COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on February 14, 2000 at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Leary (arrived at 6:25), Mr. Carey, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters, Mr. Weller and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mrs. Malone moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Councilwoman Malone, Mr. Gorman and Mr. Merritt. Mr. Lambert was deputized to serve in the absence of Mr. Leary.
City of Dover Web Browsing Policy
The City of Dover has established an Internet access (Web Browsing) system that consists of equipment and software that is networked across City buildings and is linked to the Internet and the World Wide Web.
The Internet is a worldwide network of computers that contains millions of pages of information. The City of Dover recognizes the value and importance of access to the Internet and the World Wide Web. The World Wide Web contains an enormous amount of valuable data, resources, and knowledge that can be very beneficial in a work environment. Users are cautioned that many web sites include offensive, sexually explicit, and inappropriate material. In general, it can be difficult to avoid at least some contact with this material while using Internet web browsing services.
Users accessing the Internet do so at their own risk, and the City of Dover is not responsible for material viewed or downloaded by users from the Internet. To minimize these risks, staff has implemented a software application that will provide limited protection from accessing, reviewing, or downloading material that may be offensive. This software will significantly reduce the chances that a user will have the ability to access an inappropriate site. However, this cannot be guaranteed due to the fact that hundreds of new web sites are added to the World Wide Web daily.
In order to protect employees and the City from misuse of Internet access, staff has developed a Web Browsing Policy. Mr. O’Connor, City Manager, explained that as technology advances, policies on the use of systems that help in job performance and efficiency become very important for all concerned. He advised members that the proposed policy provides guidelines and that each employee will be required to read and sign a consent form acknowledging their understanding and willingness to comply with the policy.
Mr. Lambert suggested that, as with the E-Mail Policy, a one-year review of the policy would be appropriate.
Mr. Lambert moved to recommend acceptance of the Web Browsing Policy, to be reviewed in one (1) year, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Proposed Revised Budgets for Fiscal Year 1999/2000
The City revises its budgets to reflect the changing needs of its operating departments and to include fluctuations in revenues. The Finance Director/Treasurer submitted the second proposed revisions to the 1999/2000 budget.
Mrs. Malone moved to recommend acceptance of the proposed budget revisions (Attachment #1), as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Create Rental Housing Inspection Program and Permit Fees
During the Council Retreat, held on October 14, 1999, staff was directed to investigate the possibility of requiring rental licenses and limiting rental properties. Subsequently, staff prepared a rental housing questionnaire for Council and Legislative and Finance Committee members in order to narrow the scope of the investigation. The questionnaire showed strong support for enhanced rental housing inspections. In accordance with the results, staff recommended amendments to Chapter 10 - Lodging Housing and Rental Housing, that will accomplish the following:
♦ Require annual inspections of all rental properties including single family homes, duplexes, and townhouses.
♦ Establish permit fees that would cover the cost of increasing the workload of the Inspections Department, and recover an additional 10% for overhead expenses for services and costs incurred by other departments. Annual per unit fees generally relate to the size of the unit as follows:
Single family detached $100
Single family attached $ 80
Mobile Home $ 80
Two Family House $ 80
Apartment $ 40
HotelMotelDorm $ 10
♦ Require that property owners who live outside of Kent County have a designated rental agent licensed with the City.
♦ While it was not a part of the survey, staff also included penalties for non-payment, and fees for reinstatement of a permit. Also added were definitions, purpose and applicability clauses, and the suspension section was clarified.
According to the survey, Council supported the idea of establishing a regular program of charging fees for monitoring and inspecting vacant and abandoned buildings. This program is being developed separately and will be forwarded in the near future. Council also supported licensing and inspecting rental property for commercial buildings. Staff recommended consideration of this item after the housing program has been expanded and in operation for some time since it would be an overwhelming task.
Mr. DePrima stated that in order to implement the program, the current compliment of two (2) property maintenance inspectors would need to be increased to five (5). Under this scenario, the City would be divided into four (4) sections. An inspector would be assigned a section and would be responsible for rental inspections, as well as other code enforcement in that area (i.e. high grass, abandoned cars, trash, etc.). The fifth inspector would work with the Fire Marshal on larger buildings such as hotels, motels, dormitories, and large apartment complexes; this inspector would also serve as a back up when other inspectors were absent, or in areas where special attention is necessary.
