REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on July 10, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Russell, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Salters. Mr. Ruane was absent.
Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. Mitchell, Deputy Fire Chief Christiansen, Mr. Koenig, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Speed.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 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.
Mrs. Evelyn Greenwood, 547 Pennsylvania Avenue, stated that they were working very hard on the August 1, 2006 Special Election so that the Third District would be well represented. She also thanked the staff in the City Clerk’s Office for all the assistance they have provided with regard to her service on the 2005 Charter Review Committee.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Mr. McGlumphy requested that item #6B - Division Street Water Main Construction Cost Update, and #7A - Clarification of Policy for Training and Conference Reimbursement, be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent).
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2006
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 26, 2006 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Hogan and bore the written approval of Mayor Speed (with the exception of the following motion: 1) adoption of the following 2006/2007 City of Dover Budget Ordinances - General Fund - Cash Receipts and Budget; Water/Wastewater Fund - Revenue and Budget; and Electric Revenue Fund - Revenue and Budget).
MAYOR STEPHEN R. SPEED VETOES - MOTIONS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 26, 2006 - ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007 GENERAL FUND - CASH RECEIPTS AND BUDGET ORDINANCE; ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007 WATER/WASTEWATER FUND - REVENUE AND BUDGET ORDINANCE; AND ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007 ELECTRIC REVENUE FUND - REVENUE AND BUDGET ORDINANCE
During their Regular Meeting of June 26, 2006, by a vote of seven (7) yes, one (1) no (Mr. McGlumphy), Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 General Fund - Cash Receipts and Budget Ordinance; Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Water/Wastewater Fund - Revenue and Budget Ordinance; and Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Electric Revenue Fund - Revenue and Budget Ordinance.
On June 30, 2006, the City Clerk received a letter from Mayor Stephen R. Speed disapproving the motions, which stated:
“RE:Motion to Approve the City of Dover Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget Ordinances, Agenda Items 15.B.b-1. General Fund - Cash Receipts and Budget, 15.B.b-7. Water/Wastewater Fund - Revenue and Budget, and 15.B.b-11. Electric Revenue Fund - Revenue and Budget
Pursuant to the City of Dover Charter Section 10, I am hereby notifying the City Clerk in writing that I disapprove of the motions passed by Dover City Council at the meeting held on June 26, 2006, to adopt the above-referenced ordinances.
I have decided to take this action because adoption of the referenced motions authorizes, for the purpose of funding a retiree cost of living adjustment, diverting funds identified to offset previously unfunded future post-retirement benefits for City of Dover employees and retirees. In 2003, the City's pension actuary provided data to the City Council which estimated that when new Government and Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules related to retiree benefits become operative in July of 2007, the City of Dover will be faced with a federally mandated unfunded civilian pension liability of approximately $17 million.
This budget represents the third consecutive time that Council has declined the opportunity to address this growing liability. As a result of Council's willful disregard, the liability has ballooned to $23.6 million. Had Council taken appropriate action over the last three fiscal years, including the fiscal year 2006-2007 budget, the unfunded liability would be less than $20 million--a $4.25 million savings--which would have cost only $1.1 million.
I reiterate the statement I made in 2004 that, in my opinion, diverting these funds to another purpose is fiscally irresponsible because it diverts resources designated to cover an obligated purpose in order to cover a desired purpose. It is likely to place an additional burden on future taxpayers and has the potential to endanger the medical pension benefits for the City's employees and retirees.
It is my hope that Council will take this opportunity to reconsider their decision and either reverse the decision entirely, or find the money elsewhere in the budget.
With this in mind, I have exercised my power of veto and hereby direct that you notify members of Council of this action for their consideration during the Regular Council Meeting of July 10, 2006.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Speed
Mayor”
[It is noted that approval of the motion requires a 2/3 majority vote (six affirmative votes) since the original motion was vetoed by Mayor Speed.]
Mr. McGlumphy moved to accept Mayor Speeds veto, seconded by Mr. Carey and failed by a roll call vote of three (3) yes, four (4) no (Mr. Slavin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mrs. Williams) (Mr. Ruane absent).
