REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on August 27, 2001 at 7:40 p.m. with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Council members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mr. Speed, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Major Harding, Mr. Cooper, Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Green, and Mr. Rodriguez.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President McGlumphy declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
Mr. Robert Hollingsworth, 228 N. Caroline Place, relayed his support of the recent pay increase for members of City Council and the trash fee. It was his feeling that the trash fee represents a small amount to help make the best trash service even better. He advised members that there is a trash truck that is leaking oil and distributed pictures depicting the leak on the roadway. He suggested that the monies collected for the trash fee be contributed towards fixing this problem.
(Ret.) Sgt. Bill Jackson, 229 N. Caroline Place, submitted a petition requesting that the City support the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenway Lane and Dover Kenton Road. It was noted that although this is a State maintained roadway, the residents are soliciting support from the City of Dover.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 2001
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 13, 2001 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Truitt, seconded by Mr. Carey and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PRESENTATION - DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 2000 (GFOA)
The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year beginning July 2000, from Government Finance Officers Association, was awarded to the City of Dover. This award signifies the excellent manner in which the City prepares and presents its budget. Council President McGlumphy, Mr. Gorman (Chairman, Legislative and Finance Committee), and Mr. DePrima (Interim City Manager), assisted Mayor Hutchison in presenting the award to Mrs. Tieman, Director of Administrative Services, for the excellent work in preparing the budget document.
Mrs. Tieman reiterated that the budget is a team effort by staff and City Council. She relayed her appreciation to all who assisted in the preparation of the budget.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on August 13, 2001 with Chairman Gorman presiding.
Consideration of Procedures - Project Requests of Staff by Council
Members of the committee considered the establishment of a written procedure for project requests of staff by Council. Mr. Gorman noted that the procedure would not be related to questions or information that could be easily provided by staff nor would it prohibit Council from calling or visiting a member of staff for assistance or to gather information necessary to conduct everyday business. He explained that although this is an existing procedure, it has not been utilized recently; therefore, it was felt that there should be a written procedure.
After much discussion, the committee recommended that a procedure be established for any research project that a member of Council is requesting of staff, with the work estimated to take more than an hour of staff’s time, to be made in writing and given to the City Clerk’s Office for distribution to all members of Council, and with the understanding that the requester is to initially contact, if the information requested is related to a certain committee of Council, the appropriate committee chair to receive their input regarding the issue.
Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Carey.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. Gorman stated that by putting requests in writing and allowing copies to be distributed to members, Council would be made aware of common interests, be given the opportunity to comment on a particular subject, etc.
Mr. Ritter relayed concern that the proposed procedure would add bureaucracy to the process and prohibit members of Council from serving their constituents. He requested that members consider the citizens and use common sense in making requests of staff.
Responding, Mr. Gorman felt that the procedure would make Council more productive for the citizens by working together as a group rather than individually. He stated that communication is extremely important and utilizing the procedure will improve upon communications among members of Council.
On a call for the question by Mr. Pitts, the motion to approve the Procedure for Project Requests of Staff by Council (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk) was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Ritter and Mr. Speed).
Bid - Electric Stock Materials
The Electric Department uses many items for maintenance and extensions to the current electric system. Staff prepared a list of frequently used items, totaling 611, and solicited bids. The City has been purchasing electric stock material through a blanket bid process for several years. It has proven to be very cost effective as vendors will guarantee their bid price for materials during the entire year. Upon evaluation, staff recommended awarding the bids as follows:
Rigby Electric - $295,031.71
Tristate Electric - 214, 581.98
United Electric- 2,051.81
Utiliserve - 179,382.09
Wesco - 593,046.00
The bids are for the period of September 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002.
During the committee meeting, Mr. DePrima explained that the material quantities are estimated on projected usage and that only needed materials will be ordered and paid for accordingly. He explained that the bids are based on an estimated maximum amount of purchases to be made from that vendor based on historical purchases. However, he stated that there could be a need for more than what has been estimated and that staff would purchase the item from the low bidder. It was his feeling that approval of the low bid is for a particular item at a per unit price.
The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for the purchase of electric stock materials from vendors as indicated, with the understanding that the approval is for the per unit price for the items as opposed to the total maximum bid price.
Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Report - Budget Management Committee
The Interim City Manager, Mr. DePrima, established an ad hoc Budget Management Committee (Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Tieman, Chief Horvath, and Mrs. Green) to develop recommendations on how the City could better manage its budget and the budget process. The establishment of this committee was in reaction to several concerns expressed by Council during the budget review process. The purpose of the committee is to determine the following:
1)What processes or practices should be established to replace the current procedure of revising the budget three (3) or four (4) times per year? The process should strictly control the budget while allowing a flexible process for handling unplanned expenses that arise. These expenses arise both from unexpected problems as well as unexpected opportunities.
2)How should expenses that were “budgeted” in 2000/2001 but not completed and also not carried forward into the 2001/2002 budget be handled?
During the committee meeting, Mr. DePrima submitted policy recommendations (includes six recommendations) for review by the committee. He noted that since Council wishes to change the current budget procedures, there are transitional issues that need to be considered, such as consideration of expenses budgeted in 2000/2001 that were not implemented, purchased, nor carried forward in 2001/2002 as well as the consideration of “unbudgeted commitments”. He stated that although it is hoped that such a revision would not be needed in the future, these situations need to be addressed at this time. It was recommended that a budget amendment hearing be held at the first Legislative and Finance Committee meeting in September. Mr. DePrima explained that it is recommended that there be criteria established for these budget amendments, as follows:
►The expense must be “needed” as determined by the City Manager.
►The expense must have been budgeted in the previous year’s budget.
►The project must be scheduled and feasible for completion within six (6) months.
►The total of all revisions shall not bring the carry forward balance below what has been set by City Council.
►The project budget was not used for other expenditures.
Mrs. Mitchell reminded members that although a policy has not been established for the budget balances, during this past year’s budget review, Council set guidelines for the three (3) operating funds, as follows: 1) General Fund - 5%; 2) Water/Sewer Fund - 10%; and 3) Electric Fund - $1.5 Million.
After much discussion, it was suggested that a Special Legislative and Finance Committee meeting be held to further discuss these issues so that Council can consider the committee’s recommendations during their Regular Meeting on August 27, 2001.
Mr. DePrima stated that since there were no objections to the consideration of budget amendments, he requested that staff be authorized to proceed with the scheduling of the budget amendments for September and that in the meantime, the Legislative and Finance Committee will set the guidelines for the carry forward balances. Then, when the budget amendments are presented, consideration will be given to the amendments being within the set guidelines for the carry forward balances. Mr. DePrima explained that items #2 - #6 are not critical and can be reviewed at a later time; however, items #1A and #1B are of importance and urged the committee to recommend their adoption, stipulating further review by the Legislative and Finance Committee prior to being presented to Council.
The committee recommended approval of #1A and #1B of the Budget Management Committee Report, stipulating further review by the Legislative and Finance Committee during a special meeting prior to the Council Meeting on August 27, 2001, and that items #2 - #6 be deferred.
Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Pitts and carried with Mr. Speed voting no. (Note: A Special Legislative and Finance Committee Meeting was held on August 20, 2001 and is reported in the latter part of this meeting).
Mr. Gorman moved for acceptance of the Legislative and Finance Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT
The Utility Committee met on August 13, 2001 with Chairman Ruane presiding.
Fulton Street Parking Lot Project Review and Contract Amendment
Members were reminded that in an effort to address the current parking problems around Wesley College, the City of Dover designed a 48-space public parking lot at the corner of Fulton Street and North Governors Avenue. The parking facility would be maintained by Wesley College. During their Regular Meeting of March 12, 2001, City Council awarded a contract for the construction of the Fulton Street parking lot to Melvin L. Joseph Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $110,759. Construction of the facility is now complete and the final construction costs have been submitted for review, approval, and payment by the City.
Staff recommended adoption of the amendment to the agreement between the City of Dover and Melvin L. Joseph Construction Co., Inc. for the construction of the Fulton Street Parking Lot to include the final construction costs in the amount of $178,034.20.
Mr. DePrima advised members that shortly after construction began, it was discovered that an old house foundation was buried on the lot, which caused a very large increase in the cost of this project. He reminded members that all funds necessary to cover the final project costs have been secured through Suburban Street Aid Agreements provided by area legislators.
