HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-19 Finance Committee Minutes
FINANCE COMMITTEE
September 19, 2011
Councilors: Bronson, Blanchette, Durgin, Nealley, Weston, Hawes, Longo, Palmer
Staff: Conlow, Cyr, Heitmann, Caruso, Dionne, Dawes, Yardley
Others : Mr. Eschnaur
1. Consent Agenda
A motion was made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda items.
a. Council Resolve 11-279, Appropriating $398,372 from the Federal Aviation
Administration and $10,483 from Maine Department of Transportation for
Airport Improvement Grant #54 to Replace the Airfield Signage
b. Council Resolve 11-280, Accepting and Appropriating Grant Funds from the
Maine Department of Health and Human Services – WIC Nutrition Program
2. Bids/Purchasing
a. Plow Equipment & Truck Bodies – Fleet Maintenance – Viking Cives -
$135,970
Cyr recalled that the Committee recently approved award of bid to purchase truck
chassis. The plow equipment and truck bodies requested to be purchased are to equip
the two truck chassis as plow trucks. Three bids were received, and staff
recommendation is to award the bid to Viking Cives of Sidney, Maine in the amount of
$135,970. The City’s experience with this company is in the purchase of parts and small
pieces of equipment. Dawes spoke with three individuals who have used Viking Cives
for similar types of products and all references were favorable. A motion was made and
seconded to approve staff recommendation. The item will be forwarded to the full
Council. The vote was unanimous.
b. Waterproofing Roof Membrane – Airport – PNM Construction Inc. - $182,646
There are four buildings at the BIA in need of roof repair: Docks 10, 11, 12 and 13. Six
bid responses were received and the recommendation of staff is to award the bid to
PNM Construction Inc. in the amount of $182,646 for all four roofs. Cyr noted that only
Dock 10 will be done this fall. Staff would like to see how the roof weathers during the
winter months and provisions have been left in the contract whereby if the City is not
satisfied with the material that the other roofs will not be completed. This is a
contractor with which the City has no experience. Dionne, Building Maintenance
Supervisor, is familiar with the company due to his background experience. Dionne did
follow up with references from four specific applications that are very similar in nature
to this project. All references were satisfied with the material and with the contractor.
A motion was made and seconded the recommendation of staff. The item will be
forwarded to the full Council. The vote was unanimous.
3. Consultants Contracts for Greater Penobscot Continuum of Care
(GPCOC) Renewal Grant
Cyr said this item is on the agenda as an update. The City participates in the Greater
Penobscot Continuum of Care grant which is funding through the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Each year, two individuals are hired to assist with
the grant writing as well as the technical application. It is not only money for the City
and Bangor organizations but also for agencies throughout Penobscot County. The City
receives a grant directly from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services to
cover the costs of the grant writers. The City would like to enter into contracts with
these two individuals, one for up to $4,000 and one for up to $2,000 all of which will be
paid for by DHHS grant funds. Yardley noted that both providers have been used in the
past and have been very satisfied with their work. A motion was made and seconded
to approve staff recommendation. The vote was unanimous.
4. Request to Purchase City Land
Heitmann introduced Mike Eshnaur, who is requesting to purchase Lot 22 on Assessing
Map R34 for $3,000. Eshnaur purchased Lot 23 in 2003 and had requested the right to
purchase Lot 22a, 22 owned by the City. In 2003, the City agreed to sell him 22a and
22. At that time, Eshnaur was financially able to purchase 22a, and the City gave him
the option to purchase Lot 22. A purchase and sale agreement was approved by
Council Order for the purchase of Lot 22a. Eshnauer would now like to purchase Lot
