LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on September 14, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. with Chairman McGlumphy presiding. Members present were Mr. Salters, Mr. Leary, Dr. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Ruane, Mr. Slavin (arrived at 6:32 p.m.), and Mrs. Russell (arrived at 6:40 p.m.). Mayor Carey (arrived at 5:20 p.m.) was also present.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried.
Review and Recommendation - Filling of Critical Positions
During their meeting of February 23, 2009, members recommended approval of the Hiring Freeze for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, but to allow the hiring of critical positions through the review and approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and City Council. It was suggested that there be a “standing” agenda item to consider the filling of critical positions and, if there are no positions to consider, the item could be removed.
Mr. McGlumphy noted that there were no critical positions to be considered; therefore, no further action was required.
Revenue/Cost Saving Ideas Submitted for Consideration (Items #21-#30)
During their meeting of May 19, 2009, Council reviewed the budget for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 which included a budget shortfall in the amount of $986,781 (across all three funds). In light of the shortfall, Mr. Kenneth Clendaniel, along with the IUE, provided a list of suggestions to save money and increase revenue throughout the City of Dover. Mr. McGlumphy had noted that the 30 suggestions would be considered by members 10 at a time. During their meeting of July 13, 2009, members began their review of a list (items #1-#10) of revenue/cost saving ideas developed by employees (items #11-#20 were reviewed during their meeting of August 10, 2009).
Mr. McGlumphy noted that responses to the ideas have been developed by staff and requested that everyone be provided a copy to provide a better understanding (Attachment #1).
Items #21 - #30 were discussed, as follows:
#21 - Put ALL unnecessary projects on hold until the City’s financial situation is corrected - Especially the Library Project
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, explained the importance of the Library Project and how this project is not delving into this year’s finances since funding is being provided by grants and past reserves. He also reminded members that most other projects have been shelved during the budget process, noting that the list was prepared prior to the completion of the budget process.
#22 - Discontinue all studies that do not directly involve the current financial problem with the City
Mr. DePrima advised members that he has eliminated the market study for downtown and that there are no current pending studies included in the budget.
#23 - Raise business licenses. Fees for vendors at Dover Downs... now $40.00, elsewhere it is on average $150
If supported by members, Mr. DePrima stated that staff would develop a proposal for Council’s consideration for increasing the business license fees for vendors at Dover Downs.
#24 - Yard waste (branches, leaves, brush, etc...) that is collected should be mulched by the City and used by the City or sell. Should not be hauling to dump and paying large fees to do so
Mr. DePrima stated that there is an assumption that there would be a profit in collecting yard waste, which an analysis would be required to determine. He noted that it would require an increase in costs for manpower. He advised members that DNREC may be making this decision for the City, explaining that they may prohibit yard waste at the Sandtown Landfill.
Mr. Ruane relayed his desire for staff to further investigate this matter and suggested that it be presented to the Utility Committee for further consideration.
#25 - Cease using post card survey reminders at City inspections. Use emails and post in-house memos
Mr. DePrima indicated that there is not a clear understanding of what this idea is referring to and requested that Mr. Clendaniel obtain clarification to allow staff’s consideration.
#26 - Start charging the public for lock jocks being performed by Police Officers and Animal Control Officer (unlock vehicles with keys locked in them). For many years there has never been a charge for this service. For 2009 so far from January 1st to May 14th, there have been 621 lock jocks. In 2008, there were 1,590 calls for service for lock jocks. With this service comes liability issues for damage while providing this service that could cost the City money. Most Locksmith companies charge on average $50 - $75 for this service. The City could issue a bill in the form of a DCO (add this service on the “other” line on the DCO), for the customer to send payment to the City within 72 hours just like parking summons’, if not paid within that time, it doubles just like all the other City ordinances. This would be a substantial form of revenue for the City on an annual basis
Mr. DePrima explained that the Police Department is able to assist those that have locked their keys in their cars for older model vehicles. Although many Police Departments have eliminated providing this service, the City Police Department views this as a community service. Since the Police Department would not want to begin charging a fee for this service, the alternatives would be to either continue to provide this service free of charge or eliminate providing the service.
Should it be decided to eliminate this service, Chief Horvath advised members that whenever there is a child or animal involved, the Police Department would provide assistance.
Responding to Mr. Hogan, Chief Horvath confirmed that this services cannot be utilized on many of the newer modeled vehicles.
#27 - City inspections are currently using two systems to log inspections complaints. The HTE and the CRM. Both are accomplishing the same task duplicating work. It is suggested that utilizing the old complaint forms and doing away with the Customer Resource Management System would save the City a lot of money. Not only because of the man hours spent duplicating entries, but also the cost of keeping the on-line ysstem updated and running on a daily basis
Mr. DePrima noted that HTE and CRM are different programs with different purposes. It was his feeling that there may be the possibility of eliminating some duplication and he would request staff to look into this matter.