Permit applications for multiple dwellings would be mailed out mid-March (this is usually done on March 1st, however, mailing would have to be delayed pending final approval of the ordinance changes). In addition, registration of single family rental units would start shortly after multiple housing permits were mailed. Revenue collected this fiscal year would recover the initial start up costs for the new inspectors, their cars and equipment.
Staff recommended hiring the first inspector in March, and the second in April or May. The last inspector would be hired in the next fiscal year. The first inspector is needed as soon as possible to help lay the groundwork for the new program (registering single family rental units, amending computer programs, answering questions, creating form letters, schedules, files, etc). By the time the second inspector is hired, inspections would have begun. The program should be completely operational by the end of the year.
A table with cost and revenue projections for the program was provided to members. The estimated annual cost for the five (5) inspectors, including administrative support and a 10% service overhead charge, is $290,565. This is a fairly liberal estimate that assumes five (5) inspectors, fringe benefits, supplies, uniforms, equipment and capital costs (auto, furniture, radios, and computers).
The estimated revenue from the proposed increase in fees is $285,820. Mr. DePrima believes that this is a conservative number since the single-family estimates are based on the 1990 census and these numbers have probably increased. The apartment counts and hotelmoteldorm counts are based on current permitted units. Also not counted were a number of new hotel rooms (Dover Downs) and apartment buildings (Village of Cannon Mill).
Based on a liberal cost estimate and conservative revenue estimate, the fee schedule is balanced with the cost of providing the services. With respect to the cash flow, staff expects most of the multiple dwelling permit fees collected this fiscal year ($170,000), and 15% of the single units ($17,300). By next fiscal year, all of the single-family units should be accounted for.
According to Mr. DePrima, the proposed increase in the property maintenance inspections will also be beneficial to the construction inspections program. There currently is one (1) inspector that splits their inspections by spending half their time doing housing inspections, and half doing construction inspections. The near future demand for construction inspections (Dover Downs Hotel, Dover Crossing, Amberfield Development, Village of Cannon Mill, and Four Seasons) will require a full time construction inspector. The additional housing inspectors will allow for this to occur. In addition, having the fifth inspector assist the Fire Marshal will allow a current inspector to spend more time for commercial construction plan review and inspections.
Mr. Lambert questioned what would be included in the new inspection that is not currently being conducted. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that current inspection of hotels, motels, dormitories, and apartment houses is limited to fire inspections. If the Fire Marshal sees a gross violation of the code he will report it or handle it himself. Mr. DePrima recommended that the inspections be increased to include number of units, plumbing, interior structure (walls and ceilings), unsafe items in need of repair, and mechanical systems. Mr. DePrima stated that in 1998, 1,800 housing and property maintenance inspections were performed as the result of complaints received. There were also 99 block-by-block inspections performed and 110 apartment building inspections and 51 hotel and motel inspections performed by The Fire Marshal’s Office.
Mr. Lambert stated that he was not opposed to an increased inspection program, nor the costs for recovery, however, he felt that the inspection of individual homes was excessive. He also felt that scheduling these inspections could pose a hardship for the owners and/or tenants.
Mr. O’Connor stated that the concept is very good, since there is an allocation of costs related to the charges incurred. He noted that each quarter, $23,000 is written off for utilities and that those write-offs are typically related to rental units. Responding, Mr. Lambert suggested pinpointing those individuals instead of penalizing all landlords.
Mr. DePrima informed members of a recent incident in which the police responded to a domestic dispute. Subsequently drugs were found on the premises, at which time the Fire Marshal was called. The Fire Marshal found that the house was in horrible condition and had no running water. This incident caused an expense to the City for which there is no means of reimbursement. Mr. DePrima also pointed out that the majority of demolition cases are single-family detached rental homes.
Responding to Mr. Lambert, Mr. DePrima stated that they would work with the Electric Department and Tax Office to determine which single-family homes are used as rentals. He also clarified that permits would be renewed once a year. A permit would not be required each time their was a tenant change.
Mr. Salters questioned why the houses would be inspected once a year, feeling that every two years may be sufficient. Mr. DePrima stated that yearly inspections are suggested in accordance with industry standards. He also noted that the survey indicated that Council members preferred yearly inspections.
Mr. Pitts stated that several years ago, Wesley College had numerous rental problems on Governors Avenue. The properties were inspected and changes were made. Mr. Pitts stated that there are some horrible rental properties in his neighborhood that need to be brought up to City standards. He felt that the inspectors should use their discretion in determining how often a property should be inspected.
