REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on October 8, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Council members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Speed was absent.
Council staff members present were Chief Horvath, Mr. Cooper, Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Petit de Mange, Mrs. Green, and Mr. Rodriguez.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President McGlumphy declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
Mr. Dillard Christmas - 18 Oak Drive, Smyrna,
Mr. Dillard Christmas, Exalted Ruler of the Pride of Dover Elks, referred to comments made during the Open Forum on September 24, 2001 regarding activities on North Kirkwood Street. He noted that a reference was made indicating that the Elks Club had some type of association with these activities and assured members that this is not the case.
After much discussion, Council President McGlumphy requested that the Chief of Police, with the assistance of Councilmen Salters and Pitts, meet with the residents, property owners, and representatives of the Elks Club to develop a resolution to the problems being experienced on North Kirkwood Street.
Mr. Dana Shelton - 103 Red Oak Drive, Dover
Mr. Dana Shelton of 103 Red Oak Drive stated that he recently learned that a group home for the mentally ill was being built near his home in the Hidden Oaks neighborhood. He questioned the procedure followed by the City for notifying residents in the surrounding area when such a proposal is being considered.
Responding, Mr. DePrima explained that in accordance with the City and State Codes, some group homes are categorically excluded from any zoning regulations. He stated that when the City is contacted for such a group home, they must be treated as single family homes as long as there are five (5) or fewer unrelated individuals living in the home together. To handle such matters any differently could subject the City to potential liability in a discrimination suit.
Mr. Petit de Mange stated that under the American with Disabilities Act, the City would not be permitted to discriminate against the use of the home as a single family use. He indicated that the owner/operator of the group home is the Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Truitt requested the addition of item #9 - Executive Session for Legal Matters. Mr. Truitt moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 24, 2001 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Pitts and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PROCLAMATION - HALLOWEEN OBSERVANCE
The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record:
WHEREAS, the children of the City of Dover enjoy the fun and festivities associated with the observance of the Halloween Trick-or-Treat custom of traveling with friends and family going from door to door in their neighborhood, displaying their costumes, and gathering treats; and
WHEREAS, parents are prompted to join in the festivities by accompanying their children throughout their journey in celebrating Halloween Trick-or-Treat; and
WHEREAS, residents are requested to indicate their willingness to welcome children by keeping their porch or exterior lights on and that youngsters call only on homes so lighted; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Dover has deemed it advisable to observe the celebration of Halloween Trick-or-Treat on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JAMES L. HUTCHISON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, do hereby proclaim that Halloween Trick-or-Treat observance be held on the 31st day of October 2001, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in the City of Dover and urge all residents, both young and old, to make this a happy and safe occasion for our children and further request that all reports of strange flying objects, such as goblins and witches be reported to the appropriate authority.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 771 AND 777 SOUTH LITTLE CREEK ROAD, OWNED BY ANTHONY AND SANDRA LIBERTO
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 771 and 777 South Little Creek Road, containing approximately 3.76 acres, owned by Anthony and Sandra Liberto. The property is currently zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residential) and the proposed zoning is C-3 (Service Commercial).
Planner's Review
The present zoning of RM-1 allows no more than six (6) dwelling units per acre and permits single family detached houses, single family lot line homes, duplex dwellings, multiplex dwellings, 22' townhouses, and garden apartments. Permitted conditionally are senior housing developments, planned neighborhood design residential developments on 20 or more acres with single family and multiple family dwellings with a gross density of six (6) units per acre, churches, schools, hospitals, funeral homes, philanthropic and charitable organizations, and membership clubs. The property is currently vacant.
