CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2000 MEETING #3

PRESENT

Mayor Barrie P. Tilghman
Council President Robert Cannon
Council Vice President Frank Himelright
Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers
Councilman Palmer Gillis
Councilman William Stacey

IN ATTENDANCE

CONVENING - APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 2000

The Mayor and Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Council President Cannon called the meeting to order. The Lord's Prayer was repeated and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

On a motion by Mr. Himelright and seconded by Mr. Stacey, the minutes of January 24, 2000 were unanimously approved.

CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION

Council President Robert Cannon presented Certificates of Appreciation to the members of the 1999 Charter Review Committee. Robert Cook, Chairman, Tom Evans, Shanie Shields and Robert Taylor, Vice Chairman, were in attendance to receive the Certificates. Members unable to attend were Pat Layton, Ernie Olds and Joyce Shannahan.

ORDINANCE NO. 1750 - 2ND READING - AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE CITY CODE, ETHICS

Mr. Himelright moved and Mr. Stacey seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1750 to bring it on the floor for discussion. City Solicitor Paul Wilber briefed Council on Ordinance No. 1750 which incorporates the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee. According to Mr. Wilber, the most significant change appears in 2.04.030, Conflicts of Interest, making it subject to the review of the Ethics Commission.

Mr. Andy Mitchell, attorney for the City of Fruitland, reported that Fruitland is revamping their Ethics Ordinance which already includes the same provisions regarding conflicts of interest.

Mr. Stacey moved to amend Ordinance No. 1750 to correct a typo on page 6, 2.04.050B, first line - change included to include. Mr. Himelright seconded and the amendment passed unanimously.

Mr. Gillis believed these changes cleaned up the two sets of rule books (Charter and Code). In his view, with the current rules he could do business now with the City, but after passage of this legislation he could not. In Mr. Cannon's opinion, it becomes more restrictive and strengthens rather than weakening the standards. Ms. Siggers provided background information on previous conflicts which were still questionable in her mind.

Comments from the audience included: 1) tabling the Ordinance until two other members were appointed to the Ethics Commission; 2) opposing the Ordinance because it weakened the ethics standards instead of strengthening; and 3) suggestion to make it harder for City Councilmembers to do business with the City by denying all business in the City with elected officials.

After further discussion, all voted in favor of Ordinance No. 1750, as amended for second reading, with the exception of Ms. Siggers who voted nay.

ORDINANCE NO. 1749 - 1ST READING - AMENDING CHAPTER 1.12, CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE, OF THE SALISBURY MUNICIPAL CODE

Mr. Himelright moved and Mr. Stacey seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1749 to bring it on the floor for discussion. City Solicitor Paul Wilber provided an overview of Ordinance No. 1749 which included the following modifications:

changed name of Chapter 1.12 to City Campaign Advertising and Finance; added new section, 1.12.010, Advertising, to include an authority line; 1.12.030A, Campaign contributions - changed contribution limit from $1,000 to $500; 1.12.030C, Campaign contributions - new section to reflect that all campaign contributions shall be received by the date of the general election and any contributions received after that date shall be returned to the contributor; and 1.12.040B - financial disclosure statement to be filed no later than sixty days after the general election and surplus funds to be paid by the treasurer to either defray the expenses of the election or paid to a charitable organization.

A discussion ensued concerning surplus funds to a political club or party, in-kind contributions, and loans/repayment of loans. Messrs. Stacey and Himelright preferred adding a third option to include a political organization of the candidate's choice. Mr. Cannon, however, was opposed because he did not know how you could be that selective between a political organization versus individual contributors. Mr. Robert Taylor referred to the Code of Annapolis which addressed outstanding loans to political campaigns.

After further discussion, Mr. Himelright moved to table Ordinance No. 1749 in order to discuss it further at a work session. The vote was unanimous to table Ordinance No. 1749 after a second by Mr. Stacey. Mr. Cannon asked the City Solicitor to address limits on loans, accounting for loans and limiting contributors.