#28 - The City uses outside Companies to monitor alarm systems within the City. Rather than contracting other outside agencies, the City should use their own dispatch centers (Electric or PD) to monitor them. This would eliminate costs for Security systems
At the request of Mr. DePrima, Mr. Clendaniel explained that there are five (5) buildings that have fire alarms and sprinkler systems that are monitored by Delaware Electric Signal at a cost of approximately $4,000 per year. Noting that there are three (3) dispatch centers within the City, it was his feeling that the phone routers could be routed to the City’s dispatch centers.
Mr. DePrima requested the opportunity to further investigate this idea.
#29 - There are a large number of extra phone lines within the City that are being paid for but are not in use. Eliminate costs for those lines by removing them altogether, and only adding lines, on an as needed basis
Mr. DePrima advised members that staff is in the process of determining which existing phone lines could be eliminated. He requested that if any employees are aware of a phone number, that they provide that information to him.
#30 - All standard vehicle maintenance work on City vehicles should be done by City mechanics, rather than contracting outside dealerships to do the work. However, all major warranty work should be done by the appropriate dealerships that apply. This is a huge expense for each department and can save a substantial amount of money annually. Even if the City were to hire another mechanic to share the new work load, the cost of this annual pay would be far less than the vehicle maintenance costs each year
Mr. DePrima advised members that most vehicle maintenance is provided by the City’s Fleet Auto Shop mechanics, with the exception of the Police vehicles and specialty work. It has been determined by staff that additional personnel and capacity would be required to handle additional vehicles. He suggested that staff further investigate this matter to determine if it would be cost effective.
Mr. McGlumphy requested that staff meet with Mr. Clendaniel in an effort to clarify questions of staff regarding some of the recommendations.
Defined Benefit Pension Plan Analysis/Closure
During their Annual Meeting of May 11, 2009, Council approved a motion to authorize the Controller/Treasurer to spend $4,000 to conduct an analysis using a sample of five (5) employees to transfer from the 401(a) Plan to the Defined Benefit Pension Plan. There are currently 82 employees in the 401(a) Plan.
Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that the analysis has been completed by Mr. Al Pike, MAAA of Pike Associates. Mr. Pike assumed the transferring employee would be required to pay into the Defined Benefit Pension Plan, in a lump sum payment, the following amounts:
1.The amount of employee contributions they would have contributed to the Pension Plan (3½%) had they participated in that plan from date of hire,
2.The amount of past City Contributions to the Defined Contribution Plan (6% of Pay),
3.Interest at the interest rate assumed in the Pension Plan’s actuarial valuations (7½%).
Mrs. Mitchell stated that Mr. Pike also included the average employee contribution percentage (11.5%) or an Equivalent Level Percentage based on the sample group. This percentage, when multiplied by current pay and years of past service, approximates the required buy back contribution.
The completed analysis of the sample group was provided to members for discussion which includes the estimated increase in the City’s pension liability and budget using estimated July 1, 2009 payrolls. It was noted that the analysis is as of July 1 using current assumptions and historical retirement trends. Other factors noted by Mr. Pike that could serve to increase the liabilities illustrated include: 1) Employees live longer than anticipated; 2) Invested funds do not earn the assumed 7.5%; and 3) City grants post retirement COLA’s.
Mrs. Mitchell advised members that there are regulations and ordinances that would need to be addressed to permit retroactive buy in of prior service. She explained that Transfers into the Defined Benefit Plan could potentially change the historical retirement levels with a sudden increase in the number of retirements. She stated that such a change would affect the future funding levels of the Pension Plan, as follows:
● Employee’s requesting the retro buy-in will be subject to two different early retirement benefit levels based on their hire date.
○If the employee’s hire date is prior to 5/1/94 they will be eligible to receive an early retirement benefit with 25 years of service or at age 50 with 20 years and no reduction in benefits.
Sixteen (16) of the eighty-two (82) employees in the 401(a) Plan would fall under this provision. Twelve (12) of the sixteen (16) would be eligible to retire in the next five years.
○If the employee’s hire date is after 5/1/94 they will be eligible to receive an early retirement benefit at age 55, if their age plus years of service is greater than 80 with no reduction in benefits.
Sixty-six (66) of the eighty-two (82) employees in the 401(a) Plan would come under this provision. Six (6) of the sixty-six (66) would be eligible to retire in the next five years.
● Hire date would not affect any other provision of the General Pension Plan, for example early retirement with reduced benefits or normal retirement.
Upon reviewing Mr. Pike's analysis, Mrs. Mitchell stated that she would not recommend that the City permit retro buy in of prior service. She reminded members that a separate presentation was made to the Legislative, Finance & Administration Committee on July 27, 2009 and that it was recommended to close the General Employee's Pension Plan to new hires. The committee did not make a recommendation to Council in this regard at that time pending the outcome of this analysis.
