HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-01 Finance Committee Minutes
FINANCE COMMITTEE
August 1, 2011
Minutes
Councilors: Bronson, Blanchette, Durgin, Nealley, Weston, Palmer, Gratwick,
Hawes, Longo
Staff: Cyr, Conlow, Cammack, Hupp, Willette, Birch, Bostock, Metcalf,
Higgins, Heitmann
Others: Bearce, Arnold
1. Consent Agenda
a. Report of Bids Awarded by Staff – July 2011
Cyr noted that two bids were awarded in the month of July for chemicals used at the
Wastewater Treatment Plant: hydrogen peroxide and dry polymer. Both were awarded
to the low bidder. A motion was made and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda.
The vote was unanimous.
2. Bids/Purchasing
a. Update on Fire/Rescue Boat
As directed by Council, Chief Cammack said that further research has been completed
but he has not found anyone in Maine capable of designing and building a fire/rescue
boat. He noted that staff recommendation is to return to the initial bidder. Nealley said
that Cammack has complied with the Council’s direction and made a motion to accept
the recommendation of staff, with thanks to the Fire Chief. The motion was seconded.
Gratwick spoke of Bob Turcotte’s interest. Cammack said that Turcotte has been
th
unresponsive to the staff since July 18. Turcotte was emailed a list of questions on
some of the information that was not included in his submitted proposal. Several
attempts have been made to contact Turcotte, but staff has not heard back from him.
Gratwick said there appears to be an issue of miscommunication. Gratwick had spoken
with Turcotte prior to this meeting, and he is still very anxious to work with the project.
Turcotte had not heard back from the Fire Chief. Gratwick felt that further research
should be done with Turcotte. Nealley spoke of preferring the money to stay in Maine
with a Maine boat builder but felt that the Committee is at the point whereby he hopes
it will move forward to accept the grant for said purpose. Responding to Bronson, Cyr
said the Committee would be making a recommendation to full Council as the purchase
is over $100,000. Weston asked if the Homeland Security Grant was specifically
designed for a boat. Cammack said it was what staff felt was the best use of the funds.
At the time, the Fire Department had a rubber raft and ProPac had withdrawn the
immediate access of their boat to the City as it had been pulled and stored in Hampden.
Longo commented that even if there is a miscommunication between the Chief and
Turcotte that the burden falls on the contractor. Palmer spoke of the importance of the
fire/rescue boat. Responding to Nealley, Cammack said that at the beginning of the
year the application for funds is made known and Homeland Security provides an
opportunity to share what projects are desired for funding use. Staff comes to Council
for approval for the total amount and also with a list of projects. As part of the
approval process, Maine Emergency Management can agree or disagree with the
project list. For the last three years, Bangor has been earmarking funding for the boat
and MEMA has been okay with it realizing that it was the purchase of a rescue/fire boat.
In response to Weston, Cyr said that grants such as this are accounted for outside of
the General Fund. Within the General Fund itself, grants make up a relatively small
portion. Between the Airport, Health and Community Services, and The BAT, federal
grants on an annual basis are about $14M, or 20% of the annual budget. Durgin spoke
of the lengthy discussion which has taken place on the subject. A recommendation has
been made by staff, there is a fund established for the purchase, and he felt it was time
to end the discussion and to move forward. Blanchette noted that staff has put
numbers of hours into researching the issue and, even though disappointed that a
Maine builder won’t be used, she is perfectly comfortable with this item going to the
Council with a recommendation from this Committee that authorizes staff to move
ahead with the purchase. Gratwick said he is not a voting member of the Committee,
but he can see the direction in which the Committee is moving and respects staff
recommendation. He does have major reservations concerning this type of
expenditure. He doesn’t feel that all Maine opportunities have been exhausted, which
he finds distressing. Responding, Conlow said that $14,000 of the FY08 funding would
st
be lost by mid-of August if not used. Cammack noted it is August 31. The vote was
unanimous.
b. Request to Waive Bid Process – Mobile Data Access Point – Fire – Active
Communications - $23,949
Cammack noted that the Fire Department started its mobile data terminal project a few
years ago with a wireless connection throughout the City. Cammack asked the Council
for approval to place an additional access point and has identified an area in the original
study where there are deficiencies in the Outer Hammond Street, Target Circle, BanAir,
Odlin Road and I-395 Intersection. Staff would like to engage with Active
Communications, who started this project, at $23,949. There are still other points that
will need to be addressed but this is an obvious deficient area. Weston made a motion
to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded. The vote was
unanimous.
c. Request to Waive Bid Process – Additional Radio Frequency – Fire – Whitten’s
2-Way - $62,148
The City was recently informed that it has received an additional repeater frequency.