Mr. Salters moved to reaffirm previous Council action to adopt the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 General Fund - Cash Receipts and Budget ordinance, seconded by Mr. Hogan.
Mr. Hogan stated that this year, for the first time, funds were placed in the budget that exceeded the normal contribution toward the unfunded pension liability. He noted that the actuary advised them that they could fully fund a 1% COLA for retirees without increasing the unfunded liability.
Mr. Hogan stated that he could not justify giving the Mayor a 12.5% pay raise when no other employee was receiving that percentage increase. He also stated that he did not agree with providing a 401K retirement plan for the Mayor.
Mr. McGlumphy stated that it was very important to understand that the Mayor felt the Council was being fiscally irresponsible by diverting resources designated to cover an obligated purpose in order to cover a desired purpose. He noted that, in addition to a $23.6M unfunded pension liability, there are also unfunded medical liabilities and future projects, including an $18M library, $13M renovations to City Hall, and no operational expenses set aside for the John Pitts Recreation Center.
Mr. Salters stated that he has supported the Mayor’s aspirations to reduce the unfunded liability and his request for a pay raise. He felt that Council was capable of addressing the unfunded liability and that the Mayor has made his point strongly enough to influence other members.
Mrs. Russell stated that she firmly believes that anyone that does a job well should be paid according to what he does. She thought that the issue of a salary increase for the Mayor should have been included in the Full Time Mayor question when it was on the ballot. Mrs. Russell stated that she understood the Mayor’s frustration with being unable to speak during the Council meetings.
Mr. Carey stated that the retirees should get the COLA increase; however, he thought they should find the funds somewhere other than the unfunded liability fund. He thought the Mayor should be recognized whenever he raises his hand and should participate in deliberation since he is an elected official.
The motion to to reaffirm previous Council action to adopt the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 General Fund - Cash Receipts and Budget ordinance failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes, three (3) no (Mr. Carey, Mrs. Russell, and Mr. McGlumphy), and one (1) absent (Mr. Ruane). [Approval of the motion requires a 2/3 majority vote (six affirmative votes) since the original motion was vetoed by Mayor Speed.]
Mr. Salters moved to reaffirm previous Council action to adopt the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Water/Wastewater Fund - Revenue and Budget Ordinance, seconded by Mr. Hogan and failed by a roll call vote of five (5) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Carey and Mr. McGlumphy), and one (1) absent (Mr. Ruane). [Approval of the motion requires a 2/3 majority vote (six affirmative votes) since the original motion was vetoed by Mayor Speed.]
Mr. Salters moved to reaffirm previous Council action to adopt the Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Electric Revenue Fund - Revenue and Budget Ordinance, seconded by Mr. Hogan and failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes, three (3) no (Mrs. Carey, Mrs. Russell, and Mr. McGlumphy), and one (1) absent (Mr. Ruane). [Approval of the motion requires a 2/3 majority vote (six affirmative votes) since the original motion was vetoed by Mayor Speed.]
PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 139-143 S. GOVERNORS AVENUE, OWNED BY UNITED FELLOWSHIP, LLC
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 139-143 S. Governors Avenue, owned by United Fellowship, LLC. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, stated that the property was declared dangerous on May 18, 2006 and that it has been abandoned for more than three (3) months. Deterioration of the building is being accelerated by weather and lack of maintenance. The property consists of a two story wood frame and block structure. Mrs. Townshend showed slides depicting the condition of the structure.
Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by August 10, 2006, 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 the ten (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.
Mrs. Townshend stated that the estimated demolition cost is $15,000 to $20,000.
Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Townshend stated that the Downtown Dover Development Corporation is interested in purchasing this property and, as the owner, they would be responsible for the repair or demolition of the building.
Council President Williams declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Gary Patterson, President of the Downtown Dover Development Corporation, stated that they authorized an appraisal of the building in May 2006, signed a contract on or about June 15, 2006, and will hold settlement on the building on July 17, 2006. He noted that they did not oppose the demolition and, as the owners, they do intend to proceed with demolition. Mr. Patterson advised members that they, along with the Dover Parking Authority, will provide short-term parking on the site once the building is removed.
