REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on February 11, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Leary, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Carey, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Carey.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:16 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Williams declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
Mr. Eric O’Brien, 30 N. New Street, provided a letter (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk) addressing the deplorable living conditions in his neighborhood, as well as other documentation, including portions of the Wilmington Code, which he felt may provide additional information to assist the City with these matters. He advised members that there is a continued problem with strangers “taking over” public streets. It was his feeling that the City and its representatives have failed in providing the residence in the downtown area a safe and peaceful living environment.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Ruane moved that item #11 - Transfer Tax Determination, be deleted from the agenda, seconded by Mr. Leary.
Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ruane felt that if members wished to discuss this item further, it should first be conducted during an executive session. It was Mr. Slavin’s understanding that this matter was being re-submitted since all members of Council were not present during the last Council meeting when action was taken. He reminded members that during the last Council meeting on January 28, 2008, the vote failed by a tie vote and that, in fairness, this matter was being resubmitted to allow a full Council to vote. If there is a need for an executive session, Mr. Slavin stated that members of Council can vote to go into executive session to allow for further discussion.
Mr. Ruane questioned the manner in which the item was included on the agenda since it was not considered during the agenda preparation meeting. Referring to the absence of members, he stated that there have been several votes taken during his absence and that matters were not reconsidered due to his absence.
The motion to delete item #11 - Transfer Tax Determination, from the agenda failed by a roll call vote of five (5) no and four (4) yes (Mr. Leary, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Ruane, and Council President Williams).
Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried.
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 28, 2008
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 28, 2008 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.
PRESENTATION BY DELDOT - WELCOME TO DOVER SIGN
Mr. Michael Williams, Manager of Public Relations for DelDOT, presented a replica of the new “Welcome to Dover Sign” to Mayor Carey for display in the Mayor’s Office. He advised members that the new sign is located at the southern end of the City, at Webb’s Lane and Route 13.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Williams stated that the new sign has no effect on the signage that depicts various organizations which was located by the old Welcome to Dover Sign.
Mayor Carey thanked the Department of Transportation for the work done on this project.
RECOGNITION OF ACCOMPLISHMENT - DOVER HIGH SCHOOL NEWSWEEK TOP SCHOOL
The City Clerk read the following Recognition of Accomplishment into the record:
WHEREAS, Dover High School, which is located in the Capital School District, has been named for the second year in a row a NEWSWEEK TOP SCHOOL; and
WHEREAS, they have achieved the status of Newsweek Top School by meeting or exceeding the criteria of dividing the number of Advanced Placement tests given to students by the number of graduating seniors, ranking them amongst one of the nations highest; and
WHEREAS, the status of being a Newsweek Top School reflects the level of commitment the school has done in aiding students and preparing them for their college careers and giving them an edge regardless of their economic background; and
WHEREAS, the dedication shown by the students, staff, faculty, and administration of Dover High School and Capital School District makes them deserving of such an honor.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CARLETON E. CAREY SR, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE do hereby congratulate and award this Recognition of Accomplishment to Dover High School on the 11th day of February 2008.
Mayor Carey presented the Certificate to Dr. Michael Thomas, Superintendent of Capital School District, and Board Members, Mr. Gene Montaño, Mr. Phil Martino, Mr. Thomas Keitel, and Ms. Karen Clemmins.
Dr. Thomas relayed appreciation for the recognition and thanked the many individuals, including board members, faculty, students, parents, community members, etc., who are responsible for the award.
Mr. McGiffin advised members that the Drama Club will be performing the musical, The Little House of Horrors, on February 22nd and 23rd and encouraged every one to attend.
