Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-01 Finance Committee Minutes FINANCE COMMITTEE March 1, 2010 Minutes Councilors: Bronson, Nealley, Weston, Blanchette Staff: Wardwell, Russell, Yardley, Hupp, Cyr, Farrar, Ring Others: Wayne Mallar, Eric Russell 1. Council Resolves, 10-077, 10-078, 10-079, 10-080, Appropriating MDOT Grant Funds for a Variety of Sidewalk Improvements Finance Director Cyr noted that all four Resolves are the result of a funding opportunity from last spring. The projects have been discussed by the Council during last year’s budget review process under capital projects with the note that some of the projects were going to be revisited even if the grant monies were not available, particularly in and around the Downeast Schools. The State of Maine has approved and awarded the four grants, and the Resolves are to appropriate the grant funds. There are a number of local matches associated which vary depending upon the project. The specific projects are: 1) Installation of sidewalk on Union Street from the I-95 overpass from Eddyway out to Vermont Avenue, which requires a 20% local match. It is in the CDBG Entitlement Zone and the match may be accessed from CDBG funding for the local share. Community Development staff is working on this request. If it is not available, the City could use monies from the City’s sidewalk account which has an approximate balance of $245,000. 2) Installation of sidewalk on the Odlin Road from the Hermon side of 395 down Odlin Road to the Ground Round Restaurant area. In addition, it will also pay for a crosswalk and pedestrian signals across 395. The total award is $194,000; the local share is $32,800. 3&4) Phase I and Phase II projects are in the vicinity of the Downeast School and were funded through the Safer Routes to School Program, which requires no local match. The work will create sidewalks to enhance pedestrian access in and around the School. Phase I is in the block immediately surrounding Downeast School and Phase II actually is the connectors from the major routes into that school block including Blue Hill East and West, Dirigo to Downeast Circle and Moosehead to Bald Mountain. Responding to Gratwick, Wardwell said he will be looking at both the bituminous and concrete material for the project preferring the concrete if it fits within the monies allotted. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of this item. In response to Weston, Wardwell said from The Ground Round to Hammond Street there is a paved shoulder that is 5 ft in width. He said he would look at another grant to connect it with the Hammond Street sidewalks. 2. Update on Pending Bids Cyr said the first three projects are under are BACTS (Bangor Area Comprehensive Traffic System), the local organization that is designated by both the federal and state governments to carry out transportation in the Bangor urbanized area. The first is the State/Hancock Street traffic light equipment involving the purchase and installation of new poles, mast arms, heads, wire and associated hardware at a total estimated project cost is $177,200. 90% is funded by federal and state with a local share of about $17,720. The next is the Ohio Street resurfacing from Griffin Road to Blue Hill West as well as new sidewalk and curbing at all existing locations. The total estimated maximum cost of this project is $639,800, 85% of which will be funded by federal/state grants leaving a balance of just under $96,000 for the local match. The third is a project involving the Main/Cedar Street intersection improvements. It involves the total reconstruction and realignment of the Main/Cedar/Summer Streets. Estimated cost is just under $1.1M, 90% being funded by federal/state grants with a local match of 10%. The local share would, at this point, be covered by issuing general obligation bonds. Those bonds have been previously approved by past councils, as is common with MDOT projects, but have not been issued. Responding to Weston, Ring provided details of the Main/Cedar/Summer Street project, which go out for bid soon for summer construction. In response to Nealley, Cyr said her goal in the coming year, recognizing budget constraints and recognizing it is not the best environment to spend dollars, she also recognizes it is the best environment in which to borrow money. Through the budget process, she is tentatively looking to do a bond issue sometime over the next fiscal year. She looks for it to be 10-year money. In January, there will be the opportunity to refund two debts which over a 10-year period would save $611,000. In response to Nealley, Cyr noted that Council authorization needed to issue the bonds has been done so staff is not required to come back to a Council/committee meeting to actually sell the bonds. Bronson talked about objections he has heard from individuals regarding the Main/ Cedar intersection. Responding, Ring said the Council had reviewed an overall long range plan to improve access through this area. Bronson spoke about the remaining residential unit at Cedar/Summer and its historic designation. Ring said he isn’t certain that it is on the historic register but noted that it has very distinctive architecture. The project moves the travel way away from the home. Cyr then spoke about the Airport ground support equipment. The GSE Shop performs all maintenance functions related to all airport equipment. As part of the FY10 budget process, the Airport had a couple of purchases that were approved and are now ready for the Committee’s approval for bid. One is a set of four wireless lifts needed for fuel trucks. The lifts are required in order for personnel to safely work on the trucks. The wireless allows the unit to be moved to the actual lift. The estimated cost is $55,000. The second piece is an overhead exhaust reels extension system for the GSE shop. This includes the hoses, reels, materials, duct work for venting. It is the same type of system used at Motor Pool and Fire Department shop and has the proper safety features. The estimated cost is $30,000 and it was included in the FY10 budget. 