Pastor Vaughn of the United Fellowship Church advised members that they pursued several different avenues to repair the building; however, they were unable to obtain the financing. He stated that they had no objections to the demolition.
Ms. Jeanette Medina, Pastor of the New Pact Christian Center, advised members that the New Pact Christian Center entered into a verbal agreement with Pastor Vaughn to purchase the building. She provided members with their proposal for renovation of the property (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), which indicated an estimate of $54,500 to renovate the building. Ms. Medina noted that they would be litigating their verbal contract on the building. Pastor Vaughn stated that there were deadlines that had to met in order to avoid fines and the New Pact Christian Center did not meet them; therefore, for the sake of the United Fellowship Church, they entered into the agreement with the Downtown Development Corporation for the sale of the building.
Council President Williams declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Hogan moved that the structure located at 139-143 S. Governors Avenue be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Russell and carried by a roll call vote of four (4) yes, three (3) abstentions (Mr. Carey, Mr. Slavin, and Mr. Salters due to membership on the Downtown Dover Development Corporation) and one absent (Mr. Ruane).
PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 299 COLLEGE ROAD, OWNED BY JAMES MORGAN
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 299 College Road, owned by James Morgan. Mrs. Townshend, stated that the property was declared dangerous on February 3, 2003, and that it has been abandoned for more than three (3) months. Deterioration of the building is being accelerated by weather and lack of maintenance. The property consists of a one story wood frame structure and a block single car detached garage. Mrs. Townshend showed slides depicting the condition of the structure.
Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by August 10, 2006, 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 the ten (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.
Mrs. Townshend provided an estimated demolition cost of $8,000 to $10,000.
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.
Mrs. Russell moved that the structure located at 299 College Road be declared a dangerous building and subject to demolition, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - JUNE 26, 2006
The Utility Committee met on June 26, 2006 with Chairman Carey presiding.
Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Bay Tree Phase III
The developer of Baytree (Phase III), Frank Robino Companies, LLC, has requested that all public infrastructure improvements related to this phase of the subdivision be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Frank Robino Companies, LLC has constructed all of the improvements in accordance with City standards and specifications. After construction was completed, City staff inspected the public improvements and provided the developer with a list of repairs to be made to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction. As of this date, all work has been completed by the developer. A one (1) year Maintenance Agreement, Maintenance Bond, and a Release of Liabilities have been submitted by the developer. In addition, as-built drawings have been submitted to the Department of Public Services for its permanent records.
Staff recommended acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure in Phase III of the Baytree subdivision, with dedication to include all of the referenced public improvements, as follows:
Sewer Utility Infrastructure (construction value = $ 45,334.00):
8" PVC Sanitary Sewer Main - 2,241 l.f.
4” PVC Sanitary Sewer Laterals - 1,860 l.f. (60 laterals)
4' Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manholes - 13 ea. (196 v.f.)
Water Utility Infrastructure (construction value = $79,510.00):
4" Ductile Iron Water Main - 142 l.f.
8” Ductile Iron Water Main - 2,915 l.f.
6” Ductile Iron Water Main - 140 l.f.
1” Type “K” Copper Water Service Line - 1,885 l.f. (60 services)
4” Gate Valves - 11 ea.
8” Gate Valves - 7 ea
6” Hydrant Valves - 4 ea.
Fire Hydrants - 4 ea.
Storm Water Infrastructure (construction value = $176,763.00)
Catch Basins - 19 ea.
4’ Storm Water Manholes - 1 ea.
15” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 4,053 l.f.
18” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 308 l.f.
21” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 495 l.f.
30” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe - 87 l.f.
Street Infrastructure: (0.56 miles) (construction value = $310,745.00)
Westwind Drive Station 2+50 to Station 21+00 1,850 l.f.
Anchor Lane Station 0+00 to Station 9+55 955 l.f.
Mariner Court Station 0+00 to Station 1+35 135 l.f.
