Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-02 Finance Committee Minutes FINANCE COMMITTEE May 2, 2011 Minutes Council: Bronson, Durgin, Blanchette, Weston, Nealley, Hawes, Longo, Palmer, Gratwick Staff: Cyr, Caruso, Nicklas, Wardwell, Heitmann, Conlow Others: David Brown and sister, Joe Baldacci, Eric Russell, Pauline Civiello, Linda Thomas 1. Consent Agenda A motion was made and seconded to move the Consent Agenda items. a. Authorizing Execution of Contract – Bangor Housing Authority Liaison Officer b. Report of Bids Awarded by Staff – April 2011 2. Bids/Purchasing a. Request to Extend Rock Salt Contract – Public Works – Harcros Chemicals For the last couple of years, Cyr noted that the City has participated in a statewide bid with the State of Maine for rock salt. Through that process last year, the City awarded its bid to Harcros Chemicals in the amount of $64.33/ton. Recently, the City received notification that the State has worked directly with Harcros, who has agreed to extend their contract for one-year and to hold the pricing flat. Staff recommendation is to follow the State lead and execute a one-year contract with Harcross at the $64.33/ton price. A motion was made and seconded to accept staff’s recommendation with a 5-0 vote. b. Request to Waive Bid Process – Airport – Fiber Optic Installation Currently there are three facilities at BIA that are connected to the City network both for voice and data through a wireless connectivity. The system is seven years old and it connects the Ground Support Equipment Shop, the Airfield and Building Maintenance Shops back to the Terminal. The system is beginning to fail. It is an external antenna system. Staff is requesting permission to waive the bid process and to hire New England Communication, the current voice and data vendor, to wire and connect all of the buildings with fiber which will in turn connect to the City’s network. It will allow for better, faster, and more reliable communication. Caruso talked about the vital need of the fiber optics. Durgin asked if this will complete the total program at the Airport. Caruso responded yes. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation. Weston asked the reason for waiving the bid process. Cyr said that most fiber was installed by New England Communication, which was done through the bid process, and staff asked them to provide a quote for this work. New England Communication is also the current maintenance provider. Responding to Weston, Cyr said it is a closed project because it was completed seven years ago but the company continues to provide maintenance. Weston doubted the motion and voted against it. He prefers to see items of $40,000 put through the bid process. Nealley asked if there are other area vendors with the capacity to provide the service. He asked if the operation portion would go out to bid or whether it is company running the lines. Cyr said she would need to pull the original contracts to respond to Nealley’s question. Responding to Bronson, Cyr said that New England Communication’s headquarters are in Portland. Weston clarified that his doubting of the motion is not a disrespect of staff’s work or the company in question but feels that consistency is needed. Blanchette agreed with Weston and indicated she will not support the motion. Durgin said he understands that the Airport has been working with New England Communication, and this is a continuation of tying all of the buildings into the system. The company knows and has worked with the system and has provided a quote to complete the work. Longo agreed with Weston and Blanchette for an open bid process. The final vote was 1 to 4. c. Request to Waive Bid Process – City Hall Windows – House Revivers For the past two fiscal years, Cyr said the Council has put aside money to address the deteriorating condition of the exterior City Hall windows. There is $44,000 available for the project. On many occasions, staff and committee have discussed the best options to address the windows. Cyr said there are two choices: 1) to replace the windows with a custom vinyl clad window at a cost in excess of $2,300/window. The option is in conflict with the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinances. Cyr noted that the replacement of windows does not qualify for funding through Efficiency Maine. 2) remove/repair/ reglaze/repaint the existing windows. House Revivers, a local company, provided an estimate of $995/window. There are 56 windows located on the second and third floors of the building. Windows on the first floor area are within the reach of maintenance and can be addressed at the staff level. Staff is seeking authorization to execute a contract with House Revivers to remove, repair, reglaze and repaint existing windows at City Hall. Adequate funding is not available to address all 56 windows at one time, and Cyr suggested that the two worst sides of the building should be addressed initially. Staff has been talking to House Revivers about the fact that there are exterior storm windows which can be purchased to cover these and which would prevent long-term maintenance going forward because of the paint. It would be an estimated $200- 300/per window to install exterior storm windows. Exterior storm windows would require the City to go before the Historic Preservation Commission, and the HPC is