Noting that the number of graduating students has increased, high school drop outs have decreased, and academic standards have been raised, Mr. Salters requested that the superintendent and board members be invited to attend a future meeting to provide members a briefing of the Capital School District.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 988-990 FOREST STREET (THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ROUTE 8 AND SAULSBURY ROAD), OWNED BY ROUTE 8 AND SAULSBURY ROAD, LLC
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of properties located at 988-990 Forest Street (southeast corner of Route 8 and Saulsbury Road), owned by Route 8 and Saulsbury Road, LLC, consisting of four (4) parcels of land totaling 2.18+/- acres. Two (2) parcels, consisting of 0.95 acres, are currently zoned C-3 (Service Commercial) and the northern portion of two (2) parcels, consisting of 0.38 acres is currently zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office), with the total area subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay). The proposed zoning for the 1.33+/- acre area is C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay). The residual portion of two (2) parcels will remain zoned as CPO (Commercial Professional Office) and subject to COZ-1 (Corridor Overlay Zone). The developer is BBC Properties, Inc. (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 22, 2007)
Council President Williams advised members that the applicant has requested that this item be postponed pending consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Mrs. Townshend, City Planner, reminded members that during their Regular Meeting of January 28, 2008, Council authorized allowing applicants to proceed with Comprehensive Plan Amendments during the interim for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update. She explained that the rezoning application for these properties is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan that was received prior to this action. Based on the action taken by Council, the applicant is requesting that the dates for the rezoning be rescheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2008 and that a public hearing be held before City Council on March 24, 2008, which would coincide with their Comprehensive Plan Amendment request.
Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the applicant’s request to postpone and that it be considered by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2008 and that a public hearing be set for March 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane).
REQUEST TO POSTPONE PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - APPENDIX B - ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 29 - SOURCE WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE (SWPOZ)
Council President Williams reminded members that during their Regular Meeting of January 14, 2008, members accomplished the First Reading of the proposed ordinance amending Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 29 - Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ). Since they are amendments to the Zoning Code, she stated that Council referred them to the Planning Commission on February 19, 2008, and that a public hearing and final reading was set for March 10, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. Since the public notice was not advertised in accordance with legal requirements, staff requested that the referral to the Planning Commission be rescheduled for March 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. and that the public hearing/final reading be rescheduled for March 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Hogan moved to approve the request to postpone and that the referral to the Planning Commission be rescheduled for March 17, 2008 and that the public hearing before City Council be rescheduled for March 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m., as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 533 CAROL STREET
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 533 Carol Street, owned by Shawnlyn G. Foskey. Mr. Koenig, Public Services Director, advised members that the utilities for this property have been disconnected since November 21, 2001. The single story wood frame dwelling was found to be in violation of several building and property maintenance codes on May 8, 2007. The dwelling was found to have an unsecured rear door, which was boarded up and secured by City crews on or about June 7, 2007 after the property owner failed to comply with a violation notice to secure the door. Five (5) notices have been sent to Ms. Foskey via certified mail, which were signed as being received by Ms. Foskey. Mr. Koenig stated that there have been no repairs done and that until just recently, Ms. Foskey has failed to make any contact with City staff to discuss her intentions regarding the property. Currently, he advised members that there is $1,350 in unpaid summonses related to the property and as of January 30, 2008, none of the violations have been corrected. The structure was registered as a vacant building on October 18, 2007 by City staff after Ms. Foskey failed to register the dwelling herself. Mr. Koenig provided a presentation depicting the condition of the structure. He noted that the property is located within a development and that the deterioration of the building is affecting the neighboring properties.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. Koenig estimated that the repairs could be accomplished at a cost of $5,000 to $7,000.
Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare this property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by March 11, 2008 by the owner or equity owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner or equity owner within (10) days of the date set by Council; and 4) order the City Manager with the assistance of the City Solicitor to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax against the land upon which the building stands or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner.
Council President Williams declared the public hearing open. There being no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Williams declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Hogan moved to declare the property located at 533 Carol Street in violation of the dangerous building ordinance, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 28, 2008
The Utility Committee met on January 28, 2008 with Chairman Ruane presiding.
2030 Energy Plan Committee - RFP Process
As discussed during their meeting of January 14, 2008, Mr. Lunt, Public Utilities Director, reminded members that the 2030 Energy Plan Committee was developed to review and analyze the current status of the existing generation assets, projected load growth, and current procurement practices for purchasing capacity and energy for the ratepayers served by the City of Dover Public Utilities. He advised members that through this process, it became apparent that the City’s current generation assets are not large enough to serve the electric system demand. The City is currently short approximately 15 mw of capacity, which is projected to grow to between 62 mw to 153 mw, depending upon growth, and assuming that all current generation assets continue to operate. Due to this shortfall, the City’s Public Utilities is required to purchase capacity from the PJM marketplace in addition to the energy requirements. In order to properly evaluate the options available, Mr. Lunt stated that the 2030 Energy Plan Committee recommended contacting the energy and generation market to gather further information from potential generation development parties. Because of the complexity of this process, and in order to entertain a broad scope of potential services, the 2030 Energy Plan Committee recommended that a Request for Proposal Purchasing and Process Policy be adopted for this process as the current Purchasing Policy does not provide the flexibility required for this complex need. Staff provided members with a draft of the proposed Policy, which was designed to provide access to specialized market expertise in a fair, competitive, transparent process to facilitate an efficient evaluation of the potential proposers.