RESOLUTION NO. 693 - CHARTER AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT SECTIONS

Ms. Siggers moved and Mr. Stacey seconded to approve Resolution No. 693 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Resolution No. 693, as introduced by City Solicitor Paul Wilber, provides for revisions to the Purchasing Department sections by taking the dollar amounts out of the Charter and transferring them into the Code.

After a brief discussion concerning the deletion of item D on page 3 (submission of monthly reports) and the transfer of funds (new item F on page 4), all voted in favor of Resolution No. 693 with the exception of Ms. Siggers who voted nay.

ORDINANCE NO. 1751 - 1ST READING - AMENDING CHAPTER 2.32 OF THE CITY CODE, PURCHASES AND SALES

Mr. Himelright moved and Mr. Stacey seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1751 to bring it on the floor for discussion. City Solicitor Paul Wilber briefed Council on Ordinance No. 1751 amending Chapter 2.32, Purchases and Sales, of the City Codes. Mr. Wilber pointed out that the only change from Council's previous discussion was to move the dollar amounts from the Charter into the Code.

Mr. Stacey believed the dollar amounts warranted further review in a work session and moved to table Ordinance No. 1751. Ms. Siggers seconded the motion. All voted in favor with the exception of Mr. Gillis who voted nay.

DISCUSSION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING COMPLAINT FILED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Himelright seconded to add to the agenda as an emergency item the discussion of a complaint filed for injunctive relief with legal counsel. All voted in favor with the exception of Ms. Siggers who voted nay.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell, from the firm of Mitchell and Hooper, was appointed on February 10, 2000 as Assistant City Solicitor to represent the City in the Temporary Restraining Order injunction case involving a past employment matter. A hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m., February 15, 2000. Mr. Mitchell spoke with the plaintiff's attorney, and because of the short period of time he has been on the case, a short continuance has been filed (no less than ten and no more than thirty days) with the agreement that the Temporary Restraining Order would remain in place during that period. Mr. Mitchell reported that there were two major issues arising out of this litigation: 1) confidentiality agreement which was part of the settlement; and 2) whether the current Temporary Restraining Order was too broad because it encompasses a lot of things which may not be under the purview of the confidentiality agreement itself. In response to Ms. Siggers' query, Mr. Mitchell will bill the City at his standard rate of $125 per hour.

Mr. Mitchell reported that the Baltimore Sun has filed two suits addressing this same issue. An answer from the court is anticipated within the next few months.

PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 1752 - 1ST READING - ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT - AMENDING TEXT OF THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; ADDING DEFINITION OF A CHURCH; AMENDING TEXT OF THE PALEOCHANNEL; AND AMENDING R-5, R-8 AND R-10 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, FOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS REGARDING APARTMENT STANDARDS OF THE CODE

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1752 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Director of Planning & Zoning Kristen Hughes provided an overview of Ordinance No. 1752 which included the following proposed text amendments:

amending 17.04.120 to include the definition of a church; amending 17.40.030 by adding Item G to Uses permitted by special exception- uses permitted by 17.36.020 of the General Commercial District on parcels 3 acres or less in size existing at the time of enactment of this amendment; amending Section 17.100, Paleochannel District, by deleting Section 17.100.030, Ordinance permit required; amending R-5, R-8 and R-10 Residential Districts for technical corrections regarding Apartment Standards of the Code (Sections 17.156.030 and 17.168.030).

Mr. Stacey expressed his concern with the deletion of 17.100.030 pertaining to an Ordinance Permit requirement for development in the Paleochannel District. He did not believe the City Council should lose that review authority. Mr. Hughes related that the cases could be forwarded to the City Council on a regular basis, if Council desired. Mr. Gillis, however, was concerned with the volume of information that would be sent to the City Council, especially since the City Council would not have any jurisdiction on a substantial amount of it anyway. Ms. Siggers believed that we should be able to communicate more with the entities involved and come to some agreement rather than disbanding the City Council's authority.