Currently, there is one repeater frequency throughout the City. Staff has been working
with Whitten’s, the current City vendor for radio maintenance, and has looked at two
different companies for supplying the equipment. Cammack asked for Council approval
to allow the Fire Department to engage with Whitten’s and to use the Tate Equipment
at the lower price of $62,148, rather than the Motorola Equipment. The motion was
made and seconded. Responding to Weston, Cammack noted that Whitten’s has been
the vendor for many years. The annual radio maintenance contract goes out for bid
every 3-5 years. The funding source is Homeland Security.
3. Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) Application
Hupp said that the $4.50 passenger facility charge is paid by passengers, collected by
the airline at the time of ticket purchase, and is dedicated to the improvement of the
airport infrastructure. The tenant airlines throughout this process have an opportunity
to review, approve and submit comments on any of the projects recommended for the
use of the fee. An application is then submitted to the FAA for their review and
approval. In the past, this fee has been used to reconstruct most of the airport parking
apron at BIA, to purchase snow removal equipment, and Hupp is proposing to use the
passenger facility charge for the electrical upgrades that are in this year’s budget. Staff
is also seeking authority to pay for the second part of improvements not covered by a
TSA grant. If the Airport is successful in receiving an actual construction grant through
the TSA, it will pay for specific items related to new baggage in line screening systems
but it will not pay to relocate other facilities that need to be relocated to accommodate
them. When reconfiguring the terminal building for the in line baggage screening, staff
will look at ADA compliance, passenger flow, energy efficiency, etc. They still also look
at moving the elevator, which is not in a prominent location. An informational meeting
was held with the airlines to begin this process. No airline representatives attended and
the staff did not receive verbal or written comments. Staff recommends that the formal
application be submitted to the FAA. The fee remains unchanged under this proposal.
Hupp said the dollar amount for the actual fee is set by Legislation. It cannot be more
than $4.50. The actual projects must be related to passenger travel and need to be
reviewed and approved by the FAA. Responding to Weston, Hupp said the purpose
must be stated because it is part of the application process. The $3.2M cap cannot be
exceeded. Responding to Longo, Hupp stated that the passenger facility fees are for
commercial travel only. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s
recommendation to the full Council. The vote was unanimous.
4. Ordinance 11-251, Amending Ordinance to Clarify Recording
Proceedings
Heitmann said the City Ordinance, dating back from the 70’s, requires that City Council
meetings are to be recorded on tape. Given that technology has changed, it has been
suggested by staff that the section of the Ordinance regarding Recording of Meetings
be made more generic to recording rather than specific on tapes. Currently, meetings
are recorded and preserved on disks. A motion was made and seconded to approve
staff’s recommendation. In response to Longo, the policy is to save recordings for five
years. The State Statute dictates the keeping of records, and it depends on the type of
records. Written minutes are available from back in the early 1800’s. The vote was
unanimous.
5. Veazie Assessing Service Proposal
Conlow noted that for the past two years the City of Bangor has been working with the
Town of Veazie and the Town of Orono to identify joint projects for regional
cooperation. One of the early projects identified was assessing. Veazie more recently
has struggled with their assessing function due to the departure of a longtime
employee. Early in this departure, both Orono and Bangor stepped up to provide
assistance. Veazie is now looking to fill that position on a permanent basis. City
Assessor Birch has submitted a proposal to Veazie at $17,000 for one year, 300 hours.
At Veazie’s meeting this evening, Birch will be appointed as the Interim Town Assessor
for the purpose of signing documentations. Currently, there is no one on the Veazie
staff to sign their commitment to obtain tax revenues in upcoming year. If the Council
approves, beginning on August 21 the City of Bangor will be their assessing department
as such. Birch will be the appointed Assessor but the contract will be with the City of
Bangor for assessing services. Responding to Weston, Birch said a Bangor Assessing
employee contracts with the Town of Glenburn on his own time and not as part of the
City’s function. The official contract will appear on the August 15, 2011 Council agenda.
Weston discussed the aforementioned Glenburn contract. Birch again stated that this
work is performed by the individual in the evenings and one Saturday a month. A
motion was made and seconded to accept staff’s recommendation. This item will be
sent to the full Council for final action.
6. Resolve 11-250, Appropriating $55,000 from the Improvement Reserve
to Relocate Skateboard Park
Willette noted that this item continues the process started with the Government
Operations Committee, through the Council level for a first reading, and is before the
Finance Committee to request funding to relocate the skateboard park from its former
Paul Bunyan Park location to its new site on Maine Avenue. A motion was made and
seconded to approve staff’s recommendation. Responding to Nealley, Willette said that
he worked with the Public Works Department to arrive at the $55,000, which is
essentially for the asphalt pad needed. Palmer expressed concern that skateboarders
have an understanding this will be more or less a permanent situation. He hopes that
there will be discussion to zone the Maine Avenue location as Parks and Open Space.
