REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on November 8, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Christiansen presiding. Council members present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Leary, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Weller.
Council staff members present were Chief Faulkner, Mr. Lucas, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. DePrima, 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 Christiansen declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum Segment.
The invocation was given by Elder Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 1999
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 25, 1999 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mrs. Malone and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on October 25, 1999 with Chairman Salters presiding.
Discussion - Remuneration for City Council, Council President, Civilian Committee Members, and Planning Commission Members
During the committee meeting, Council President Christiansen reminded members that the General Assembly recently amended the City Charter to allow Council to set the remuneration levels for the Mayor, members of Council, and others. It is Council’s policy to periodically review several issues involving the City. When the remuneration levels were last reviewed, it was agreed that this matter would be brought back for reconsideration. Noting that sufficient time has lapsed since the last review, it was Council President Christiansen’s feeling that it would be appropriate to review this matter at this time to consider a possible increase or decrease in the remuneration levels. He emphasized that no member of Council initiated this issue for discussion.
At the request of Council President Christiansen and as Chairman of the Salary Review Committee, Mr. Leary provided information with regards to Council salaries for discussion purposes only, as follows:
►Based upon the City Charter, Council commenced holding two (2) meetings per month in 1953. Before then, Council was limited to 15 meetings per year. The compensation in 1953 was $10 per meeting for a total of $240 per year.
►Composing $240 annually with inflation to December 31, 1998, yields $1,448.
►Factoring for population growth: The City’s population in 1950 was 6,223; in 1998 it was 33,819 - the difference, or growth, is 5.43 times.
►Taking the above into consideration and to complete the calculation:
$1,448 x 5.43 = $7,862 per year = $655 per month
Mr. Lambert stated that he would support a modest increase for Civilian Committee and Planning Commission members; however, he would not support any type of increase for Council at this time. As requested when considering increases for senior staff of the City, he stated that he has obtained information from the National League of Cities on 67 other municipalities for comparison. He advised members that, based upon a population of 30,000 to 34,000, the average council pay is $3,629.24 annually, which is $29.24 more than Council’s current pay. Utilizing this comparison as a method of calculating an amount that would be appropriate, it was his feeling that members of Council are currently being paid at a proper level. He also relayed concern that if the salary is increased, there would be a greater possibility of individuals running for office for all the wrong reasons. Should an increase be recommended, Mr. Lambert felt that it should not be for the current members of Council and that such an increase would become effective after each member has gone before the public for re-election. He reminded members that the City is currently over $1 million short for next year’s budget. It was his feeling that if it is necessary to raise taxes, the perception will be that the taxes are being raised to pay for Council salary increases.
Having served for almost nine (9) years on Council, Mr. Pitts stated that he has realized that Council works very hard and on many occasions must make difficult decisions and should be compensated accordingly. Referring to Mr. Lambert’s concept to determine an appropriate salary amount, he reminded members that when it was time to increase the salary for a full-time Mayor, this concept was not utilized. It was his feeling that a huge increase has not been proposed and that future Council’s should be paid more adequately than they have been in the past. He agreed that each member of Council should run for re-election before any salary increase is instituted.
Mr. Weller stated that serving as an effective member of Council takes many more hours than he thought it would when he first ran for Council. Although he was aware of the remuneration, it was not for that reason that he chose to run for Council. It was his feeling that in order to attract qualified candidates in the future, consideration of a salary increase is necessary at this time.
Mrs. Malone stated her support for a salary increase. It was her feeling that individuals should be remunerated fairly for their services to the City. The City has grown over the eight (8) years since she was elected to Council and the workload continues to increase, noting the addition of subcommittees and ad-hoc committees, meetings, etc. She indicated her concurrence with many of the comments made regarding assurance of qualified candidates for the future. Although future Council’s should not be serving for the purpose of a salary, Mrs. Malone felt that they should be reimbursed for their time and recommended Council’s salary be set at $650 per month, Council President be set at 15% more than Council, $75 per meeting for Civilian Committee members, and $100 per meeting for Planning Commission members, to be effective January 1, 2000.
Mr. Carey felt that the calculation presented by Mr. Leary is logical and agrees that consideration should be given to reimbursement for the time given to the City.
Mr. Truitt stated that individuals interested in running for public office do not do so for the money. The City would not be able to pay the salary it would take to have individuals run for the money. Although he agreed that the increase in population should be factored into the calculation of an increase, he relayed concern with utilizing the population growth of 5.43 for determining a salary. As an example, he explained that when a manager is responsible for 10 people and that responsibility increases to 50 people, the salary would not be increased 5 times.