Concurring with Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima suggested that an open workshop be held with interested employees to better explain the study and the results.
Mr. Hogan questioned the pay-out for the employees and, referring to the buy-in contributions, he questioned if the City has the ability to provide information regarding the number of years it would take for the employee to recoup their money.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation not to permit retro buy-in for prior service and to close the General Employee’s Pension Plan to new hires. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock and carried with Mr. Salters voting no.
Mr. DePrima advised members that he had questions regarding this matter. Responding, Mr. McGlumphy stated that the committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to Council for their consideration and suggested that any further discussion could be held at that time.
Phase II of the MAG Study
During their meeting of June 22, 2009, staff provided a handout containing an Organization of Recommendations related to Phase II of the MAG Study with proposed changes grouped according to subject area.
Mr. Leary moved to remove the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
A continuation of the review of the MAG study recommendations was presented by Mrs. Hawkins, Director of Human Resources, as follows:
Explanation of Awarding Salary Increases
Mrs. Hawkins explained that the MAG’s recommendation for awarding salary increases eliminates the “below”, “at” and “above” market reference. Pay increases would be awarded based upon the mid-point of the salary range of the position the employee occupies and the employee’s performance rather than the employee’s placement within the salary range and performance. As a result, assuming employees performance is at the same level, employees at the beginning of the scale would receive a larger percentage increase in proportion to their salary. As the employee’s salary moves along the salary range, the mid-point increase would reflect a smaller and smaller increase. She reviewed three (3) different examples provided to members.
Mr. McGlumphy reminded members of a report prepared by staff in previous years that provided a list of employees, salaries, and increases and requested that staff update and provide members with such a report. He explained that his concern is not just with the salaries, but with the cumbersome process of requiring supervisors to complete evaluations. It was his feeling that the evaluations are required for only the non-bargaining employees and not utilized by the other unions. Mr. McGlumphy requested that staff also provided members with the Class Evaluation Pay Grade and how it is determined.
Organization of Recommendations
MAG Recommendation #16 - Mrs. Hawkins noted that no action is required; however, she noted that staff would continue to complete performance evaluations.
MAG Recommendation #20 - Mrs. Hawkins noted that no action is required; however, she noted that staff would continue the current process for appeals.
Employee Recommendation #1 - Mrs. Hawkins stated that employees felt that the goals do not flow down in a timely manner. Staff has recommended that the City Council/City Manager and Mayor establish goals for department heads by March 31st of each year. Mrs. Hawkins explained that the change would allow department heads the time necessary to then set goals for their subordinates.
Employee Recommendation #2 - Mrs. Hawkins advised members that employees felt that goals are not realistic under the current work load. To resolve this issue, she stated that all supervisors are being requested to be mindful of the number of goals being assigned. She noted that employees can create their own goals for review by their supervisor. She also stated that the Human Resources Director will be more astute to the number of goals being assigned.
Employee Recommendation #6 - Mrs. Hawkins advised members that employees felt that high performers were not awarded. She explained that the salary matrix provides for additional compensation for employees who receive a higher than average performance score; however, employees are requesting verbal recognition. She assured members that an improved effort will be provided by supervisors in rewarding high performers with non-monetary incentives and actions.
Noting that members have completed their review of Phase II of the MAG Study, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that this matter be brought back to the committee for a final review prior to forwarding the recommendations to Council.
Nine Digital In-Car Video Cameras and Associated Equipment Grants
Members considered a request for approval of the Police Department’s project to continue purchasing in-car cameras from ICOP Digital Inc., as well as the current purchase pending for nine (9) cameras, so the vendor can be paid for the equipment already received and in place. Members were advised that the purchase is classified as an allowable Sole Source Procurement because all the in-car camera equipment and accessories need to be compatible with the original cameras and server purchased in 2007 to minimize the operational and maintenance costs for the City. The first ten (10) digital cameras and server were purchased through a sealed bid process that was approved by City Council in January 2007. The purchase totaled $99,025 and included ten (10) digital in-car video cameras, the parts needed to install the cameras in the cars, extra hard drive storage devices, and the large capacity server for hosting the application and storage of the digital media collected, as prescribed by evidence storage procedures. The project was started to replace aging cameras using VHS tape technology and because the quality of the digital video is far superior.
Members were advised that the initial purchase was awarded to ICOP Digital Inc. because they had the only system that had sufficient safeguards for evidence purposes to prevent tampering with the digital media collected. In addition, due to the initial cost for the 10 cameras and server needed, the department always intended to continue to purchase additional cameras from this source because involving a second vendor would prove to be too costly, since an additional server would have to be purchased, as well as additional software and maintenance time, materials and contract costs.
