Loading...
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 At the time, the Fire Department had a rubber raft and ProPac had withdrawn the immediate access of their boat to the City as it had been pulled and stored in Hampden.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.