COUNCIL COMMITTEES

The Council Committees Meeting was held on August 13, 2001, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Speed, and Mr. Salters were absent.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Truitt moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.

LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Gorman presiding. Members present were Councilman Ruane, and Mr. Snaman. Councilmen Truitt and Pitts were deputized to serve in the absence of Councilman Salters and Mrs. Street.

Consideration of Procedures - Project Requests of Staff by Council

Mr. Gorman noted that there have recently been several project requests of staff made by individual members of Council that have been extremely time consuming on the part of staff. He explained that these projects take more than one hour of staff’s time to produce. There being nine (9) members of Council dedicated to their jobs, these project requests can become overbearing on staff. To alleviate any confusion and to keep members of Council abreast of each others actions, Mr. Gorman suggested that all such project requests be done in writing and distributed through the City Clerk’s Office. This would allow members of Council and other staff members that have longevity and knowledge regarding the request the opportunity to respond and provide some historical information regarding the matter. It would also allow Council to become a more uniform body by communicating with one another.

Mr. Pitts agreed with the concept and also suggested that if a particular interest involves a Council Committee, the committee chair should be contacted prior to information being requested of staff. He noted that new members of Council may not be aware of previous issues that have been considered by Council and felt that if all information regarding an issue is obtained, there would be no need to submit such requests of staff, and thus, alleviate staff from performing research on a matter that has been considered and the information already available. Mr. Pitts suggested that the procedure include that such requests be reviewed by the appropriate committee chair prior to requesting staff to provide information.

Concurring, Council President McGlumphy stated that Council Committees were formed for a specific purpose and that each committee has a chairman that could assist any member of Council regarding a request. It was his feeling that such a procedure would also eliminate duplication, since members of Council have not been made aware of what is being requested of staff until after the work has been done. There could be instances when more than one member of Council is requesting different members of staff for the same information. Council President McGlumphy noted that with five (5) members of Council having less than two (2) years of experience, he felt that a procedure for project requests would save a substantial amount of staff’s time. He urged members to realize that staff’s time is valuable and that they should be provided understanding from Council that they have a job to perform on a regular basis and should not be requested to spend time on projects that could be otherwise easily addressed. He also felt that such a procedure would help avoid a member of Council micro-managing.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Gorman felt that “staff” would be those members that directly report to Council, noting that all department heads report to one of Council’s staff members in some manner. He stated that a project request that would require a member of the City Manager’s staff to fulfill, would require such a request to be submitted to the City Manager; however, the request would still be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office for proper distribution. Mr. Ruane agreed that such a procedure would improve communications between members of Council and could avoid unnecessary work of staff. He advised members that in speaking with the City Clerk recently, information regarding a subject matter that was previously discussed by Council was readily available in the City Clerk’s Office.

In response to Mr. Truitt, Mr. Gorman explained 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. Mr. Gorman stated that if staff were to indicate that the information requested would take time, then the request should be made in writing. It was his feeling that the procedure would be effective for project type requests that would take more than an hour of staff’s time. He explained that the idea of establishing the procedure is to avoid redundancy and to improve communications.

Mr. Ritter relayed concern with the proposed procedure, stating that as the procedure currently is, once staff has developed the information requested of Council, it is distributed to all members of Council and at that time, members are made aware of the request.

Responding, Mr. Gorman explained that by all members of Council being notified prior to as opposed to after the fact, there could be another member of Council that is already aware of the information being requested or may have additional information for consideration. This could avoid staff taking the time to perform the research on a redundant project.

Mr. Ritter felt that staff would be aware of any redundant request since they would have been involved with the previous request and already have the information readily available.

Council President McGlumphy reminded members that several staff members are new, noting that the current Finance Director/Treasurer has been with the City for less than one (1) year. He stated that there is a lot of past history that members of Council and staff are not familiar with and considering that there are nine (9) members of Council, by putting such requests in writing the redundancy of having four (4) or five (5) members of Council requesting the same information from different staff members would also be avoided. Council President McGlumphy felt that such a procedure would also allow members of Council to “add” to a request of staff initially rather than “after the fact”. Should another member of Council have a question or concern related to the initial request, it could be added to the request and included in the response from staff. He noted that although each member has individual concerns, some of these concerns are related and that each member should be given the opportunity to include their concerns initially, which would save a tremendous amount of staff’s time.

Mr. Ruane moved to recommend 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 distributing copies 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 (Attachment #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried.

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. Funding is available in the Electric Transmission/Distribution and Engineering Departments’ budgets.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated 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.

Mr. Ruane moved to recommend 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.

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?

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. He 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.

Referring to the carry forward balances, Mr. Ruane requested review of the parameters set for these balances.

Responding, 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.

It was Mr. Ruane’s feeling that there needs to be a policy set by Council for the carry forward balance prior to further review of the budget amendments. He advised members that the 5% carry forward balance for the General Fund is not standard practice for municipal budgeting. The standard practice is a 8.33% carry forward balance for the General Fund which equates to one month of operating expenses. Since the 5% carry forward balance is already short as compared to standard practice, he relayed concern with consideration of budget amendments.

After much discussion, Mr. Gorman 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 are 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. Ruane moved to table this matter until the next Legislative and Finance Committee meeting. The motion failed for the lack of a second.

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 adoption of items #1A and #1B, stipulating further review by the Legislative and Finance Committee prior to being presented to Council.

Mr. Snaman moved to recommend 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pitts and carried with Mr. Ruane voting no.

Mr. Snaman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 6:42 P.M.

UTILITY COMMITTEE

The Utility Committee met with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Councilman Truitt, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Nichols. Mr. Speed was absent.

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 the construction of 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. The details of the construction costs are as follows:

      Contract Award        All construction listed on the design plans                                    $110,759.00

      Change Order #1      Excavate areas associated with old house

foundation which was unexpectedly found

                                           and disposal of al debris                                                                  66,755.70

      Change Order #2      Furnish and install photo cells for four (4) street lights                         750.00

      Change Order #3      Additional landscaping required for the biofiltration swales                 325.00

      Change Order #4      Furnish and install Mirafi 500X woven fabric                                       700.00

      Change Order #5      Final quantity adjustments; credits & contingency items              $ (1,255.50)

      Final Project Cost                                                                                                            $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 the Suburban Street Aid Agreements provided by area legislators.

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. Nichols moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously carried.

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 27^th to allow for comments and questions of members.

Mr. Lambert moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Nichols and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 7:20 P.M.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    William P. McGlumphy

                                                                                    Council President

WPM/jg

S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20018-13-2001.min.wpd