LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on September 24, 2007, at 6:06 p.m. with Chairman Slavin presiding. Members present were Mr. Salters, Mr. McGlumphy, and Mrs. Jones. Mr. Shevock was absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan and Mr. Ruane.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mrs. Jones moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Grant Application Procedure
Members were provided a letter dated September 6, 2007 from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding police grants, as well as the City’s Grant Application Procedures (#F317) maintained by the Department of Finance. Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director/Treasurer, advised members that in March 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice conducted an audit of certain police grants and had concerns that the City did not have written procedures for grant application process. At that time, staff developed the procedure which establishes clear directions for accounting for and administering the funds and resources received by the City through Federal, State and other Grants. She advised members that this procedure was forwarded to the U.S. Department of Justice, which resulted in the above-mentioned letter which indicated that the procedure adequately addresses their previous concerns. However, it was suggested that the Procedure be reviewed and approved by City Council.
Staff recommended approval of the Grant Application Procedure (#F317).
Mr. Ruane noted that there is no requirement that would provide members of Council knowledge of a grant request. He suggested that there be a requirement for all grants submitted by any department of the City to go through the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for Council approval. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell noted that Section 1 of the Grant Application Procedures states “If the City is awarded the grant, a Committee Action Form (CAF) is to be prepared for the Legislative, Finance & Administrative Committee to approve the grant award”. Mr. Ruane stated that his concern is the lack of knowledge of a grant application, not award of grant, explaining that there are times when Council may not feel it is in the best interest for the City to apply for the grant. As an example, he stated that there may be a grant that provides for an additional employee for one (1) year, with the City to assume continuation of the position, which ultimately costs the City. It was his opinion that Council should determine if they are willing to assume such requirements when the grant application is being made rather than once the grant application has been awarded.
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, advised members that the reasoning for not requiring approval of grant applications is due to time constraints. He explained that there are many times when staff is discovering the opportunity for submitting a grant without enough time before the deadline to go through the committee review process. He assured members that each department is aware of their mission and responsibilities and has the knowledge of whether a grant is within their mission and/or goals set by City Council. Mr. DePrima further explained that staff would not accept the grant (or expend any monies) until it has been approved by City Council.
Concurring with Mr. Ruane, Mr. Slavin explained that the concern is not with the abilities of the department head but rather with the fiscal impact the grant would have on the City’s budget when the grant monies are expended, particularly those with limited term positions and other obligations. He also felt that it would provide an opportunity to review indirect costs and their funding or if revenue would be available that the City would otherwise not have. Mr. Slavin agreed that there are situations when there is not much notice provided for submitting a grant; however, there are many times that ample notice is given. It was his opinion that the Procedure should be amended to address the concerns regarding the approval of grant applications and at the same time, including flexibility within the Procedure to allow staff to submit an application when there is not enough time to submit the grant application to Council for approval.
Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Mitchell suggested that the Procedure could be amended to include notification to Council based on eligibility and then require approval by Council if the grant is awarded. Mr. Slavin requested that a series of questions be asked when applying for grants, as follows: 1) what are the expected matches and whether the match is a cost share or cash match; 2) what are the indirect costs and how are they calculated and whether they can be charged against the cost share; 3) what are the effects of employees or personnel hired as a result of soft-grant funding; 4) how the City would incorporate a mechanism that would attract the limited term employees; and 5) what is the type of funding and draws that affect the City’s cash flow.
In addition, Mr. McGlumphy requested that members of Council be made aware of where the grant money is coming from, when the grant is awarded, and if there is money allocated in the City’s budget in case the grant monies are not awarded.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the Grant Application Procedure as recommended by staff (Attachment #1), with the understanding that staff will develop additional documentation to address concerns relayed by members regarding grants and grant management to be brought back to the committee for their review and recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Jones and unanimously carried.
Comprehensive Plan Update Internship
Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, advised members that the City of Dover’s Comprehensive Plan is due for Update in September 2008. She stated that staff expects the process to take approximately one (1) year. Staff intends to complete the Update in-house, with a hired facilitator to facilitate the public meetings and a graduate-level planning intern to gather background information, compile data, and assist in drafting the text.
Mrs. Townshend stated that staff will prepare a request for proposals to hire a facilitator and hire a graduate research assistant as an intern through the University of Delaware Institute for Public Administration (IPA). Since this would require a contract with the IPA that excess $2,500, she advised members that the purchasing policy requires that a competitive RFP be done for professional services. Staff requested that Council waive this requirement due to the specialized nature of the need and the public service and planning specializations of the IPA. As a part of its mission, the IPA regularly places graduate students with state and local government agencies throughout Delaware. She advised members that there is no other comparable service or program in the other colleges or universities in Delaware, and an out-of-state college could not effectively provide the service. The research assistant assigned to the Planning Office would have the full resources of the IPA’s professional planners, as well as other professionals with a long history of expertise in public policy and administration. Mrs. Townshend advised members that the City has previously utilized the IPA’s services for other projects.
