LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting was held on January 24, 2005, at 6:39 p.m. with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. Slavin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Shelton and Mr. Shevock. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Ruane, and Council President Williams. Mayor Speed was also present.
Noting that the meeting of January 10, 2005 was recessed, Mr. Salters moved to reconvene the meeting, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Revised Purchasing Policy
During their Regular Meeting of January 10, 2005, members considered proposed revisions to the City of Dover Purchasing Policy. Due to time constraints, further review of the Purchasing Policy was continued until their next regular meeting on January 24, 2005. Mr. Salters requested members to provide written suggestions to the Finance Director, Mrs. Mitchell, prior to the meeting.
Mr. Shelton stated that he had submitted ten (10) or more questions to Mrs. Mitchell and he was satisfied with the responses he received from both her and the Purchaser. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Mr. Shelton’s questions/suggestions (in bold) and her responses (in italics) were as follows:
How do you negotiate a bid that was publicly opened without giving others a chance to rebid? You may negotiate with a vendor if only one (1) bid is received or if the initial solicitation was a request for proposals.
3.9 Right to Reject - This statement must be included on the request for proposal form. The form has been revised to include the statement.
3.17 - Authorized Personnel - Requested to delete the last sentence and add “A list of authorized signatures can be obtained from the City of Dover Finance Office as stated in Section 9.3. Mrs. Mitchell noted that Mr. Shelton’s intent was to require the departments to submit names to Finance, not to provide names to the vendors. If amended in this way, the City could not deny any vendor a complete list of employees authorized to purchase goods.
4.1 - Request for Proposals - a. - Final Award - This statement must be stated on the RFP. Some quotes expire after 60 days due to market volatility for some items. This item will be included on the RFP.
4.3 - Total Cost Over $7,500 to $25,000 - Revise the second sentence in the second paragraph to read “A purchase order must be issued to include, but not limited to, the above amount”. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the title of the section had been revised to make the amount clear; therefore, it would not be necessary to include the statement.
Section 6 - Receiving, 6.2 - Revise the third sentence to read: “The person receiving the goods and signing the receipt document must verify the quantity and item description part number with the purchase order or any other document and must check the condition of the items/packages to make reasonably sure that there are no problems with the delivery.” This sentence has been amended.
Addition of 7.6, as follows: “Credit cards cannot be used for personal business.” Section has been added.
8.1 - Invoices and Payments - Revise second sentence to include . . . purchase order number.” This is covered in the section regarding payments and invoices, which specifies the need for a copy of the purchase order and invoice.
Mr. Carey noted that the first sentence in Section 3.16 G had a typographical error and should be amended to read “Minority vendor preference shall be three percent (3%) of the value of the award.”
Referring to 3.11 - Subdividing the Purchases - Mr. Ritter asked how purchases would be monitored and if they should be willing to subdivide purchases with Council’s approval. Mrs. Mitchell stated that subdivision is not usually approved. Mr. DePrima, City Manager, noted that blanket bids may appear to be split bids when they are not.
Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the Revised Purchasing Policy, as amended (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.
Mr. Hogan moved to adjourn the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting of January 10, 2005, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Agenda Additions/Deletions
Mr. Shelton requested that item #2, Post Retirement Benefit Investments, be removed from the agenda.
Mr. Hogan moved to remove item #1, Revised Purchasing Policy, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Amendments - Pay for Performance Policy
Mr. DePrima advised members that feedback received from department heads and Council members following last year’s pay-for-performance evaluations included suggestions on revising the evaluation to reduce the total size of the document by combining redundant areas and combining competencies. It was also suggested that an evaluation be developed specifically for Council appointed employees that better addresses their reporting relationship and accountability to Council.
Members were provided two (2) revised evaluations which were developed for use effective May 1, 2005. One evaluation was created for Council appointed employees and one for Non-Council appointed employees. Council appointed employees have additional bullets indicated within the competencies which refer to Council and the Mayor and their relationships with the appointees.
Mr. DePrima noted that other changes include the removal of Table 2 on page 1. This information is noted in the instructions and combined with the weighting of the positions and will provide for easier reference. Additionally, performance points are now noted next to the performance rating definitions. Previously, the points were noted in the instructions that were included within the evaluation. He also advised members that the competency elements were combined to eliminated repetition, resulting in a reduction from 16 to 7 competencies. Employees who are not supervisors are still evaluated on one less competency. Some bullets were removed from the competency while others were added after the revised competency was created. Other competencies were moved to another competency where it more appropriately applied.
Listed below are the revised competencies and the previous competencies.
Revised Competencies Previous Competencies
Accountability and Leadership Accountability and Leadership
Communication and Customer Service Communication, Relations with the Public and Customer and Accountability
Job Knowledge Job Knowledge, Continuing Education and Innovation
Planning, Organization, Problem Solving Planning and Organization, Problem Solving and Decision
Making and Decision Making and Leadership
Relationships within the Organization Relationships within the Organization
Supervisory Skills Supervisory Skills, Employee Evaluation and Employee
Development
Work Management Work Management, Work Habits and Communications
The competency Financial Management was deleted from the evaluation because it applied to only a very few employees within the City, e.g., department heads. Often supervisors were rating individuals in this category who only order office supplies, which was not the intention of this competency.