Agreeing with all other members of Council, Mr. Leary stated that his decision to serve as a member of Council was not due to money. However, he noted that there are many financial differences between members of Council, some being retired and receiving a pension, others that are independently employed, those that receive a salary or commissions, etc. Although he has been fortunate to have the ability to serve Council without consideration of remuneration, it is his fear that this may not be the case for others. In order to keep diversity within Council, Mr. Leary felt that it would be pertinent to consider an increase in Council’s salary. He reminded members that leadership requires making difficult decisions that are based on what each member feels would be best for the City and stated that this issue would be no different.
Council President Christiansen referred to the statements made by each member, indicating that the primary motivation for serving the City is for the good of the City and because the City is in their heart. Although the Council that is serving today will be taking action regarding this matter, he stated that it will not necessarily affect them. However, it may be the one decision that will allow interested citizens the opportunity to fulfill their interest in serving the City. Alluding to the costs involved in serving the City, Council President Christiansen noted that there may be individuals that have the desire to serve but, unfortunately, are not in the financial position to do so. He felt that no one should be making a lot of money by serving and at the same time, it should not cost them to do so either.
Mr. Salters stated that the average citizen enjoys the safety and welfare of this City based on the decisions and rules made by City Council. Noting that, although there are approximately 30,000 citizens of this City, as the capital of the State of Delaware, and because of the small towns that surround the City, Council actually governs the surrounding areas of the City as well. There are concerns and decisions made that affect more people than just those that reside in the limits of Dover. Mr. Salters stated that the reference to the need for remuneration to serve on Council is not germane to his position on this issue since his personal financial situation allows him to serve without being influenced by the compensation. However, he suggested that members put into perspective the job that is performed by Council and the possibility of the influence this decision could have for future potential candidates.
After much discussion, the committee recommended an increase in salaries, to be effective January 1, 2000, as follows: Council - $650 per month; Council President - $750 per month; Civilian Committee Members - $75 per meeting; and Planning Commission Members - $100 per meeting. It is noted that this would require an amendment to Section 2-70 of the Dover Code and that an ordinance would be drafted for submission to the Legislative and Finance Committee for their review and recommendation.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation by consent agenda, seconded by Mrs. Malone.
Mr. Lambert objected to the motion, indicating his desire to discuss the issue.
Council President Christiansen noted that consideration of the question has been objected to and called for the question. The motion for approval of the committee’s recommendation by consent agenda failed by a vote of four (4) yes, five (5) no (Mr. Lambert, Mr. Leary, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Weller, and Mr. Christiansen).
Council President Christiansen requested, as a result of the vote, that Chairman Salters open the floor for discussion.
Mr. Lambert requested that consideration of the proposed increase in salaries be separated, explaining that he does not necessarily oppose an increase for Civilian Committee and Planning Commission members but has an objection for the pay increase for members of City Council. Should a pay increase be approved for members of City Council, Mr. Lambert indicated that he would not accept the increase. He reiterated previous concerns relayed during the committee meetings, indicating that the current salary level for City Council is at a proper level. Should a salary increase be approved, it was his feeling that it should not be made effective until all members of Council have gone through an election cycle. This would make all members accountable to their constituents regarding the action to be taken. It would also provide staff the opportunity to budget for the salary increase, noting that should the increases be made effective January 1, 2000, there are no monies currently allocated for this expense. He suggested that Council set an example for staff by being held accountable for maintaining expenses as included in their budget.
Should an ordinance be recommended for an increase in salary, Mr. Lambert recommended that Section 2-70 be amended by adding “Any approved increase in remuneration of Council Members will not take effect until all members of Council have gone through one (1) election cycle (i.e. two (2) City elections).” He also recommended that the word “salary(ies)” be replaced with “remuneration” or “compensation”. Mr. Lambert stated that the term “salary” seems to be easily related to a “fair salary” and that serving as a member of City Council is not performing a part-time job that deserves a “fair salary”; however, members of City Council should receive remuneration or compensation as a stipend. He felt that the primary purpose of City Council is to serve the people of the City and not to increase its own salary.
Mr. Leary requested that at this time, the issue of policy be considered rather than politics. He reminded members how it has become increasingly difficult to find volunteers willing to serve on committees and to have citizens interested in seeking office. Referring to a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal, he read portions of a feature story regarding volunteerism, which indicated that “volunteerism is experiencing a severe case of commitment phobia”. Mr. Leary stated that times have changed and that Council should look forward to the making of policy, feeling that in order to attain some type of assurance that there are quality people willing to devote their time, there must be adjustments made accordingly. Although he supports the calculations of the proposed salary increases, feeling that it is more accurate for the City of Dover than using a comparison of other cities’ salary levels, he would not object to further discussion regarding the effective date of such salary levels.
