COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on November 13, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Truitt, Mrs. Malone (arrived at 6:40 p.m.), Mr. Salters, and Mr. Weller. Mr. Pitts and Mr. Carey were absent.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Weller moved for approval of the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Councilman Gorman, Mr. Merritt, and Mrs. Street. Mr. McGlumphy was deputized to serve in the absence of Mr. Carey.
Discussion - Property Revaluation
Council President Christiansen explained that several years ago, Council had generally agreed that the City would perform property revaluations approximately every two (2) years. The City accomplished a property revaluation in the latter part of 1987 and 1990. A property revaluation has not been accomplished since 1990. Prior to 1992, the City Charter required an outside, independent reappraisal every 10 years. In 1992, the City Assessor requested that Section 47 of the Charter be amended to eliminate the mandatory nature of the provision and instead to commit the timing of such outside reassessments to the discretion of City Council. The request was based upon the City’s new capabilities to conduct in-house reassessments. This amendment was approved by City Council and the General Assembly. At that time, Council expressed a desire for the City to continue performing in-house reappraisals on a timely basis. Council President Christiansen advised members that an in-house property revaluation/reassessment has not been accomplished since 1990, nor has City Council requested a reassessment of all real property in the City by a certified independent outside appraiser in lieu of the valuation and assessment to be made by the Assessor. Therefore, he requested that the City Assessor submit a proposal for property revaluations/reassessments for consideration.
As requested, City Assessor Cooper provided information regarding property revaluations/reassessments, as follows:
Option I
Property revaluation cost, if conducted by private contractor, which includes exempt, commercial, and residential properties:
No. of Parcels - 10,000
Cost Per Parcel - $35.00
Total - Private Contractor Cost - $350,000
Option II
Property revaluation cost, if conducted by Assessor’s Office (in-house), which includes exempt, residential, and all commercial properties excluding 25-30 of the largest commercial properties. The cost per parcel includes a $60,000 fee for an advisor and a part-time temporary employee:
No. of Parcels - 10,000
Cost Per Parcel - $7.60
Largest Commercial Properties - $6,000
Total - Assessor’s Office Cost - $82,000
Mr. Cooper also provided a timetable for the revaluation, as follows:
January 2001 - January 2002 - Complete revaluation
February 2002 - Submit new values to Council for review and approval
March 2002 - Notices of new values will be sent to property owners
March 15 - April 30, 2002 - Informal appeals (to be decided by Assessor’s Office)
May 2002 - Formal appeals (to be decided by Appeals Committee)
Mr. Cooper explained that at this time, the costs for the reassessments are estimates only. He also suggested that Section 47 of the City Charter be amended by adding “all real property in the City of Dover be reassessed every three (3) years (in-house) by the Assessor’s Office, and that every third reassessment be conducted by a certified independent outside appraiser chosen by Council.” It was noted that Section 47 of the City Charter currently provides for a reassessment by a certified independent outside appraiser whenever Council directs.
Responding to Mr. Gorman, Council President Christiansen explained that an amendment to Section 47 of the City Charter would assure that property revaluations would occur on a regular and timely basis and eliminate excessive increases in property values which occur when a revaluation has been delayed for several years. Although property values will increase, he explained that the tax rate will be set according to the needs of the City and would probably be lowered. Council President Christiansen assured members that there is a ceiling on increased revenues, explaining that the City can generate no more than a 15% increase in revenue over the previous year before reassessment, excluding any building permit activity.
Mr. Salters further explained that the City Assessor is not requesting approval of the expenditure of funds at this time. Upon Council’s authorization, bids will be solicited for review by the Finance Director and presented to the committee for review and recommendation to Council for final approval.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend that the City Assessor be authorized to move forward with Option II, property revaluation to be conducted in-house. The motion was seconded by Mr. Merritt and unanimously carried.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mrs. Green stated that since the Charter currently provides for a reassessment by a certified independent outside appraiser whenever Council directs, should Council wish to have a mandatory in-house reassessment performed every three (3) years, she suggested that rather than a Charter amendment, members consider a Code amendment.
