COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on January 28, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Weyandt, Mr. Daisey, Mr. Levitt, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Salters, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Hare, Mr. Lambert and Mayor Richter.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Levitt requested the deletion of item #2B (Annexation Request - C.G.W. Enterprises) from the Utility Committee agenda. Mayor Richter requested the addition of item #6 to the Legislative and Finance Committee to consider the proposed sign ordinances. Mr. Weyandt requested the addition of item #7 to the Legislative and Finance Committee to discuss the interest rate paid on electric deposit refunds. Council President Christiansen requested the deletion of item #1 from the Safety Advisory Committee agenda since Chief Hutchison has authorized the reinstallation of the stop sign at Westview Terrace and Waples Avenue.
Mr. Levitt moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Levitt presiding. Members present were Mr. Salters, Mr. Daisey and Mr. Carey.
PRESENTATION - JOINT LAND USE STUDY
Mr. DePrima, Planning Director, explained that the City has been investigating the possibility of entering into a Joint Land Use Study with Kent County and the Department of Defense. He stated that if the City wishes to participate in this study, it will be necessary to pass a resolution in support of it. Mr. DePrima introduced Mr. David MacKinnon and Mr. John Lee from the Office of Economic Adjustment; Mr. Joe Petermo, Community Planner from the Dover Air Force Base; and Mr. Kevin Coyle from the Kent County Planning Commission.
Mr. MacKinnon explained that most major military installations were originally located outside urban centers or in sparsely populated rural areas. However, urban growth, attracted by the location of the installation and the economic activity generated by it, has resulted in the establishment of an adjoining community or the closer proximity of neighboring communities to the military facility. Mr. MacKinnon stated that military installations and associated mission activities have good and bad effects on nearby communities. Operations can cause adverse impacts from aircraft, which generate noise and pose accident potential. When communities are exposed to noise and accident potential, they will seek relief. He explained that this usually places pressure on the military base to modify operations, which could ultimately lead to total elimination of noise generating activities, and a commensurate reduction in personnel and mission assignments, which could result in reduced economic benefits to the community. Mr. MacKinnon advised members that both parties would lose; however, modifications to surrounding land uses can also help to resolve the conflict and both parties can be winners.
Mr. MacKinnon stated that in the early 1970's, the Department of Defense established an Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program in response to existing and potential incompatible land development. Its purpose is to promote community growth which is compatible with the military installation operations. The program includes a study of noise levels and a delineation of the areas in the vicinity of the installation likely to be affected by noise or a potential accident. The studies are based on standard planning criteria. They recommend compatible community land uses in noise and accident potential zones. Mr. MacKinnon stated that the recommendations from the AICUZ studies are not binding on communities and generally were not being included in area planning activities; therefore, in 1985, the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) concept was initiated. It was designed to provide financial and technical incentives to help resolve the conflict that has occurred between mission objectives and community growth patterns. Mr. MacKinnon explained that the intent of the JLUS is to develop a plan as the basis for implementing land use recommendations, including AICUZ, around a military installation.
Mr. MacKinnon provided members with a diagram of Dover Air Force Base and the recommendations from the AICUZ study. He explained that the financial incentive is cost-shared grants that are made available through the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment. Mr. MacKinnon stated that a community consensus is necessary whereby each local governing body within the proposed JLUS area must agree with the need for compatible growth around the military installation. Mr. MacKinnon further explained that the JLUS efforts have the potential to spawn mutual benefits, as follows: 1) Protection of the health and safety of residents near military installations from the impacts of military operations; 2) Preservation of the long term compatibility of the installation and the community surrounding it; 3) Greater emphasis on community comprehensive planning; 4) Increased cooperative spirit between the base and local officials; and 5) Integration of community comprehensive plans with the installation and, when the JLUS involves several jurisdictions, with one another.