Mr. Lunt provided a presentation and reviewed the draft Request for Proposal Policy and Process.
Staff recommended adoption of the Request for Proposal Policy and Process for the evaluation of capacity and energy products available to the City of Dover Public Utilities and to designate PACE Global as the Proposal Administrator for this process.
With regards to the creation of a Steering Committee, Mr. Leary suggested that the Chairman of the Utility Committee, Mr. Ruane, serve as a member.
Mr. Ruane suggested that the motion clarify that staff’s recommendation is to designate PACE Global as the Proposal Administrator for Phase I, which is the Request for Qualifications, of this process.
The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for adoption of the Request for Proposal Policy and Process for the evaluation of capacity and energy products available to the City of Dover Public Utilities and to designate PACE Global as the Proposal Administrator for Phase I, which is the Request for Qualifications, of this process.
By consent agenda, Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Frank Tenusak, 880 Schoolhouse Lane, suggested that, due to the complexity of this issue and the interest of the public, the City should place an article in a local newspaper to inform the residents of the action being taken. In response to several questions, Mr. DePrima offered to meet with Mr. Tenusak to further explain the process and details regarding this matter. Mr. Ruane noted that this matter will be forwarded to City Council for consideration during their Regular Meeting of February 11, 2008.
Proposed Ordinance - Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article II - Electric Service, Section 110-32 - Pole Attachment Fee
Members were provided a draft ordinance amending Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article II - Electric Service, Section 110-32 - Pole Attachment Fee, as well as the Pole Attachment Fee Study performed by Thomas Unke of Virchow Krause & Company dated June 30, 2005. Mr. Lunt, Public Utilities Director, advised members that the ordinance was developed by Jim Baller and Sean Stokes of the Baller, Herbst Law Group, P.C., who have vast experience with pole attachments. They have co-authored the APPA Pole Attachment Work Book with Thomas Unke, and Charles Forster and have drafted similar ordinances for other utilities in numerous states.
Mr. Lunt explained that the proposed ordinance will enable the City to charge rental fees to entities which attach to the City’s electric distribution and transmission poles, ducts, or conduits. These fees will compensate the City for the carrying costs associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining the poles, ducts, and conduits. The fees can be considered the cost of “renting” a portion of the pole, ducts, or conduits. Pole attachment fees are meant to recover pole, duct, or conduit related costs incurred by the City. He stated that the actual charge of $8.17 for the fee came from the 2005 Pole Attachment Fee Study and is based on the FCC Based Method of calculating pole attachment fees. It was decided to use this methodology as this is a Federal standard that investor owned utilities are mandated to follow. The implementation of this fee is estimated to generate approximately $81,700 annually (estimated 10,000 poles x $8.17). Mr. Lunt advised members that the Electric Department will be required to pay Verizon for the poles that the Department attaches to within the service area. At this time, it is unknown exactly how many poles are owned by Verizon; therefore, this expense cannot be estimated.
Mr. Lunt indicated that staff reviewed the ordinance with William Pepper, Deputy City Solicitor, and that the draft ordinance and attachments were sent to all known entities attaching to our poles, which included Comcast, Verizon, and Bayhealth Medical Center, so that they could review and respond to it. He advised members that staff has discussed the content of the ordinance with Comcast numerous times and negotiated language changes as appropriate. While they have minor issues with certain clauses, for the most part they have agreed with the intent of the ordinance. Staff has also met with Verizon several times and is in the process of negotiating a Joint Use Agreement with them. The Joint Use Agreement is recognized within the ordinance and is applicable for parties that also own poles within the Dover area. It is anticipated that this Agreement will be forthcoming.