22. The City Assessing Department has placed an assessed value of $4,700 for the lot.
Eshnaur has offered $3,000. Heitmann noted that it is not a buildable lot. The sale of
the land would place it on the City’s tax roll. Eshnaur’s intention is to acquire a portion
of Lot 17 from his neighbor in order to place an addition on his home. Nealley spoke of
the difference between market and assessed values and the possible build-out on Lot
17. Responding to Durgin, Heitmann clarified that Lot 23 is currently owned by
Eshnaur. Lot 21a is a separate City lot with a pipe running through it and would not be
for sale. Weston asked if a market value has been obtained on the lot. Heitmann said
it is generally not cost-effective to hire an appraiser. Weston said that if the City is in
the real estate business that perhaps an appraiser on staff might be of value. Weston
expressed concern about setting a precedent. Heitmann noted that this situation is a
bit unique in that it is a lot that is a remnant from a City project. If it was a buildable
lot, an appraisal would be beneficial. Weston asked that the City engage in practice
and procedure. Longo asked if there is another use for the parcel since it is close to
Husson College. Responding to Palmer’s question about curb cuts, Heitmann said it
would be an Engineering and Code determination. Staff could place a restriction on the
deed to not allow curb cuts. Palmer was in favor of the sale but not the rate.
Responding to Durgin, Heitmann said the Council has the authority to decline the offer
and establish another price. Heitmann said the Council does have the authority to do
so. The assessed value of the lot, when combined with the others, decreased. Staff
did not have a recommendation. In response to Blanchette, Eshnaur said he has a
home on Lot 23 with one curb cut and would retain the remaining curb cut with the
planned expansion. When he purchased the home in 2003, he obtained City permits to
combine two driveways into one. Bronson indicated that this discussion will perhaps set
up a procedure for future use. Nealley spoke of the need to have procedures in place
to help current Bangor taxpayers to expand their homes and increase overall revenue.
Durgin felt it was best to move forward to sell the property but questioned the actual
worth of the property. Palmer felt the property is worth $4,000. Blanchette felt that
the land had not been on the tax roll for many years, it is not a property which the City
will ever use, and she is comfortable with the $3,000 price. Longo suggested the
$3,000 plus what Eshnaur would have paid in taxes had he owned the parcel since
2003. Weston said that any time the City engages in the sale of real estate that the
Council is not real estate appraisers or professionals. He expressed concern about
establishing protocol with this request. Bronson hopes that the applicant is successful
in purchasing this parcel; he thinks the Council should think of the City Assessor as an
appraiser; and, given the elevational change from Kenduskeag Avenue to Valley
Avenue, asked if is there a possibility that Lot 17 might be subdivided in the future and
in need of access to it. Heitmann assumed that the zone might not lend itself to be
subdivided. Conlow clarified that the Council would like to sell the property to Mr.
Eschnaur, place it back on the tax roll but does not have a good foundation for the
value of the property. Staff will ask the City Assessor to determine a reasonable
understanding of the value. Staff will develop a policy for the sale and disposition of
City-owned property. If the Committee agrees to go forward, Conlow said that staff will
return with a better value and reasoning for the Council’s consideration. Moving
beyond this request, Conlow noted that staff will develop a policy. Weston said he is not
arguing the price but attempting to protect the process. Weston made a motion to
recommend approval to full Council and let staff determine a justifiable means for the
cost. The motion was seconded. Nealley again discussed market and assessed values.
City needs to have room for discretion when dealing with sales of small, unbuildable
lots and not have absolutely fixed prices. The item will move to forward to full Council.
5. Review of Government Channel Policy
Cyr noted that staff has recently reviewed the existing Government Channel Policy and
some minor recommendations were made for the Committee’s consideration. The one
area clarified is that the City should be able to acknowledge sponsors or producers of
programs done outside of the City’s scope. There was a small caveat but it was within
advertising or commercial sale of products or services with exception of events that
take place at City facilities. To make it clearer, it has been brought out to the front as
an allowed used. Cyr referenced the currently running PSA on bath salts produced by
WABI-TV. Palmer suggested that the background music being used does not fit in well.
Cyr noted that several Councilors had brought to staff’s attention the live feeds which
were being used a few weeks ago featuring national news, weather, horoscopes, etc.
