same time in the CERF account to be replaced. Particularly, we’re talking
about a hybrid which | am very excited about because a hybrid is a vehicle that | think we will get more
productive miles out of it, more efficient in operation. | would recommend going forward. Anytime you start
talking deficiencies, | think this needs to be looked at.
Alderman Siegel
The big question is if. If, in fact, it has repairs. We haven’t seen anything documented. There doesn’t seem to
be a downside in getting more information. It may be the case, but we really don’t know. We are supposed to
be doing due diligence. | think Alderman Cookson did raise a valid point. We may end up voting for it but at
least we would be doing it with more information and in good conscience.
Alderman Cookson
To address Alderman O’Brien’s distinction between the two vehicles. You're absolutely correct that the
mileage between the two is a difference of 6,000. But what you failed to mention is the 2002 Ford Taurus will
nto pass state inspection without cost of repairs. You’ve got a point there where it’s not passing state
inspection. The other vehicle has already passed state inspection but it just needs brakes and tires prior to
winter. That’s my concern. I’d love to see some additional information to support the second vehicle.
