LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on January 14, 2008, at 6:05 p.m. with Chairman Slavin presiding. Members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Salters (arrived at 4:35 p.m.), Mrs. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Other members of Council present were Mrs. Russell (arrived at 6:34 p.m.), Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Ruane, Council President Williams and Mayor Carey.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Review of 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations - Article II (Continued)
During their meeting of September 10, 2007, members approved the schedule to complete a comprehensive review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations, including public hearings in each election district, over the next six (6) months. Members began their review during their meeting on October 8, 2007.
During their meeting of November 26, 2007, Mr. Slavin noted that members would continue their review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendation at “Section 36 - Council not to Interfere with Appointments or Removals of Manager; Giving Orders to Subordinates of Manager Prohibited; Penalty for Same (Section 2.05 - Prohibitions, Subsection (c) - Interference with Administration, Model City Charter)”. As scheduled, members continued consideration of the recommendations to Article II - Mayor and Council, of the Dover Charter, as follows:
Section 36, City Charter - Council not to Interfere with Appointments or Removals of Manager; Giving Orders to Subordinates of Manager Prohibited; Penalty for Same (Section 2.05 - Prohibitions, Subsection (c) - Interference with Administration, Model City Charter)
Members relayed concern with an employee’s rights of appeal. Mr. DePrima stated that the City has grievance procedures and that there are State Laws to assure employees are provided due process.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend including the language in Section 2.05 - Prohibitions, Subsection (c) - Interference with Administration, as stated in the Model City Charter, rather than Section 36 of the City Charter, and to cite existing State Code as it relates to an employee’s right of appeal. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Section 35 - Removal of Employees by Manager (Section 2.05 - Prohibitions, Subsection (b) - Appointments and Removals, Model City Charter)
Although members had previous acted on these Sections, due to the concerns relayed regarding Section 36, it was the consensus of members that additional action should be taken.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend including the language in Section 2.05 - Prohibitions, Subsection (b) - Appointments and Removals, as stated in the Model City Charter, rather than Section 35 of the City Charter, and to cite existing State Code to assure an employee is afforded due process. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Jones and unanimously carried.
Mr. McGlumphy suggested that the City Solicitor provide the appropriate language to be included to assure an employee is afforded due process.
Section 13 - Filling Vacancies for Council or Mayor (Section 2.06 - Vacancies; Forfeiture of Office; Filling of Vacancies, Subsection (a) - Vacancies; and Subsection (b) - Forfeiture of Office, Model City Charter)
Mr. Salters moved to recommend including the language in Section 2.06 - Vacancies; Forfeiture of Office; Filling of Vacancies, Subsections (a), and (b), as stated in the Model City Charter, rather than Section 13 of the City Charter, with the inclusion “infamous acts” in addition to moral turpitude listed in Subsection (b). The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy.
Mr. McGiffin relayed his reluctance in the inclusion of “infamous acts” since such acts are difficult to define. He also advised members that an “infamous act” would not necessarily mean that a crime had been committed.
Referring to Subsection (a), Mr. Ruane suggested that members determine if there are provisions for the removal from office and questioned what are the provisions. Also, referring to Subsection (b), he questioned how a member is excused by Council for their absence at Council Meetings.
Mr. Salters moved to amend the motion by eliminating the inclusion of “infamous acts” in addition to moral turpitude listed in Subsection (b), seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
The motion to recommend including the language in Section 2.06 - Vacancies; Forfeiture of Office; Filling of Vacancies, Subsections (a), and (b), as stated in the Model City Charter, rather than Section 13 of the City Charter was unanimously carried.
Section 13 - Filling Vacancies for Council or Mayor (Section 2.06 - Vacancies; Forfeiture of Office; Filling of Vacancies, Subsection (c) - Filling of Vacancies, Model City Charter)
Mr. Ruane noted that the current City Charter addresses vacancies for both Mayor and Council and that the Model City Charter addresses only vacancies for Council.
Due to time constraints, Mr. Slavin stated that members will continue their review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendation at “Section 13 - Filling Vacancies for Council or Mayor (Section 2.06 - Vacancies; Forfeiture of Office; Filling of Vacancies, Subsection (c) - Filling of Vacancies, Model City Charter)” during their next meeting.
Authorization to Purchase - Document Imaging System Upgrade - Sole Source
Members were advised that the City has been using Westbrook Technology’s Imaging products for more than ten years. For the past several years, at the annual Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings, departments have been requesting upgrades to this system to include capturing reports from our HTE, Inc. software. Staff contacted Westbrook Technologies, the producer of the software, to acquire three (3) resellers for bidding on this project. The written response from the VP of Sales at Westbrook Technologies indicated three important points for consideration: 1) Hilyard’s Inc. is the only reseller based in Delaware; 2) the City is under contract with Hilyard’s Inc. and would lose what they call “investment protection” if we opt out of that contract; and 3) he assured us that our current reseller, Hilyard’s Inc., provides pricing that is “extremely competitive”. This savings, in the amount of a $20,000 credit from this protection program, is only available through Hilyard’s, Inc.
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, advised members that staff conducted an internal survey during November 2007 to assess the satisfaction with the current software product and our current vendor, Hilyard’s, Inc. The results of the survey was overwhelmingly in favor of staying with the same product line and reseller, Hilyard’s, Inc. In light of the above factors, staff views this upgrade project as a sole source vendor situation.
