- Page 1
- Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6 - Page 7 - Page 8 - Page 9 - Page 10 - Page 11 - Page 12 - Page 13 - Page 14 - Page 15 - Page 16 - Page 17 - Page 18 - Page 19 - Page 20 - Page 21 - Page 22 - Page 23 - Page 24 - Page 25 - Page 26 - Page 27 - Page 28 - Page 29 - Page 30 - Page 31 - Page 32 - Page 33 - Page 34 - Page 35 - Page 36 - Page 37 - Page 38 - Page 39 - Page 40 - Page 41 - Page 42 - Page 43 - Page 44 - Page 45 - Page 46 - Page 47 - Page 48 - Page 49 - Page 50 - Page 51 - Page 52 - Page 53 - Page 54 - Page 55 - Page 56 - Page 57 - Page 58 - Page 59 - Page 60 - Page 61 - Page 62 - Page 63 - Page 64 - Page 65 - Page 66 - Page 67 - Page 68 - Page 69 - Page 70 - Page 71 - Page 72 - Page 73 - Page 74 - Page 75 - Page 76 - Page 77 - Page 78 - Page 79 - Page 80 - Flash version © UniFlip.com |
Page 16
The Dispatch/Maryland Coast Dispatch
November 22, 2013
City Weighs Contract Preference
By TRAVIS BROWN
STAFF WRITER
SALISBURY – During discussion of a possible veterans’ preference policy for city contracts, the Salisbury City Council decided to look into expanding those inclinations to cover matters like local and minority owned business as well. “If you’re going to change your charter, make it broad strokes,” said Council President Jake Day. The original discussion Monday was in regard to what kind of preference Salisbury should show for businesses seeking city contracts that were owned by veterans or service disabled veterans. The preference would likely take the form of a percentage credit on the project. For example, a veteran owned business might receive a 5-percent boost in value to the contract bid. “It almost becomes a scoring system, but it’s pretty easy to determine,” said Day. But in discussing a veterans preference policy, Day revealed that he would also like to see something similar for locally owned businesses. “I think what we can do, what I’d like to see is some variation on two parallel and potentially combined preferences: a locally owned preference, and a veterans and service disabled veterans preference,” Day said.
That opened a door to some other preference programs that the council thought were worth consideration, such as minority- or femaleowned businesses. “If we’re going to do this, then I think we should include that at the same time, curveball into one,” said Councilwoman Laura Mitchell. Councilman Tim Spies asked about the status of preferences for new small businesses in Salisbury. “What about a start-up business in Salisbury? Is there anything additional?” he asked. There isn’t at the moment, but Councilwoman Terry Cohen felt that a preference for new business ran the risk of forgetting about established businesses that were just as worthy and needed as much or more help. If preferences are expanded, there’s the potential for them to stack. A veteran-owned business could also be locally- and minorityowned. City Attorney Mark Tilghman told the council that other municipalities have put caps in place for a maximum preference allotment. Cecil County, for instance, caps all preferences at 6 percent of the project cost or $60,000, whichever comes first. Salisbury would also want to be careful in the language used regarding preferences. “We wouldn’t want to stick something in there that might tie our
hands in a major contract situation,” said Tilghman. There’s a potential major cost behind preferences as well. Any preference on city contracts has to be defensible in case charges of favoritism are leveled. This is usually accomplished by conducting a study. Tilghman believes that Salisbury can base most of the preference policy on studies already done by the state, but needs to be careful of exceeding that because those same studies tend to have high price tags so Salisbury couldn’t afford to conduct one solo. “I think we can probably piggyback on the state of Maryland with anything that’s been done in regards to its legislation,” Tilghman said. “But if we’re going to go beyond that it would be in a situation where we have to spend $50,000 to justify something.” The expanded scope of the legislation is sending the matter back to draft. Mitchell pointed out that the city will also need to re-advertise the resolution. “Now we’re talking about local business preference, minority preference,” she said. “That could bring some different comments then what we have.” The council agreed to have a new resolution drafted to be presented at the next work session in December.
. . Seahawk Road Annexation Eyed
FROM PAGE 14 needs to be predicted in Bunting’s opinion. Any development would bring increased traffic to the area. The developers have committed to a service road and other traffic calming, however, and Cropper stressed that his clients are out in the community having conversations. “As part of our due diligence, we met with many stakeholders, including but not limited to, certain members of the Berlin Town and Council, the Worcester County Board of Education, people that live and work in close proximity to the project and others who work for the Worcester County government,” he wrote. Tudor underlined the importance of having a solid annexation agreement in place. While he wouldn’t expect anyone to back out on commitments made, an annexation agreement would make sure that all of those commitments were plainly laid out and mandatory. The commission told Cropper that they aren’t fundamentally opposed to the annexation, but weren’t willing to offer any support until the information was all in line. “It’s like anything else. You get the chance to prove your case,” said Shockley. Cropper will return with the necessary documentation to follow protocol.
SOLD!
3
“We are a dedicated team of professionals, ready to assist you in your investment. As leaders in resort new construction sales, we offer the very best in service and experience.” Dan Clayland, Project Manager
Richie Difillippo
Annie Tingle
Michelle Pompa
Sharon Daugherty
Jeff Beres
|