The committee recommend approval of staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Ruane moved for adoption of the amendment to the agreement between the City of Dover and Melvin L. Joseph Construction Co., Inc. for the construction of the Fulton Street Parking Lot to include the final construction costs in the amount of $178,034.20, as recommended by the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Truitt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Street Program Overview and 2001/2002 Capital Program
Mr. DePrima, Interim City Manager, along with Mr. Koenig, Public Works Director, conducted a comprehensive overview of the City’s Street Program and status of the 2001/2002 Capital Program, which included detailed information as outlined below:
I. The “Street” Inventory
A. The Components - It’s More than Just Asphalt
B. Existing Milage
C. Future Mileage
D. Value of Our Streets
II. The “Street” Program
A. The Capital Program
1. Resurfacing
2. Alley Maintenance
3. Sidewalk Program
4. Barrier Free Ramp Program
B. Operation Expenses
1. Services Provided
2. Workforce
3. Operational Costs
III. Revenue Resources
A. State of Delaware - Municipal Street Aid
B. State of Delaware - Suburban Street Aid
C. City of Dover Contributions to the Street Program
IV. The 2001/2002 Capital Program
At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Ruane stated that due to time constraints, this matter will be considered during the next Utility Committee Meeting scheduled for August 27th to allow for comments and questions of members.
There being no action taken on this item, Mr. Ruane moved for acceptance of the Street Program Overview and 2001/2002 Capital Program by consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried.
Mr. Speed moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
A Special Legislative and Finance Committee meeting was held on August 20, 2001 with Chairman Gorman presiding.
Criteria - Budget Revisions for 2001/2002
During the Legislative and Finance Committee meeting of August 13, 2001, members considered policy recommendations made by the ad-hoc Budget Management Committee which addressed concerns expressed by Council during the budget review process, including suggested processes or practices to be established to replace the current procedure of revising the budget several times per year and methods of strictly controlling the budget while providing flexibility in handling unplanned expenses and opportunities. After much discussion, the committee recommended approval of item #1A, Criteria - Budget Revisions for 2001/2002 of the Budget Management Committee Report, stipulating further review by the Legislative and Finance Committee during a special meeting prior to the Council Meeting on August 27, 2001.
Members were reminded that during the Budget Hearings, Council set the carry forward budget criteria for the General Fund at 5%, Water/Wastewater Fund at 10%, and the Electric Fund at $1.5 million. These criteria were based on the recommended practice of the Government Finance Officer’s Association and are not necessarily standard practice for municipal budgeting, which is typically a 8.33% carry forward balance, or one month of operating expenses.
Feeling that the criteria for budget balances for this fiscal year have been established and that future changes should be accomplished gradually, Mr. Gorman suggested that a Task Force be established to research other cities across the nation with similar populations, budgets, and revenues to determine the correct level of reserves for the next three (3) years. He requested that Mr. Salters, Mr. Ruane, Mr. Snaman, and Mrs. Mitchell serve as members of the Task Force.
The committee recommended the appointment of a Task Force to work in concert with the Finance Director in researching the budget practices of entities with similar populations, budgets, and revenues in order to recommend to City Council, by November 20, 2001, criteria for future budgets for the next three (3) years.
Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Consideration of “Unbudgeted Commitments”
During the Legislative and Finance Committee meeting of August 13, 2001, members considered policy recommendations made by the ad-hoc Budget Management Committee which addressed consideration of expenses that were “budgeted” in 2000/2001 but not completed and not carried forward into the 2001/2002 budget as well as “unbudgeted commitments”. After much discussion, the committee recommended approval of item #1B - Consideration of “Unbudgeted Commitments” of the Budget Management Committee Report, stipulating further review by the Legislative and Finance Committee during a special meeting prior to the Council Meeting on August 27, 2001.
Mr. DePrima reported that the Budget Management Committee recommended that a budget amendment hearing be held during the first Legislative and Finance Committee meeting in September and that criteria be established for these budget amendments as follows:
►The expense must be “needed” as determined by the City Manager.
►The expense must have been budgeted in the previous year’s budget.
►The project must be scheduled and feasible for completion within six (6) months.
►The total of all revisions shall not bring the existing carry forward balance below what has been set by City Council.
►The project budget was not used for other expenditures.
Mr. DePrima requested that since there are no objections to the consideration of budget amendments, that staff be authorized to proceed with the scheduling of the budget amendments for September and to bring forward the budget amendments related to items that were budgeted for in 2000/2001 that were not implemented, purchased, nor carried forward in 2001/2002. When the budget amendments are presented, consideration will be given to the amendments being within the set guidelines for the carry forward balances.