Staff recommended authorization to hire an intern through a contract with the University of Delaware, Institute for Public Administration. The intern would begin employment with the City on January 16, 2008 and work through May 31, 2008. Mrs. Townshend advised members that staff intends for an intern to be hired during the summer, explaining that $20,000 has been budgeted this fiscal year and $10,000 for the next fiscal year.
In response to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is estimated that the intern will be assigned to work 20 hours per week. She stated that the IPA did not provide an hourly rate for the intern; however, she advised members that the City’s cost will include administrative fees to IPA. Mr. Slavin explained that it has been his experience that there is a large amount of over-head included in the hourly rate charged by the IPA for the intern.
Responding to Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Townshend explained that the reason why an out-of-state college could not effectively provide the service is strictly due to commuting issues as well as the learning curve that would be required. She advised members that the IPA understands Delaware Law, the Planning classes are based on state and local governments, their staff has done a substantial amount of work in Delaware, and they are very familiar with the planning related codes for Delaware, explaining that these codes change from state to state.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to approve the expenditure of $10,125 for hiring of an intern through a contract with the University of Delaware, Institute for Public Administration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Slavin requested that when this matter is presented to Council, staff provide details regarding the hourly rate that will be provided to the intern and the hourly rate charged by the IPA for the intern. (City Clerk’s Office Note: The Director of Planning and Inspections has provided the following in response to this request: “Of the contract amount, 10% is IPA's administrative cost (managing the contract, supervising the RA, providing support to the RA). The health insurance for the RA is about $300. The actual stipend paid to the RA for the semester is $7,000. There is $1,900 built in for transportation costs to and from Dover. In addition, there is the tuition waiver, which is not factored into this cost.”).
Review of Request for Proposals - Pay for Performance (PFP) Policy
During the past Budget Review, City Council indicated a desire to have the Pay for Performance (PFP) Policy and its implementation evaluated to determine whether it is meeting its original purpose. Although this is not a budgeted item, it was felt that the salary savings from the difference in the City Manager budgeted PFP increase and the amount approved by City Council could cover the proposed study. Members were provided a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) outlining the Scope of Work and vendor Qualifications for their review.
Staff recommended approval to proceed with the RFP for Review and Evaluation of the City’s Pay for Performance Policy. Mr. DePrima advised members that the City will have a Web Page dedicated to this RFP, which will allow anyone interested in bidding to have access to the PFP Policy as well as other supporting documents.
As suggested by Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima assured members that the PAS Study will be included on the dedicated Web Page. Mr. McGlumphy requested that when local salaries are provided, the private salaries be separate from municipalities and that the focus be on municipalities.
Mr. DePrima advised members that when a market study is conducted, the comparison is with other municipalities with the exception of the electric department employees. In response to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima stated that when the proposals are received, if the cost is over $25,000, it is required to be presented to Council for approval; however, if it is the desire of members, the proposals could be presented regardless of the cost. He also offered to have Council participation in the selection of the firm.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that staff would include a statement to verify that the expectation of the report on the findings would be to include recommendations for improvement as a result of the findings.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to proceed with the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Review and Evaluation of the City's Pay for Performance Policy, stipulating that the results will be tempered with corrective action or updates on the City’s procedures. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Due to time constraints and without objections, Mr. Slavin requested that item #6 - Proposed Ordinance - Abandoned Vehicles be considered at this time, followed by item #5 - Discussion - CAMA Software.
Proposed Ordinance - Abandoned Vehicles
Members were provided a draft ordinance amending Section 106-212 - Parking Limitations, of Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Division 4 - Downtown Parking, of the Dover Code.
Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reminded members that the amendment had been requested by Council due to concern of individuals parking vehicles in the downtown area for a substantial amount of time and in an area that parking is constrained. She stated that there currently is no time limit in the downtown parking area for this type of abuse and the Police could not take action until the issue resulted in an abandoned vehicle.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amending Section 106-212 - Parking Limitations, of Chapter 106 - Traffic and Vehicles, Division 4 - Downtown Parking, of the Dover Code (Attachment #2). The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Discussion - CAMA Software (Donald Capuano, City Assessor)
During their meeting of September 10, 2007, members considered a request to authorize the purchase of the iasWorld CAMA Software including data table conversation and emulation from Tyler/CLT in the amount of $53,030, and authorized purchase supporting hardware in the estimated amount of $8,000. Due to there being several unanswered questions, Mr. Slavin requested that Mr. Capuano appear before the committee for further explanation.