2,940 l.f.
Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Services Director, advised members that 1.7 acres of public open space that is to be deeded and dedicated to the City of Dover was omitted from the information provided to members and should be included in the approval.
The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for the acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure in Phase III of the Baytree subdivision, including all of the referenced public improvements and 1.7+/- acres of public open space, as noted in the original plat.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent).
Division Street Water Main Construction Cost Update
During their Special Meeting of April 10, 2006 members were advised that, due to the construction obstacles and the additional pipe for Bayard Avenue, this project is $483,350.77 over budget. Some of the cost overage has been addressed by transferring monies from other project accounts, resulting in the need for an additional $260,000. Staff recommended approval of a transfer of up to $260,000 from the Water/Wastewater Capital Assets (Brown Water) Reserve to the Division Street Water Main and Bayard Avenue Water Main Projects. During their Annual Meeting on May 8, 2006, Council approved the Committee’s recommendation to transfer funds from the Water/Wastewater Capital Assets.
Mr. DePrima advised members that the final bills for April and May from George and Lynch were received and paid in accordance with the recent City Council action. He noted that the cost was underestimated by $61,017.59, necessitating an additional transfer from the Water/Wastewater Capital Asset Reserve Fund to the Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund. After further discussion with the Finance Director, it was decided to simply amend the Final Budget to be presented at the June 26, 2006, City Council meeting to reflect the additional transfer. The additional transfer will increase the Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund from $260,000 to approximately $321,000.
Mr. Koenig advised members that the additional expenses included night work, road restoration, and paving. Mrs. Sharon Duca, Assistant City Engineer, noted that notification letters would be sent to residents to keep them informed of the construction progress.
The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation to amend the Final Budget to be presented at the June 26, 2006, Council meeting to reflect the additional transfer of $61,017.59 from the Water/Wastewater Capital Asset Reserve Fund to the Water/Waste- water Improvement and Extension Fund; thereby increasing the Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund from $260,000 to approximately $321,000.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Koenig stated that the final Division Street water main construction cost was approximately $1.32M.
Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Discussion - Request for State to consider reduction of State Utility Tax to Commercial and Industrial Customers.
At the request of Mr. Carey, Mrs. Terry Tieman, Senior City Administrator, provided a presentation on the estimated additional utility tax local businesses may experience due to the rise in electric rates. The utility tax is state-wide and mandated by the General Assembly.
The committee recommended that Council send a letter to Governor Minner and the local legislators requesting that consideration be given during the State’s budget review process for next year to adjusting the State Utility Tax rate so that there is a net increase of zero to the tax revenue from the rate increases throughout the State (Exhibit #1).
The committee recommended that the City Manager and the Public Utilities Director explore appropriate avenues of communicating with other municipalities to form a united effort with regards to cutting the utility tax rate.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent).
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent).
LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - JUNE 26, 2006
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on June 26, 2006 with Chairman Salters presiding.
Clarification of Policy for Training and Conference Reimbursement
During their Regular Meeting of April 24, 2006, members of Council referred “Clarification of Policy for Training and Conference Reimbursement - Explanation of Request for Reimbursement for Attending Organizational Leadership and Behavior Course” to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for their review and recommendation.
Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director, advised members that reimbursement procedures regarding training and conference expenses are covered in the Travel Policy. The Policy covers various aspects of eligible items such as mode of transportation, lodging, meals, registration fees, and seminar fees. She noted that the policy does not have a provision for reimbursement of college courses, which is addressed in the Education Assistance Policy as outlined in the City’s Personnel Handbook.
Staff recommended the following policy with regard to the Mayor and members of City Council:
All accredited courses will be considered Educational Assistance and will be reimbursed in accordance with the Personnel Handbook; therefore, the Mayor and members of City Council would not be eligible under these provisions.
All requests for non-accredited courses will be reviewed by the Legislative, Finance, & Administration Committee for approval prior to registration.
Mr. Salters requested that the policy be amended to state that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee would review the request in order to make a recommendation to Council.
Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Mitchell stated that non-accredited courses could not be applied toward a degree.
Mrs. Williams felt that it seemed contrary to education to allow reimbursement for a non-accredited course and to rule out reimbursement for a job-related course because it is accredited. Mr. Hogan felt that courses offered by organizations such as the National League of Cities and the Institute of Public Administration, which are designed for the education and enlightenment of Mayors and Councils, should be reimbursable. He felt that other accredited or non-accredited courses which are justifiably related to the Mayor or Council positions should be reviewed.
Mr. Carey indicated that he felt the monthly courses offered by the University of Delaware that earn partial credits were acceptable for members of Council . He also stated that members of Council should not be reimbursed for attending courses that earn full credits and are taken during a full college semester.
The committee tabled the matter to allow staff time to clarify the policy.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin stated that the policy was tabled during the meeting of June 26, 2006 to allow staff time to further clarify the policy. He noted that the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee considered further amendments during their meeting held early in the evening and their recommendation would be brought forward at the next Council Meeting.
Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Discussion - Extended Services Provided to Active Duty Military
Based on constituent concerns regarding enforcement issues with active duty military members who may have been deployed with very short notice, Mr. Slavin suggested a review of all services or areas of enforcement that may potentially effect residents who are on active duty status.
Mrs. Russell noted that senior citizens and other residents may be in situations which may require time extensions for compliance with enforcement issues.
Members requested the City Manager to review the matter and provide a recommendation within 60 (sixty) days.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent).
Proposal - Services to Seniors Blue Ribbon Committee
Due to the increasing number of 55+ communities, Councilman Slavin and Councilwoman Russell suggested that it would be beneficial to both the City and its senior citizens to establish a committee to study the current level of city-provided services to senior citizens and provide recommendations for improvements.
Members reviewed a proposed resolution to establish the Services to Seniors Blue Ribbon Committee which would include nine (9) members, one selected by each member of Council, and would be co-chaired by Councilwoman Russell and Councilman Slavin.
Mr. Salters suggested that the committee co-chairs be appointed by the Council President. Mr. Carey expressed concern with the sunset provision and suggested annual reappointments. He also suggested that there be a provision that the co-chairs be from different districts.
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, suggested that the committee should first establish that there is a need for such a committee, what its staffing needs will be, and the frequency of its meetings.
Mr. Hogan moved to amend the resolution to include the following: the Chair or Co-Chairs will be appointed by the Council President; the committee should provide a report to Council no later than one year from the beginning of the committee; and provide a report to Council on the need and feasability of having a permanent senior citizen committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
The committee recommended adoption of the Resolution, as amended.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hogan and, by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent), Council adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, in the interest of providing the best possible services to our senior citizens, it is the opinion of the Mayor and Council that a study of the current level of city-provided services to senior citizens should be undertaken; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that recommendations for improvements to city-provided services must be objective and thoroughly considered, it is the desire of the Mayor and Council that a Services to Seniors Blue Ribbon Committee be appointed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER HEREBY ESTABLISH A SERVICES TO SENIORS COMMITTEE. THIS COMMITTEE SHALL:
1. Be an ad-hoc committee with the initial scope of reviewing the services offered in the following areas:
• Public Safety: Fire, Police, EMS
• Library
• Recreation
• Public Utilities and Public Works
• Web site and access to information
2. Consist of the following members:
• Chair or Co-Chairs to be appointed by the Council President
• Nine (9) members - One selected by each Council Member
3. Have the City Manager serve as an ex-officio member, who shall provide staff support.
4. Be advisory in nature and shall bring recommendations to the Mayor and Council for action.
5. Complete its work as soon as possible and should provide a report to Council no later than one (1) year from the beginning of the committee.
6. Provide a report to Council on the need and feasability of having a permanent senior citizen committee.
ADOPTED: JULY 10, 2006
Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 82 - Planning, Section 82-2. City Planner
In an effort to better organize the city structure and provide management oversight of the Planning and Inspections Department, several Council members expressed a desire to have the Department report to the City Manager. The City Manager had been providing informal oversight during the administration of the former City Planner and during the period when the position was vacant. During their Regular Meeting of January 9, 2006, Council adopted an ordinance codifying this arrangement on a six-month trial basis.
