Loading...
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