Mr. Truitt relayed concern with the effect the proposed salary levels will have on the budget, explaining that the recommendation would increase the budget in the amount of $12,120 for Civilian Committee and Planning Commission members and $38,400 for City Council; a total budget increase in the amount of $50,520. Since he considers being a member of City Council as voluntary, it was his opinion that the salary should simply off-set expenses. Feeling that the current salary level meets those expenses, any increase would be a profit, which he would not support. Mr. Truitt concurred with Mr. Lambert’s suggestions regarding the effective date being after each member has fulfilled their current term and that no increase should be considered until assurance that the financial situation of the City is sound.
Mr. Salters referred to the recent newspaper articles and statements regarding the City’s financial status, clarifying that there is no short-fall in the City’s current budget and that the City’s financial situation is strong. He explained that traditionally, the City has maintained a beginning balance to be used in emergency situations, should it be necessary. Although the City’s projected beginning balance is less than the amount desired, he assured citizens that the City is not in a deficit position and that no tax increase is anticipated for the next fiscal year.
Mr. Leary noted that approval of any type of remuneration change will require an ordinance amendment; therefore, action that is taken by Council at this time will not be the final decision. Approval will require an ordinance amendment to be presented to the Legislative and Finance Committee for review, at which time further discussion can occur. The committee’s recommendation will then be submitted to Council for a first reading of the proposed ordinance. Considering that there is ample time for public input, he suggested that constituents contact members to ask questions and voice their concerns.
Referring to the comments regarding the beginning balance, Mr. Lambert noted that staff has projected $35,000 for next year and that typically, staff budgets $1.2 million. It was his feeling that this would constitute a short-fall and that it may be necessary to consider either a tax increase or instituting a trash fee.
Responding, Mr. Leary noted that the previous year’s beginning balance was projected at $800,000 and that $1.4 million was realized. Staff has consistently made very conservative assumptions, as directed by Council, and reiterated that the City’s budget is not in jeopardy.
Mr. Salters moved that an ordinance be drafted to amend Section 2-70 of the Dover Code to provide for an increase in salaries, to be effective January 1, 2000, as follows: Council - $650 per month; Council President - $750 per month; Civilian Committee Members - $75 per meeting; and Planning Commission Members - $100 per meeting, to be presented to the Legislative and Finance Committee for their review and recommendation, reflecting the requests of Mr. Lambert for further consideration. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone.
Mr. Lambert reiterated his request that the motion be separated, indicating his support for an increase for Civilian Committee and Planning Commission Members, and opposition to the increase for City Council. He also reiterated his request that the motion include “any approved increase in remuneration of Council Members will not take effect until all members of Council have gone through one election cycle (i.e. two (2) City elections) and that the words “salary(ies)” be changed to “remuneration” or “compensation”.
Council President Christiansen explained that, in accordance with the motion, staff will prepare ordinance amendments to be presented to the Legislative and Finance Committee for discussion. At that time, Mr. Lambert should submit his requests for inclusion in the ordinance that is presented to Council for first reading.
Mr. Truitt moved for a point of information, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried. Responding to Mr. Truitt, Council President Christiansen indicated that although separate motions are not required, he assured members that when the ordinances are prepared, they will be done so that each item will require a separate vote.
In response to Mrs. Malone, Council President Christiansen explained that an ordinance will be drafted based on the recommendation of the Legislative and Finance Committee. Since the recommendation included a specific date, it will be included in the initial ordinance to be submitted to the Legislative and Finance Committee for their review, at which time, the committee will determine if it should go to Council with the initial recommended date or will include the parameters suggested by Mr. Lambert, as well as any other amendments that may be offered before the ordinance is presented to Council for a first reading.
Responding to Mr. Lambert, Council President Christiansen indicated that there will be separate ordinances drafted to be considered by the Legislative and Finance Committee that will be reflective of the Legislative and Finance Committee’s recommendation. Mr. Lambert explained that because this matter is being considered as a whole, he will not support it although he has no objections to the proposed increases for Civilian Committee or Planning Commission Members.
On a call for the question by Mr. Weller, the motion was carried with Mr. Lambert, Mr. Truitt, and Mr. Weller voting no.
Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Legislative and Finance Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Parks and Recreation Committee met on October 25, 1999 with Chairwoman Malone presiding.