It was a free one-year subscription as part of the new equipment. It has now been
deleted and will not be used again. Longo mentioned the various departmental videos
being shown and indicated that the old City’s website domain had not been updated.
He asked if the text being displayed could be read aloud behind the bulletin/
announcement board displays rather than using music. Weston referred to Section 6
and a time limit on logo and acknowledgements. He noted that a recently produced
BCVB promotional video could not be used on the City’s government channel due to the
fact it promoted local businesses. He noted that some restrictions may hinder. Durgin
spoke about the differentiation between public access and government channel. Cyr
said there are individuals within the community who wish to run the public access
channel but she can’t find out the legal restriction, and the status of the Penobscot
Downeast Cable Consortium. When the cable franchise agreement was put in place,
communities were assigned three channels. The City has channel 7 for the City
government, channel 5 is for the School Department, and channel 2 for public access.
During the negotiation process, the involved communities created the Penobscot
Downeast Cable Consortium. Each community paid dues which funded the production
and airing of public access programming. After several years, staff found very limited
uses of public access television. The City was charged $33,000/annually for dues and it
was eliminated from the City budget. Thus, public access has been left in limbo. Staff
does plan to return to the Finance Committee with further information about public
access within the next month. Palmer noted that the City’s broadcast schedule should
include rebroadcasts of programs during the nighttime hours rather than just text.
Longo felt that other departments should produce videos for the government channel.
A motion was made to approve staff recommendation. Cyr added that there are five
videos running for City departments including Parks and Recreation, Business and
Economic Development (waterfront and downtown), two from Health and Community
Services. All of these were produced by a NESCOM student. The website/government
channel coordinator met with NESCOM last week to pursue other opportunities to
enhance and increase the number of videos. Hawes noted that the Golf Course could
be promoted and other Enterprise Funds. She asked if the government channel could
be broadcast on a large screen in the Airport’s terminal. Cyr said it should be easy to
accomplish. Bronson spoke about concerns with Sections 6.3, 6.4 and 8.6. Responding
to Bronson, Cyr noted that the City Manager is designated as the ‘responsible official.’
Weston seconded the motion and asked about airing the City’s position on regional
dispatch and referenced a citizen’s request at a recent workshop concerning regional
dispatch. Responding, Cyr said that the Council can take a position on any number of
issues and typically do so through the form of a Council Resolve. Conlow said that
provided that in the discussion it is simply educational and not in the form of advocacy.
Heitmann said it is allowable, but the City Council cannot use its position to influence
elections. Any discussion should include the verbiage “the City has taken a position and
here is why.” Hawes understood that the citizen had requested the City Manager’s
notes be made public to educate the citizenry. A Resolve would not be needed to post
that information. Heitmann said the referred to memo was a factual memo. Heitmann
suggested that rebroadcasts of meetings which have a higher level of interest could be
done so in higher rotation. Cyr said that staff just needs to know what is of interest
and what the Councilors would like to see rebroadcast more frequently. Starting with
this meeting, the meetings are being live streamed on the web. It is a free service for
one year. The service also allows all meetings to be archived on-line. It is currently on
a test site but will be made available on the City’s website via a link. Responding to
Longo, Cyr said the free service will be $3,500 next year. Cyr pointed out that she
would like the opportunity to make some other changes to the policy based upon what
has been presented this evening. She agreed with Durgin to remove Section 8.2.
Durgin said his motion was to adopt the proposal as presented by staff; however, but
he restated the motion to approve staff recommendations as may be presented to the
full Council with the endorsement of the Finance Committee. Weston seconded
Durgin’s restated motion. Nealley asked that Cyr and Heitmann specifically look at what
is termed educational on channel 5. The vote was unanimous.
