LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting was held on March 8, 2004, at 5:45 p.m., with Chairman Speed presiding. Members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Gorman, and Mr. Shelton. Other members of Council present were Council President McGlumphy, Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Salters, Mr. Ruane, and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Speed requested that the items listed under item #1 - Evaluation of Bids, be reversed so that item #1B - William Street Warehouse Roof Repairs is considered prior to #1A - City Hall Roof Repairs.
Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Bid - William Street Warehouse Roof Repairs
The Presidents’ Day storm in 2003 resulted in severe damage to the William Street Warehouse roof. The efforts taken to relieve the stress caused by the weight of the snow exposed flaws in the roof and caused subsequent severe leaking. Warehouse storage racks have become rusted, and property had to be relocated to prevent damage. The current roof (installed in 1985) is out of warranty and has exceeded its expected lifetime. Minor leaking began in 2002, and roof replacement was planned for inclusion in the FY2005 budget.
Bids were solicited for repairing the William Street Warehouse roof and the low bid was received from Quality Exteriors, Inc. in the amount of $94,300. The bid included additional costs for walk pads at $25 each and steel deck replacement at $5.50 SQF. Members were advised that there could be additional costs based on the amount of damage to the steel decking, which are unknown at this time. In accordance with the Purchasing Policy, the City Manager may authorize a change order for up to 25% of the contract price. In addition to being the low bidder, Quality Exteriors, Inc. has offered deductions in their bid. Once the work is in progress, it can be determined if either of the deductions can be used. The first is to leave the existing insulation in place and re-cover it with an additional ½" of insulation. This would result in a savings of $13,200. The second is to leave the existing insulation in place and re-cover it with an additional 1" of insulation. This would result in a savings of $10,845.
Funding for this project would be made available from the Capital Asset Reserve. Staff recommended awarding the contract for the roof repairs at the William Street Warehouse to the low bidder, Quality Exteriors, Inc., in an amount of $94,300.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. DePrima stated that the current budgeted balance in the Capital Asset Reserve Fund is $458,216 and that the revised budgeted balance indicates $599,206. Mrs. Mitchell explained that the balance was $750,000 and that the costs for the roof repairs brings the balance to $599,206. Mr. DePrima clarified that $458,216 is being transferred to the Capital Asset Reserve Fund.
Mr. Shelton noted the costs for the steel deck replacement is $5.50 SQF and questioned the total square footage of the steel deck. Mr. DePrima explained that it is not anticipated that the total steel deck would need to be repaired. Mr. Shelton felt that although it may not be required, it would be helpful to know the total square footage that could possibly be necessary to replace. He also questioned the warranty for the roof.
At the request of Mr. Speed, Mr. DePrima assured members that he would provide details regarding the possible total square footage for replacement of the steel deck and further details regarding the warranty before the committee’s recommendation is presented to Council for action.
Mr. Truitt moved to recommend awarding the contract for the William Street Warehouse Roof Repairs to Quality Exteriors, Inc., in the amount of $94,300, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Bid - City Hall Roof Repairs
The roof on City Hall is damaged and requires emergency repair due to serious leaking. The current roof, installed in 1985, is out of warranty and has exceeded its expected lifetime. Minor leaking began in 2002, and roof replacement was planned for inclusion in the FY2005 budget.
Bids were solicited for repairing the City Hall roof and the second low bid was received from Quality Exteriors, Inc. in the amount of $46,510. The bid included additional costs for walk pads at $25 each and tongue and groove deck at $4.00 LFT. The difference between the low bidder and Quality Exteriors, Inc. is only $1,366. Members were advised that there could be additional costs based on the amount of unlining damage, which is unknown at this time. In accordance with the Purchasing Policy, the City Manager may authorize a change order for up to 25% of the contract price.