Staff recommended approval of the Pole Attachment Fee Ordinance amending Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article II - Electric Service, Section 110-32 - Pole Attachment Fee.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Lunt stated that the City is recommending use of the FCC Guidelines, which were developed for industrial utilities to follow FERC accounting. He noted that the City does not use FERC accounting methods for expenses towards the utilities, which is not unusual for municipalities, nor is the City mandated to follow the FCC Guideline, explaining that municipal utilities are exempted from that mandatory requirement of industrial utilities. He explained the difficulty with the City utilizing the FCC Guidelines. It was his opinion that the actual charge, in the amount of $8.17, would be reviewed in five (5) years. Mr. DePrima indicated that these fees will be included in the Revenue Manual.
Since the proposed fee came from the 2005 Pole Attachment Fee Study, Mr. Ruane noted that three (3) years has since lapsed and suggested consideration of this in setting the year for its review.
The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for adoption of the Pole Attachment Fee Ordinance amending Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article II - Electric Service, Section 110-32 - Pole Attachment Fee.
By consent agenda, Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
Presentation - Contact Chamber Effectiveness
Members were provided a presentation on Water Quality Improvements - Contact Chamber Effectiveness, which was reviewed by Mrs. Duca, Assistant City Engineer. She reminded members that the 2006 Water Quality Evaluation recommended the installation of contact chambers at deep well sites and that these chambers were identified as a necessary first step in addressing brown water issues. Mrs. Duca advised members that two (2) of the three (3) chambers that have been installed are online. In order to verify the effectiveness of the contact chamber, she stated that data was collected before and after the chamber was brought online. She reported that the sample data that was collected confirms that the expected results were achieved.
Mrs. Duca indicated that it is anticipated that most of the chambers will be installed and online during FY2008.
Members commended Mrs. Duca and other staff members for their commitment and work on this project.
The committee recommended acceptance of the Report on the Water Quality Improvements - Contact Chamber Effectiveness as presented.
Mrs. Duca provided a presentation of the Water Quality Improvements - Contact Chamber Effectiveness to members of City Council (Exhibit #1).
Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried.
Mr. Ruane moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 28, 2008
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on January 28, 2008 with Chairman Slavin presiding.
Results and Recommendations from Request for Proposals - Pay for Performance Consultant
Members were advised that the PFP sub-committee (consisting of Councilmen McGlumphy and Salters, City Manager, Mr. DePrima, and Human Resources Director, Mr. Szyjka) interviewed those consultants who submitted proposals for the Review and Evaluation of the Pay for Performance (PFP) Evaluation System. As a result, it was determined that the Management Advisory Group was the most qualified to complete the outlined evaluation of the PFP System, at a cost of $34,965, and that the final report be submitted by March 31, 2008.
Members were provided with the proposal submitted by the Management Advisory Group. Mr. DePrima reminded members that although the costs for this review and evaluation was not budgeted for, it was supported by City Council during the budget hearings. The funds for the review and evaluation would come from savings gained by reducing the PFP increases recommended by the City Manager. The final adjustments would be completed as part of the Mid-year Review.
Staff recommended approval to hire Management Advisory Group, at a cost of $34,965, to conduct a Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System.
Noting that there is no funding source for this expense and concerns regarding the economy, as well as the hiring of an outside firm, Mr. McGlumphy relayed reluctance in supporting this request at this time. He suggested that this request be tabled until there is a better understanding of funding availability due to revenue projections. He was also recently advised that the State of Delaware has resources for setting of salaries, explaining the understanding that the proposal is inclusive of other evaluations. He requested that members of Council be provided with copies of these reports, as follows: 1) “Delaware 2014 Occupation and Industry Projections”; 2) “Delaware Wages 2006 Report”; and 3) “Delaware Annual Economic Report 2006".
Concurring, Mr. DePrima suggested that this request be considered during the mid-year review, feeling that staff may have the ability to identify a source for funding. He advised members that the only drawback would be that the review and evaluation would not be accomplished in time for this year’s evaluation period.
Mr. Salters noted that there is an expected savings of funds that will be realized as a result of the review and evaluation and suggested that members move forward with the request at this time.
The committee recommended tabling the request to hire Management Advisory Group to conduct a Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System until the Mid-Year Review.
