LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting was held on February 2, 2004, at 5:45 p.m., with Chairman Speed presiding. Members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Truitt (arrived at 5:55 p.m.), Mr. Shelton, and Mr. Gorman. Other members of Council present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Salters, Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Williams, and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Speed, noting that Mr. Ritter had requested a moment to speak, requested the addition of “Comments of Councilman Ritter” prior to agenda item #1.
Mr. Speed moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
Comments of Councilman Ritter
Referring to comments that he made during the Regular Council Committee Meeting of January 12, 2004, concerning Reapportionment of Council District Boundaries (Recommendation of the City of Dover Election Board - Meeting of November 3, 2003), Mr. Ritter apologized for not making his point clear and read the following statement:
“I made statements that may have given the perception that I was making this personal. I apologize for that perception. What I was trying to address was how the new district lines seemed unfair as there was a departure from practice used in previous years. Only one plan was submitted. The plan did not keep neighborhoods together and the Election Board drew the lines previously in 1992, not the City Clerk. So, I apologize to all who may have been offended.”
Presentation by the Office of State Planning Coordination - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS)
Mr. David Edgell of the Office of State Planning Coordination (OSPC), reviewed the Preliminary Land Use Service process (PLUS), Revising the Land Use Planning Acting (LUPA) to Create the Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS), a diagram of LUPA and PLUS processes, and the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Checklist.
Mr. Edgell advised members that, for the past two and a half years, their office has been modeling a process whereby the State agencies review larger projects at the beginning stages of the process, prior to submission to the local jurisdictions. As a result, PLUS was adopted by the legislature. Mr. Edgell noted that PLUS works differently than LUPA in a number of ways, notably that the developer is responsible for submitting projects to the State agency for review prior to submission to local governments. Secondly, he noted that with this process only certain types of projects are required to go through the review; other projects remain voluntary. Mr. Edgell stated that this process would outline the review requirement criteria.
The City of Dover Planning staff worked with the Office of State Planning Coordination staff in the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for how development activities within the City of Dover will be reviewed under the Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS). The PLUS process was established in Delaware Code by recent state legislation and goes into effect in February 2004.
Mr. Edgell noted that PLUS directs their office to develop Memorandums of Understanding with the local jurisdictions. This will aid their office in coordinating with the land use review procedures of the local jurisdictions.
Members were provided a Draft Memorandum of Understanding for PLUS between the City of Dover, Delaware and the Office of State Planning Coordination (as recommended by Planning Commission) and an excerpt from Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission Quarterly Workshop on December 16, 2003, which included their discussion of the draft MOU, recommended changes, and recommendation to adopt the MOU.
Mayor Hutchison, noting that from time to time there may be instances where it would be necessary to accelerate the review process, asked if there was a procedure in place to accommodate those needs. Mr. Edgell responded that the Office of State Planning Coordination is authorized to waive the pre-application requirements of Title 29 in the event that a project was expected to provide an extraordinary benefit to the State and the local jurisdiction through economic development, job creation, educational opportunities, etc.
Mr. James Galvin, Director of Planning and Inspections, noted that members had been provided the draft MOU, along with a proposed amendment. He advised that the amendment address instances when land use decisions would have little or no impact on neighborhoods or the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Galvin stated that there is a de minimis concept in zoning case law that allows very small variances without substantive documentation. “De Minimis non curat lex” is described as “The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles.” Mr. Galvin noted that the City and the State are equally concerned with the time involved in referring and reviewing minor issues.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Galvin explained that the rezoning request scheduled for a First Reading before Council later in the evening (Properties located at 1001 West Forrest Avenue) was a good example of the most extreme de minimus action. He noted that it is a request to rezone a small residential property located among many commercial properties. Due to its size, Mr. Galvin stated that it should not be put through the State process.
Referring to the proposed amendment to item C-3, Section a - No public opposition is exhibited at any public hearings, Mr. Ruane stated that there would be no public hearings until much later in the process. Mr. Galvin noted that the language was included to put the applicant on notice that any opposition would most likely cause the process to be stopped in order for the State to review the application. Mr. Ruane suggested revising item “a” to read “No public opposition is subsequently exhibited at any public hearings”.