After further discussion, Mr. Stacey moved and Ms. Siggers seconded to amend Ordinance No. 1752 to not strike 17.100.030, Ordinance permit required. All voted in favor with the exception of Mr. Gillis who voted nay.

An unidentified gentleman asked for a modification to Item G in Section 17.40.030, Uses permitted by special exception in the Regional Commercial District, by changing 3 acres or less in size to 3.2 acres. Mr. Hughes recommended changing it to 4 acres since it would serve the same purpose. It allows less intense activity on an area which is generally very heavily impacted by larger, intense uses.

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Gillis seconded to amend Ordinance No. 1752 by amending 17.40.030 to read 4 acres or less. The amendment passed unanimously.

Messrs. Cannon, Gillis, Himelright and Stacey voted in favor of Ordinance No. 1752, as amended for first reading. Ms. Siggers noted that she was not familiar as she would like with the ordinance, so she abstained from voting.

UNIVERSITY PARK HOUSING COMPLEX

Mr. Himelright moved to add as an emergency item to the agenda the discussion of the University Park Housing project. All voted in favor upon a second by Mr. Stacey. Mr. Gillis was not present during the vote.

Executive Officer John Pick recommended that the City remove its objections and accept the water and sewer fees from Academic Privatization for the University Park student housing project located on Milford Street since many of the issues have been resolved.

Mr. Stacey voiced his concern with having to pay more taxpayer dollars for this project since the City cannot tax the organization, but is responsible for providing fire and police protection.

In addition to providing fire and police protection for this project without receiving any payment for the services, Mr. Himelright was concerned with the additional traffic on Milford Street. Acting Public Works Director Chip Messick reported that a warrant analysis was performed which indicated that even if this project was not built, it would still warrant a signal at South Division and Milford Street.

Mr. Gillis disclosed that he owns one of the adjoining properties, but he has already paid for curb, gutter and sidewalk. He agreed with Messrs. Himelright and Stacey's concerns with providing fire and police services without receiving any payment for those services. However, in his opinion, payment for these services should not just be limited to this institution, but to the other non-profit organizations across the community (i.e., District Court Building, YMCA, Salvation Army, Dove Point, SSU Commons).

Mr. Cannon related that the City could not deny water and sewer, however, he did not want to concede that this is a private project for State issue. Mr. Himelright mentioned that the issue of renting to people who are not SSU students also needs to be addressed with the State legislature.

Mr. Donnie Williams, President of SAPOA, acknowledged that SAPOA has no problem with the student housing. SAPOA's concerns included the following: 1) 576 bed project being built without paying city or county taxes; 2) fire and police protection without paying tax dollars; 3) confusion as to who owns the property and if they actually qualify for getting services without paying taxes; and 4) Phase 2 of project will mean more fire and police protection. Mr. Williams believed the Council should table this issue which would allow time for the City Solicitor to find out who the players are in this project.

Mayor Tilghman acknowledged that she shared SAPOA's concern, but recommended that the water and sewer fees be accepted and Administration pursue a payment in lieu of taxes.

Planning & Zoning Director Kris Hughes mentioned that he was aware of the financing arrangements for this project through the Maryland Economic Development Corporation. It is a private activity bond which can only be issued if it is for a State purpose. Mr. Hughes opined that if the City did something to make this project fail, a liability would be created. Accepting the water and sewer fees provides an opportunity to move forward and avoid any liability.

Mr. Richard Yobst, from SSU, commented that this project started a long time ago with the Public Works Department, but somehow the information was never disseminated to Administration. In addition, the City is already providing fire and police protection to the University. Mr. Yobst related that this is a structured housing development which will be managed on the same terms and conditions as the University's residence halls.

Ms. Siggers voiced that projects of this nature caused her concern and she was not persuaded to move forward. Mr. Gillis felt that not accepting the check for water and sewer fees would be a mistake and could set the City up for liability.