Mr. Slavin reminded members that the issue was with Mr. Capuano’s request for the purchase of software which was hundreds of thousands of dollars and it was recently learned that the City did not need the software and that an upgrade to the existing version of software would be necessary.
Clarifying, Mr. Capuano explained that the program installed by CLT in 2005 has defects in capacities, such as the retrieval of data, creating reports, statistical information, and equalization process. Having discussed this with the City Manager, it was agreed that in April 2007, staff would search for an alternative program. The City conducted six (6) interviews and visited other communities to evaluate how well these software products would work for the City of Dover. At that time he began to draft an RFP when the City Manager reminded him that they would lose the existing Orion software in October 2007 and there would not be enough time for its replacement. Rather than taking the risk of trying to make the transition with a new company, staff selected a “patch” program. Mr. Capuano stated that he has investigated the “patch” with other communities and has determined that it is a “work in progress” and has not proven to be a long-term success.
With regards to the “patch” program referred to by Mr. Capuano, Mr. DePrima reminded members that the iasWorld CAMA (Computer Aided Mass Appraisal) Software is conversion software being offered by Tyler/CLT, the City’s current CAMA software vendor, to replace the existing Orion CAMA Software. He explained that when the phrase “patch” is used, it typically represents a fix to software that is not functioning properly. He assured members that this software is not a “patch”, explaining that the iasWorld CAMA software is a whole new product by the vendor.
Mr. Capuano stated that the use of the term “patch” is due to the inability of the iasWorld CAMA software to provide the functionality in all the areas he felt required such as market and cost approach; however, he sated that it will serve the City better than the Orion program. He also advised members that the software is not USPAP compliant; therefore, it is not a complete program.
Mr. DePrima advised members that Tyler/CLT met with City staff and provided assurance that the software does have the capability to conduct all three (3) assessment methods (market, cost, and income) and that the software does meet the requirements of USPAP. Unfortunately, he stated that the City Assessor was not in attendance during this meeting when these specific issues were discussed.
Mr. Capuano explained that based on the previous estimates received ($280,000 - $350,000), it would not be possible for a company to provide such a program for $60,000 as a full complement. It was his opinion that the software would have to have omitted at least of 50% of what is required of a full program.
Mr. Slavin reiterated his concern when the initial request was submitted, feeling that the request was not clear on the requirements, and then when he was advised that the same functionality could be achieved at an expense of $60,000 as the City would have with the new system at an expense of $350,000, he became more concerned and felt that this matter deserves more exploration. Mr. Slavin stated that at this time, due to the contradictory reports, etc., he still did not fully understand the issue.
Mr. McGlumphy explained his opinion that the City should invest in a tool that will be sufficient for a minimum of three (3) years.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. Capuano indicated that the City will not have the ability to conduct the reassessment with the current software; however, he stated that the alternative provided (purchase of iasWorld CAMA Software) would allow the City to conduct the reassessment for this year.
Noting that the Regular Council Meeting is scheduled to be held at this place and time (Open Forum at 7:15 p.m.), Mr. Slavin suggested that the committee meeting be recessed and reconvene at the adjournment of the Council Meeting. It was noted that item #4 - Public Affairs Coordinator Update would be deferred until the next committee meeting.
Mr. Salters moved to recess, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Meeting recessed at 7:02 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m., with Chairman Slavin present. Mr. Salters, Mr. McGlumphy, and Mrs. Jones were present. Mr. Shevock was absent. Mr. Ruane was also present.
Mr. Salters moved to reconvene, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Capuano confirmed that even if the City had budgeted enough money for new software, there would not be enough time for a new vendor to be selected and have completely new software deployed by the end of the current contract. He explained that the lack of planning sufficient time for instituting such software was due to mountainous difficult problems in the Assessor’s Office caused by years of neglect, acts of omission and co-mission both in assessment and management of the Assessor’s Office. As an example, he reminded members that 6,000 building permits were discovered that were never processed. Therefore, the focus for the Office during the past year has been to establish procedures. Mr. Capuano stated that he began working on the purchase of new software in February 2006 and that by April 2006, when staff was ready to issue RFP’s, the City Manager questioned the timing issue for implementation of new software by the October 2007 deadline. As a result, he concurred with the interim solution of purchasing the iasWorld CAMA software. During the next six (6) months to a year, he stated that the Assessor’s Office will determine the quality of the software. He stated that components of the CAMA software that are determined to be needed will cost the City additional money. Mr. Capuano explained that his original observation of this software was that it will not meet the needs of the City of Dover. He also advised members that the training for the new software that will be required will take approximately three (3) to six (6) months. It was his opinion that it would not be realistic to expect sufficient software to cost only $60,000, although it may serve as an interim solution.
As a result of the many conversations he has had with CLT, Mr. DePrima was optimistic that the iasWorld CAMA software will not just serve as an interim solution but will prove to be sufficient.