The proposed zoning of C-3 permits service establishments, wholesale and warehousing, bowling alleys, animal hospitals, motor vehicle service stations subject to conditions, manufacturing with less than 25 employees, and printing establishments. Permitted conditionally are planned senior housing developments. The proposed use of the property is for mini-warehousing.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission is for denial of the rezoning application. In taking this position, the Commission considered the following points:
Surrounding Land Uses: The subject property fronts on South Little Creek Road. Along the westerly perimeter, this property adjoins lands zoned I-O (Institutional & Office) which is the location of The Southern Baptist Church of Dover. Further west are lands zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) which comprise the Target/Safeway commercial complex. To the north and east are vacant lands zoned RM-1 which are currently in agricultural production. This vacant land is the location of the previously proposed Amberfield subdivision, and planned residential neighborhood. Also, to the east is land zoned RM-2 which is the location of Country Village Apartments. Further east is property zoned I-O which is the location of Courtland Manor Nursing Home. Further east are lands zoned R-8 (One Family Residence) which comprise the neighborhoods of Stoney Creek and Schoolview. To the south, across South Little Creek Road, are lands zoned I-O which is the location of East Dover Elementary School. To the southwest are lands zoned C-4 occupied by a retail/wholesale carpet center, a service station/convenience store, and fast food restaurant. Further south are lands zoned SC-3 (Regional Shopping Center) which comprise the Blue Hen Corporate Center property.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the subject property be utilized for medium density residential purposes.
Other Considerations: On November 20, 2000 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Conditional Use Site Plan application involving the construction of an 8,000 S.F. office building for a non-profit social services agency known as People’s Place II. Such institutional uses may be permitted as conditional uses in residential zoning districts if approved by the Planning Commission after review and a public hearing. The conditional use process affords the Planning Commission considerable discretion in determining whether or not a particular use is appropriate and/or warranted. If rezoning is granted, office uses along with all other service commercial uses listed above would be permitted as a matter of right and subject to the less restrictive Site Plan Review process. Mini storage/warehouse facilities are also permitted in the IPM, M and the C-4 zoning districts, staff sees no shortage of properties within the City with the appropriate zoning classification. The Department of Transportation is recommending the entrance for this property be taken off of the entrance of the approved Amberfield Subdivision.
As part of the review and approval of the Amberfield Subdivision, the subject property was afforded access rights to the future residential access street to be named Olmsted Avenue. The Amberfield Subdivision approval is valid until January 27, 2002.
Recommendation of Planning Staff: Considering that the proposed rezoning to C-3 is in direct contradiction to the land use recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan that indicates that the subject property should be utilized for medium density residential purposes, staff recommended denial of the rezoning. Mr. Petit de Mange explained that the existing RM-1 zoning, by contrast, is in complete conformity with the land use recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan envisions a tightly formed commercial band along the US Route 13/113 corridor that does not creep eastward along the arterial roadway of South Little Creek Road.
In addition, Mr. Petit de Mange noted that the Amberfield subdivision is an approved residential project that is still pending. The intrusion of service commercial zoning and uses into this area could yield land uses that are less compatible or incompatible with the approved residential uses. A rezoning of the subject property to C-3 could reduce the likelihood of future residential development of the Amberfield property and could lead to future requests for commercial zoning in this area. The existence of vacant appropriately zoned properties within the City for the intended use raises the question to the need for this rezoning. Finally, DelDOT’s recommendation that this property be given only temporary access from South Little Creek Road and permanent access through Amberfield would create an undesirable mix of commercial and residential traffic. For these reasons, staff recommended denial of the rezoning request.
There were no public hearing comments opposing this rezoning request at the Planning Commission meeting.
Correspondence
Members were provided two (2) letters from adjoining property owners, the First Southern Baptist Church of Dover (dated 09/11/01), and John Hunn Brown (dated 08/17/01) indicating no objection. Member were also provided with The Office of State Planning Coordination’s State Land Use Planning Act (LUPA) review whereby various state agencies review and comment with regard to specific areas of regulation (e.g. DNREC, DelDOT, SHPO, DSHA, etc.) which indicated no objection. DelDOT was the only agency to provide substantive comment on this application as provided in the letter.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Petit de Mange confirmed that members should be considering the proposed rezoning of the property and should not be considering the specific proposed use of the property and reiterated those uses permitted in the C-3 zoning classification. Mr. Petit de Mange stated that the property was purchased by the current owner after the site was rezoned from C-3 to RM-1 with the adoption of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the parcel was rezoned to RM-1 as a result of public workshops held withe residents of the area at that time. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, a 10 year plan horizon was established with the idea that an interim adjustment would occur in five (5) years. The City is currently in the process of the five (5) year review. During this review, property owners will have an opportunity to request a rezoning of their property. Mr. Petit de Mange also advised members that unless construction has begun or an extension has been granted, approval of the Amberfield Subdivision will expire January 27, 2002.