3. Discussion of Shelter Plus Care Program and Council Resolve 10-063A, Appropriating Grant Funds from US Department of HUD – Project Based Assistance Weston asked if this discussion was an appropriate fit for the Finance Committee. He felt it was a discussion about the way in which the program is initiated, rather than the money. Bronson noted that at the last Council meeting it was suggested the item come before Finance. Nealley felt that the Committee needs to recommend action on the item first and then policy becomes the issue and perhaps it would go to another committee. Weston felt recommending approval to Council would repeat the same procedure as the last Council meeting. Blanchette said the question was raised and discussed at the last Council due to some uncomfortable feelings among some Councilors. The Shelter Plus Care provides homes for individuals with mental and physical challenges statewide. She felt that Bangor’s Code Enforcement employees would be required to perform a safety inspection in Lincoln, for example, and Shelter Plus Care would not reimburse Bangor for those associated employee expenses. She also questioned the City’s Code Enforcement and Electrical employees being on loan to the City of Brewer. Brewer reimburses Bangor and that is not her question or concern. She questioned the availability of Bangor staff to perform duties in Brewer. She would like it reviewed very closely indicating that it needs to be looked at this year on a budget priority list. Weston agreed with Blanchette and felt there are options to consider. Weston then moved passage of Council Resolve 10-063A back to Council. The motion was seconded by Nealley. Bronson said it appears that the discussion is focusing on the inability of Code Enforcement to complete tasks regarding Bangor. If it turns out that Code has substantial time on their hands, there is a possibility of overstaffing or the department being under-directed. Bronson referred to a list of properties he personally compiled that are beyond eyesores for longer periods of time than necessary. Yardley said the Shelter Plus Care grant received is part of a Continuum of Care HUD grant. The funding started in 1993. Shelter Plus Care is one component of a wide array of services that for the first twelve years was only the Bangor Continuum of Care. Before Yardley’s tenure with the City and because of the nature of the region, there was an effort to have the Bangor Continuum of Care become the Greater Penobscot Continuum of Care. He noted an effort is being entertained to broaden the Continuum to make sure that monies that are allocated on a per capita basis do not leave the Bangor area. Bangor’s Continuum of Care is one of three in Maine that is designated by HUD at the federal level. Bangor’s happens to be the Greater Penobscot Continuum of Care. Money is made available and is applied for annually with Bangor, taking the lead, but working all of the stakeholders, municipalities, and providers of service apply for the funding based on the per capita formula. Rather than leave money on the table that is targeted to try to alleviate homelessness, the Penobscot Continuum has the Shelter Plus Care option that doesn’t require a match or broader efforts at piecing together a housing project. Traditionally, the Continuum calculates how many slots of Shelter Plus Care can be purchased with the grant money so that the money does not leave the region. Yardley said individuals can apply for Shelter Plus Care as long as they meet the criteria of being homeless, have a mental health disability, substance abuse, or HIV diagnosis. With all federal housing money, the Constitution prevents the provider from dictating where the individual can live. If they find housing and are eligible for this federal money, the Continuum, as the administrator, cannot tell them where they can live. Yardley said that about 90% of the housing is located in Bangor. He also noted that a little over 60% of individuals who apply for this funding list Bangor as their last residence before finding themselves homeless. When someone applies and is eligible, they are provided a list of potential landlords for housing opportunities to find their housing. If they chose to locate outside of Bangor (and there are currently 12-14 out of 120 plus current participants), the Continuum has an obligation under its relationship with HUD to verify that the housing meets the established criteria. Noting that he did not have the answer, Yardley said he would check to see if that process could be sub-contracted out to another code enforcement agency. The Continuum is paid to administer the grant to include receiving the participant in the program, helping them to search for housing, determining their income and rent contribution based on 30% of their income being spent for housing. Those associated costs are billed in charging the 8%. Yardley has a .5 FTE that administers the program for the City. He can also charge for inspecting the units for compliance. There is a move-in inspection and a move-out inspection to hold the landlord responsible for providing appropriate housing and to hold the