After further discussion, all voted in favor of accepting the check for water and sewer fees with the exception of Ms. Siggers.

AWARD OF BIDS

The following items were presented for approval by Director of Procurement & Parking Carol Turner:

 
    1.   Declaration of Surplus  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-0-
    2.   Declaration of Surplus; Dead of Easement - Robert P. Cannon $ 1,610.00
    3.   Chemicals: 
 	      A.   Ferric Chloride (601-4101-533.60-04)
	  Eaglebrook, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,562.60
              B.   Sodium Hydroxide (50%) (601-3701-532.60-04)
          Intercoastal Trading . . . . . . . . . . . . $16,758.00
    4.   Vehicles:
              A.   Vehicles #1-4: Police Vehicles (001-2105-521.70 25)
          Hertrich Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $67,500.00
               B.   Vehicle #5: Pickup - P.D. (001-2119-521.70-25)
          Hertrich Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,228.00
              C.   Vehicle #6: SUV - P.W. (601-3705-532.70-25)
          Carlton Massey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $24,380.00
              D.   Vehicle #7: Pickup - F.D. (001-2405-522.70-25)
          Mark May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27,756.50
               E.   Vehicle #8: Pickup - BHZ (001-2910-524.70-25)
          Hertrich Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14,189.00
               F.   Vehicle #9: Pickup - P.W. (601-3705-532.70-25)
          Pittsville Motors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21,105.00
               G.   Vehicle #10: Window Van - P.W. (601-3705-532.70-25)
          Hertrich Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16,763.00
               H.   Vehicle #11: Window Van - W.P. (601-3701-532.70-25)
          Hertrich Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,679.00
               I.   Vehicle #12: Pickup - WWTP (601-4101-533.70-25)
          Hertrich Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26,374.00
               J.   Vehicle #13: Pickup - WWTP (601-4101-533.70-25)
          Courtesy Chevrolet . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18,675.00
               K.   Vehicle #14: Window Van - P.W. (601-3501-531.70-25)
          Hertrich Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,163.00

Mr. Stacey pointed out that Vehicles #1-4 (Item 4A) should be $69,626 rather than $67,500 and Vehicle #14 (Item 4K) should be $18,998 rather than $17,163. Mr. Stacey also questioned who would be driving the SUV - Vehicle #6. Mr. Himelright suggested tabling items B through K on item #3 since he had several questions.

Mrs. Turner reported that she had a time frame of February 18, 2000 to order vehicle numbers 7, 9, 11 and 12 or the City could not get them. The information was given to Council ten days ago for their review and comment. Mrs. Turner suggested pulling Vehicle #6 (Item C) and award the rest of the vehicles.

After further discussion, Council voted in favor of awarding all the items with the exception of 4C (Vehicle #6). Mr. Cannon abstained from voting.

MAYOR'S COMMENTS

Mayor Tilghman commented on the following:

attended Maryland Mayor's Association meeting in Annapolis last week; meeting with Delegate Norman Conway on Wednesday; will be testifying on Smart Codes with the Environmental Matters Committee; elected to Board of Local Government Insurance Trust; working on home ownership incentives to enhance the housing stock in the neighborhoods; and setting goals and priorities for upcoming budget.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS

Council President Cannon commented that he understood there were enough signatures on the petition to place the Council-Manager issue on the ballot. It will cost $2,000 to verify the signatures on the petition.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Mr. Himelright asked Administration to check with the County on redesigning the Council table and microphone system.

Mr. Robert Taylor asked for an update on the Ruark deannexation. Mr. Cannon believed it was going to be developed in the city, but without a through road.

Mr. Pat Hannon commented on the newspaper article by Jacqueline Jones on the minority district and the reduction of black power. Mr. Hannon also commented on the error which appeared in the newspaper on Resolution No. 688 (incorrect date of moving elections from the spring to the fall).

With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

City Clerk

Council President