supportive of exterior storms recognizing that it does preserve the work put into maintenance the historic nature of the windows. Nealley spoke of other older properties in downtown Bangor. He said he would prefer going with the new vinyl windows. Durgin said there are engineered windows which are energy efficient and which can be installed and be made to look very appropriate in older buildings. He said that the HPC statutes provide for a review and consideration. He thought that the energy efficiency for 56 windows would have a great deal of bearing on the direction chosen by the Council. Reglazing old windows and then putting exterior storm windows over them may satisfy the requirements of the HPC but it certainly doesn’t satisfy the need for energy conservation. Durgin suggested that the City talk with the HPC about the reason needed to make this building more energy efficient. Cyr said that initially she did have that conversation with the HPC and was informed that there is not much of a difference in the energy efficient factor between the current windows and the newer windows. She was also told that lack of maintenance on the City’s part is not a reason to ask for an exemption. Responding to Palmer, Cyr did not price new wooden windows. If the Committee decides to go with the named vendor, Palmer asked that the contract specify a completion performance date. Gratwick noted a Portland company that makes new ‘old’ wooden windows. He said that the R value of regular glass is 1 and the double panes are 3. He asked how much would be gained by adding exterior storm windows. Gratwick asked the lifetime of wooden vs. vinyl windows. Blanchette said that the bid process needs to be in place for this project and noted that Penobscot County just installed new vinyl windows in their old building at the corner of Hammond/Court Streets. They are maintenance free and look great. She spoke about the annual loss of heat at City Hall. She suggested a one-on-one meeting with the Committee and HPC. Bronson noted that Council Chair Hawes joined the meeting. Weston asked if the HPC Ordinance is mandated by the Council agreeing that energy efficiency needed to be brought into the mix. Weston spoke about the integrity of House Revivers. Responding to Longo, Cyr said the ordinances enforced by the HPC are the ordinances passed by the Bangor City Council. The City is not exempt from its own ordinances. Weston clarified that his comment was concerning energy efficiency as part of preservation. Palmer spoke about Matthew Brothers in Belfast and their wooden windows. He supported storm windows over wooden windows. He asked if the current windows have a resale value. Bronson suggested that another 60-90 days would not make a difference in making a decision. Bronson noted there had been a motion, a second, which was doubted. Bronson asked for a show of hands of those in favor of staff recommendation. The vote was 0-5. Cyr asked the Committee for direction. She has no problem going before the HPC to ask for a waiver but needs to know the preference of the Committee; i.e. wooden or vinyl clad windows. Durgin would like a product that would have insulating glass and an E factor that was determined to be greater that ‘x.’ He would like staff to obtain estimates. Weston doesn’t think the Finance Committee is the place to address the details. He feels more comfortable with the Committee and the HPC having a discussion relating to energy efficiency as part of the HPC’s ordinance. 3. Review of Proposed Charter Amendment - Borrowing Responding to Bronson in terms of the amount of time available for the remainder of the meeting, Conlow clarified that the following 6 pm meeting involves consultants from out of town who are here specifically for the purpose. In mid-March, Cyr noted that staff came to the Committee about two citizens interested in adding a provision to the City Charter allowing voter participation in certain debt issues. Currently, the Charter gives bonding authority wholly to the Council, and there is no provision for a public vote. At that March Committee meeting, Cyr and Heitmann were directed to work with the citizens to develop a policy that didn’t have unintended consequences. The citizens did a lot of the work finding various Charters from other communities and nearly a third of the communities do provide for some form of limit on the Council authority to borrow without voter ratification. Proposed language was developed for the Committee’s consideration for a Charter amendment. Staff and the citizens spent considerable time discussing the borrowing limit. It was clear that the citizens’ intent was not to send everything to the voters or to take away the ability of the City to operate. Their intent was for larger significant investments. Portland has limits for a single capital improvement, single capital project or a single capital item. If it is over a certain amount, it triggers the need to have a public vote on that particular item. Staff and the citizens developed a list of exceptions to the rule: bond issues to refund securities or obligations of the City; monies bonded for streets, sidewalks, storm or sanitary sewers; debt issued for any of the City’s self-sustaining Enterprise Funds; tax anticipation notes (short term debt ahead of tax payments). Bangor has never found itself in that situation; any