Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-21 Finance Committee Minutes FINANCE COMMITTEE March 21, 2011 Minutes Councilors: Bronson, Palmer, Hawes, Durgin, Weston, Blanchette Staff: Cyr, Heitmann, Conlow, Little, Cammack, Patterson, McKay Others: Pauline Civiello, Linda Thomas, Eric Russell Voting Committee Members: Bronson, Blanchette, Durgin, Weston and Palmer (in place of Nealley). 1. Bids/Purchasing a. Sport Utility Vehicle – Fire – Quirk Chevrolet - $29,209 Cyr noted that this is a replacement vehicle to be purchased with Homeland Security money and is used by the Emergency Management Director Fire Chief Cammack. Staff’s recommendation is to award to the low responsive bidder, Quirk Chevrolet, in the amount of $29,209. The low bid at Darling’s Ford did not meet specification in the way the interior was laid out. Blanchette asked Cammack to provide a synopsis of the vehicle’s use and the necessity of a four-wheel drive SUV. With various types of weather, the 4-wheel drive SUV is necessary. The current vehicle will be handed down to the Fire Inspector or Public Education Officer. Responding to Palmer, Cyr said the life cycle costing methodology is used on specialty pieces of equipment; i.e. loaders, backhoes. This initial vehicle was purchased five to six years ago through Homeland Security monies. The Fire Department maintains their vehicles rather than Fleet Maintenance. Cyr noted that the bid spec should have read a 2011 Ford rather than a 2001. In response to Bronson, Cammack said the source of funds is all Homeland Security funds from 2009 and one vehicle will go to Motor Pool to be auctioned off in May. A motion was made by Durgin and seconded by Weston to adopt staff’s recommendation. The vote was unanimous. b. Request for Proposals – Wayfinding Signage – Woodworth Associates Cyr said that this item was reviewed by the Finance Committee prior to the issuance of the RFP. This is a Community Development funded project in the amount of $25,000 to review current signage within the waterfront and the downtown areas, to compare it to the City’s regulations and to develop a better signage plan for the waterfront and downtown. As part of the Committee’s agenda materials, Shirar Patterson included a detailed memo reviewing all proposals received and staff is recommending award to Woodworth Associates. Their proposal fully encompassed all of the requested scope of services. Patterson said that 10 responses were received to the RFP ranging from just under $25,000 up to almost $80,000. Upon review, she said it appears that the requested project would come in over $25,000 for most firms and, when the addendum was issued indicating the City’s budget, proposers adapted accordingly. She reviewed the scope of services. Blanchette asked if the Council would have a chance to look at any final plans. Patterson said the project will have a stakeholder group that is set up to work with the selected firm, to advise them on the project, what the City wishes to see. There would be City Council representatives as well as the Downtown Bangor Partnership, Bangor Arts, Historic Preservation any other entities felt appropriate by the Council to advise the firm. Durgin talked about the FormMedia/WBRC and Woodworth Associates price quotes. In response, Patterson said the Woodworth Associates included all items requested in the scope of services. FormMedia/WBRC is willing to include those items but didn’t feel they could provide a quote on what it would cost at this time. If the costs were included, it clearly would bring the quote over the budgeted amount. Patterson confirmed that the Woodworth quote is a fixed price and there would be no additional fees. Weston asked about a production of the signs once designed. Patterson said this bid is for the wayfinding plan design and the actual design and specs of the signs. The City would then have a plan and specifications to go out to bid for the actual signage. Funding for the fabrication and installation of signs would be requested during the 2012 budget process. Weston asked for clarification about the Society for Environmental Graphical Design. In working with the Planning Department to develop the RFP, Patterson noted that staff felt it was important to have some who was SEGD certified and with demonstrated experience in wayfinding signage and planning. She referred to it as a good housekeeping seal of approval. Responding to Durgin, Patterson distributed photos of work of the top two firms. In response to Palmer, Patterson said the selected firm will be charged with performing an inventory and a more comprehensive review of existing signage. The proposal is specifically related to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Palmer asked about the resilience of the proposed signage. Patterson said it will be considered in working with the consultant and both firms have taken this into consideration. Blanchette spoke about the brown signs currently in place in the City Forest and trails indicating that they resemble national park signage. They could be enhanced. Patterson said that it would be outside the scope of this particular project but this project could start the epicenter and then build out citywide. A cohesive brand is needed. Weston referred to a discussion with a downtown