Request of Military Order of the Purple Heart - Designation of Land for Veterans Memorial
Committee members considered a letter submitted by Mr. Harry Long, Welfare Officer (Chapter 1728) of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, requesting consideration that the City of Dover designate a location for a memorial to all veterans of all United States wars. Special thoughts would be for military members that are currently prisoners of war or missing in action.
Mr. Long met with Mr. O’Connor, City Manager, and Mr. Hedgecock, Chamber of Commerce, regarding the possibility of utilizing property located north of the Division Street bridge, in the City park area. This area would provide a location for a solemn memorial to our veterans that would be visited and appreciated by veterans and their families for many years. Should the City approve the designation of this site to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Mr. Long assured members that the project will be one that the City will be proud of once completed. It is anticipated that the memorial will be similar to the Washington, D.C. memorials.
Mr. O’Connor advised members that the area recommended was selected since there is an existing walkway that would provide handicap accessibility. The members of the Military Order of the Purple Heart have assured him that they would maintain the monument. Due to the location being in the general area of the current fireman’s memorial, it was his feeling that the proposed monument would add beauty to the downtown area. Staff recommended authorization to work with the members of the Military Order of the Purple Heart to develop legal boundaries and a description of the proposed site.
In response to Mrs. Moerschel, Mr. O’Connor assured members that there would be an agreement stipulating that the Military Order of the Purple Heart will be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the monument. He stated that the agreement would be similar to that of the fireman’s association, whereby all costs will be the responsibility of the association; however, on occasions, the City will assist by providing labor. Also, in response to Mrs. Moerschel concerning the design of the project, Mr. O’Connor stated that the City will be reviewing the project design and will have the right to accept or reject the design of the memorial.
The committee recommended approval of the designation of land for a veteran’s memorial as requested by the Military Order of the Purple Heart, with the stipulation that their association will be responsible for perpetual care and that the City be involved through the City Manager and Parks and Recreation Director in the design review process.
Mrs. Malone moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation by consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mrs. Malone moved for acceptance of the Parks and Recreation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT
The Utility Committee met on October 25, 1999 with Chairman Lambert presiding.
Substation Transformer Services
There are currently five (5) substation transformers that are in need of major service, as follows:
1.Danner Farm Transformer - this unit began to leak around the cooling radiator flange joints in June 1999. Repairs were made to the motor two (2) years ago, at which time it was discovered that the contacts in the unit were worn and needed to be replaced. Continuous service is required to avoid severe damage to the transformer.
2.Lebanon Transformer - the annual oil testing indicates excessive arcing is occurring, indicating a need to perform contact service.
3.Mid-City Tie Transformer - oil test analysis indicates a need to perform contact service.
4.St. Jones Transformer - oil test results indicate that, due to the high summer loads, oxidation and sludge build-up is occurring and that a process called “hot oil cleaning” will prolong the life of the unit.
5.McKee Substation - the 69 kv and 12 kv transformer is in need of hot oil cleaning due to a condition similar to the St. Jones transformer.
Mr. O’Connor explained that the service described requires specialized equipment and training to ensure that the work is performed correctly. Bids were solicited, with the sole bids being received from S. D. Myers for all labor, materials, and tap changer coil reconditioning, as follows:
Danner Farm $36,060*
Lebabon $15,165*
Mid-City Tie $17,035*
St. Jones and McKee $11,819
Total $80,079**
* Price quoted includes a complete set of tap changer contacts and labor.
**S.D. Myers will reduce the mobilization fee for the transformer tap changer service by $1,820, reducing the total of $80,079 to $78,259.
It was noted that the bid price for Danner Farm ($36,060) also includes repair work on the main transformer tank. Bid specifications were also sent to Reuter Hanney, Exelon, Avo, and PSA; however, no response was received.
Funding for these services is available in the Distribution Upgrades Fund budget. Staff recommended approval of the bid for $78,259 to S. D. Myers for services to be performed on the five (5) substation transformers.
The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Lambert moved to approve the bid for $78,259 to S.D. Myers for services to be performed on the five (5) substation transformers, as the committee recommended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
DuPont Street Abandonment
The Ingerman Group and the Dover Housing Authority have submitted a request for abandonment of DuPont Street, which is a 309+/- foot public street that intersects South Queen and South New Street, approximately 240+/- feet south of Bank Lane. The street is 30 feet wide.
