LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on September 25, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan and Mr. Slavin. Mr. Shevock was absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Russell, and Mr. Carey.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.
Disposition of City Owned Land - Property Located Between Loockerman Street and North Street: Parking Area and Pedestrian Walk Adjacent to Dover Newstand
The owner of four adjacent properties, Collegian Hospitality Group II, LLC, has requested to purchase City-owned property for the purpose of consolidating the surrounding properties for construction of a major commercial and residential multi-story, mixed-use project currently known as "The Collegian." The property (Tax ID# ED-05-07709-04-08.00-000) located east of 126 Loockerman Street (former Dover Newsstand location) currently serves as a pedestrian access way between Loockerman Street and North Street and a parking lot for nine cars. The parking is managed by the Dover Parking Authority. A map of the property was provided. (Attachment #1)
An application was made to the Planning Commission and Historic District Commission for architectural review, and site plan approval has been submitted. However, the application requires approval from City Council, as the land owner, to move forward. Actual sale of the property is not required for approval of the architectural review and site plan applications.
In accordance with the City of Dover Procedure for Sale and Disposition of Real Property, the City Manager has evaluated the property and determined that no City departments have a need for the parcel. The current zoning is Central Commercial (C-2), and changing the zoning would not enhance the value of the lot. As a stand-alone property, it is un-developable due to its size and location. However, it should continue to serve its current role until such time that the "Collegian" project is ready for construction. The City of Dover Procedure for Sale and Disposition of Real Property encourages sale of surplus land through auctions or sealed bids. However, there are several exceptions including Exception C, Conveyance of odd shaped and/or un-buildable lots. Under this exception, the City may sell the property to an adjacent owner based on an unbiased fee appraisal. The parcel meets that exception.
Staff recommended the following actions: (1) Determine property is excess real estate; (2) authorize City Manager to sign as property owner and Collegian Hospitality Group II, LLC as equitable owner for purpose of allowing site plan review for the proposed "Collegian" project.; (3) authorize City Manager to sell property at value based on an unbiased appraisal plus appraisal costs, legal cost, and cost of relocating public utilities with two conditions, i.e., (a) that all construction permits for the "Collegian" project be obtained by the developer of adjacent properties prior to sale, and (b) a new pedestrian access way between North Street and Loockerman Street be included in the design of the "Collegian" project.
Mr. DePrima also provided members with additional information regarding a “buy back” provision that could be included in the easement or deed restriction. If the project scheduled to be constructed is not complete within two years, the City would be entitled to buy back the property at 80% of the original value.
Mr. Thomas Smith, Chair of the Dover Parking Authority, expressed his support for the proposed sale. He stated the importance of available parking to the businesses on Loockerman Street and direct access from the North Street parking lots to West Loockerman Street.
Councilman Ruane also offered his support of the sale with the proposed buy back provision.
Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the disposition of City Owned land located between Loockerman Street and North Street, with the addition of a buy back provision to be included in the contract. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.
Pay for Performance Analysis
During the June 6, 2006 Budget Hearings Council directed the City Manager and Human Resources Department to review and analyze the beginning point of the new Pay for Performance (PFP) plan and compare with where we are currently and report back to Council, through the appropriate committee, the cost differentials and other averages, to provide Council the opportunity to review the changed percentages. Mr. DePrima provided members with a Pay for Performance analysis of fiscal 2004, 2005 and 2006 (Attachment #2).
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, indicated that 46% of current employees are “at market”, 29% are “below market” and 23% are “above market” in the PFP system. For fiscal year 2006, the average increase given (not including promotions ) was 4.25% for non-bargaining employees. The average increased to 4.95% when promotions were included.
Mr. Hogan suggested that Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 be placed on one graph, in different colors, in order to clearly identify the trend.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. DePrima clarified that the PFP Scores Distribution represented scores from May 2006, which were used to determine July 1, 2006 increases. He noted that the 2007 scores would not be available until July of 2007 and would be included in a new salary schedule.
Mr. McGlumphy noted that in FY04 (2003) the common score was 2.5% and a majority of the staff received 2 to 2.5%. In FY05 (2004) the score increased from 4 to 4.25% to 4.75%. Mr. DePrima noted that the FY04 scores were based on an across the board increase which provided all non-bargaining employees with a 2.5% increase. He advised members that Pay for Performance did not begin until May 2004. Mr. McGlumphy noted that since the PFP was instituted, the increases in the salary ranges have been consistently higher than the cost of living increase, so much so that the minimum salary is $34,246 for an Administrative Assistant. He suggested that if they could get a better idea, salary-wise, of the percentages annually, it would be easier to understand.
Mr. DePrima stated that FY 05, 06, and 07 increases will be between 3% and 6½ % and employees have gotten from 3% to 7% over the last three years under the PFP plan. Mr. McGlumphy noted that in this last fiscal year 12 employees received 7.25% to 23.47% increases. Mr. DePrima clarified that if any employee received over 7.25% it would have been due to a promotion.
Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mr. DePrima indicated that the Human Resources Director conducts quality control reviews to ensure fairness with regards to the scoring of employees by evaluators and addresses any issues with evaluators.
Mr. Ruane questioned if the Pay for Performance System had been discussed or introduced to the bargaining employee units, as Council intended when it was first introduced. Mr. DePrima stated that it had not been discussed with the bargaining units; however, it will be discussed when contracts are negotiated later this year.
Mr. Slavin moved to recommend acceptance of the Pay for Performance Analysis, as presented, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Mr. Slavin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:48 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Reuben Salters
Chairman
RS/hf
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20069-25-2006 LF&A-REVISED.wpd
Attachments
Attachment #1 - Proposed Land Disposal
Attachment #2 - Pay for Performance presentation