art group that was looking at artist signs, colors and schemes in the downtown. Patterson said it is parallel to this project. At that time, she said it was the Bangor Arts Project working with the Maine Arts Commission but there was no funding available. The firm was graphic and not a signage firm. It was done under the Maine Arts Commission grant received by the Cultural Commission and the sign design was a small piece of the umbrella marketing for Bangor Arts that included a brochure, website, banner design, etc. Weston noted it is still City money. Patterson said it was simply a graphic design of a sign and the firm had no input on potential placement of signs. In response to Durgin, Patterson said that within the scope of services the City did request electronic files to be made available. Responding to Bronson, Patterson said that staff will be requesting $60,000 in the FY12 budget to complete the signage placement process. Bronson questioned $25,000 to design a sign and $60,000 for installation. Weston concurred with Bronson and stated that he would not be supporting the project. He expressed concern about the SEGD and LEED certified language used in the RFP. He spoke about local and in-house engineering talent. Weston said he would be in favor of finding some in-house resources and working with local merchants to save money. The goal and the outcome are good but the RFP is a little heavy in the bureaucratic process and too high of a price tag. Bronson agreed that the purpose is good and expressed continuing support for the downtown. Palmer asked the source of funds for the project and Patterson said CDBG funding would be used. McKay said the funds were allocated last year for this year. Palmer had thought to table the item until after the budget cycle but the CDBG money would go away at some point. Blanchette asked if conversations had taken place with local businesses. She asked if the not-used CDBG funds could be diverted to tearing down the former police station. Patterson said that the RFP’s were sent to local firms. Because of the requested scope in terms of a wayfinding signage plan, it is not necessarily what local firms perform and they felt that it was better to wait until the construction and placement phase. Weston recommended bringing the stakeholder group to the table and save a considerable amount of money and enable the City to have a better idea of what to take to the sign company. Bronson said that the Committee is supportive of the project and would like to see it happen sooner than later. Conlow pointed out that the federal and state bureaucracy in place dedicated to the placement and materials of signs. Weston spoke about the process of allocating CDBG funds and perhaps earmark money to carry over for the next fiscal year. McKay said that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development does not allow more than a year and a half worth of grant funds on hand. The Council can reallocate funds within the range of approved activities in last year’s submission. Weston said that the sign project is well deserving of moving forward and felt it would be suitable to carry funding over. McKay was okay with carrying the $25,000 over into FY12. Palmer liked the idea. Palmer made a motion to table the item, carry the money forward with the intent of doing something positive, until the first meeting of the Finance Committee in July of this year. Weston seconded the motion if it could also include a note that McKay has given his approval in demonstrating progress and carrying the funds over for the specific sign project. Bronson asked if it could be acted upon sooner than the July meeting. Palmer st said the intent of his motion was no later than July 1. The vote was unanimous. When this is brought back to the Downtown Partnership Group, Weston asked Patterson to make sure to note that the Committee and Council are very supportive of the efforts but just concerned with the process. 2. Discussion of Citizen Request to Change Charter to Require Voter Approval of Certain City Borrowings Heitmann noted that Pauline Civiello and Linda Thomas had contacted the City about an interest in looking at a Charter change regarding the City’s borrowing. The concern expressed is that the City’s Charter does not require voter approval for borrowing regardless of the circumstances or regardless of the amount. Civiello and Thomas are interested in pursuing a possible amendment to the Charter. Any Charter amendment has to be approved by the voters. It can be sent to the voters by Council or it can be done by the initiative and referendum process. Heitmann talked about staff working with Civiello and Thomas to come up with appropriate language for the Council to consider whether or not they would be supportive of an amendment to the Charter. Staff would be supportive of being engaged in a conversation with the individuals regarding this request. The primary reason is to avoid the law of unintended consequences. Heitmann spoke about municipal financing and borrowing. Civiello has realized that it is not quite as simple as picking a dollar amount. Other communities have a dollar amount with an exception clause. Heitmann suggested that he and Cyr work with the two individuals about the exact language and come back to the Committee