The committee recommended approval of the Budget Management Committee’s recommendation.
Mr. Ruane explained it was his understanding that there are two (2) separate categories for the consideration of budget revisions, one being the consideration of expenses budgeted in 2000/2001 that were not implemented, purchased, nor carried forward in 2001/2002 and the other being “unbudgeted commitments”. He felt that the criteria did not apply to the “unbudgeted commitments” and would not be considered in the budget revisions.
Responding, Mr. DePrima explained that the criteria will not apply to all of the “unbudgeted commitments” and that the Budget Management Committee has already determined which items should be brought before Council for consideration. He reminded members that budget revisions will be presented to members for their review and recommendation.
Mr. Ruane felt it was important to clarify that there is a distinction between those budgeted items that were approved by a previous Council in a budget and not completed, carry forward, or eliminated and those items that were never presented to a Council for consideration. He suggested that when the “unbudgeted commitments” are presented for consideration, there should be strong evidence and proof of the commitment for the item to be considered by Council for approval. Mr. Ruane urged all employees of the City to understand that they do not have the authority to make commitments of a budgetary item and that such items will not be accepted without the authority of Council.
Mr. Gorman stated that the intent of the motion is to have all requested budget revisions consolidated to be presented for consideration by committee members.
Mr. Truitt referred to previous consideration of an item involving the transformers at Playtex, explaining that this item was an “unbudgeted commitment” and questioned staff’s knowledge of such “commitments” and why they were not included in the budget.
Mr. Speed stated his understanding that the problem of “unbudgeted commitments” were inherited and staff is now trying to resolve these matters that were not of their making. Concurring with concerns of Mr. Ruane, Mr. Speed felt that the motion would allow staff to propose a September budget revision. It was his understanding that during this past year’s budget hearings, Council instituted a policy that established a budget review session to occur in January, at which time budget revisions would be considered. Relaying his opposition to the consideration of budget revisions in September, he explained that if Council does not adhere to the policy for a budget review session in January, it will create more confusion.
On a call for the question by Mr. Carey, the motion was carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes, three (3) no (Mr. Ritter, Mr. Speed, and Mr. Ruane), which authorized a budget amendment hearing to be held at the first Legislative and Finance Committee meeting in September and that criteria be established for these budget amendments as follows:
►The expense must be “needed” as determined by the City Manager.
►The expense must have been budgeted in the previous year’s budget.
►The project must be scheduled and feasible for completion within six (6) months.
►The total of all revisions shall not bring the existing carry forward balance below what has been set by City Council.
►The project budget was not used for other expenditures.
It was noted that action regarding the committee’s recommendation for approval of replacing aging transformers and a substandard design at Playtex Products by converting them from 22KV to 12KV transmission at a cost not to exceed $100,000 was considered by the Legislative and Finance Committee during their meeting held earlier in the evening; therefore, no further action was taken by Council at this time.
Mr. Gorman moved for acceptance of the Legislative and Finance Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Speed and unanimously carried.
MONTHLY REPORTS - JUNE 2001
Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director/Treasurer, reviewed the monthly Financial Budget Reports for June 2001 and explained the year end budget balances.
Mr. Gorman noted the comment made by Mrs. Mitchell, as follows: “To budget for more expense than revenue will continually deplete the budget balance. As you can see from the figures above all of the funds have occurrences of higher expenditures at one point in time. If we were to keep our historical practices we will never be able to set aside any funds for future capacity or depreciation as well as having the working capital to meet the day to day financial needs.” It was his feeling that this comment explains the City’s financial situation in totality.
Mr. Ruane stated that his concerns for consideration of budget revisions is justified and reiterated by the year end budget report as presented. He noted that the true budget balance is actually less than what was projected and less than a five percent (5%) desired beginning balance for the General Fund. He reiterated concern with consideration of budget amendments since the 5% carry forward balance is already short compared to the standard practice of an 8.33% carry forward balance, or one month of operating expenses.
Responding, Mrs. Mitchell explained that the five percent (5%) beginning balance for the General Fund that was recently set by Council was for Fiscal Year Ended June 2002 for a beginning balance for Fiscal Year 2002/2003. The report reflects the beginning balance for Fiscal Year 2001/2002; therefore, the City could still meet the beginning balance for Fiscal Year 2002/2003 as set by Council.