Mr. DePrima, City Planner, explained that the Ingerman Group, in cooperation with the Dover Housing Authority, are proposing to construct a new senior citizen housing complex, Owens Manor. The complex is to be situated on lands adjoining the existing Queens Manor Apartments. The Ingerman Group intends to purchase land on both sides of DuPont Street for the construction of Owens Manor and has requested that DuPont Street be abandoned so that the land can be consolidated. Under their plan, most of the land associated with DuPont Street will be used for fire lanes and access to a parking lot.
Mr. DePrima stated that the DAC members recommended abandonment and dedication of the land to adjoining property owners, conditioned on the overall approval and start of the Owens Manor Project. The Planning Commission considered the request and recommended approval of the abandonment with the condition that utility easements be reserved for the City, that a cross access easement with Mr. Carter be established, and that the Owens Mill Apartment Project, for which this abandonment is being done, be approved and that the construction permit not expire.
During the committee meeting, Mr. DePrima noted that in accordance with Section 27 of the Dover Charter, when the City is considering abandonment of an improved street, it may authorize bids for the sale of the land. He explained that this property is not developable as is, and given that the owner and developer of the adjacent lots is the Dover Housing Authority, staff did not recommend that the property be offered for sale. If the street is abandoned to adjacent property owners, the majority of the land would revert to the Dover Housing Authority and the lands to be purchased by the Ingerman Group. A small portion (0.0186 acres) would revert to Robert D. Carter.
Responding to questions of committee members, Mr. Petit de Mange of Landmark Engineering indicated that there are utilities located under the street that will require rerouting; however, any costs involved will be the responsibility of the developer. He assured members that there is an adequate water supply in the area for a sprinkler system and indicated that flow tests were recently performed and all fire hydrants were tested, confirming an adequate water supply.
The committee recommended approval of the abandonment of DuPont Street, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lambert moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Malone and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following Resolution:
A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE VACATING AND ABANDONMENT OF DUPONT STREET SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DOVER.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
Section 1. The Council of the City of Dover favors the vacating and abandoning of the following street:
ALL that certain piece or parcel of land situated in the City of Dover, Kent County, State of Delaware, being a public street running east to west, between Queen Street and New Street, being 30 feet wide and approximately 308.67 feet in length, comprising 9,260.10 square feet, more or less.
Section 2. The Council of the City of Dover will sit on Monday, November 22, 1999 at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Dover, Delaware, to hear the objections of such residents of the City or owners of the property affected as shall attend, in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Charter of the City of Dover (Chapter 158, Volume 36, Laws of Delaware).
Section 3. The Clerk of Council is hereby directed to post copies of this Resolution in five or more public places in the City of Dover and to publish the same in a local newspaper published in said City.
ADOPTED: NOVEMBER 8, 1999
Mr. Lambert moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of October 25, 1999.
Proposed Budget Revisions #1
Mrs. Malone moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
The amounts hereinafter named in the 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 several departments of the Municipal Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1999 and ending June 30, 2000:
A. GENERAL FUND - REVENUES
CURRENT +ADDITION/ REVISED
REVENUE BUDGET -REDUCTION ESTIMATE
Beginning Balance $833,098 +$792,423 $1,625,521
Grant - Municipal Street Aid 706,000 +142,000 848,000
Grant - Bike/Pedestrian -0- +47,901 47,901
Grant - Recreation -0- +5,000 5,000
Grant - Recreation Facility Study -0- +33,000 33,000
B. GENERAL FUND - EXPENDITURES
CURRENT +ADDITION/ REVISED
DEPARTMENT BUDGET -REDUCTION ESTIMATE
Street $805,973 +$55,500 $861,473
Sanitation 1,446,199 +268,521 1,714,720
Recreation Facility Study -0- +66,866 66,866
Retirees Health Care 180,000 +30,000 210,000
Loan to Old Health Insurance -0- +200,000 200,000
Bike/Pedestrian Project -0- +60,000 60,000
Allocated Expenses 2,114,336 +42,396 2,156,732
Budget Balance 35,912 +297,041 332,953
C. WATER FUND - REVENUES
CURRENT +ADDITION/ REVISED
REVENUE BUDGET -REDUCTION ESTIMATE
Beginning Balance $805,507 +$1,223,194 $2,028,701
D. WATER FUND - EXPENDITURES
CURRENT +ADDITION/ REVISED
DEPARTMENT BUDGET -REDUCTION ESTIMATE
Water Department $888,653 +$31,000 $919,653
Water Treatment Plant 276,274 +10,000 286,274
Other Appropriation -
Transfer to Wastewater Fund -0- +231,442 231,442
Allocated Expenses 729,271