Mr. DePrima noted that the Development Plan section has been renamed Employee’s Personal Enrichment Plan.
Staff recommended approval of the changes in the pay-for-performance evaluations and core competencies to become effective May 1, 2005.
Concurring with Mrs. Williams, Mr. DePrima suggested that Part 4 be renamed “Employee’s Professional Development Plan”.
Mr. Ruane expressed concern with the “Unplanned Assignment” section and asked if consideration had been given to providing an addendum to the original goals and objectives so that the evaluation is based on all known assignments. Mr. DePrima advised members that the policy has been amended to include a quarterly review by the supervisor and manager to determine if any unplanned tasks will be assigned mid-year. Those tasks would then be incorporated in the Planned Assignments. This should result in unplanned assignments appearing only in the fourth quarter.
For clarification, Mr. Hogan suggested that the title of this section, “Major Unplanned Assignments and Result Achieved” be renamed as “Additional Tasks Assigned and Results Achieved”.
Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the Pay for Performance Policy, as amended, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.
Disposal of Land - Hanson House - 134 E. Water Street
The Hanson House, 134 E. Water Street, (Tax ID# ED2-05-077.09-050-380) is located on a 46.75’ x 150’ parcel west of and adjacent to the Delaware State Education Association building at 136 East Water Street. On the property is a 950 square foot, two story frame structure with a mansard roof. The building is considered historic and dates to the mid-1700s.
The City purchased the property in 1984 for the purpose of housing the Delaware League of Local Governments. The League occupied the site until 1996 when the building was determined to be no longer habitable. In 1999, the City, in partnership with Preservation Delaware, applied for and received a Transportation Enhancement Grant for $144,000. The total project cost was estimated at $180,000 and the $36,000 difference between the grant and the total project cost was to be contributed by the City and Preservation Delaware. The plan was to restore the building and turn it over to Preservation Delaware for use. After preliminary design work, it became evident that additional funds were needed for construction and required archeological work. The Department of Transportation (DelDOT) increased the total grant award to $323,000 to cover design work, archeological surveys, and restoration and stabilization of the building; however, it was not intended to cover costs for making it habitable and Preservation Delaware was to be responsible for those additional funds. In 2004, two efforts were made to bid the project. In both instances, the bids were over $395,000 for construction only to cover exterior restoration and stabilization.
Mr. DePrima stated that it is now clear that the building is far too deteriorated to be restored and demolition is warranted. However, the building’s historic and architectural value can be somewhat preserved by selling the property to a buyer who would be willing to construct a modern replica of the building for office use with an appropriate addition and parking lot. The size of the lot would preclude a much larger building being built. In addition, this path would be most likely to be approved by the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission and have the least opposition from residents who value historic preservation. One potential buyer has come forth supporting this concept.
In accordance with the City of Dover Procedure for Sale and Disposition of Real Property, the property has been evaluated and no City departments have a need for it. The current zoning is I/O (Institutional Office) and changing the zoning would not enhance the value of the lot. The procedure encourages the sale of surplus land through auctions or sealed bids. In this case, advertising for sealed bids is recommended.
It was noted that, due to time constraints, staff requested that this matter be considered during the Council Meeting later this evening for final approval and recommended that City Council:
1) declare the property surplus and agree that it would be in the best interest of the City to sell it;
2) have the City Manager make a determination of minimum value;
3) authorize the City Manager to publicize pertinent information on the property and its availability for purchase to the general public by placing ads once a week for two weeks in local newspapers and to accept sealed bids for the property on behalf of the City Council;
4) have as a condition of the sale that an accurate replica of the existing exterior of the building be placed on the property after the sale, and that the seller is responsible for all Planning Commission and Historic District Commission approvals as well as property demolition costs;
5) hold a public hearing February 14, 2005;
6) award the bid after the public hearing pending results and an affirmative vote by Council to sell the property.
Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mr. DePrima stated that Council would ultimately decide if they wished to accept a bid for less than the minimum value.
Mr. Ritter asked how they could prevent the purchaser from demolishing the building and replacing it with something other than a replica of the Hanson House. Mr. DePrima stated that he would be consulting with the City Solicitor to determine which stipulations, covenants, or restrictions should be included in the contract. Mr. Ritter indicated that he was in favor of selling the property if it could not be repaired for $320,000.
Mr. Carey suggested that, if the property is sold, a right-of-way should be retained for access to the City-owned utilities on the property and an easement for the utilities to remain in place.
Mr. Slavin moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.
Mr. Slavin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:03 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Reuben Salters
Chairman
RS/jg/tm
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20051-24-2005 LF&A.wpd
Attachments
Attachment #1 - Revised Purchasing Policy