Responding to Mr. Levitt, Mr. DePrima stated that the proposed resolution in support of the JLUS authorizes the Kent County Planning Commission to serve as the lead coordinating agency. Once the City adopts the proposed resolution, he advised members that the Kent County Planning Commission will draft a similar resolution to include Little Creek and Magnolia. Mr. DePrima stated that the City's contribution will be staff support and other in-kind services and that Kent County will work towards the matching grant.
Staff recommended that the City support the Joint Land Use Study program and adopt the proposed resolution.
Mr. Daisey moved to recommend acceptance of the Joint Land Use Study program and adoption of the proposed resolution (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION - SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE #8 - DRS. DUSHUTTLE, VARIPAPPA AND ANDREWS
The committee considered a request for annexation of property located on the southerly side of Route #8, approximately 270' east of Independence Boulevard and east of and adjacent to the Dunkin' Donuts property, consisting of 3.81 acres. The property is owned by Drs. DuShuttle, Varipappa and Andrews. Staff provided members with a map depicting the area of annexation.
Mr. DePrima advised members that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation and that the property be given a zoning classification of C-2A (Limited Central Commercial). In making their recommendation, Mr. DePrima stated that the Planning Commission considered the properties' present zoning in the County of R-S (Single Family Residential), B-G (General Business) and B-N (Neighborhood Business). He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan, as recently amended by the Route #8 Corridor Land Use Plan, recommends that this area be utilized for commercial purposes. Mr. DePrima advised members that as indicated through a conceptual site plan, the applicant intends to develop the site in accordance with the design criteria recommended in the Route #8 Corridor Study. Mr. DePrima stated that although there are several lots that form the 3.81 acres, the property should be considered as one site since the back parcels would have no street frontage.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend that a referendum be held for annexation of property located on the south side of Route #8, owned by Drs. DuShuttle, Varipappa and Andrews. The motion was seconded by Mr. Daisey.
Mr. Dave Yankovich, 1233 N. Farmview Drive, advised members that the rear of his property is adjacent to the property being considered for annexation. He explained that the property owners on Farmview Drive are concerned with the close proximity of commercial establishments to the rear of their properties. Mr. Yankovich stated that the proposed property is elevated higher than the residential properties and that residents have concern with drainage.
Mayor Richter reminded members that if the City does not approve annexation of this property, it will be developed within the County. Feeling that the City has a better Planning program than the County, he felt that the City should annex the property in order to protect the area. Mayor Richter stated that site plan is a separate process and assured residents that their concerns can be addressed during site plan approval.
Responding to Council President Christiansen, Mr. Phil McGinnis, representative for Drs. DuShuttle, Varipappa, and Andrews, stated that he would be willing to meet with the surrounding property owners to help appease their concerns.
Mr. James Lightfoot, 43 Bennington Street, felt that the proposal is an insult to the community and that the surrounding community is being taken advantage of. Feeling that annexation and zoning should be separate issues, Mr. Lightfoot explained that if the property was annexed, the owner could then submit a rezoning request and the appropriate meetings held at which time residents would be given the opportunity to relay their concerns. Mr. Lightfoot stated that the residents are not opposed to the property being annexed; however, they are concerned with the property being given a commercial zoning classification.
Mr. Allan Rathbun, 1239 N. Farmview Drive, spoke in opposition to annexing the property with a commercial zone. He stated that when the Dunkin Donuts property was being developed, the residents were deceived. He advised members that the residents were told that a family bakery was being built. Mr. Rathbun also stated that the developer promised a six (6) foot fence, and that although a drive-thru window was being installed that it would not be utilized. He advised members that the drive-thru window is now being used on a daily basis and that the headlights from the vehicles shine through the residents' homes. Since the residents were previously deceived, Mr. Rathbun stated that the residents feel that a plan is necessary to prevent it from happening again.
Mr. Bob Hartman, 1227 N. Farmview Drive, referred to the Route #8 Corridor Study and suggested that, prior to its adoption, residents be permitted to work with City staff in an attempt to protect the residents in the area.
Responding to Mr. Salters request, Mr. DePrima stated that staff will investigate the concern of headlights from vehicles patronizing Dunkin Donuts and that they will be made to comply with the City's regulations.