Mr. Scott Kidner, Realtor, suggested that before any further action is taken regarding this issue that meetings be held with the real estate community and the City in order to work out the details. He stated that the Newark Landlord Association is currently suing the City of Newark over the treatment they are receiving related to a similar situation.
Responding, Mr. DePrima explained that the lawsuit involving the City of Newark pertains to the City trying to impose limitations on student housing within certain distances of each other. The concerns of the lawsuit are not included in the proposal of the City of Dover.
Mr. Tom Burns, President of Kent County Association of Realtors and Land Use and Housing Representative for the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, reminded members that the United States was built on its citizens right to privacy. According to Mr. Burns, many of the private homes are rented to playtex officials, members of the banking communities, and are very nice homes in well established neighborhoods that would not require inspection.
Mr. Burns advised members of a policy that his office has not to return security deposits until the City provides proof that the utilities have been paid. He also advised members that their properties are inspected for smoke detectors each time the property is vacant. Mr. Burns stated that the realtors of the community would like to meet with the City to discuss this issue further.
Mr. William Hudson, attorney representing Colonial Investment Management Company, stated that his client owns 450 of the better apartments in town. Many are new or are in the process of being constructed. He stated that the proposal would require a unit price to Colonial Investment in the amount of approximately $16,000-$18,000 per year in fees. Mr. Hudson also expressed concern with tenants being inconvenienced by the yearly inspections. He requested ample opportunity to provide input prior to the final decision on the proposed ordinances.
Mrs. Malone explained that this proposal stems from problems with those property owners that do not maintain their properties. She expressed the importance of preserving the good aspects of the community and protecting the quality of life for the full-time residents of the City.
Ms. Linda Graham, Manager of the Sheraton Hotel and President of the Delaware Hotel/Motel Association, provided a written response from the Association as follows:
“Proposed Amendments to Chapter 10 - Lodging Housing and Rental Housing
Response from the Delaware Hotel Motel Association
Position:
Hotel/Motels should be exempt from the proposed amendment.
The reasons:
1. Hotels are now inspected by:
A. AAA - annually
B. Mobil - annually
C. Insurance Carrier - annually
D. State Safety Inspection - annually
E. DAFB Inspection - annually
F. National Franchise Inspections - semi annually
2. Example of what a National Franchise Inspection encompasses:
Property Cleanliness & Conditions of the following areas:
Guest Rooms
Public Areas
Meeting Areas
Food & Beverage Areas
Employee Contact Areas
Kitchen
Standards
Highest rating is 100%
Benchmark is 85%
3. What happens if the score is below 85%?
The Franchiser can find the property in default and disfranchise the property.
4. The proposed amendment addresses changing of the bed linen & towels daily as the criteria for the inspections:
The most basic daily inspection of any hotel or motel addresses this issue. There is no need to charge more fees for something that is so basic. The new thinking in the Hotel Business is toward “Green Hotels” which are sensitive to the environment. The customer may request to have the sheets and towels changed but it is not the standard. The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta confirms that they have never had a complaint stating dirty linens in hotel rooms make people sick.
5. The City of Dover used to inspect Restaurants.
The City of Dover no longer inspects restaurants and kitchens since they have turned that inspection process over to the Stated. Why do they want to inspect hotels when they gave up inspecting restaurants?
6. What do the cities of Newark & Wilmington charge? And do they inspect hotels?
Neither Newark nor Wilmington inspects the hotels. Both Cities charge a license fee comparable to the City of Dover License fee.
7. The customer will decide where he wants to stay; whether it is a “City inspected hotel” or not and whether it fits in his price range and expectations. What would 1 (one) inspection per year accomplish?”
Ms. Graham stated that the hotel industry is currently subjected to several, very detailed inspections and, therefore, do not need any additional inspections.
Referring to previous comments of Mr. Pitts, Dr. Scott Miller, President of Wesley College, stated that four (4) houses that were beyond repair were demolished and that four (4) other homes (victorian) went through extensive renovation during the past two and one-half years. He stated that these actions cost Wesley College approximately $7 million.
Dr. Miller stated that Wesley College opposes the inclusion of dormitories in the proposed amendments. Since they are a not-for-profit institution, funds that are spent for anything other than education is diverted from education. Higher education is already over-regulated by the Federal Government, regional accrediting associations, and regulations designed to monitor residence halls on college campuses. Dr. Miller stated that they have a full-time Director of the Physical Plant and a Director of Residence Life assigned to assure compliance with any State and Federal regulations. Additionally, each of the residence halls has 24-hour supervision and monitoring by paid employees.