In response to Mr. Truitt, Mr. Petit de Mange explained that if after January 27, 2002, there has been no activity for the Amberfield Subdivision, the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission would become null and void. Should this occur, the City will not be authorized to issue building permits.
Mr. DePrima indicated that there have been very few instances when the City has approved a request that has not been in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and that when this has occurred, there have been justifiable reasons.
Mr. Pitts felt that the proposed rezoning request was not compatible with the surrounding area and that he has concerns with approving a request that is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Carey questioned the possibility of incorporating deed restrictions if the rezoning request were to be approved. Mr. Petit de Mange advised members that it would be unlawful for the City to request deed restrictions in exchange for rezoning.
Responding, Mr. Rodriguez explained that it could be considered “contract zoning” if there is an agreement made with the proposed developer. He stated that not all contract zoning is illegal. Although it would be legal if it serves a public purpose, meets the needs of the City, and is an agreement that benefits the area, it was his opinion that the City should not get involved.
Public Hearing
Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing open.
Mr. Phil McGinnis, 555 E. Loockerman Street, advised members that he currently has the property under contract and that the intended use of the property is for mini-warehousing. He stated that of the available zoning classifications to accommodate this use, the C-3 zone is the least dense. Self storage warehouses are the least dense use of property, they do not consume sewer or water resources, nor do they generate measurable traffic volume. He also noted that the neighboring property owners support the rezoning request.
Mr. McGinnis submitted written documentation of his comments (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). In response to staff’s concerns of zoning creep, traffic volume, and the assumption that the Amberfield Subdivision would not be developed, it was his feeling that the zoning map indicates that there is substantial service and highway commercial zoning on both sides of South Little Creek Road; therefore, the request would not constitute zoning creep. The land uses on the north side of the road includes a church, apartments, mobile home park, townhouses, and Route 1. The land uses on the south side of the road include a gasoline and convenience store, carpet mart, an elementary school, housing subdivision, industrial park, and a printing company.
Mr. McGinnis submitted a letter from Mr. John Hunn Brown (dated October 3, 2001) that indicates his intentions to maintain the property located next to the Liberto property on South Little Creek Road as residential for that use and any use that is allowed in its present zoning. Mr. McGinnis advised members that Mr. Brown currently has a 30-acre portion on the property under contract with Luther Towers for senior citizen housing. Should the City approve the proposed senior citizen housing for Luther Towers, which will create limited traffic impact, Mr. Brown indicated he has agreed to subdivide the property. Considering the potential of this proposal, Mr. McGinnis stated that he has contacted Mr. Robert Bunnell with Luther Towers and explained the proposal for the mini-warehouse facility. Mr. Bunnell indicated no objections to the proposal; however, a letter of support could not be provided at this time since such action would require consent by their Board.
Mr. McGinnis noted that the Planning Commission has approved a conditional use for the property to consist of an 8,000 sq. ft. office building as requested by People’s Place. He referred to a previous rezoning request that was approved for property located on New Burton Road, known as the Harmon property. It was his feeling that his request is very similar to the request of Mr. Harmon, with the exception that he has obtained support of the neighbors. Mr. McGinnis stated that according to the City, there have been no complaints by the neighbors regarding the use of or the operation of the property on New Burton Road used for self storage warehouses.
Mr. McGinnis provided members a traffic analysis for the proposed use, which indicates that the proposed use generates the least traffic of any alternative discussed and that the existing zoning classification would generate the most traffic. He stated that DelDOT has granted a temporary entrance on South Little Creek Road with the requirement that upon completion of Olmsted Avenue for the Amberfield Subdivision, the access be moved onto Olmsted Avenue. Although this traffic would mix with residential traffic, it would still create less traffic than residential use. He noted that Olmsted Avenue connects with the Safeway and Target stores. With regard to the impact on City services, Mr. McGinnis noted that the proposed use will have less sewer and water utilities than the existing zoning or approved office building.