and then Council. The language would reflect what it should look like, if there was to be a change. Bronson noted there is no proposed language at this time. It would be the Council’s role to determine if there is an interest in moving along the proposal and, if not, then there could be a citizen effort. Weston asked if there is any supporting documentation. Heitmann said it has not yet reached that point. Weston asked the purpose of tonight’s conversation. Heitmann said there are citizens who are willing to initiate a referendum process to place the item on the ballot. That’s going to happen. To the extent that a member of the public asks City staff for documents and information, that will be provided. Staff is looking for this committee to say it’s a good idea to avoid those two things initially by the way of authorizing staff to spend some time with the individuals to create the exact language so that it doesn’t bring unintended consequences to the City. Blanchette asked if the Charter Review Committee had covered borrowing. Heitmann said everything in the Charter was reviewed. There was no discussion about amending the Charter to set limits on borrowing without voter approval. The financial provisions were discussed in great detail by the Review Committee. Several recommendations were made by the Charter Review Committee and all were voted on and approved by the voters. Blanchette asked about reconvening the Charter Review Committee. Heitmann noted that the Review Committee had a set lifespan and could not be reconvened. It would require a Council Order to create another committee. Conceptually, Heitmann said it is simply should voters approve borrowing and, if so, under what conditions. The details are not overcomplicated but there is a lot to them. Prior to being elected to the City Council, Durgin served on the Charter Review Committee and said that the Committee did cover this area in a broad sense. This specific aspect did not come up; however, the Finance Director did present the Committee with significant data on the bonding situation, the limits, how bonding is done. All meetings were open to the public and broadcast on the city’s government channel. Durgin suggested that a small committee should be formed to review the current request and report back to the Finance Committee. Palmer liked the idea of citizen input in the form of a group if the Council wishes to proceed with this one issue. He suggested using some of the members of the former Charter Review Committee. Hawes said that she is not against forming a committee but, if it is just this one particular issue, she felt that the Solicitor could work with the two citizens to form a draft. Weston agreed. A Charter change requires a 20% voter turnout and that usually happens with a November election. It would need to be ready by September. If it is citizen initiated, the signatures would need to be gathered starting in June. Whether it is this item or any other citizen concern, Weston doesn’t think that the threat or the harm or the detriment of a citizen’s petition should be the cause for the committee to act within a certain timeframe. Cyr said staff is in a position to lay out specific exemptions, as pointed out by Heitmann. There should be an exemption for bond refunding, for enterprise funded debt, etc. She noted that the conversations between staff and the two citizens have been open and receptive. Staff cannot advance any kind of position that isn’t the Council’s position. Conlow said that staff is at a point where the citizens are asking staff to help generate information, and it is important to obtain Council guidance before dedicating City staff towards developing information. She wanted to differentiate between a citizen who asks a question that can generally be answered if the information is available versus generating information. The process is important. In response to a comment by Bronson, Hawes said that she didn’t want to lose sight of Bronson’s concern relating to the Charter Review Commission. Weston asked Civiello and Thomas the intent of their request. Civiello talked about individual credit cards which have a limit. The Charter does not provide for the City to have a limit on borrowing. It became apparent that six people could vote on a $65M bond without it going to the voters. Responding to Weston, Civiello said she was referring to the arena issue. Speaking of the Charter, she said that sometimes one doesn’t realize something needs to be fixed until you realize it is broken. Weston said the Council has not voted on a $65M bond yet. Civiello said it would be somewhere in that range. Responding to Weston, Cyr said the City is subject to a statutory debt limit which is set by State Statute. The total is 15% of the City’s last State equalized value. The City cannot have more than somewhere around $365M worth of debt. Bronson asked the amount of the largest single bond the City has issued. Cyr said it was $34M in pension obligation bonds. In responding to Blanchette, Cyr explained that pension bond in which the City saved multiple millions of dollars. Weston thanked Civiello and Thomas for bringing the request forward. He again asked if their intention is to place the cap amount into the Charter or on an individual basis not to exceed a certain