Responding to Gratwick, Willette said he will make inquiries as to the possibility of a
private contractor quote. Cyr noted that the City does not have the rollers and pavers
and would have to rent equipment to do the paving. This will most likely go to Lane
Construction. Public Works might put the gravel base in place. Willette will provide the
information to Gratwick prior to Monday’s meeting. Responding to Blanchette, Willette
said the former skateboard park was a cooperative effort between local youth and the
City. The total cost of the project including the City providing the pad and the youth’s
fundraising was about an $80,000 project. At the end of the project, a fund was set
aside for on-going maintenance. Blanchette asked if the new skateboard ramps will be
wooden. Willette said the plan is to salvage as much of the existing wood structures as
possible in order to get started as soon as possible but noted that the current youth
group and adults involved would like to see something with concrete. Blanchette said
that the group needs to step up to take ownership if they want the new concrete
ramps. Longo asked if the money will be used to put a sidewalk or crosswalk in that
area for safety purposes. Willette said the intent of the appropriation is to relocate the
skate park first and foremost. Discussions have taken place with the City Engineer
about a crosswalk and trail or path of some kind on that side of Union Street. Gratwick
asked if stormwater runoff has been considered. Willette stated that Engineering is
working through that process and, at the request of Gratwick, will bring that
information back to the committee. The vote was unanimous.
7. Parks & Recreation Vehicle Funding Request
During the FY11-12 budget process, Willette noted that funding was pursued through
CDBG to purchase a passenger bus for Parks and Recreation. Ultimately, the purchase
was not funded. For the Department’s youth and senior programs, they are using the
Police Athletic League van, which is a 1999 model with over 80,000 miles. He would like
to continue to expand the Department’s senior program, which includes trips and
excursions. Expanded senior programming has been requested from feedback received
from the Department’s senior program participants. The trips have been popular and
folks have been turned away because of limited transportation. The Department has
also worked with the Airport in borrowing their small bus which seats only 11. The
Department started an after school program which quickly expanded into a before
school program. They have coordinated with the School Department to accommodate
some of the school day bus runs to assist parents with transportation. The current
enrollment for fall is at a point where it has outgrown what is available for
transportation, and over half of the participants will need transportation. In addition,
the Department hasn’t been able to offer the same type of transportation opportunities
for the Capehart area kids. Willette asked the Committee for permission to continue
pursuing some recommendations and funding opportunities for this concept. He would
then return to the Committee with recommendations. In response to Weston, Willette
said that the City’s BAT system would not an allowable use due to federal regulations.
Durgin asked if there is a possibility of extending the contract of one of the bus lines
used by the School Department. He also noted that there are other senior programs
operating in and around Bangor. Willette said that he has an estimate of $14,000 from
a local provider for the after school program. If the vehicle was purchased, Nealley
asked if perhaps it could have a greater variety of purpose; i.e. to the Golf Course and
Civic Center events. Weston moved staff recommendation on the basis the Finance
Director could share some ideas on the sources of funding and its impact on the tax
rater. Cyr said some of her ideas would impact the taxpayers as would $14,000 to
contract out for the services. This vehicle cannot be purchased locally. She spoke
about sponsorship opportunities and mentioned the possibility of a municipal finance
lease. The City currently has a policy whereby one half of the net cash proceeds from
the Golf Course go to the Parks and Recreation Reserve in the Assigned Fund Balance.
Use of it would not impact the taxpayer. Bronson and Cyr spoke of maintenance costs.
Willette would like a 26-28 passenger vehicle. Responding to Gratwick, Cyr said this
item was discussed during the budget process as part of the Community Development
Block Grant budget. It was reviewed extensively by the Business and Economic
Development Committee requiring public hearings. The budget went to the Council and
it was approved. HUD, however, did not feel this was an adequate expenditure of
CDBG funds and it was not funded. Conlow clarified that the purchase was included in
the budget and funding was not obtained as intended. The City now wants to pursue
some other funding sources to potentially fund this through the Council. She stated
that it is not a request for an expenditure outside of the budget. Council does not have
to accept it. Bronson said that staff is proposing funding mechanisms that are still
outside of the General Fund. Cyr agreed. Durgin would like the Department to return
to the Committee with a proposal, which considers other options. A motion was made.
Before going further into the process, Willette said his intent this evening was to discuss
this and to come back to the Committee with recommendations and details which have
been requested. The motion was seconded. Durgin felt that a motion was not
necessary. Bronson said the motion is for staff to continue moving forward and come
back with nailed down specifics. The vote was unanimous.
8. Order 11-248, Authorizing Issuance of $2,977,000 of the City’s General
Obligation Bonds
Cyr said the items included in this bond authorization are all items that have either
been previously approved by the Council through its Declaration of Official Intent, which
was done for the Penobscot River Remediation, and the other pieces were approved
during the recent budget process. The bonds will not be issued until January or
February 2012. But in order to reimburse itself, the City needs to be on record that it
intends to authorize these bonds. This item will go back to the full City Council on
Monday evening and will require a public hearing. Cyr noted that she will be coming to
the Council again within the next couple months as the City is a position again where it
will refund its debt. The City will pay the 1% premium to call it at year ten. A motion
was made and seconded to approve staff recommendation to the full Council.
Adjournment at 6:27 pm.