Mr. McGinnis advised members that there are no self storage warehouses in this area of the City. Due to this market being very competitive, the location of these facilities is extremely important in order to be successful. It was his feeling that the rezoning is fair and appropriate and would complement the other uses in the neighborhood. Although the planned use would not consume City services, it would generate tax revenue. Feeling that the request is reasonable and would not be intrusive in any manner, Mr. McGinnis requested support for the rezoning.
In response to questions of Mr. Ruane, Mr. McGinnis stated that to his knowledge, there are no properties with the permitted zoning classification that would allow mini-warehousing located on the east side of Route 13 that is within a reasonable traffic generated area.
Mr. Ruane questioned the thoughts of Mr. McGinnis with regards of having a C-3 zoning classification adjacent to property currently zoned residential. Responding, Mr. McGinnis offered to include a deed restriction with terms that would prohibit any use other than mini-storage, office, or neighborhood retail that would not be automotive in nature. It was his opinion that such a deed restriction would eliminate any objectionable uses from being permitted on the property.
In response to concerns relayed by Mr. DePrima, Mr. Rodriguez explained that the City has not permitted consideration of contract zoning or conditional use zoning and suggested that it would not be beneficial for the City to become involved in the consideration for the approval of rezoning requests.
Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Ruane moved for denial of the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pitts.
Responding to Mr. Carey, Mr. DePrima explained that if the rezoning request is denied, the Zoning Code (Article 10, Section 5.184) prohibits reconsideration of an exact same rezoning application or one that is substantially similar for a period of one (1) year. However, if a different rezoning application with a different proposed use or zoning classification is submitted or, if the land use in the area has changed, such an application would be permitted.
The motion to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the rezoning request failed by a roll call vote of four (4) yes, four (4) no (Mr. Ritter, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, and Mr. McGlumphy), and one (1) absent (Mr. Speed).
At the request of Council President McGlumphy, Mr. Rodriguez explained that since a majority vote was not obtained, the motion was defeated which results in no action being taken by Council. Although another motion would be in order, due to the absence of a member of Council, it was his feeling that the result of such a motion would not be altered.
Council President McGlumphy suggested that action be delayed until Mr. Speed is present.
It was suggested by Mr. DePrima that Mr. Speed be requested to listen to the testimony given during the deliberations and public hearing regarding this matter prior to the item being reconsidered by Council.
Mr. Carey moved to table action until Mr. Speed has been given the opportunity to listen to tonight’s testimony regarding this matter and is available to vote on the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ritter and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Pitts), and one (1) absent (Mr. Speed).
PROPOSED RESOLUTION - TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
By motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Truitt, the following Resolution was unanimously approved:
WHEREAS, as the City of Dover continues to grow, so does its transportation needs and concerns; and
WHEREAS, there are many transportation issues that directly and indirectly involve the City of Dover and its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover recognize the importance of developing sound transportation for the entire community, which requires detailed review of transportation issues; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council wish to establish a City of Dover Transportation Committee to deliberate and make recommendations to City Council on transportation issues and coordinate transportation issues with the State Department of Transportation, Greater Dover Metropolitan Planning Organization, and other organizations concerned with transportation issues in the City of Dover.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER HEREBY FORMALLY ESTABLISH THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, WHICH SHALL:
1. Be composed of five (5) members appointed by the Council President, subject to Council confirmation, with three (3) of the members being elected officials, one of which shall be the Chairman of the Utility Committee to serve as Chair, and the two (2) remaining members shall be City residents and shall initially consist of the following members:
Councilman Eugene B. Ruane, Chairman
Councilman Robert G. Ritter, Jr.
Councilman William P. Truitt
Mr. Chris Asay
Mr. Richard Ornauer
2. Have its members appointed at adoption of this Resolution and thereafter at the Annual Council Meeting, or as necessary to fill vacancies as they occur.
3. Have the City Manager and City Planner serve as ex-officio members, who shall provide staff support.
4. Be advisory in nature and shall bring recommendations to the City Council.
ADOPTED: OCTOBER 8, 2001
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on September 24, 2001 with Chairman Gorman presiding.