With regard to fire safety, Dr. Miller stated that they have service agreements with reputable, independent contractors to insure full compliance. The same is also true of the heating and cooling and plumbing system. Their insurance carrier and risk managers do annual evaluations of any code and non-code issues and require time specific follow-up reports. Their State and Regional accrediting associations require the institution to go through a series of periodic reviews for compliance with State and Federal laws, including residence halls. Whenever code inspections or clarification of policy is needed, the college contacts the appropriate City government office.
Dr. Miller stated that he contacted three (3) national associations that specialize in these issues and found that there are no other known private colleges in the United States that have requirements such as those proposed.
Responding to Council President Christiansen, Dr. Miller stated that the college has no ability to assume responsibility for the students that live off campus or recourse against its students for their actions in the community. He indicated that they have and will continue to work with the City Manager, the Inspections Department, and the Police Department regarding concerns of landlords of properties that provide student rentals.
Ms. Cathy Gregory, Deputy Director of the Delaware State Housing Authority, stated that she understood the City’s concerns; however, she did not feel that a decision should be made without input from those that will be impacted by the ordinance. Ms. Gregory stated that the owner or
manager of rental units will pass any fees on to their residents and that the working poor of Dover will not be able to afford such increases. Ms. Gregory questioned what quality of standard inspection would be used and expressed concern that a targeted population may be inspected more frequently and with a more stringent set of standards.
Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the BOCA Property Maintenance Code would be the standard for inspections. He indicated that the Delaware State Housing Authority has deemed it to be equivalent to the State Housing Code.
Ms. Gregory informed members that code enforcement is an eligible activity under the Community Development Block Grant money and available federal dollars may eliminate the need to institute a rental housing inspection fee. She stated that rent for public housing is capped and that, since the proposed fees could not be added to the rent, they will be absorbed by the agency, which will result in reduced costs in other areas, such as maintenance on the units. Ms. Gregory requested that the matter be tabled until the true issues behind the proposed amendments could be discussed.
Responding to Mrs. Malone, Ms. Gregory stated that the Low Income Housing Tax Credit caps are set by the IRS and cannot be increased by the legislature.
Mr. Roy Klein of Klein Development stated that hotels and motels pay property taxes, water, sewer, and electricity and 8% for lodging tax to the State. He felt that for the sake of tourism, hotels and motels should be exempt from the proposed amendments.
As Chairman of the Board of Visitors at Delaware State University, Mr. Klein stated that the University raises money for scholarships and for providing decent housing at the lowest possible cost for students and felt that the proposal would be taking money away from these needs.
Mr. Klein stated that the proposed inspection fee would cost Walker Woods (a 71-unit low income townhouse development) $80 per year, per unit. He stated that the units are inspected four (4) times per year and that any further inspections would not be necessary.
Mr. Klein requested that the matter be tabled and that members consider exemptions for low income tax credit housing, hotels and motels, and institutions of higher education.
Mr. Tony Ashburn stated that he owns several rental units in Heatherfield and requested clarification on the additional services required for rental units. Mr. DePrima responded that a greater number of fire and police calls are related to rental properties.
Mr. Bruce Ralston stated that he owns a rental unit and also supports many functions, such as the fireworks, parades, and Main Street. He indicated that if he is required to pay a fee for his rental unit, his ability to provide support to the various functions would be reduced.
Mr. Frank Kelly, Director of the Dover Housing Authority, advised members that they are not permitted to pass fees onto tenants. He stated that they recently hired a maintenance man for exterior upkeep of their units and that an increase in fees would mean the loss of this employee.
Considering the length of time it has taken staff to prepare the proposed amendments, Mrs. Malone suggested that the amendments be moved forward with the understanding that it is a working document that will include revision upon being presented for 1st Reading.
Mr. Lambert suggested that the matter be referred back to staff in order for them to meet with the realtors and other interested parties regarding this issue to be brought back to the committee for further review.
Mr. Leary agreed that more time should be given to deliberate the issue.
Mr. Lambert moved to recommend that the matter be referred back to staff for further review, focusing on the concerns of all involved parties, for a report back to the committee within 30 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Merritt and unanimously carried. Council President Christiansen requested Mayor Hutchison to facilitate a meeting between the City Planner and the real estate community.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Various Code Updates Related to Inspections (Dangerous Building Code Enforcement, Construction, Fire, and Housing)
Mr. DePrima, City Planner, submitted proposed amendments to various sections of the Dover Code in order to update the City’s dangerous building code enforcement, and construction, fire prevention, and housing codes.