Funding for this project would be made available from the Capital Asset Reserve. Staff recommended awarding the contract for the roof repairs at the City Hall to Quality Exteriors, Inc., in an amount of $46,510. Mr. DePrima explained that the second low bidder was chosen based on their price and the quality of their workmanship. They have done other roofing jobs for the City, including the police station roof, and they are located in the area, which is beneficial in the event that any warranty work is required. The award of the bid to Quality Exteriors, Inc. will provide continuity within the City.
Mr. Shelton moved to recommend awarding the contract for the City Hall Roof Repairs to Quality Exteriors, Inc., in the amount of $46,510, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
Discussion - Charter and Code Review
The committee has had on-going discussions regarding possible Charter and Code amendments. In August of 2003, Council President McGlumphy requested that members of City Council and the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee review the City Charter and Code for possible changes and that any proposed changes be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office. The review was requested as a result of several comments and concerns relayed by members of Council, as well as the recent PAS Study. Members were provided copies of several sections of the Charter and Code with suggestions for their review and recommendation for possible amendments.
Section 10 - Same-Procedure
Referring to the first paragraph of Section 10, Mr. Ruane reiterated concerns regarding the requirement for compelling attendance of members, noting that there does not appear to be an ordinance for the penalties as indicated in this section. He stated that the Model Charter suggests that these procedures be included in the “Rules of the Council” rather than in an ordinance. Mr. Ruane also suggested the need for language that would provide for special situations when a “majority” of Council would be less than five (5).
Responding, Mrs. Williams suggested that the problem could be resolved if the Mayor was provided a “deciding” vote, by giving the Mayor the authority to vote in the case of a tie.
Council President McGlumphy referred to changes previously made to this section as it related to the Mayor’s veto power, specifically the addition of the word “motion”. He stated that a court case issued in the 1950's indicated that the Mayor had no veto power over a motion. Although the Mayor has rarely used his veto power, his concern is with the language inserted as a result of the NAACP Consent Decree and the ability of Council to make changes without an agreement with the NAACP. He noted that although the NAACP lawsuit involved district representation and voting, the Consent Decree includes language that created a President of City Council, an at-large Council position, etc. Mr. McGlumphy stated that it is evident that the City currently has a hybrid form of government and that personalities may have been the result of the current situation.
Mr. Pitts reiterated that he would not be willing to recommend any changes to the language included in the NAACP Consent Decree, which are now included in the City Charter. Any change, however minor it may be, could destroy the whole concept as to why the Consent Decree was made.
Mr. Gorman agreed with previous comments made by Mayor Hutchison that the current Charter distances the Mayor from being a focal part and figure head for Council since the Mayor no longer presides over the meetings nor does he have a vote. He questioned if the NAACP would have objections if the City wanted to make changes to the Charter for the betterment of City government, such as bringing the Mayor back as the presiding officer with a tie breaking vote, and the elimination of the veto power, but no changes to the 65% minority district requirement.
Mr. Pitts felt that there could be objections from the NAACP for any changes. He advised members that any changes to the Consent Decree would require the City to contact the National Office of the NAACP. He stated that previous discussions with the National Office indicate that now is not the time for any changes to be made to the Consent Decree; however, there could be a possibility for consideration of changes to be made in the year 2010.
Mr. Ruane suggested that the reasoning for the creation of the Council President could have been that the Mayor is elected at-large and a Council President is elected by the membership, the minority representation would have more of an opportunity both for a minority to become the President of Council and all members to decide who their leadership would be rather than having it decided by the electorate at-large. In that sense, since the Council President is appointed from the membership, it gives Council the opportunity to replace him if necessary. If the Mayor is automatically the presiding officer, then the Council has no authority for his removal regardless of the differential agendas that may occur between the Mayor and Council. Mr. Ruane noted that approximately 25% of municipalities elect their Mayor by the Council, which allows for the opportunity of the governing body to be brought together.
Mrs. Williams suggested that members should be cautious not to make the same mistakes that have been made in the past. Expediting the political opportunity with some bona fide methods of running a City well has not served itself over the years. One of the most important actions Council should refrain from at this time is to expedite an issue that is connected to a person or for a personal agenda. She felt that the only important issue Council must deal with at this time is to build consensus among members.