6. Update on Cable Franchise Agreement
Heitmann noted that the 15-year cable franchise agreement was put in place in 1997
and expires in October of 2012. Other communities have asked if Bangor is interested in
participating as a consortium again as in 1997. EMDC is hosting a meeting for this and
staff asked for the Council’s approval to meet with the Consortium to discuss any terms
and conditions that would apply to Bangor participating. It worked out well in 1997 and
is cost effective with 10-12 municipalities dividing the legal bill associated with
negotiations. Weston suggested that two items be considered in negotiations: on-line
streaming and a local directory through Time Warner. Responding to Longo, Heitmann
said a determination has to be made first as to whether Bangor will negotiate with Time
Warner on its own or as part of a consortium. Once the Council decides on the
negotiation process, staff will put together a list of Bangor’s unique issues for
negotiation. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation.
Bronson would like some of Bangor’s local programming to be broadcast in other
communities and wondered if other Councilors would support the idea. Palmer said
with live streaming anyone could look at any product across the air waves. The vote
was unanimous.
7. Review of Purchasing Policy
At both the staff and committee level, Cyr indicated there have been discussions
relating to a review of the City’s current Purchasing/Procurement Policy, and staff has
made an attempt to start some amendments. Cyr noted that many proposed changes
are minor in nature but are more reflective of the current practice and Charter
language. The original policy was adopted in 1994. Specific areas of concern are
related to low bid, local vendors and, more recently, the appeals process. Staff has
removed language that states that ‘contracts will be awarded to the lowest responsible
bidder and responsive bidder.’ The proposed language refers to ‘awarding contracts to
the bidder whose bid meets the requirements and criteria set forth in the request for
bid.’ Established criteria are included in each bid. The only place that ‘local vendor’
was referenced in the Policy was in the case of a tie bid, and preferential treatment
would go to the local bidder. The current policy assigns the responsibility to the City
Manager to hear bid protests. Cyr felt the bid protest process should be turned over to
the Board of Appeals. Most of the Board of Appeals work is specific to hearing appeals
from any order, requirement, decision, determination or interpretation of the Code
Enforcement Officer or other entity as specified by Ordinance. Responding to Nealley,
Cyr said the Table of Contents will be updated once the Policy is finalized. Cyr will have
a staff member review each bid issued in the last fiscal year to determine where the
majority of bids are falling within the specified limits, and will bring it back to the next
Finance Committee. Weston said the policy review is taking place because a policy was
violated even though the City felt it was in the right. Conlow said she supported the
proposed revisions which will allow more flexibility while maintaining the integrity of the
process. Bronson didn’t see the Board of Appeals as an appropriate appeals body.
Conlow spoke of three alternatives: staying with the same process, which is not her
preference; the Finance Committee could make the decision to take it back to full
Council; and the third is to the Board of Appeals. Responding to Blanchette, Conlow
said the problem is that when the Council awards bids there is a process set forth for
bid protest and that process takes it to the City Manager to determine whether the
decision was correct. It can be awkward for the Manager, who is a Council appointee.
Blanchette asked what would need to be done to skip the protest process and move to
the court. Heitmann said the policy would need to be revised and perhaps as part of the
City Ordinance. This is the first time Heitmann and Cyr recall someone protesting a bid
through the formal process. Blanchette asked the Committee to consider having the
policy reflect that the bidder has the right to bring it back before the deciding body to
hear it again. In this case, the protest process came about because the decision was
not consistent with the policy. Heitmann said a motion to reconsider would give the
vendor the opportunity to realize an opportunity to speak to the Committee. Some
vendors do not attend the meeting at which bids are discussed. Palmer said it is
important to have an appeal process and felt it could go to the full Council after the
Finance Committee has made a decision, then to the Board of Appeals and then to the
courts. Nealley noted that some things are exempt from policy, and he favored the
court system. Bronson noted that this item began in a discussion of whether the City
could provide some sort of minimal preference to local bidders. Cyr noted that she will
return with the requested info from Councilor Nealley and will also return with two or
three options for the bid protest portion of the policy. Staff will also follow up with
Maine municipalities about their protest process. The Committee agreed with Cyr’s
suggestion. A motion was made and seconded.
Adjourned at 6:55 pm