Mr. DePrima explained that the proposed amendments to Sections 5-16, 5-56, 5-71, 7-56, and 10-1 updates the construction, fire prevention, and housing codes that will adopt the latest versions published by the Building Officials Code Association (BOCA).
Mr. DePrima stated that the proposed amendment to Section 1-2 updates the definitions of agent, owner, and persons making it clear that members of partnerships, and officers and agents of corporations can be held responsible for violations and penalties. It also adds the “agent” definition that covers executors, administrators, and trustees of estates or owners. The former language did not list officers and members of partnerships as being responsible for violations of the code, and did not cover those people who are responsible for trusts and estates. Mr. DePrima reminded members of the recent “Ingram” case, whereby the courts were reluctant to issue warrants against Mr. Ingram because his properties were held in the name of a corporation. The City had to prosecute him as an agent for the property, and were only able to do so because he signed a building permit.
The proposed amendment to Section 5-86 adds construction sites that have been left unfinished or abandoned for three (3) months or more to the list of definitions of a “dangerous” condition. This amendment is also the result of the “Ingram” case. Despite efforts to prosecute this matter as a violation of City Council orders, the Judge wanted the City to prove beyond a doubt that it was an unattended and vacant dangerous building.
Mr. DePrima stated that the Fire Safety Standards Committee has forwarded the proposed amendment to Section 7-6, which will prohibit open burning in multiple family dwellings, and further regulates the location of charcoal and gas grills.
Mrs. Malone moved to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments (Attachments #2 - #9), seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Leary moved to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
The Meeting Adjourned at 7:07 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met at 7:28 p.m. with Chairman Lambert presiding. Members present were Councilmen Carey and Weller, Mr. Nichols, and Mr. Kramedas.
Request for Street Waiver - Proposed Service Road for Dover Crossing Center
Subdivision Regulations, Appendix A of the City Code, Article VI, Section A, specify a street pavement width of 38' within a 60' right-of-way with no variation given for whether on-street parking is controlled. A petition to waive certain subdivision street design standards has been received for a service road for the Dover Crossing Center that is to run from East Loockerman Street to South Little Creek Road. The service road will link the proposed “Target” retail store and the proposed “Safeway” grocery store with four (4) existing restaurants (Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, and La Tolteca). The street waiver requests are summarized as follows:
1) Waiver from the 60́ minimum right-of-way requirement, to permit a 30́ - 40́ right-of-way width.
2) Waiver from the 38́ paved width for public streets, to permit a paved width of 24́.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the street waiver request. In making its decision, the Planning Commission considered the developer’s original proposal to the Development Advisory Committee for the project to be served by a private road that would run in a north-south direction from East Loockerman Street to South Little Creek Road. The north end of the road would continue to serve the fast food restaurants, then make an “S” curve and run southerly along the eastern boundary of the property behind the proposed Target store and supermarket.
After reviewing the private road layout, the D.A.C. made several recommendations to improve the alignment, which the developer incorporated into the latest plan. The most significant comment made by the D.A.C. was that the private road should be made into a public road. The reason for the request is so the City could control traffic signs, speed limits, traffic enforcement, and maintenance. Since this road would be in the nature of a service road with no on-street parking, the D.A.C. members recommended a minimum right-of-way of 30' and paving width. The plan shows a right-of-way that varies from 30' to 40'. The proposed paved roadway width is 24', providing for two (2) 12' travel lanes. The accompanying sidewalk and utilities will be located outside of the public right-of-way in a public easement area.
While staff supports the minimum 30' right-of-way, the Subdivision Regulations (Article VI, Section A-13) does not provide standards for commercial service roads, therefore, City Council waivers of the street standards will be required. Mr. DePrima informed members that if the waivers are not granted, the developer proposes to develop the service road as a private road.
Responding to Mr. Lambert’s concern that, with a 30' right-of-way, there would be no room to widen the street in the future, it was Mr. DePrima’s feeling that there will be no need for the road to be widened.
In response to Mr. Kramedas, Mr. Craig Ward, Frederick Ward Associates, stated that the turning radius should be sufficient to accommodate tractor trailers. He stated that the turn was designed as a T-intersection to accommodate the future extension of the service road into the residential portion of the development. He also indicated that it was designed using the proper radius. Mr. Ward stated that most of the truck traffic would not make the right-angle turn and would instead use the loading dock area with a softer curve.