amount before going to public. Civiello said it would not be the $346M cap but it would be lower. All involved would have to discuss to make sure there no unintended consequences. She realizes there are State and Federal mandates and that there are refunding issues and disaster/emergency situations that would need to be excluded. She isn’t talking about micromanaging. Once Council made their decision amongst themselves, then it would go to the voters for ratification. Thomas said they have been looking at the Charters of various Maine communities. Responding to Blanchette’s question, Thomas referred to one charter which has language that states if the change made reduced the debt there is no need to go to a referendum vote. It is not their intent to handicap normal operations. Weston said he was under the intent that the Charter change was for an individual act of bonding. From what Thomas said, he understood the intent is to change the debt ceiling. Civiello said not the State debt ceiling. This is just the beginning stages and she still needs to talk with Heitmann and Cyr. Weston said that his question related to intent – was it an individual act or was it the collective amount or was it a bit of both. Civiello said she didn’t know how to respond because it has not yet been reviewed. Weston made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation to continue working with Civiello and Thomas and to report back to the Committee when further details are available. The motion received a second. Blanchette expressed concern that the Council is headed into budget season, which is time consuming for Council and staff. She is hesitant to commit staff at this time to work on this project for any great amount of time. The vote was unanimously approved. Palmer requested staff document time usage for this project. He said that it might also be a good idea for other projects as well. Bronson noted that Durgin and Hawes needed to leave the meeting. Four Councilors remained. 3. Request to Waive Interest – Grace Evangelical Incorporated Little said that Grace Evangelical has requested that the City waive interest on their property at 512 Odlin Road. In June of 2008, Grace Evangelical purchased 502 and 512 Odlin Road. Little noted that there may have been some confusion at the time that the taxes on 502 Odlin were paid at the closing because the previous owner was a taxpaying entity. Grace is tax-exempt. The confusion was that all the taxes were under one tax bill when it was paid, but there were two separate pieces of property. In November 2009, Grace found out about the outstanding taxes because of notices received from the City. Since that time, Grace has been trying to deal with the previous owner and their attorney to clear up the taxes. The previous owner has not been responsive. Grace has now decided that it may be a never ending pursuit. Grace is willing to pay the taxes but would like the City to waive the interest due. Grace recommended making a payment of $3,019.31. Little recommended a payment of $3,120.26 which would cover all lien costs as well as interest due at the time. The total due is $3,851.07 comprised of $2,907.59 in principal, $831.76 in interest and $111.72 in lien fees. It the Committee approved accepting the payment, then the quitclaim deed would go directly to full Council through the Legal Department. Palmer made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation as outlined by Little. The motion did not receive a second. Bill Reilly, Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of Grace Evangelical College and Seminary, addressed the Committee and provided history on Grace’s purchase of the property. In response to Weston, Reilly said that conversations with the prior owner are through the owner’s attorney, who has been unresponsive. Reilly has tried on many occasions to reach the prior owner and but with no response. Reilly said there are assumptions based on the fact of non-responsiveness. Weston said he will not support staff recommendation but stressed it is no reflection on the organization. He feels that precedent is set far too often for abatements. Palmer spoke in defense of his motion. Blanchette said she is not comfortable in supporting the motion. Responding to Weston, Reilly said he thought the lien was placed on the property the day before the closing or within a day or two. Little said the lien was filed on June 18 and the closing date was June 23. Weston asked if it was the title company’s responsibility to have brought all information to the table. Little said yes but unfortunately there are many circumstances where the research of a lien has been missed. Bronson noted the lack of a motion and the motion has failed. Reilly thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present their request. 4. Quitclaim Deed – 36 Larkin Street Little said this request is outside of normal procedures. The regular City policy is that once a property has a matured tax lien the taxpayer would be required to pay all outstanding amounts to the City regarding taxes, sewer charges or invoices before the City would issue a quitclaim. David Brown has two pieces of property in Bangor, one at 37 Larkin Street and one at 34 Holland Street, and both have matured liens. Brown’s request is to allow him to pay only on 36 Larkin Street which is his residence and to obtain a quitclaim, and to leave 34 Holland Street as a separate issue. Little as well as the Legal and Code Departments have discussed and are supportive. 