Mr. DePrima suggested including the clause regarding “no public opposition” in the Dover Code rather in the MOU, as a criteria for Council approval. Mr. Edgell, noting that the clause was included at the request of City staff, stated that he was not opposed to excluding the language from the MOU or including it in the Code.
Mr. Ruane, noting that the legislation sets forth certain criteria which activates the process, questioned why a larger number of units and building space was required to activate the process for Dover. Mr. Edgell stated that the legislation allows the Office of State Planning Coordination to adjust the criteria and thresholds for each jurisdiction, depending on what level the jurisdiction feels the State review could be best utilized. He noted that the levels were determined through conversations with Ms. Dawn Melson, then Acting Director of Planning and Inspections, and Planning Commission members.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. Edgell stated that the City of Dover is the first municipality to work with the PLUS process. He noted that he was not aware of any other communities outside of Delaware that were using this process.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend approval of the Memorandum of Understanding, as amended with the “De Minimus” Impact (Minor Variation) and striking item C-3-a, “No public opposition is exhibited at any public hearings.” (Attachment #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. Ritter and unanimously carried.
Review of Revised Travel Policy
During the Regular Council Meeting of January 12, 2004, Mr. Carey requested the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee to conduct a review of the recently adopted Travel Policy. He noted that members of Council traveled recently and felt it would be a good opportunity to review the policy for any necessary fine tuning.
Mr. Speed stated that the Finance Director provided the following recommended changes:
• Insert the following as the last paragraph under Section B, Travel Authorization: “Employees and Officials traveling on official City Business should be aware that the approval is for travel only, and is not a blanket approval of the expenses incurred.”
• Omit Section C, Authorized Travel Agent and references since this provision is out of date with current practices. Most policies now require the persons traveling to try and obtain the lowest fare, especially in light of the availability of low-cost internet fares.
• Insert the following as the last sentence of the second paragraph under Section E-2, Privately Owned Vehicles: “Mileage reimbursements shall not exceed the cost of airfare plus travel to/from the airport.”
• Insert the following as the last paragraph under G-1, Meal Allowances - General: "If an employee is traveling partial days on any calendar day, the City will prorate the applicable M & IE rate at 75 percent. This applies to both day of departure and day of return. When meals are provided by the host, the meal allowance will be reduced by 25% for each meal provided."
Referring to the last paragraph of Section A-2, Scope, Mr. Salters suggested that the sentence “However, in the interest of achieving maximum uniformity, exceptions will be permitted only in highly unusual circumstances.” be stricken to eliminate redundancy.
Mr. Ritter moved to recommend approval of the Citywide Travel Policy, as amended to include the recommendations of the Finance Director and Mr. Salters (Attachment #2). The motion was seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Recommendations - Pay for Performance
During the Legislative, Finance, and Administrative Committee meeting of January 12, 2004, Mr. DePrima, City Manager, provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed Pay-for-Performance Policy and the proposed Bonus Policy. He requested that members submit any comments, suggestions, and/or questions prior to the next committee meeting for consideration.
Mr. DePrima noted that he had received comments from members of the committee and Council and, if there was no objection to the comments, he would incorporate those suggestions, as well as any other suggestions which might be received, for presentation to the committee at their next meeting.
Mr. DePrima provided members with Examples of Applying the Pay for Performance (PFP) Increase to Score and a PFP Salary Calculation Worksheet (Attachment #3) for their review.
Mr. Gorman moved to defer the decision on Recommendations - Pay for Performance until the next meeting of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Discussion - Charter and Code Review
Due to insufficient time, the above-mentioned item was deferred until the next committee meeting by motion of Mr. Ritter, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Mr. Shelton moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen R. Speed
Chairman
SRS/jg/tm
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20042-02-2004-LFA.wpd
Attachments
Attachment #1 - Memorandum of Understanding - City of Dover/Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination
Attachment #2 - Proposed Revised Citywide Travel Policy
Attachment #3 - Examples of Applying the Pay for Performance (PFP) Increase to Score and a PFP Salary Calculation Worksheet