LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting was held on February 23, 2004, at 5:30 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. Ritter moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003
In accordance with Section 46 of the City Charter, the City's financial books are audited by independent auditors each year. The Finance Director/Treasurer, Mrs. Mitchell, submitted the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003. It was noted that all financial transactions were audited by the selected C.P.A. firm of Faw Casson & Company, whose opinion has been included in the report. The City has received the Award of Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Governmental Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for the last 18 years.
To assist with the understanding the changes associated with GASB 34, “The New Reporting Model”, a power point handout prepared by the GFOA was provided to members, as well as a power point handout to highlight the key points of this year’s CAFR.
Mr. Truitt moved to recommend acceptance of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003, seconded by Mr. Gorman 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 5 - Council to be legislative body; size; districts; terms of mayor and councilmen; qualifications
Members continued their review of the third and fourth paragraph of Section 5. Some members had suggested longer terms for elected officials. If the length of term is changed, it was suggested that consideration be given to adding the allowance of a recall.
Referring to Mr. Ruane’s opinion that the residency requirement be eliminated and the minimum age requirement of 21 years be changed to 18 years, Mr. Salters felt that the City standards should remain higher and that no changes be made to the requirements.
Mr. Shelton explained that life experience is important and felt that 18 may be too young. He also felt that it was important for new residents to get a good “feel” for the area before serving as an elected official for the City and agreed with a residency requirement of two (2) years or more.
Mrs. Williams questioned why the City would be considering making changes to requirements that are working for the City. Concurring, Mr. Pitts stated that no change is necessary to the term of office, assuring members that if people are satisfied with your performance as an elected official, then you will be re-elected.
There was discussion regarding the requirement that if a member of Council whose term does not expire wishes to run for the Office of the Mayor, their term as councilman automatically expires on the second Monday of May in the year of the election. At the request of Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Green advised members that there was both a personality reasoning for the requirement, as well as monetary. The personality reason stemmed from a member of Council who ran for the Office of the Mayor, whose term as a member of Council did not expire,until the next year. At that time, some members of Council felt it would have been an opportunity for that member of Council to lose their seat on Council. The monetary reason was to avoid having to hold a special election immediately following the regular election. If a member of Council whose term did not expire ran for and won the election for Mayor, then it would be necessary for a special election to be held to fill the unexpired term of that member of Council.
Mr. Speed noted that the requirement is not the same if a Mayor would choose to run for the office of Council; therefore, it was his opinion that the reasoning for the requirement resulted from the personality conflict on Council at that time rather than the concerns of a special election.
There was also some discussion regarding the fairness to those members of Council whose terms do not correspond with that of the Mayor’s terms as compared to those members of Council whose terms coincide with the Mayor’s terms. (City Clerk’s Office Note: In accordance with a previous legal opinion received, those members of Council whose terms coincide with the Mayor’s terms would not be permitted to run for the Office of the Mayor and run to retain their seat on Council).
Mr. Gorman moved to defer the matter until the next committee meeting, seconded by Mr. Ritter and unanimously carried.
With the exception of Mr. Ruane, there were no comments received on Sections 6, 7, 8, or 9; therefore, discussion should continue beginning with Section 10 at the next meeting.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Handicapped Signage - Section 13-42 of the Dover Code
Members were provided proposed amendments to Section 13-42, Handicapped Persons’ Parking Areas, of the Dover Code. Mr. Galvin, Director of Planning and Inspections, advised members that the State of Delaware enacted legislation (House Bill 172) in July 2003, requiring counties and municipalities to adopt ordinances that required individuals to install signage for all parking spaces reserved for persons with mobility impairments. The legislation requires three (3) elements of an ordinance requiring such signage: an enforcement provision; a penalty provision; and a provision which requires an enforcement officer to first issue a written warning of a violation, and a 30 day period in which to correct it.
Mr. Galvin stated that Section 13-42(a) and (b) of the Dover Code requires owners or lease holders of private property to install signs under specific guidelines which comply with the State requirement and that Section 13-42(f) includes a penalty for violation of any portion of Section 13-42. The component mandated by the State that needs to be included in the Dover Code is a 30 day warning to those in violation of the signage requirement. Mr. Galvin indicated that the Department of Planning and Inspections would be responsible for enforcing the ordinances since any violations would involve private property and would be a part of the site plan review.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment to Section 13-42 as presented (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
Pay-for-Performance and Bonus Policies
During their meeting of February 2, 2004, members reviewed recommendations for the Pay-for-Performance and Bonus Policies. As a result, staff implemented changes to the policies and presented them to members for their review and recommendation.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend approval of the Pay-for-Performance and Bonus Policies as presented (Attachment #2), seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Mr. Shelton moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:54 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen R. Speed
Chairman
SRS/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20042-23-2004-LF&A.wpd
Attachments
Attachment #1 - Proposed Ordinance Amendments (Sections 13-42)
Attachment #2 - Pay-for-Performance and Bonus Policies (as on File in the City Clerk’s Office)