Since the original purchase was made, the Police Department made additional purchases for several additional cameras (one to two cameras purchased at a time) as grant funds became available. In addition, the Police Department included a project in the FY10 CIP to document their intent to continue the practice of purchasing new digital cameras made by ICOP Digital Inc. to replace the older model VHS cameras made by Mobilevison as grant funds became available. The total budgeted over a three year period is $194,225 for the replacement of 17+ cameras. The Department submitted $40,000 in their original CIP submission for FY10, the first funding year, however, the funding was deferred a year in the CIP by the City because information regarding Federal Stimulus funding was not known at that time and other State Grant funding sources were less available.
Chief Horvath advised members of sufficient funding for this purchase upon the award of a Federal Stimulus Grant in April 2009. This funding was used in combination with additional funding already available from other sources, including Federal Justice Assistance Grants and a State Aid to Local Law Enforcement (SALLE) Grant to make the purchase when the items were ordered in mid-June 2009. Surprisingly, the cameras and associated equipment were delivered within a week of being ordered. Following is a breakout of the funds for this purchase:
Grant Amount
2009 Federal Stimulus Grant $ 9,814.16
SALLE Grant (S-16-09) 25,000.00
2008 Justice Assistance Grant 9,785.00
2007 Justice Assistance Grant 10,218.86
Total $54,818.02
Staff recommended approval of the Police Department’s project to continue purchasing in-car cameras from ICOP Digital Inc., as well as the current purchase pending for nine (9) cameras so the vendor can be paid for the equipment already received and in place.
Dr. Jones moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Notification Requirements for Land Use and Zoning Applications
Mrs. Townshend, Planning and Community Development Director, advised members that, due to several recent rezoning and development applications, and the public comments associated with them, members of Council and others have requested that the Planning staff look into the City’s public notification requirements and how they compare with other jurisdictions. Specifically, she stated that the question was raised as to whether the notification of property owners within 200 feet of the subject property included a wide enough area. During the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting of August 10, 2009, staff was instructed to look into this issue and bring forward information on how other jurisdictions handle public notification.
Mrs. Townshend reminded members that the City of Dover’s current requirements include a mailed notice to all property owners within 200 feet of the subject parcel and a newspaper ad in a local paper to be completed at least 10 days prior to the public hearing for site plan, subdivision, conditional use, architectural review certificate, unified comprehensive sign plans, and variance applications. For a rezoning application, mailed notices are required to all properties within 200 feet of the subject property. For rezoning and zoning text amendments that are the result of a new, revised or amended Comprehensive Plan, public notice in two local newspapers is required 15 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.
Mrs. Townshend stated that staff contacted several local jurisdictions in Delaware and reviewed their requirements in this regard. After review of the information gathered, and in looking at the varying sizes of properties and the varying nature of applications considered before the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Historic District Commission, and City Council, staff has determined that, in order to ensure that property owners and residents affected by an application are aware of the application, physically posting the property is the most prudent approach that would truly allow for those affected by an application to be aware of the application. If the 200-foot distance were to be expanded to something more, there will always be a property or more on the other side of that “line” where the owner feels they should have been made aware.
Mrs. Townshend indicated that if the City begins to require physically posting properties, this would be a requirement of the applicant and not City staff, just as applicants are currently required to complete all other public notice (except in the case of the Board of Adjustment). This new requirement would add to the requirements of the application process, and Council should be aware of this, as Council has made it a priority to streamline our processes. Staff also believed that if this new requirement were added, it should be clear that it does not apply to zoning text amendments and a comprehensive rezoning as a result of a new, revised or amended Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Townshend advised members that if Council approves the proposed change, staff would bring forward an ordinance amendment to address this issue.
Mr. Ruane suggested that the required notices should be sent to both residents, as well as the property owners. He also suggested that the 200 feet notification requirement sent to property owners and residents be increased based on the discretion of the Planning staff.
Responding, Mr. McGiffin relayed concerns regarding the possibility of liability issues if notification was determined by staff. Concurring, Mrs. Townshend indicated her concern with making decisions beyond the requirements of the Dover Code.
To resolve such concerns, Mr. Ruane noted that other jurisdictions require the developer to hold a pre-application meeting, particularly in residential areas, to meet with the residents. It was his feeling that this would resolve a lot of issues and allow the developer to obtain the support of residents.
Mrs. Russell relayed concern with any costs that a change could have on the City.
Mr. McGlumphy suggested that staff develop an action form (and any other documents) in order to allow staff to incorporate the suggestions to be brought back to the committee for further consideration.
Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:53 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
William P. McGlumphy
Chairman
WPM/RR/jg/tm
S:ClerksOfficePACKETS2009Council9-28-20099-14-2009 LF&A.wpd
Attachment
Attachment #1 - List of Revenue/Cost Saving Ideas Submitted by Employees with Staff’s Responses