Mr. DePrima noted that during the six-month trial period, City Council authorized the creation of the Public Services Manager and the creation of a Public Services Group which was to include the Planning and Inspections Department functions, as well as some of the Public Works Department functions. Functions assigned to the City Planner include planning, community development, and property maintenance inspections. The six month trial period is now concluding, and City Council should consider making this a permanent change. Under a permanent arrangement, the City Planner would continue to be appointed by and be responsible to City Council; however, day-to-day management and oversight would be provided by the City Manager on behalf of City Council. This would insure that all City policies are being met; that the City Planner is being provided with necessary resources to function properly, and that all standards set by City Council are being followed.
Staff recommended that the City Clerk be directed to prepare an ordinance deleting the existing Chapter 82, Planning, Section 82-2, City Planner, and replacing it with the following:
Sec. 82-2. City Planner.
There is hereby established the office of City Planner who shall be selected by the City Council at its annual meeting and employed at the pleasure of Mayor and Council. The City Planner shall be directly responsible to the Mayor and Council. The City Planner shall report to the City Manager and function under the administration of the City Manager.
The committee recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance, as amended by changing the last sentence of the proposed ordinance to read “The City Planner shall be directly responsible to the Mayor and Council and shall function under the administration of the City Manager”.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent) (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
Proposed Amendment to Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article I - In General (Creation of New Section - Administrative Reporting)
In an effort to better organize the City structure and provide management oversight to the administration of the Assessor’s Office, several City Council members have expressed a desire to have the Assessor’s Office report to the City Manager and be included in the overall umbrella of the City Manager’s administration. The Assessor would continue to be appointed by and be responsible to City Council; however, day-to-day management and oversight would be provided by the City Manager on behalf of City Council. This would insure that all City policies are being met; that the office is being provided with necessary resources to function properly, and that all standards for the office set by City Council are being followed. Consideration will also be given to integrating the Assessor’s Office with the newly created Public Services Group, which may yield additional benefits by cross-training inspectors on gathering assessment data and improving communication on new construction activity.
Mr. DePrima noted that the Assessor’s Office has been operating, on an interim basis, under the City Manager’s oversight for over one (1) year.
Staff recommended that the City Clerk be directed to prepare an ordinance amendment to Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article I, In General, adding a new Section 102-3 - Administrative reporting, as follows:
Section 102-3. Administrative reporting.
The City Assessor shall be selected in accordance with the City Charter, and shall be directly responsible to the Mayor and Council. The City Assessor’s office shall report to the City Manager and function under the administration of the City Manager.
The committee recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance, as amended by changing the last sentence to read “The City Assessor shall function under the administration of the City Manager”.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent) (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
REAPPOINTMENTS - RECOMMENDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILLIAMS - DOVER HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION - THREE (3) YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 2009
Council President Williams requested the following reappointments to the Dover Human Relations Commission for three (3) year terms to expire February 2009:
Mittie Kelley
Ellen O. Wasfi
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the reappointments to the Dover Human Relations Commission, as recommended by Council President Williams, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent).
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 July 24, 2006.
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 82 - Planning, Section 82-2 - City Planner
Chapter 102 - Taxation, Article I - In General, 102-3 Administrative Reporting
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of June 26, 2006.
Proposed Ordinance - Chapter 102 – Taxation, Article IV – Abatement of Real Estate Taxes - Affordable Housing Complexes
Mr. Salters moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Mr. Salters moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Ruane absent):
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
That Chapter 102 – Taxation, Article IV – Abatement of Real Estate Taxes, be amended by adding a new Section 102-116 – Affordable Apartment Housing Complexes, as follows:
Section 102-116. Affordable Apartment Housing Complexes
(a) A multi-family apartment complex which meets all of the following criteria shall be entitled to a five-year phase-in of real property taxes:
(1) It must consist of no less than thirty(30)units