LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting was held on March 13, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Shevock, and Mr. Shelton. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mrs. Russell (arrived at 5:42 p.m.), Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Ruane, and Council President Williams. Mayor Speed was also present (arrived at 5:50 p.m).
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Discussion - Increase of Bond Limit
During their Regular Meeting of February 13, 2006, members considered increasing the debt limit. Staff was requested to provide the dollar amount that the debt limit of $1,000,000 would be if it were adjusted for inflation from the time the limit was set and a schedule of the debt limits of other municipalities in Delaware for consideration at the next meeting.
Mrs. Mitchell presented a PowerPoint Presentation which included responses to questions previously raised by the committee and provided additional information regarding Debt Management Policies and Referendum requirements. It was Mrs. Mitchell’s opinion that both a policy and referendum would not be necessary; however, that is a policy decision that should be made by Council. She further explained the purpose and reasons for Debt Management Policies, as well as conditions for debt issuance.
Staff recommended authorization to develop a Debt Management Policy that would: 1) incorporate capital planning and affordability analysis to determine if current revenues can support additional debt or if rate/fee increases would be necessary or if there is a potential additional revenue source; 2) debt service financed through taxes and rates of those who benefit from the project; and 3) include conservative policy elements, such as general obligation aggregate indebtedness, General Obligation Bonded debt per capita; annual debt service, and sinking fund requirements. Should members wish to keep some type of referendum requirement, rather than a fixed dollar amount, Mrs. Mitchell suggested that the allowable debt be subject to a percentage and recommended that an additional debt service equate to a property tax rate increase greater than 10% (example for current values, at $.033 rate would equal $771,258 in receipts towards debt service payment of $770,000 or $7 million bonded indebtedness).
Members noted that the Charter Review Committee is in the process of reviewing this matter and felt that further consideration would take place once a recommendation is brought forward. Mr. Ruane relayed concern with delaying consideration due to its effect on potential capital projects. Mr. Slavin cautioned members not to allow particular projects to dictate the type of amendments that should be considered. He suggested that the Charter Review Committee be requested to give Section 50 expedient attention, since this may be a time sensitive issue.
Mr. Slavin moved to recommend acceptance of the report, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Members suggested that Mrs. Mitchell make a presentation to the Charter Review Committee for their review and recommendation. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Mitchell indicated that it would take a minimum of two (2) months to develop a comprehensive Debt Management Policy. It was felt that the Charter Review Committee could bring forth a recommendation with regards to Section 50 of the Charter at the same time that Mrs. Mitchell would be bringing forth a recommendation for a Debt Management Policy.
Pay for Performance Evaluation Changes
Feedback received from department heads following last year's PFP evaluations included suggestions to better define a performance rating definition and revising the PFP Evaluation document to combine a redundant core competency. It was noted that there was an error on the action form and that “and address concerns about the overall scoring for commendable and outstanding employees” should be deleted.
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, noted that the performance rating definition of “Needs Improvement” was changed to “Acceptable with Some Improvement Needed” to better reflect that the employee has not failed entirely in an area but has not performed the assigned duties in a fully competent manner, thus requiring additional support of others. He also noted that the competency elements were reduced from seven (7) to six (6) by combining the somewhat redundant competencies of Work Management and Accountability and Leadership into the suggested revised competency of Accountability/Leadership/Work Management. These revisions, along with developing a user friendly, electronic evaluation system were developed for use effective May 1, 2006.
Mr. Slavin moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan.
Mayor Speed relayed concern with including leadership with accountability and work management. It was his opinion that work management and leadership are unrelated. Leadership is more about getting people to do what they may not want to do and work management is more about sticking to a schedule and tasks. He stated that leadership is more of an art than a science and that work management is just the opposite.
Mr. Salters felt that there was not much of a difference between the description for “outstanding” and “commendable” and questioned if there could be a better definition to differentiate them. Mr. DePrima explained that although the language provided is similar, the difference is an outstanding employee is one who is selected in their profession or within the City that teaches others and is considered a “model” employee, which is emphasized in the description.
If the committee would prefer, Mr. DePrima offered to work with the Mayor in developing possible amendments for further consideration. He reminded members that the proposed amendments are based on comments from the users that there appeared to be a duplication in language in the competency categories. As an alternative, Mr. Hogan questioned the possibility of including leadership with “Supervisory Skills”.
The motion recommending approval of the new electronic form and changes to the PFP Evaluation, as recommended by staff, was unanimously carried.
Proposed Ordinance - Appendix D - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District (DDBID) Area
In updating the BID District map (GIS), it was discovered that the map was in conflict with the text. The proposed ordinance amendments to Appendix D - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District, Article II - Definitions, Section 3 - Assessment Zone, and Section 3 - Geographic Boundaries and Paragraph (f) of Section 9 - Method of Assessment of Article III - Establishment, of the Dover Code would correct and update the map describing the BID District.
Staff recommended adoption of the proposed Ordinance amendments to Appendix D - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District of the Dover Code.
Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Proposed Ordinance - Reaffirmation of Dover Parking Authority and Dover Housing Authority
While working with the 2005 Dover Code (Green Book), it was discovered that there was little to no mention of a Housing Authority or Parking Authority for the City of Dover. In researching this matter, it was determined that the 1981 Dover Code (Black Book) included a reference to both as an "Editor's Note" in Chapter 2 - Administration. This reference was simply that the City had created the authorities in accordance with Delaware Code. The 1968 Dover Code (White Book) included separate divisions for each in the "Administration" Section that simply noted their creation as provided by the Delaware Code.
In talking with the Deputy City Solicitor, it was suggested that Council adopt ordinances that create the Housing Authority and Parking Authority for the City of Dover in accordance with the Delaware Code. Once these ordinances are adopted, the City Solicitor's Office will assist the City in executing confirmatory deeds for all properties that were reconveyed to the Parking Authority when it was revived.
Staff recommended adoption of the proposed Ordinance amendments to Section 22-2 - Housing Authority and Section 106-111 - Parking Authority of the Dover Code.
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of staff’s recommendation (Attachment #2), seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
State of the City Budget - Mid-Year Review
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, presented members with the mid-year review of the Fiscal Year 2006 City of Dover Budget. The purpose of this report is to give City Council a mid-year picture of the City’s operating expenses and revenues for all City budgets. This should be considered a proactive exercise so that Council can take necessary actions to adjust budgetary behavior if necessary.
Mr. DePrima stated that, overall, the report projects that the General Fund Budget Balance will increase by $785,230 to $3,768,431. The combined Water/Wastewater Fund Budget is projected to decrease by $29,649 to $1,238,302. The Electric Fund will also decrease by $14,000 to $3,916,880. He reported that “managing to the budget” continues to be successful and that the City Manager and the Finance Director continue to monitor budgets closely.
Mr. DePrima noted that it will be necessary to increase gasoline expense budgets to reflect actual expenses throughout the City’s department budgets. Gasoline budgets have not been adjusted at this time since department heads have been instructed to conserve and find the additional funds in their budgets. Should it be necessary to make any revisions, they will be presented with the Proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Budget.
Mr. DePrima reviewed the details provided and noted that as recently requested, staff provided members with budget replacement pages reflecting the proposed mid-year review budget amendments. If members recommend approval, staff will develop budget ordinance amendments that will be presented to City Council for First Reading on March 27, 2006.
Mr. Ruane noted that staff has included information for the Recreation Center Funding Plan. The Plan reflects a $400,000 requirement of additional funds, which is anticipated to be funded by the State of Delaware payment in lieu of taxes, as well as private funding in fiscal year 2007. Since the fund balance exceeds the 8% requirement by $715,382 in the General Fund, Mr. Ruane suggested that it would behoove the City to provide all funding necessary for this project and suggested an additional $400,000 be transferred to the Parkland/Recreation Reserve.
Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. DePrima explained that the City has a current contract for architectural and engineering services for the Recreation Center. Construction estimates are being developed at various time periods and it is anticipated that a new estimate will be forthcoming. He stated that during the remainder of this fiscal year, design and permitting will be completed and that construction is scheduled to begin in calendar year 2007.
Based on the response of Mr. DePrima, it was the opinion of Mr. Slavin that there is no time sensitive issue to have all funding available since it is not anticipated that construction bids would be let for an additional nine (9) months.
In response to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Tieman explained that the Parkland/Recreation Reserve transfer is actually being increased $809,850, which includes the sale of land (Hanson House) in the amount of $59,850, recreation grant in the amount of $300,000 (Welfare Foundation and Longwood Foundation), and $450,000 due to increased fund balance.
Mr. Ruane suggested that members consider designating any residual funds from the carry forward balance to a new account for funding a new Library. He explained that until the City shows some type of commitment, other agencies and organizations are reluctant to do so.
Mr. Slavin moved to recommend approval of the Mid-Year Budget Review for Fiscal Year 2006, as presented by staff (Attachment #3 - Budget Ordinance Amendments). The motion was seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. (City Clerk’s Office Note: Resulting from the committee’s recommendation, Attachment #3 is Budget Ordinance Amendments which will be presented to City Council for a First Reading on March 27, 2006).
Mr. Slavin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Reuben Salters
Chairman
RS/tm/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20063-13-2006 LF&A.wpd
Attachments to Original Minutes and File Copy
Attachment #1 - Appendix D - Downtown Dover Business Improvement District: Article II - Definitions, Section 3 - Assessment Zone; Article III - Establishment of the Dover Downtown Business Improvement District, Section 3 - Geographic Boundaries, and Section 9 - Method of Assessment, Paragraph (f)
Attachment #2 - Chapter 22 - Buildings and Building Regulations, Article I - General, Section 22-2 - Housing Authority; and Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Article III - Stopping, Standing, and Parking, Division 1 - Generally, Section 106-111 - Parking Authority
Attachment #3 - Budget Ordinance Amendments