Budget Management Committee Recommendations
The Budget Management Committee (Mrs. Donna Mitchell - Finance Director, Mrs. Terry Tieman - Administrative Services Director, Police Chief - Jeff Horvath, Mrs. Janice Green - City Clerk, Councilman Gorman - Legislative & Finance Chairman - Ex-Officio) submitted recommendations to improve the budget management process for review.
The committee recommended referral of the Budget Management Committee recommendations to the Legislative and Finance Committee Task Force for review and inclusion in their November 20, 2001 report.
Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation by consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Disposal of Surplus Property - 214 North Ann Avenue
In May of 2001, Mr. Berlin Hollingsworth approached the City requesting that ownership of land known as 214 North Ann Avenue, located in the Northwest Dover Heights Subdivision, be transferred to him. He indicate that he has been maintaining the land since 1980. The City of Dover acquired the above vacant lot for $533.32 at a tax sale in 1997. It appears that $287.69 in back taxes were owed to the City. After visiting the property with the Tax Assessor, Mr. Cooper, and conducting an informal survey of the property, it appears that there are some significant and long-standing encroachments that render the property undevelopable. It also appears that a home at 212 North Ann Avenue, owned by Mr. Hollingsworth, is partially built on the parcel in question.
In accordance with the land disposal policy, the Interim City Manager evaluated the property and determined that the parcel was not needed by any City department; that it became surplus as the result of a tax sale; and that a zoning change would not enhance the resale value of the property.
Through further discussions with Mr. Hollingsworth, it was learned that the adjacent neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Travis Myrks, 216 Ann Avenue, were also interested in acquiring a portion of the parcel. Both parties agreed that they would each accept half of the property and would be willing to pay for the cost of surveying, subdividing, and transferring the property, which is estimated at $1,150; however, neither party is interested in paying for the land. Mr. Hollingsworth and Mr. Myrks have each deposited $575 with the Interim City Manager as a good-faith offer.
The land disposal policy encourages the sale of surplus land through auction or sealed bid. However, there are several exceptions, including Exception "C", Conveyance of odd shaped and/or unbuildable parcels. This exception allows the City to convey to neighboring property owners at the City's cost basis adjusted for inflation. Since the City purchased the property at $533.33, its cost basis would be approximately $550. An appraisal of the property is not recommended due to its low value. As previously indicated, neither Mr. Hollingsworth nor Mr. Myrks want to pay the cost basis but would be willing to pay for the cost of transferring the land, which is greater than the cost basis.
Staff recommended conveying the property to the neighboring property owners, Mr. Hollingsworth and Mr. Myrks at a cost of $1,150. This would put the land back into the City's tax base and relieve the City of any responsibility for maintenance.
It was Mr. Ruane’s feeling that the City did not have the ability to give the property away. According to the Land Disposal Policy, donations can only be made to non-profit organizations. He was concerned that it would set a precedent and, in fact might not be legal. Mr. Ruane suggested that the Policy be amended to include consideration of costs incurred by the neighboring owner, such as cost of maintenance.
Mr. DePrima stated that, since the property was obtained through a tax sale for back taxes owed to the City, the $533.33 was on paper only. The policy regarding unbuildable lots seems to refer to remnant pieces of a property purchased by the City and does not contemplate disposal of property obtained through a tax sale.
The committee recommended that the Interim City Manager relay to Mr. Hollingsworth and Mr. Myrks the need for the City to recover the cost basis, in addition to the $1,150 cost of surveying, subdividing, and transferring the property.
Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation by consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Gorman moved for acceptance of the Legislative and Finance Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT
The Utility Committee met on September 24, 2001 with Chairman Ruane presiding.
Evaluation of Bids - Chlorination Equipment
The City of Dover is preparing to continuously chlorinate the City's water distribution system, which will require the installation of chlorination equipment at each of the thirteen (13) deep well sites located within the City's distribution network. The Department of Public Works prepared a specification package for the purchase of pumps, measuring equipment, and other miscellaneous items necessary to modify each of the thirteen (13) deep well sites. The low bid was received from Dennis Chlorination Service, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, in the amount of $32,417.20.