Staff recommended authorization for the purchase of the Document Imaging System upgrade from Hilyard’s Inc. in the amount of $79,998.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Proposed Budget Amendments - Budget Balances and Carry-Forwards
Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director/Treasurer, reviewed budget ordinances to incorporate into the FY08 Budget the final budget balances and project budget balances carried forward from FY07. She noted that also included in the budget amendments is the revised transfer taxes attributed to the sale of the three (3) apartment complexes earlier this year. She advised members that the Electric Revenue Fund changes incorporate the Revised Electric Revenue Fund Forecast for FY08 as presented to City Council in October along with the FY07 final results. The Budget Ordinance only includes the recommended changes for the budgeted line items affected and does not include all line items in each fund or reserve account.
Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that additional budget amendments will be forthcoming, explaining that she will be meeting with the City Manager and City Administrator to conduct the mid-year review of the budget.
Staff recommended approval of the budget ordinance to be forwarded to City Council for adoption.
Mr. Ruane relayed concern regarding the violation of the City’s policy as it relates to the transfer tax provided for the sale of the apartment complexes. He noted that the policy requires the City to refrain from budgeting non-recurring or one-time revenue for on-going expenses and that these revenues are to be set aside for asset replacement. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated his opinion that transfer taxes, even a unique transfer tax, are non-recurring revenue. Traditionally, transfer taxes, including one-time transfer taxes, are not considered non-recurring since they occur every year although they may be for different properties. He explained that the only situation when a transfer tax is considered non-recurring or one-time only is when there is a sale of a City asset.
Mr. McGlumphy stated his understanding that emergency situations arise; however, it was his opinion that City staff should be required to adhere to the budget adopted by Council for the fiscal year beginning in July and that any additional unaccounted revenues that are received should not be used for operating expenses.
Mrs. Mitchell stated that the transfer tax revenue received for the apartment complexes transfer tax was included at this time since she had previously advised members of Council, during a recent update, regarding the receipt of these funds. She advised members that since that update, it has been discovered that there is an issue regarding the budget for street lights, amounting to approximately $500,000. Although this issue could have also been included at this time, it was decided that it would be addressed during the mid-year review. Mrs. Mitchell relayed concern with the City Manager determining the use of the additional revenue when there is an additional $500,000 required for street lights. It was her opinion that the additional transfer tax revenue remain in the budget balance until the mid-year review to provide the opportunity for members to address other budgetary issues.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend adoption of the proposed budget amendments (Attachment #1), and authorize the Finance Director/Treasurer and City Manager to work out the necessary details. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Request to Process a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 22 Acres at Enterprise Business Park
Members reviewed a letter, dated July 31, 2007, from Mr. Leonard Iacono, Investment Property Associates, LLC, regarding a potential land donation. Mr. Iacono advised members of his intention to purchase 22 acres of land on Hazletteville Road at Enterprise Business Park. He stated his willingness to donate approximately 10 acres of this land to the City for its efforts in relocating the post office and building the library.
Mr. DePrima advised members that this land donation could have a very positive, perhaps critical, impact on the City’s future library plans. Since the receipt of this letter, Mr. DePrima stated that Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, has decided not to accept anymore Comprehensive Plan amendments in anticipation of updating the plan in 2008, which is a common and reasonable strategy. However, he advised members that Mr. Iacono is now interested in pursuing the rezoning and companion Comprehensive Plan amendment and that these plans may not be able to wait until late 2008 or early 2009.
Mr. DePrima stated that, recently, Mr. Iacono’s representatives of Mr. Iacono met with Ms. Townshend and himself regarding his desire to pursue his application at this time. He stated that since Mrs. Townshend is understandably uncomfortable waiving her own restriction, it was decided that this matter should be presented to City Council through the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee.
Mr. DePrima explained his belief that the request has a very compelling public interest as it relates to the future library with respect to raising necessary funds, and also relocating the Dover Post Office. He requested that members authorize Mrs. Townshend to accept both a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning application as it applies to this project. He noted that it would be necessary to address this matter in the 2008 update; therefore, it’s consideration would not constitute a duplication of efforts, since it would simply allow the conclusion to come forward earlier.
Mr. Ruane suggested that members understand that the issue involving the land donation and library is ancillary to the issue regarding the process that has been instituted by the Planning Office for all applicants for rezoning during this interim period (completion of the Comprehensive Plan). Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend indicated that there are other applicants that have contacted the Office regarding their desire to submit a rezoning or annexation application.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Slavin suggested that if the other applicants wish to pursue rezoning or annexation, they should be directed to come before the committee and follow this same process.
In fairness, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that the other applicants be made aware of the process that is available to them.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend that the request to process the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment be an exception to the rule for the 22 acre parcel located at the Enterprise Business Park and that the City would be the beneficiary of the land donation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Townshend assured members that she would notify the other applicants regarding the process, should they wish to pursue their application for rezoning or annexation.
Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:06 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy A. Slavin
Chairman
TAS/TM/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20081-14-2008 LF&A.wpd
Attachment
Attachment #1 - Proposed Budget Amendment Ordinances