34 Holland Street has been an ongoing issue with the City. It is a condemned property. The Code Enforcement and Treasury Offices were looking to possibly ask the Council permission to take possession and demolish the structure using Community Development funds. Since that time, Brown has been in discussions with the Legal Department and about a possible rehabilitation plan. There are other avenues for the property, which has matured liens, and would like permission to pay the taxes on his personal home at 37 Larkin Street resulting in a quitclaim. Responding to Bronson, Little said that once there is a matured lien the taxpayer is required to pay everything and today’s request is to allow him not to pay everything due and to deal with the two properties separately. Weston noted that the Council acted to condemn the Holland Street property last April. Little said the normal procedure is that once condemned the taxpayer or owner has 30 days to demolish the building. If demolition fails, the City can step in placing a lien on the property for the costs. The City did not have the funds to demolish the property so it is still standing. Once the liens matured in December, Code and Treasury had a discussion with the Community Development Office and grant money can be used from that office to demolish or to rehab it. Blanchette expressed concern with the request. She questioned if Code Enforcement had actually inspected the property. Responding to Bronson, Blanchette said she is questioning Code Enforcement on any of these items brought before the Committee. Bronson felt it was a subject not to be discussed at this time. Palmer asked Little to defend his recommendation. Little said his reason for making the recommendation was in conjunction with the Legal and Code offices. Normally, as Tax Collector he would say no. Weston asked if there is sign-off from Code that an inspection had been completed on Larkin Street. Little said it has not been the City policy to require walk-in inspections on matured properties. When someone wants to redeem a property, Treasury contacts the Treatment Plant to find out if there are outstanding sewer charges, and contact Code Enforcement regarding code issues. Code then reviews their files but there is no requirement for them to physically inspect a property. Weston said he would not support the motion and that a deeper conversation needs to take place. Bronson agreed with Blanchette. Blanchette said this has been on-going and the Council has done nothing to stop it. There should be inspections on a routine basis. If someone is delinquent in taxes, there may be something going on that could be a health hazard. She spoke about a new restaurant which had not received an occupancy permit. She spoke of over 100 houses in Bangor that should be condemned. Bronson spoke about the need for a policy regarding buildings to be demolished and ones in dense neighborhoods as to how the property would first be offered out to abutters. Palmer said the house on Holland Street seems to be getting worse. It is a health and safety issue. Blanchette said that in her 17 years serving as a Bangor Councilor she has not had too many requests from Code Enforcement for demolition funds to be considered in the budget. It is the Code Enforcement Director’s job to come forth and ask for money for demolitions. If the Council chooses not to fund the request, it is their burden. She would like to see active participation from staff in Code Enforcement. Bronson noted that there was no motion on this item. Weston asked Conlow if a scheduled workshop could be held with Code Enforcement and Council to discuss the protocol desired by Council. Conlow agreed. She said she will discuss it with Code and outline some steps that can be taken to rectify the problem. Following, a workshop would be set up with the Council. Blanchette pointed out that she would not oppose the conversation but the conversation between the Council and Code Enforcement staff goes beyond the Council’s jurisdiction. The Council employs a City Manager and the Code Enforcement Department works for the City Manager. She would like the City Manager to be given the time she needs to communicate with Code Enforcement and return with suggestions/recommendations for the Council. Bronson suggested that the Manager return to the Council in a Workshop Session with her recommendation. Regarding Holland Street, Little clarified that the Community Development funds kick in once the liens mature. When it was condemned in April, the liens had not yet matured. The City does have a demolition reserve. There is a policy to fund that reserve but there was no money in it at that time. As a taxpayer and Bangor citizen, Weston said that it angers him that this goes on incident after incident. 5. Executive Session – Hardship Abatement – 36 MRSA Section 841(2) A motion was made and seconded to move into Executive Session. 6. Open Session – Hardship Abatement Decision A motion was made and seconded to approve staff recommendation. The vote was 4 to 1 with Weston opposing. Adjourned at 7:20 pm.