Mr. Truitt stated that regardless of the structure of government, there needs to be a system of checks and balance. If the Mayor’s veto power were eliminated, under the City’s current form of government, there would be no checks and balances.
Mr. Ritter advised members that in 1829, the City had a Council form of government and in 1929 it changed to a Mayor-Council form of government. For 100 years, the City had a Council form of government. He questioned why it changed in 1929 and why it changed in 1988. At this point, he felt that Council should be considering if there are problems with the current form of government and if it is determined that there are, Council should set personalities aside and begin discussing the possibility of correcting those problems. Mr. Ritter felt that consideration should be given to providing each member of Council authority for making appointments to the various committees and commissions of the City, such as the Planning Commission, Human Relations Commission, etc. If there was a “give and take” for these types of responsibilities that are currently of the Mayor, it may be possible to return to having the Mayor preside over the Council.
Mr. Gorman noted that the current legislature considers the City of Dover as a Council-Manager form of government with a ceremonial Mayor and that, based on previous discussions, the City could not change this due to the Consent Decree. Considering this, any discussion regarding change by Council at this time is irrelevant. He suggested that the City should initiate a meeting with the NAACP before discussing this matter further.
Concurring, Mayor Hutchison stated that he would be willing to contact the NAACP to open dialogue regarding this matter. Responding, Mr. Ruane suggested that a letter be sent to the NAACP from the Mayor and Council President.
Mr. Pitts explained that before contacting the National Office of the NAACP, the first point of contact would be with the Local Chapter of the NAACP, then the State Chapter. An agreement would need to be reached with the Local and State Chapters before contacting the National Office. He reminded members that the City was previously advised that the Local Chapter would consider the possibility of reviewing the matter for the year 2010.
Mrs. Williams suggested that the City has other alternatives that could be considered. Although the NAACP has indicated that they would not consider making any amendments until the year 2010, she felt that the City could contact them now to begin discussions. If it is determined that no amendments would be agreed upon until the year 2010, City Council could take action to amend the Charter and if there is a consensus, and the Charter amendments were approved by the General Assembly, the NAACP could respond to the amendments. Mrs. Williams explained that it is not the issue of whether amendments could be done or not but how the City chooses to have them done.
Mr. Speed stated that the Model Charter is heavily biased in favor of a Council-Manager form of government and that it is evident that the City currently has a hybrid form of government. If language is going to be used from the Model Charter, he stated that it is important to understand that it is specific to a specific form of government which it promotes. Referring to the statistics that member’s have mentioned, Mr. Speed cautioned their use, explaining that they simply indicate other municipalities have or are doing, which does not necessarily mean it would be the best option for the City of Dover. He cautioned members to be cognizant of making changes that would be for the betterment of the City of Dover and not making changes based on what the majority of other municipalities are doing. The reasons for the form of government may or may not be applicable to the City of Dover, which Council should consider when considering this matter. Mr. Speed stated that some of the items being discussed are in the Consent Decree as statements of fact and questioned if changes to those statements of fact would affect the Consent Decree to the extent it would generate concern of the NAACP and thus, concern of Council.
Responding to questions of Mrs. Williams, Mr. Pitts stated that the City of Dover was not the only municipality affected by action of the NAACP and that it was a national problem. As a result, the Decrees were issued state by state. In order to make changes, not only is consent required at the local level but the entire national agenda must be considered. Mrs. Williams suggested that in addition to contacting all levels of the NAACP, the City should contact other municipalities that may have found it necessary to amend their Consent Decree in order to continue governing in a manner that was best for their municipality.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the various branches within the City’s government as they relate to the role of the Mayor, Council, and City Manager.
Mr. Gorman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Ritter and unanimously carried.
Responding to Mrs. Green, Mr. Speed verified that discussion should continue at the next committee meeting beginning with Section 14.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:07 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen R. Speed
Chairman
SRS/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20043-08-2004-LF&A.wpd