LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on November 14, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. Hogan, Mr. Slavin, and Mr. Shelton. Mr. Shevock was absent. Members of Council present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Ruane, and Council President Williams. Mayor Speed was also present.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION - REQUEST FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO AMEND SECTION 5 OF CITY CHARTER - REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL TO RELINQUISH SEAT TO RUN FOR MAYOR

At the request of Councilman Carey, members considered a proposed amendment to the City Charter that would allow for a current member of Council to run for Mayor without being required to relinquish their position on City Council. Upon receipt of the required sponsors, the City Solicitor was requested to prepare the necessary legislation, which was presented to the committee for their review and recommendation to Council. Members were also provided a Proposed Resolution requesting the General Assembly to Amend Section 5 of the Charter; as well as Previous Council Comments.

A charter amendment would require adoption of a Resolution Requesting the General Assembly to Amend Section 5 of the City Charter to allow for a current member of Council to run for Mayor and not be required to relinquish his or her position on Council and that if the Council person is successfully elected as Mayor and has a one-year term remaining, then his or her seat would be filled in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Charter. Upon Council approval, this request will be forwarded to the local legislators to be submitted to the General Assembly.

Mr. Carey stated many other municipalities, including the Federal Government, do not require office holders to relinquish their seats in order to run for another office.

Mr. Slavin expressed concern with considering a charter amendment since a Charter Review Committee had been established to conduct a thorough review of the Charter. He noted that he wanted to honor their commitment to allow them to conduct their review without outside interference. Mr. Slavin suggested referring the amendment to the 2005 Charter Review Committee for their review.

Mr. Hogan stated that he was opposed to the amendment since the Charter Review Committee has been established and should be permitted to complete their review. He also felt that, due to the timing, this amendment would affect five (5) members of Council. Mr. Hogan stated that he has always been opposed to the concept of holding office while running for another office.

Mr. Ruane stated that there were many Charter amendments that he felt were more time-sensitive than this proposed amendment, such as the amount of fines and the debt limit. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Salters stated that the Charter Review Committee was scheduled to complete their review by September 2006. Mrs. Green advised members that the Charter Review Committee would be presenting a 6-month report in March. Mr. Salters requested members to submit any recommendations they may have to the Clerk’s Office to be forwarded to the 2005 Charter Review Committee.

Mr. Slavin moved to recommend referral of the proposed amendment to Section 5 of the City Charter to the 2005 Charter Review Committee, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.

PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 58 - HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECTION 58-36 - POWERS AND DUTIES (AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE REPRESENTATIVES FROM CITY AGENCIES TO APPEAR AT HEARINGS)

At the request of the Dover Human Relations Commission, members considered an ordinance amending Section 58-36 of the Dover Code by adding a new Subsection (7), Agencies of the City, as prepared by the City Solicitor, which would authorize the Commission to require representatives from City agencies to appear before the Commission.

Mr. Hogan stated that he was concerned with language which would “require” anyone to appear before the Commission. He suggested that the wording be changed to permit the Commission to contact either the City Clerk or the City Manager to request a representative to appear, without prohibiting an employee from willingly appearing.

Mr. Ruane stated that he was disappointed that the Dover Human Relations Commission felt it necessary to use this approach. He recommended that Council reiterate its support for the Dover Human Relations Commission and to make it clear that Council expects representatives of City agencies to give their full cooperation. Mrs. Williams recommended that, when reaffirming their support, they should also reaffirm the Commission’s mission and process.

Mayor Speed stated that the language in the proposed amendment does not clearly define “City Agencies”. He noted that he had been requested to attend their meeting; however, prior commitments prevented him from attending. Mayor Speed also expressed concern with requiring attendance at a meeting to discuss issues which had already been heard by the commission.

Mr. Salters advised members that the Human Relations Commission was not established to be a punitive body. They were to be mediators without the ability to impose action on either side. Mr. Ruane stated that the Council should be the model for a spirit of cooperation by meeting with the commission to discuss the issue for a better understanding by both parties. He stated that there appears to be some confusion about the role of the commission.

The committee took no action.

FOIA POLICY AMENDMENTS

A decision rendered May 13, 2005 by the US District Judge (Lee v. Minner, 369 F. Supp. 2d 527) states that "the Court concludes that the "citizens only" restriction of Delaware's FOIA is unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause,...". The City Clerk consulted with the Deputy City Solicitor who confirmed that "the recent decision did indeed void that part of the statute restricting FOIA requests to Delaware citizens. The City must comply with State law. The FOIA policy must be amended." Therefore, Section 3 - Availability of Records, Subsection 3.1 - Access, Paragraph (C), that restricts our public records to citizens of the State of Delaware has been eliminated in its entirety.

With the recent hiring of a GIS Coordinator, the manner in which oversized printouts are provided has been improved. As a result, the Information Technology Department has prepared a GIS Fee Structure to be used for charging for producing digital data layers, customer digital data layers, previously created paper maps, and customer paper maps. Therefore, Section 5 - Fees for Copying and Research, Subsection 5.1 - Duplicating/Copying Fees, has been amended by replacing Paragraph (B) - Oversized Printouts with a new Paragraph (B) - GIS Fee Structure, and amending Paragraph (C) - Computer/Electronically Generated, by adding a new sentence to reference the GIS Fee Structure.

Mr. DePrima advised members that the new GIS system will enable staff to provide more information to the public and he anticipates that there will be an increase in requests for this information and staff should charge accordingly.

Staff recommended approval of the FOIA Policy Amendments as submitted [Eliminating Section 3 - Availability of Records, Subsection 3.1 - Access, Paragraph (C) in its entirety; and amending Section 5 - Fees for Copying and Research, Subsection 5.1 - Duplicating/Copying Fees, by replacing Paragraph (B) - Oversized Printouts with a new Paragraph (B) - GIS Fee Structure, and amending Paragraph (C) - Computer/Electronically Generated, by adding a new sentence to reference the GIS Fee Structure].

Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the FOIA Policy Amendments (Attachment #1), as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.

BUDGET AMENDMENTS

Members considered proposed ordinance amendments which would incorporate the adjusted budget balances into the fiscal year 2006 Budget. The revisions also incorporate into the current year budget prior year encumbrances, project balances carried over from fiscal year 2005 for completion in fiscal year 2006, and Homeland Security Grants.

Staff recommended approval of the proposed budget amendments.

Mr. Ritter requested Mrs. Mitchell to provide the budget pages which would be revised by the proposed ordinance amendment. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the original budget, which was adopted by Council, would not be changed; however, she could provide the pages with a revised column. After much discussion, Mr. Slavin requested Mr. Ritter to provide his request in writing in order for members to gain a better understanding of his request.

Mr. Ruane noted that the funds anticipated for the recreation center have been reduced and $166,000 has not been budgeted toward any item. He suggested that those funds be allocated to the recreation center.

Mr. Hogan moved to recommend adoption of the budget ordinances (Attachment #2), as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin and unanimously carried.

Mr. Slavin moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 6:38 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Reuben Salters

Chairman

RS/tm

11-14-2005 LF&A.wpd

Attachments

Attachment #1 - FOIA Policy Amendments

Attachment #2 - Budget Amendments (attached to original minutes)