recipient responsible for any damages at the time of move-out. In responding to questions raised at the recent Council meeting, Yardley said that Community Health and Counseling serves four counties and they have 113 participants in their program. They receive their allocated slots from the other Continuum of Care which is the balance of the state. CHCS serves areas around Bangor, which are the very areas that Bangor is concerned that they are serving. He feels there is a good balance in a collaborative relationship between CHCS and the City in administering Shelter Plus Care which insures residents of Bangor. By adding another 25 units of Shelter Plus Care in this year’s grant application, there isn’t a corresponding increase in incremental costs for additional staff. The Finance Department feels somewhat of a burden to administer the rents through the landlord but it is part of the 8% for which the City can legitimately charge. Responding to Weston, Yardley said that CHCS hires to have inspections performed for housing units and he will find out who CHCS hires. Blanchette asked how much of Yardley’s weekly schedule is spent managing or going to Augusta regarding Shelter Plus Care. In response, Yardley said he is Chair of the Greater Penobscot Continuum of Care, on the Region III Homeless Council, on the State Homeless Council and those efforts are where his time in spent in regard to this subject and many other things. He estimated that he spends a day and a half month. He spoke strongly about his advocacy role for Bangor on the State Homeless Council. Blanchette expressed appreciation to Yardley for his work in representing Bangor. She noted that the question asked at the last Council still has not been addressed and that is: do Code Enforcement personnel go out of the City of Bangor to perform inspections for Shelter Plus Care without reimbursement. It sets a precedence of doing for some but not for all. She wants everyone in the City treated the same. Responding to Blanchette, Cyr noted that there are no charges related to inspection as it is one of the roles of the Code Enforcement Office. Revenues generated by the Code Enforcement Department are tied to the building permits which are intended to generate sufficient dollars to reimburse Code Enforcement. The building inspector goes out on new construction, the electrical inspector to goes out on electrical inspections; however, there is no charge for inspection services relating to vendor and local eating establishments. Regarding the Bangor Housing Authority as one of the largest HUD projects in Bangor, Blanchette asked why the City isn’t using the inspector that does the inspection on these properties for the Shelter Plus Care housing. Yardley said that Bangor Housing would be policing itself because they are the landlord. Under Shelter Plus Care, the open market is being used with clients finding their own rental units. Bangor is not a landlord but is a broker. Nealley asked for Cyr and Yardley to look at costs of another agency performing inspections versus City staff. He would like it brought back to a committee for report. Bronson suggested the Government Operations Committee. Weston questioned the cost of sending a City employee to Lincoln, noting that Lincoln has been used an as example throughout the discussion. He wondered what would be done with that hour’s time if the employee was not on the road traveling to another community. Gratwick thanked Mallar for bringing the topic forward. He said the answer to the question of ‘is the City of Bangor being reimbursed enough for all services it provides’ is unknown. In order for a successful conclusion, Cyr and Yardley need to pull data together as suggested by Nealley. Blanchette said a motion has been moved and seconded and she does not disagree with the motion for this cycle. Cyr said that there is a general consensus about the Resolve. She pointed out that Shelter Plus Care is actually made up of four different grants targeting different population segments. 10-063A is the Project Based Rental Assistance which basically covers 16 units of housing in Acadia. Weston is correct when saying that contracting out this service would increase costs. Cyr said it becomes a matter of what priority the Council wants to place on its Code Enforcement Office. Code Enforcement would normally go to Infrastructure and operations of the program would go to Government Operations. Yardley said that applications for Continuum of Care funds are submitted in September and he receives a response by January-February. Because of the change in administration the process was delayed and the next one most likely will be late fall- early winter. Bronson clarified that if this item is not approved tonight the money will be lost. He talked about the 8% administrative fee indicating it is roughly $6,300. Cyr said the 4 Shelter Plus Care grants currently in place for FY09 the City received $672,000 from HUD. It was made up of two portions: one being direct rental assistance which was $620,000 and the other being the administrative cost of about $52,000. The .5 FTE position is about $25,000 for wages and fringes. Mallar had estimated Code’s portion to be $8,000-9,000. For revenue recording, Cyr said normally revenues go to the department to which it is most closely associated with; i.e. liquor license revenues go to the City Clerk’s Office because that’s where the license is issued. However, both Code and Police Departments as well as Treasury and WWTP are involved in the licensing process. Bronson supported the fact that Bangor employees should not be sent out of Bangor for any