Considering the Charter requirement for the reassessment, at this time, Mr. McGlumphy relayed concern with the timing factor. As the City moves forward with the use of the software, he requested that staff inform members of Council of any issues. It was his recollection that, during the previous reassessment, there were problems with the software that CLT was utilizing. He requested that staff assure that the commercial properties are reviewed to ensure equity.
Responding, Mr. Capuano explained that the conversion process that occurred during the last reassessment was due to data errors caused by many years of neglect and was not caused by CLT.
As Chairman of the Tax Appeals Committee, Mr. Ruane stated that members are sensitized to the fact that unless the City’s assessment is done to the expectation of the taxpayers, there will be repeated unpleasantness. He questioned if there is a schedule planned for a total property assessment of the City and if it will be met. He stressed the importance of advising taxpayers of this information so that they are made aware of particular dates such as appeal deadlines.
Mr. Slavin requested that staff provide members, in two (2) weeks, with a schedule for the total property assessment, a readiness assessment, and a work plan for the Assessor’s Office. He relayed his disappointment in the delay of the management (internal) audit of the Assessor’s Office.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend that the Tax Assessor prepare a schedule for revaluation and assessment to be completed to be submitted to Council in two (2) weeks. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy.
Mr. Capuano advised members that he proposed, several months ago, a six (6) year reassessment program, for both residential and commercial properties. He has not had the opportunity to finalize this program and although he is prepared to accomplish this, he relayed concern with the ability to have it accomplished in two (2) weeks, along with maintaining his other responsibilities of the office, including the preparation of tax appeal reports. He suggested that the schedule could be accomplished in four (4) weeks.
The motion to recommend that the Tax Assessor prepare a schedule for revaluation and assessment to be completed to be submitted to Council in two (2) weeks was unanimously carried.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend that staff, based on the schedule for the revaluation, conduct a readiness assessment for the purpose of determining if the City is able to meet the deadline set for the Tax Assessor and that the assessment include IT readiness as well as staff readiness. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Jones.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. Capuano stated that a requirement of an appealing taxpayer is to have a report prepared for the Assessor’s review for the Tax Appeals Committee. If all these reports are received by the first of the month (when they are due), they will require 20 hours of research for each appraisal report in order to develop a review appraisal for the City. He stated that this requirement could be delayed if the Tax Appeals Committee delayed their meeting scheduled for the review of these reports.
In response to Mrs. Jones, Mr. Capuano indicated that there is no other staff available in the Assessor’s Office to conduct the research.
Mr. Slavin questioned the return on investment for the research required on the appraisal reports. Mr. Capuano advised members that the research is required by law, under USPAP; therefore, there is no other alternative.
Mr. DePrima reminded members that in March 2007, City Council approved a strategic plan for the Assessor’s Office, which included the development of a revaluation/assessment schedule. As a result, the goal for this year was to conduct a revaluation of 1/3 of the residential properties. The City budgeted for a residential appraiser based on Council’s approval. With regards to commercial properties, it was determined that between 2007 and 2010, staff would schedule and budget for all vacant commercial, industrial, and income property and hire an additional commercial appraiser. Once the Assessor’s Office completes the residential appraisals, work will begin on the commercial appraisals. Mr. DePrima suggested that this strategic plan be resubmitted for member’s review.
Mr. Ruane relayed concern with the process for conducting a revaluation of partial properties, noting that the Charter requires a total reassessment.
The motion to recommend that staff, based on the schedule for the revaluation, conduct a readiness assessment for the purpose of determining if the City is able to meet the deadline set for the Tax Assessor and that the assessment include IT readiness as well as staff readiness was carried with Mr. Salters voting no.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend that staff be instructed to conduct an internal management audit of the City Assessor’s Office, as ordered by the City Manager, to be completed by October 15, 2007 and that the City Assessor be cooperative in the audit. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Jones.
Mr. Ruane suggested that the audit be conducted by a professional who is familiar with the functions and requirements of the office.
Responding to concerns of members regarding the October 15, 2007 deadline, Mr. DePrima felt that it could be met and assured members that the process would not be intrusive on the staff of the Assessor’s Office.
On a call for the question by Mr. Salters, the motion to recommend that staff be instructed to conduct an internal management audit of the City Assessor’s Office, as ordered by the City Manager, to be completed by October 15, 2007 and that the City Assessor be cooperative in the audit failed with Mr. McGlumphy and Mrs. Jones voting no (Mr. Shevock absent).
Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:59 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy A. Slavin
Chairman
TAS/TM/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20079-24-2007 LF&A.wpd
Attachments
Attachment #1 - Grant Application Procedure (#F317)
Attachment #2 - Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Section 106-212, Parking Limitations