By consent agenda, Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Revenue Forecast Model - FY 2009
Mrs. Tieman, Senior City Administrator, presented and reviewed the Fiscal Year 2009 Revenue Forecasting Model Projections, as well as a comparison of the forecast model projections to the latest projections of Department Heads and the Finance Director (Expert Forecast). She explained that the Fiscal Year 2009 Forecasting Model Projections are performed using regression analysis and trend forecasting. For most projections, regression equations have been estimated using ten years of available data. The number of years is less where data are not available.
Mrs. Tieman advised members that forecasting should be used in conjunction with expert opinions when developing revenue projections for budgets. The forecasting model uses several variables, including Kent County Population, US Housing Starts, US Gross Domestic Product, Kent County Civilian Labor Force, US Unemployment, and Construction Values for Dover. Data for these variables is obtained from the Delaware Population Consortium and the Livingston Survey used by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve. She noted that the forecasting file consists of 25 spreadsheets and that the first spreadsheet includes key variables used to forecast revenues. The second spreadsheet computes the forecasts for construction values from three (3) different equations and requires a manual entry for the actual prediction. Construction is the key variable to many of the forecast projections. The next 22 sheets compute forecast values for 22 revenue items including one (1) for total General Fund revenue. The general revenue forecast is a separate forecast, not the sum of the 20 other forecasts; therefore, the general revenue forecast may be different from the forecast obtained by adding the forecasts of the component revenue sources.
Mrs. Tieman indicated that for eight (8) revenue categories, the previous fiscal year revenue is required (for FY 2009, the latest FY 2008 revenue estimate is used). The eight (8) revenue categories are:
- Business Licenses - Rental Dwelling Permits
- Trash Revenue - Property Taxes
- Water Fees - Sewer Fees
- Fuel/Waste-Water Adjust - General Fund Total Revenue
Mrs. Tieman noted that for several other revenue categories, there was no statistical basis to choose among two (2) or more estimating equations. In these cases, two (2) or more estimates appear on the respective forecast sheet. Over time, one (1) estimate may prove to be superior to the other(s). The items with two (2) or more forecasts are:
- Recreation Revenue - Penalties – Taxes
- Rental Dwelling Permits - Chancery Court Fees
- Trash Revenue - Water Fees
- Trash Fee Rebate - Sewer Fees
- Property Taxes - Fuel/Waste-Water Adjust
There was no further action taken on this matter.
Mr. Slavin advised members that he has scheduled Special Committee Meetings to be held on the first Monday of each month to be dedicated to the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations until its completion. He noted that the next committee meeting will be held on February 4, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. for the discussion of the 1988 Consent Decree with the City Solicitor.
By consent agenda, Mr. Hogan moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - JANUARY 29, 2008
A Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting was held on January 29, 2008 with Chairwoman Russell presiding.
CDBG Program Guidelines and Update
During their meeting of December 11, 2007, members deferred consideration of proposed amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines until the January meeting, with the understanding that members will be presented a decision sheet on each one of the actions that have been taken through January with a recommendation for re-programming, if necessary, within the guidelines. Additionally, members directed that staff reconsider arbitrarily setting a percentage and allow all applicants to be equal regardless of the resulting applicant percentages.
Mrs. Harvey, Community Development Manager, reviewed the 2006/2007 CDBG Expenditure Status Report and the proposed amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Harvey stated that the unencumbered balance for FY2006 Housing Rehabilitation Program, in the amount of $23,906, has been carried forward to FY2007. She confirmed that with the $50,000 allocated for the Housing Rehabilitation Program for FY2007 and the $23,906, there is a total of $73,906. She stated that there are six (6) homes intended for rehabilitation and assured members that the funds would be expended by the end of the program year, which is June 30, 2008. Mrs. Harvey assured members that these funds would be utilized, explaining that the initial inspection confirms extensive work is required for many of these homes.
Mr. Ruane suggested that members be provided the list of homes, with addresses, that are eligible for the Housing Rehabilitation Program and a progress report for this work.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, using Whatcoat Social Service Agency as an example, Mrs. Harvey advised members that the grant was awarded in July 2007. Monitoring letters were sent by the City in October and January. It was Mr. Ruane’s feeling that there may be a need to have additional monitoring letters to assure that work begins in a more timely manner. Mrs. Harvey noted that the Guidelines have been revised to require each applicant to expend 25% of the grant each quarter of the year (page 4, first paragraph). If this requirement is not met, she stated that the matter would be presented to the committee for their review and recommended action. Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, explained that each applicant may have specific circumstances for the delay. Mr. Lewis suggested that these details be included in the monthly report.