purpose. Mallar said that his concern is when going into a new grant he would like to see an accounting for how much it costs the City, how much is received, etc. Some years ago, Portland dropped out of the Shelter Plus Care grant program because it was not fiscally feasible. From discussions with the State, he understands that if the City did not pick up Shelter Plus Care that CHCS would do so. The opportunity would still be available to those in need. Mallar noted that Code Enforcement has provided 182 inspections this year for Shelter Plus Care at 1½ hours on average per inspection at a cost of $31.50/hr. He stressed that all grants need to be reviewed to make certain they are not costing the City money and that the client is receiving the benefit. Discussions such as this evening’s should take place when each grant is being applied for. Yardley said that when he first came to the City 85% of his salary was paid from the general fund. It is not 25% because he is able to bill his time back to various grants. While not disagreeing, as an administrator he looks at this from all different sides. Bronson clarified that Council Resolve 10-063A had received a motion with a second to return the item to full Council. 4. Discussion of Establishing a City-side Tax Rate Goal for FY 2011 Bronson noted that a number of Councilors including himself had a goal to give instruction to staff regarding the Council’s expectation for a final rate in the next fiscal year budget. There are many complications along the route. For the moment, it is his understanding that a number of Councilors have come to a conclusion that this discussion is yet premature. Nealley talked about the Council’s responsibility to set instructive policy and it doesn’t mean that department heads couldn’t come forward making a case for spending more than the amount. Bronson said he doesn’t disagree with the policy setting and he understands the Council Chair’s idea that it is far easier for the City Council as a whole to put things back into the budget than for the Council to remove items from the budget. He would like to find a mechanism whereby which to express true policy. Blanchette said she is opposed to backing herself into a corner with any set of figures until knowing exactly what’s coming forward in the budget and would not support any such measure. There are many state and federal mandates over which the City has no control. Blanchette then excused herself from the remainder of the meeting. Weston agreed with the number of future variables noted by Blanchette. He favored dictating policy in terms of physical priorities instead of financial priorities. To provide a mandate without direction to staff is irresponsible. 5. Overview of Procurement Policy Recognizing that there is an item 6 and 7 on the agenda and this item does not require a full discussion at this time, Cyr asked if the Committee would like a quick overview or to hold the item over to another meeting. Responding to Bronson, Cyr said the item was placed on the agenda due to some issues she had heard about in the recent year relating to bids and awards. Bronson suggested that members of the Committee read the policy in full and then place it back to the next Committee agenda to see if there was interest in proposing changes. Cyr agreed. Nealley agreed suggesting that it would require an entire meeting be dedicated for discussion and review specifically citing local preferential treatment. Gratwick agreed in substance with Nealley’s thoughts recommending that Nealley provide those to the Committee prior to the meeting. 6. Matured Real Estate Lien – 17 Second Street Since this was an added agenda item, a motion was made and seconded to review this item under suspension of rules. Nealley suggested moving this as a housekeeping matter without discussion. Cyr said it would normally have appeared under Consent. All real estate taxes have been paid with no outstanding sewer charges or code issues. Nealley made a motion to approve staff recommendation under suspension of the rules. The motion was seconded by Weston. 7. LD 195 Cyr noted that when individuals currently pay excise tax, the amount is based on the manufacturer’s suggested retail price of the vehicle. Instead of charging excise tax on 100% of MSRP, LD 195 would recommend taking it to 90% of MSRP. This proposal was heard by the Taxation Committee as well as by the House earlier this year and both voted ‘ought not to pass.’ Cyr understands that this will be coming for a vote in the Senate potentially this week. Staff’s perspective is that it would prefer this as an ‘ought not to pass’ in the Senate. A 10% reduction in the excise tax would impact by City by $440,000 of lost local revenues. This revenue loss comes on top of the significant revenue losses through revenue sharing and state aid to education. Staff recommended contacting Senator Perry regarding the impact of LD195 coupled with the other impacts. Nealley did not support the recommendation of sending the voice of the Council to Perry. Weston suggested Cyr relay this to Senator Perry by a phone call. Weston shared the same view as Nealley. Cyr and Farrar had discussed a phone call instead of a letter to the Bangor Delegation. Farrar said the City is looking at reductions this year of approximately $1M on the School side in state general purpose aid; another $1M on the City side in terms of municipal revenue sharing. Bronson noted that the consensus of the Committee is that it is not prepared to recommend a letter be sent from staff and/or Council or even a letter from the Finance Committee. Committee adjourned at 7:00 pm.