issuance to comply with city, state or federal mandates and judiciously or administratively ordered action (coal tar project); to replace equipment or improvements needed as a result of a fire, flood, disaster or other declared emergency. If the voter turnout is less than 10%, the Council’s bond order authorizing the project would automatically hold regardless of the outcome of the voter. Cyr talked about the dollar threshold. The recommendation is to use the same percentages that are in the City of Portland’s Charter. The recommendation is 5/100’s of a percent of the State equalized value, which is a good benchmark, because State statute limits the total amount of debt the City can have and that limit is based on State equalized value. It would be about $1,233,000. In the City’s history, Cyr said that projects that would have been affected by such a provision would have included the Police Station, the Fire Station on Griffin Road and Columbia Street Parking Deck. Conlow asked about the recent issuance of School bonds indicating there should be a discussion of this in context of what it would mean to other entities such as the School. A motion was made that would move discussion of this item to the next Finance Committee meeting with it being a single item agenda, if possible. Nealley agreed noting that the School Superintendent should be notified. The motion was seconded by Weston. Gratwick asked Heitmann to find out from Portland other municipalities that have made this Charter change and feedback. Bronson noted that the vote in favor of the motion was 5-0. 4. Review of Status of Workout Agreement – 110 Pearl St Cyr said that staff is asking if the Committee wishes to forgive the breach and continue on with the agreement with the exception that the owners will make up their March shortage and pay all future payments on time or in advance, or does the Committee wish the City to take possession of the project. The Browns are in attendance. In response to Bronson, Cyr said that staff could provide a recommendation. Blanchette asked Cyr and Little if the Browns have been in contact when they were unable to make their full payments. Little said they have been in full contact every month, and Blanchette said it was an important step. Durgin noted that partial payments have been made and accepted. Cyr said it was until this last breach. The Browns have made two payments, and the City has not cashed the checks waiting for this Committee’s recommendation. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation which is to continue with the workout agreement with the Browns. The terms of the workout agreement will not change. If another breach occurs, the item would return to the Finance Committee. Blanchette asked staff to keep the Committee apprised. Weston noted that with an item such as this that the Committee should put more trust in staff to work it out. The vote was 5-0. 5. Disposition of Fines – 34 Holland Street Cyr said that at last Monday’s Council meeting the City Council ordered to take possession of 34 Holland Street. Part of the condemnation process involved the fact that there were violations and that violation is subject to a $10/day fine. The fine since 2007 has grown to $14,240. Mr. Brown’s primary residence is on Larkin Street. He has paid the Larkin Street taxes two months ago. Staff came to the Committee and the Committee was not willing to deal with it. Typically in order to issue a quitclaim deed all of the amounts owed to the City by the taxpayer have to be resolved. We anticipate that Mr. Brown will want to redeem his primary residence. It would be against the City’s current policy to do so without collecting the fine and outstanding taxes and the quitclaim deed on the property of which the City just took possession. Staff is looking for direction from the Council. Staff’s recommendation is to waive the fine on 34 Holland Street and allow Brown to redeem his primary residence at 36 Larkin Street for the amount of outstanding bills due on Larkin only. Nicklas clarified that the fine would be waived so long as Mr. Brown agrees to not contest the situation at 34 Holland Street; i.e. to provide a deed or to otherwise make it clear that he will not be contesting the action to take possession of 34 Holland Street. The money would be accepted for Larkin Street, placed it into escrow, and then return with a Council Order to accept a deed from Brown for Holland Street and would do a quitclaim deed for Larkin Street back to Mr. Brown. Conlow clarified that the clearing of the deed would allow the City to have a clear title. By allowing the fees to be waived in favor of a clear title saves a step in court. Weston made a motion to approve staff recommendation and it was seconded by Durgin. Bronson clarified the intent of the motion. The vote was 5-0. Baldacci, representing Mr. Brown, has been working with Nicklas and will continue to do so. 6. Executive Session – Hardship Abatement – 36 MRSA Section 841(2) (City Manager’s Office) A motion was made and seconded to move into executive session. Cyr recommended that the Executive Session be moved to the City Manager’s Office in order to allow the consultants to set up for the 6 pm Workshop. 7. Open Session – Hardship Abatement Decision A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation with a 5-0 vote. Committee adjourned at 6:10 pm.