Although he felt that the City should increase the monitoring of each project, Mr. McGlumphy disagreed with the requirement for expending 25% of the grant each quarter.
Mrs. Townshend explained that HUD requires the City to have expended, by 60 days prior to the end of the program year, no more than 1½ times the City’s allocation remaining in the credit line, otherwise, the City may not be granted the full allocation the next year. She also advised members that if an organization is a chronic violator of the time limit standard, HUD will eliminate the City’s eligibility for the future. She stated that the money received by the City for the community is necessary to meet an important need, specifically for low and moderate income persons, and explained that the City does not want to take the risk of losing it in the future because the City is being too nice to applicants.
Mr. Ruane reminded members of their struggles in determining the allocation of the grant money when there are multiple applicants. He stated the unfairness to those that were not awarded the money when the awarded recipient does not utilize the funds awarded. He advocated for the monitoring to be serious so that if the grant money has not been expended, there be consequences, which would include having the funds withdrawn.
Responding to Mr. Lewis, Mrs. Townshend stated that the House of Pride has been given 30 days, from January 23, 2008, to have a structural engineer inspect the property at 110 S. New Street and submit a report. Although the grant included heaters for specific properties, the House of Pride can select other properties for installation of the heaters.
After much discussion, members suggested that staff meet with Ms. Harris to provide assistance and an understanding of all options available for the House of Pride. Mrs. Russell noted that Ms. Harris also needs to put forth an effort to help the City assist her in this matter.
Based on Mrs. Russell’s questions, Mr. Ruane suggested that members be provided a copy of the guidelines and blank contract which specifies requirements for recipients of these grants.
In reviewing Section D of the proposed amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines, Mrs. Harvey provided members with “Attachment A” to the Guidelines, which is the table of income limits. She noted that for Section E of the proposed Program Guidelines, she included only two (2) of the categories for Documentation of National Objectives since its so broad; however, she provided members with “Attachment B” to the Guidelines, which is a list of all categories. Responding to Mrs. Russell, Mrs. Harvey explained that she chose to list “Housing Rehabilitation Activities” and “Transitional Housing Operating/Cost Rehabilitation” since they are the most popular categories.
Mr. Ruane explained his understanding that the Guidelines are a description of the CDBG Program. He expressed concern that if the Guidelines are to provide assistance to applicants, it should be inclusive of all categories. He also felt that specific restrictions and guidelines should not be included. Responding, Mrs. Townshend suggested that staff revise Section D in its entirety to address the concerns relayed by members.
In response to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Ruane requested that members be provided a copy of the Application Schedule for the CDBG Program and that, in the future, members be kept informed of any notices regarding the CDBG Program.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy regarding the notices being placed in the “public notice” section of the newspaper, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff can issue a press release in addition to the public notice ad in an attempt to provide better notice to the public regarding this issue.
With reference to the last paragraph of the Program Guidelines regarding waivers, Mr. Ruane relayed concern with giving the Director of Planning and Inspections authority to waive any requirement of the policy not required by Federal/State Law or Regulation. He suggested that such waivers be required to be reviewed by the committee for recommendation to City Council. Mrs. Townshend assured members that the paragraph would be modified to provide clarification regarding this authority.
In reviewing the 2008 CDBG Grant Application Review Sheet (Attachment C of the Guidelines), Mr. Ruane felt that there should be definitions which would help guide members in making a determination. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that there are no definitions for Performance Measurements and that members must make a “judgement call” for the scoring.
Noting that HUD provides measures for conducting Performance Measurements, Mr. Ruane suggested that the guidelines include the requirement for applicants to “track and measure” in accordance with the HUD Performance Standards and that the Review Sheet include the question “does the application reflect the use of the HUD Performance Standards”.
Mrs. Russell reiterated that members will not accept any hand-written applications, as was specified during last year’s review.
By consent agenda, Mr. Hogan moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDED BY MAYOR CAREY - ETHICS COMMISSION - DENNIS K. JONES - FIVE (5) YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JULY 31, 2012
Mayor Carey recommended the reappointment of Mr. Dennis K. Jones to serve on the Ethics Commission for a five (5) year term to expire July 31, 2012.