Mr. Ruane referred to previous discussions during the committee meeting with regards to the Disposal Fee Agreement with the Delaware Solid Waste Authority and relayed concern that the City may be underfunded for sanitation fees. Noting that the City needs to address revenue concerns, he suggested that the Legislative and Finance Committee conduct a re-examination of the City’s right-of-way policy as well as other revenue projections.
By motion of Mr. Speed, seconded by Mr. Carey, the following monthly reports were unanimously accepted:
General Fund, Cash Receipts & Budget Report
Water/Sewer Fund, Revenue & Budget Report
Electric Revenue Fund, Revenue & Budget Report
Improvement and Extension Fund, Cash Receipts & Budget Report
Internal Service Fund, Revenue & Budget Report
MONTHLY REPORTS - JULY 2001
By motion of Mr. Gorman, seconded by Mr. Carey, the following monthly reports were unanimously accepted by consent agenda:
Chief of Police Report
Planning and Inspections Report
City Assessor Report
City Clerk/Alderman Report (Fines)
City Manager's Report
Mayor's Report
PROPOSED LETTER TO BOARD OF EDUCATION, CAPITAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - SUPPORT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF KENT COUNTY COMPLEX
Members were provided a draft letter to the Board of Education for the Capital School District in support of suggested improvements associated with the construction of the new Kent County Complex.
Mr. DePrima explained that the Kent County Levy Court is planning construction of the new County Complex adjacent to the East Elementary School. He stated that their plans include the re-alignment of the service road between the school and the County property, provide screening between the properties, and create a four-way intersection. It was staff’s feeling that these changes will assist the traffic flow in the area, will provide increased safety for the children, and will provide enhanced visual screening for the property. Mr. DePrima stated that Kent County has approached the Capital School District for acquiring an easement across the School District property in order to create a four-way intersection with the new subdivision and County Complex.
Mr. Carey moved that a letter, signed by the Mayor and Council President, be forwarded to the Board of Education for the Capital School District relaying the City’s support for the construction of the Kent County Complex. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
EMPLOYEE CONTRACT ADDENDUM - POLICE CAPTAINS - FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LODGE #15
Mr. DePrima advised members that the Police Captains were a bargaining unit and petitioned the City for consideration of amendments to the salaries and Fraternal Order of Police (F.O.P.) Contract. Members were provided a summary of the settlement between the Dover Police Captains of the Dover Police Department Members F.O.P. Lodge #15 and the City of Dover, as follows:
1.Police Captain classification is included in the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #15 Bargaining Unit. Current contract expires June 30, 2003.
2.Wages for Police Captains effective July 1, 2001 will be $70,663. These wages will be increased by 3% on July 1, 2002.
3.Police Captains will not be eligible to receive overtime pay.
4.Police Captains will not be eligible to receive standby pay.
5.Police Captains will be eligible to sell back to the City up to ten (10) days unused vacation leave.
Mr. Ruane referenced the memo submitted by Chief Horvath which indicated his feeling that the Police Department could absorb the additional costs of the proposed increase for the Captains.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the Employee Contract Addendum for the Dover Police Department Members F.O.P. Lodge #15 and the City of Dover, as submitted by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Salters abstained).
REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING - 771 AND 777 SOUTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD - ANTHONY AND SANDRA LIBERTO
A request was received to rezone property located at 771 and 777 South Little Creek Road, containing approximately 3.76 acres, owned by Anthony and Sandra Liberto. The property is currently zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residential) and the requested zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial).
Prior to amending the zoning ordinances and zoning map of the City of Dover, a public hearing is required.
By motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. Pitts, Council unanimously referred the request to the Planning Commission and set a public hearing for October 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. The first reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished by title only:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 771 AND 777 SOUTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD.
Mr. Speed moved for adjournment into executive session to discuss personnel matters, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:08 P.M.
JANICE C. GREEN
CITY CLERK
All orders, ordinances and resolutions adopted by City Council during their meeting of August 27, 2001, are hereby approved.
JAMES L. HUTCHISON
MAYOR
/JG
S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Council-Minutes\2001\08-27-2001.min.wpd