Mr. Nichols questioned the ability of 53' trailers negotiating the curve. Responding, Mr. Ward stated that they used standard engineering curve radii to confirm that the curves would be sufficient. Mr. Nichols requested that the turning radius calculations be re-evaluated and that the plan be revised if necessary.
Mr. Nichols moved to recommend approval of the requested street waivers for the Dover Crossing Center, as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, stipulating that the developer re-evaluate the turning radius, making modifications if necessary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weller and unanimously carried.
Mr. Lambert moved to recess the committee meeting in order to convene into the Regular Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nichols and unanimously carried.
Meeting recessed at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:43 p.m.
Mr. Truitt and Mr. Salters were deputized to serve in the absence of Mr. Nichols and Mr. Kramedas.
Proposed Changes to the Electric Service Handbook, Division III, Rules and Regulations, Section 3-34 Through 3-36 Concerning Line Extensions
Presently, the City requires no fee for new development or extension requests to the distribution system. The City provides all engineering, construction, and materials necessary for new distribution line extensions. Several Utility companies require developers to contribute to the cost of construction on new system extensions. In an effort to be more like other utilities, it is proposed that contractors and/or developers make some contribution to the expense of electric infrastructure extensions.
Staff recommended initiating policy changes in the Electric Service Handbook Sections 3-34 through 3-36 addressing primary and secondary line extensions. These changes would require the developer to provide some contribution to the expense of electric infrastructure extensions. In some cases, the developer will provide labor and material and/or be billed by engineering for a percentage of the installation.
The total plan would require the developer/contractor to make contributions to the construction of electric facilities, which will benefit the City in several ways. City crews and materials will not be required because the labor and materials for conduit installation will be provided by the contractor/developer. In addition to these obvious savings, a new source of revenue will be realized by billing the contractor/developer for a portion of the cost of the labor for pulling cable, setting transformers, making terminations, etc. Presently, the City provides for all these items at no charge.
Mr. O’Connor stated that there was a provision to extend the service line 300'. Service beyond that point would be on a cost recovery basis. The City will also go onto private property to serve one (1) customer or multiple customers on a one-time only basis.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed changes to Sections 3-34 through 3-36 of the Electric Service Handbook, to become effective April 1, 2000.
Mr. Weller moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Proposed Phase I Re-Conductoring of the 69KV Transmission Line Beginning at Mid-City Substation and Ending at Roosevelt Avenue and the St. Jones River
Presently, the City operates a 69KV transmission loop which supplies power to most distribution substations. The main purpose of the loop is to provide for back-feed capabilities to isolate faults while maintaining system loads. However, due to different wire sizes in the loop, the system becomes vulnerable to overloads during back-feeding or normal switching procedures. The wire size on the loop must be consistent in order to provide reliable back-feeding capabilities. For this reason, some sections of the loop require upgrade from 336 kcmil to 636 kcmil wire. If not upgraded, overloads on the 69KV loop may occur during scheduled switching or fault isolation and cause extended outages.
Mr. O’Connor, City Manager, explained that it is planned to upgrade all 336 sections of the 69KV loop to 636 wire. Due to the extensive work involved, the plan will be implemented in two (2) phases. Phase I provides for the contract labor to re-conductor 6,895 feet of the three (3) phase 69KV transmission line from Mid-City substation to Roosevelt Avenue. The material cost for this project is approximately $23,000 for 6,895 feet of 636 wire and associated wire clamps, which have been ordered on a bid basis.
Phase II of this project provides for the re-conductoring of approximately 1,300 feet and is the last section of the 69KV loop with 336 wire. This is a small section of line between Roosevelt Avenue and Danner Farms Substation. This section of line crosses the St. Jones River with a structure on an island on the St. Jones River and has an unusually long span which requires additional engineering. Phase II will be implemented upon completion of Phase I.
The Phase I project was designed in-house and bids were received for labor for construction from two (2) of the four (4) solicited bidders. The results are as follow:
Fry Electric $35,156
C. W. Wright $80,000
Henkels McCoy No Response
Conectiv Solutions No Response
Funding for this project is available in the Electric Improvement and Extension Fund. Staff recommended that the contract for construction labor be awarded to Fry Electric at a cost not to exceed $35,156.
Mr. Carey moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Weller and unanimously carried.
Mr. Salters moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Weller and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/tm
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20002-14-00.min