By consent agenda, Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the appointment as recommended by Mayor Carey, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
TRANSFER TAX DETERMINATION
During their Regular Meeting of January 28, 2008, members considered an issue involving the Blue Hen Corporate Center Transfer Tax that was initially discussed during an executive session held on January 7, 2008.
Mr. Hogan moved to defer this item to be considered at the end of this meeting to allow members to recess into executive session prior to taking action on this matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary.
Mr. McGlumphy relayed reluctance in discussing these types of issues in executive session and concern that Council has been advised not to discuss certain matters in open session, particularly this issue. With regards to any changes to the agenda, he questioned if the City would be in violation of FOIA. He stated his intention to request the City Clerk to submit this question to the Attorney General to determine if FOIA has been violated. Mr. McGlumphy felt that it is a grave disservice to the citizens of Dover if members of Council do not discuss this matter in open session since it does affect them. He also stated his intention to pursue this issue with the City’s Ethics Commission.
Mr. Hogan explained his understanding was that there are some issues that members of Council, according to State law, cannot discuss in open session. Therefore, it was his opinion that Council is bound by State law since private information is involved.
City Solicitor Rodriguez advised members that this particular issue involves potential litigation. He reminded members that during the executive session, strategy was discussed which should absolutely remain confidential. In response to Mr. McGlumphy’s suggestion that this matter involves the public, Mr. Rodriguez stated that this matter involves two (2) private parties.
Mr. Hogan withdrew his motion; however, the seconder did not withdraw his motion.
On a call for the question, the motion to defer this item for its consideration at the end of this meeting to allow the opportunity for members to recess into executive session prior to taking action on this matter was carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. McGlumphy).
TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING RECYCLING CONTRACT
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reminded members that in October 2005, the City of Dover began offering voluntary curbside recycling to its citizens through the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA). The City had over 575 Dover residents who enrolled in the program. In February, the City began paying the DSWA $2 per month per customer to offer the service to our residents at no cost. Mr. DePrima advised members that the City currently has over 2,000 enrolled. Because this is a popular program, as well as its positive impact on the environment and the City’s operations, staff and the DSWA are interested in extending the program an additional two (2) years. After that two (2) year period, the DSWA has indicated that it will be necessary to increase the fees to meet the costs; however, he assured members that this extension does not commit Dover beyond the two (2) year period.
Mr. DePrima advised members that the program is principally funded from savings which result in diverting recyclables from the landfill. The revised calculation is based on October 2006 City of Dover results, as follows:
Average pounds of recycling from Dover customers annually = 676 (13 lbs./week x 52 weeks)
Estimated number of customers participating in the supported program = 2,000 (approx. three times the current enrollment) x 676 lbs = 1,352,000 lbs. per year or 676 tons per year
676 tons per year x $51.50 per ton ($61.50 per ton minus the DSWA rebate of $10 per ton) = $34,814 estimated total annual savings in landfill fees.
In addition to these savings, Mr. DePrima stated that there are reduced expenses associated with the reduction of gasoline and maintenance expense, as well as labor cost by reducing the number of trips to the landfill.
Staff recommended that the City Manager be authorized to sign an extension of the contract for a two (2) year period with the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) to provide the City of Dover supported voluntary curbside recycling at a cost of $24 per year per participating resident for every other week pickup.
Mr. Slavin moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST/FIRST READING - 1889 KENTON ROAD, OWNED BY BRIAN L. AND WILLIAM A. BRIGHT
A request was received for annexation and rezoning of property located at 1889 Kenton Road, containing .50+/- acres, owned by Brian L. and William A. Bright. The property is currently zoned AR - Agricultural Residential (Kent County) and the requested zoning is R10 - One Family Residence (City of Dover). Staff recommended that the request be referred to the Utility Committee on February 25, 2008, the Planning Commission on March 17, 2008, and that a public hearing be set for April 28, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of staff's recommendation and to acknowledge the First Reading of the rezoning ordinance by title only. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1889 KENTON ROAD.
FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE - LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2003, AS AMENDED IN MAY 2005 AND SEPTEMBER 2006
Council President Williams reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Since the ordinance is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Update 2003, as Amended in May 2005 and September 2006, a public hearing is required. Staff recommended referral of the amendment to the Planning Commission on March 17, 2008, and that a public hearing take place during the Council Meeting of March 24, 2008, at 7:30 p.m., at which time, final action by Council will take place.
Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, advised members that an application has been received to rezone properties located at 988-990 Forest Street to a zoning classification of C-2A (Limited Central Commercial), which has been identified as being inconsistent with Map11-1. She stated that the current Comprehensive Plan designation of a portion of this property is Office and Office Parks. The appropriate land use type for the proposed zoning would be Commercial; therefore, Mrs. Townshend stated that the proposed amendment is presented to change the designation to Commercial to allow for the rezoning of the properties to proceed.
Mr. Slavin moved for approval of staff's recommendation for referral of the proposed amendment and to acknowledge the First Reading by title only. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGiffin.
Mr. Hogan reiterated his concerns with the consideration of splitting the zoning classification for one (1) parcel and stated that he would not support its consideration until such time that the lot lines are changed to create a single zoning classification for the parcel.
The motion to approve staff’s recommendation for referral of the proposed amendment and to acknowledge the First Reading by title only was carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes and three (3) no (Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane).
In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF DOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, 2003, AS AMENDED IN MAY 2005 AND SEPTEMBER 2006, BY AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT MAP 11-1 BY CHANGING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION FROM OFFICE AND OFFICE PARK TO COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 998-990 FOREST STREET.
FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Council President Williams reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinance are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinances will take place during the Council Meeting of February 25, 2008.
In accordance with Section 1-9 of the Dover Code, Council acknowledged the First Reading of the Ordinance Amendment as read by the City Clerk, by title only, as follows:
Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article II - Electric Service, Section 110-32 - Pole Attachment Fee
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 14, 2008. It was noted that Council deferred the Final Reading during their Regular Meeting of January 28, 2008.
Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Codes, Section 46-128 - Sprinkler Requirements
Mr. McGiffin moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Mr. Hogan, Chairman of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, advised members that the proposed ordinance was introduced by the Fire Marshall and considered by the committee during a Special Meeting on December 13, 2007. The proposed ordinance would require sprinkler systems to be installed in townhouses. Noting that several members of Council are not present during the committee meetings and, therefore, have not heard the discussion regarding his issue, he suggested that discussion be permitted at this time.
Mr. Hogan moved to suspend the rules to allow two (2) speakers, one (1) in favor and one (1) in opposition of the proposed amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Mr. Todd Stonesifer, representing the Kent County Association of REALTORS, noted that a member of the Home Builders Association of Delaware was present who also wished to address members in opposition to the proposed amendment. Responding, Mr. Hogan explained that the suspension of the rules was specific regarding the number of speakers. As a realtor, Mr. Stonesifer stated that it is his goal to help people attain home ownership. Costs for the purchase of a home continue to rise and, currently, a townhouse is the most affordable home in the City. As we increase the cost, there will be a loss in their affordability and the opportunity for many individuals to purchase a home and realize the American dream. Mr. Stonesifer noted that the costs associated with the installation of sprinkler systems in a townhouse range from $2.00 and $3.75 per square foot. Using an average of $2.95 per square foot, with a 6% commission, a transfer tax of 1.5% to the City, a transfer tax of 1.5% to the State, and miscellaneous costs such as attorney’s fees, has increased the average cost to the consumer in excess of $3.10 per square foot. For a 1,200 sq. ft. townhouse, he stated that this would cost an additional $3,695. According to data collected, he advised members that for every $1,000 in increased cost of a home, there are 700 families alienated from the ability to purchase a home. Therefore, the increase resulting in the proposed ordinance would alienate 2,586 families who would not be able to afford to purchase the most affordable type of housing. Mr. Stonesifer also advised members that building codes and materials have improved over the years and that the need for such sprinkler systems would be with the older townhouses if at all, noting that there has not been proof of the need for the fire sprinkler requirements as they relate to fire injuries or damage in the City of Dover. Mr. Stonesifer assured members that he is not arguing against safety, but rather arguing for affordability. He urged members to consider these concerns as they take action on this matter.
Mr. Truax, Fire Marshal, suggested that there is no true evidence to prove that these co