It was noted that staff recommended that in addition to an in-house reassessment being conducted every three (3) years, that every third reassessment be conducted by a certified independent outside appraiser chosen by Council. To clarify the matter, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that “in-house” be deleted from the proposed amendment, which would then require the Assessor’s Office to conduct a reassessment, with a certified independent outside appraiser being required to perform such reassessment every nine (9) years.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend that there be an ordinance amendment that would require a revaluation every three (3) years, as suggested by staff, to be presented back to the committee for further review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Merritt and unanimously carried.
Council President Christiansen noted that in conjunction with the reassessment, staff will be reviewing the requirements and amounts for senior citizen tax exemption to be presented back to the committee for possible amendments.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Abatement of City Real Estate Taxes
Mr. O’Connor reminded members that on July 10, 2000, Council adopted an ordinance that repealed Chapter 19.5, Article IV - Abatement of City Real Estate Taxes, of the Dover Code in its entirety. The ordinance was originally adopted in 1993 to establish a city-wide development incentive program in an attempt to provide incentives for such businesses to expand or locate in the City, which would create new employment opportunities for the citizens of Dover and ultimately strengthen the City’s tax base. However, it was recently felt that the tax abatement program was very broad and should be phased out, with consideration given to developing an ordinance that would be more specific to certain larger industry and businesses.
Mr. O’Connor stated that the proposed ordinance would require a qualifying industry to invest at least $1,000,000 and the facility to be located within the manufacturing or industrial park manufacturing zoning classification.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment for abatement of City real estate taxes, as presented (Attachment #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Rental Dwelling Permit Requirements and Business Licenses with Respect to Rental Agents
Mr. DePrima indicated that since the recent adoption of the Rental Dwelling Permit Ordinance, there have been several concerns relayed regarding the requirement for licensed rental agents when the property owner lives outside Kent County. Several owners have indicated that they have family or friends caring for the property, which he feels meet the intent of the ordinance; therefore, he presented an amendment to Section 10-88 of the Dover Code that would create a “family and friends” exclusion to the license rental agent requirement.
Mr. DePrima also explained that there is a need to create a business license category and fee for those who professionally manage real estate but are not real estate brokers or sales agents. He presented an amendment to Section 11-1 of the Dover Code that would add a definition for “Real Estate Rental Agent”. A person holding this license would only be permitted to manage real estate and no other activities. He stated that the definitions for Real Estate Broker and Appraiser, and Real Estate Sales Agent that already exist would allow the licensee to be a rental agent in addition to the other activities permitted by these licenses. Mr. DePrima also presented an amendment to Section 11-4(d) of the Dover Code that creates a fee schedule for a Real Estate Rental Agent. The fee has been scaled to the amount of rental management the licensee conducts.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments as recommended by staff (Attachments #2-#4). The motion was seconded by Mr. Merritt and unanimously carried.
Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:40 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Weller presiding. Members present were Councilman Truitt, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Nichols. Mrs. Malone was deputized to serve in the absence of Mr. Pitts.
Bid - System Operations Center Video Projector Screen
A major goal of the Electric Department is to improve the overall operation of the transmission and distribution system. The most effective method of improving system reliability is by reducing outage occurrences as well as minimizing outage extent and duration. The redesigning of the Electric Department Dispatch Center to a fully functional System Operations Center is the single most important task which will achieve this goal. One major component of the newly designed System Operations Center is a Video Projector Screen.
The purchase and installation of the Video Projector Screen is an integral part of the new System Operations Center. This installation will coordinate with the new SCADA System Master Station upgrade. These new systems will work together to improve system reliability by increasing data collection, expediting fault identification and isolation, minimizing outage extent and duration, and provide more accurate trouble crew dispatching.
Bids were solicited for the required hardware and software for the Video Projector Screen. Staff recommended that the bid be awarded to the low bidder, WH Platts Company, in the amount of $36,796. Funds for this project are available in the Electric Department’s Improvement and Extension Fund.
Mr. Truitt moved to recommend that the bid be awarded to WP Platts Company for the Video Projector Screen in the amount of $36,796, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nichols and unanimously carried.
Mr. Weller moved for adjournment, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:47 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/lcg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes200011-13-2000.min