The FY 2002 Water Improvement & Extension Fund included $50,000.00 to complete projects carried forward from the FY 2001 Budget. These funds will be used to purchase the chlorination equipment. Funds to complete the project ($50,000.00) were requested in the September Budget Revision approved by the Legislative and Finance Committee on September 10, 2001. The estimated total project budget for the Chlorination Upgrades (Project # WS0101) at the thirteen (13) well sites is $100,000.00. The additional funds over and above the equipment purchase will be expended to modify each of the well house structures using City labor crews. In addition, a chemical storage building will be constructed.
Staff recommended issuing a purchase order in the amount of $32,417.20 to Dennis Chlorination Service, Inc., for the purchase of the specified chlorination equipment to continuously chlorinate the City's water distribution system.
The committee recommended awarding the contract to Dennis Chlorination Service, Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland, in the amount of $32,417.20, contingent upon the approval of the funds included in the Budget Revisions by City Council.
Mr. Ruane moved to recommend approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Gorman and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Speed absent).
Electric Outage Public Notification Procedure
After the last electric outage, City Council requested staff to develop a procedure for reporting electric outages to the media, as well as City officials. Mr. Blakeman, Generation Manager, Mr. Knox, Emergency Preparedness Director, and Mr. DePrima, Interim City Manager, developed a procedure for review and comment by Council.
In addition, City Council requested that a direct telephone notification system be investigated. According to Mr. Knox, the Dover Police Department has done some basic research into three (3) potential emergency notification systems and obtained sales materials, short videos, and cost estimates on each system. Kent County Department of Public Safety has also researched emergency notification systems to use in its 911 Center and Division of Emergency Management.
On August 4, 2001, a memo was received from the Delaware Emergency Management Agency (DEMA) stating that it will examine available alerting systems for a statewide emergency notification system. Requirements will include a system capable of being accessed and used locally by counties and municipalities. They are requesting Delaware cities and counties that are individually considering obtaining such notification systems to wait until the Governor’s Office and DEMA have completed a strategy for a statewide system. It is their feeling that installation of a statewide system could save counties and municipalities money and ensure uniformity. DEMA expects to report to the counties and municipalities by the end of the year.
Mr. DePrima presented members with the Procedure for Public Notification.
There were many suggestions provided by committee members, including reducing the size of the service area affected from more than one half to more than one third as a guideline for media notification. Members also suggested that staff make a presentation to Council on the status of the City’s Emergency Preparedness Plan.
The Committee took no action on this matter.
Mr. Gorman moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY ELECTION
The Robbins Hose Company election is scheduled for November 19, 2001. The following persons have been recommended to serve as judges for the election:
1. Carlton Dill 2. Harry Hayes 3. John Raughley (Alternate)
Mr. Truitt moved for approval of the appointment of judges for the Robbins Hose Company election as recommended, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of September 24, 2001.
Revised Budgets for Fiscal Year 2001/2002
Mr. Carey moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
Mr. Truitt moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Ritter), and one (1) absent (Mr. Speed):
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
The amounts hereinafter named in various City funds are changed from the currently approved revenues/receipts and appropriations to the revised revenues/receipts and revised appropriations for use by the various departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001, and ending June 30, 2002:
A. WATER/WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND
CURRENT ADDITIONS REVISED
RECEIPTS BUDGETS (REDUCTIONS) BUDGETS
Water Prior Year Balance - Unaudited $ — $119,040 $119,040
Wastewater Prior Year Balance - Unaudited — 140,572 140,572
State Reimbursement for Fluoridation — 17,000 17,000
B. WATER/WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT & EXTENSION FUND
CURRENT ADDITIONS REVISED
EXPENSES BUDGETS (REDUCTIONS) BUDGETS
Water I&E Construction - Purchase $184,565 $133,913 $318,478
(Cheswold Aquifer Well Program (2 wells) - $22,500)
(Chlorination Upgrades - $50,000)
(Fluoridation Upgrades - $46,413)
(U.S. 13 N. Water Main Ext. & Improvement - $15,000)
Wastewater I&E Construction - Purchase 85,000 42,000 127,000
(Dover Post Pumping Station - $42,000)
Water I&E Budget Balance — 2,127 2,127
Wastewater I&E Budget Balance —