In speaking with the residents, Mr. Hare stated that they would agree with a commercial zoning for the front property; however, they do not want commercial development on the back parcel since it abuts their property. He noted that the Route #8 Corridor Study is a commercial plan for the Route #8 corridor. It was Mr. Hare's feeling that the developers are taking advantage of the Route #8 Corridor Study by combining the front and back parcels.
Mr. Daisey moved to table the matter to provide the residents the opportunity to meet with the developers in an attempt to resolve some of their concerns. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
UNACCEPTABLE WATER QUALITY - PETITION - RESIDENTS OF PRESIDENTS WAY
A petition was received from residents of Presidents Way concerning the quality of the City's water. They indicated that the water has a sulfur smell, calcium deposits, and is unacceptable overall.
Mr. Scrafford explained that the odor is caused by hydrogen sulfide in the water system. This occurs most frequently on dead end mains throughout the City, and in new construction. He stated that three procedures are used in response to these complaints, as follows: 1) The City "blows-off" the main; 2) the City recommends that the homeowner drain their hot water heater; and 3) the City recommends that the homeowner remove the anode rod from within the hot water heater. Mr. Scrafford stated that the above procedures will provide temporary relief; however, the only sure method to eliminate the odor from the water is to chlorinate the water.
Mr. Scrafford advised members that the quantity of hydrogen sulfide is within all federal and state standards for drinking water. He stated that this area has been added to the regular preventative maintenance schedule for blow-offs. Mr. Scrafford reminded members that chlorination has been discussed extensively in the past whereby Council has opted not to chlorinate. Staff recommended that the City continue with the current policy for responding to water odor.
Mr. Steve Fowler and Mr. Thomas Rygiel, residents of Presidents Way, advised members that once the anode rod is removed from the hot water heater, the unit would no longer be under warranty. Mr. Fowler also advised members that he has lived with this problem for two (2) years. Since homes that are located at dead-end areas are known to have this water problem, Mr. Fowler questioned the possibility of running the water lines past the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend that staff continue with the current policy for responding to water odor and that staff further investigate the possibility of extending the water lines past the cul-de-sac. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
BULKY REFUSE FEE
Members were advised that occasionally, a refuse customer places an excessive amount of brush or bulk at the street curb for City disposal. These pickups exceed the intent of the City's garbage/trash ordinance and exceed the capacity of the City's collection system. The City's sanitation system is financed by the General Fund and is designed for reasonable amounts of residential bulky and brush pickups.
Mr. Scrafford stated that the extraordinary amounts of bulky and/or brush refuse are so great that there is strong justification for financing the collection through a user fee rather than through the General Fund. Staff recommended that a surcharge of $75 be levied for such pickups and that the pickups be defined as an amount of bulky or brush refuse that requires the dedication of a single city crane truck for removal. The charge would be automatic and assessed to the property.
Although the committee agreed with the concept of charging for pickups of extraordinary amounts of refuse, they were concerned with the amount of the charge and the definition of extraordinary refuse and felt that staff should present a more detailed description of these pickups.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. Worley stated that when the City sponsors a special clean up, all refuse charges would be waived.
Mr. Daisey moved to table the matter to allow staff to gather more detailed information for a report back to the committee, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Responding to Mr. Worley, Mr. Daisey requested that staff obtain more background information on the frequency of the extraordinary pickups, definition of such pickups, and options regarding the amount of the charge.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:35 P.M.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Weyandt presiding. Members present were Councilmen Lynn and Hare and Mr. Leary.
SUGGESTIONS FOR HIRING UNEMPLOYED CITY RESIDENTS - JAMES A. BURCHAM
The committee considered a letter from Mr. James A. Burcham suggesting that the City hire unemployed City residents as quasi-City employees with wages earned credited directly to City utilities or taxes owed. Noting that the economy is in a recession when labor is available and money is not, it was his opinion that
the City and residents could benefit from such a proposal.
Mr. Hare moved to recommend that staff consider the suggestion made by Mr. Burcham for a report back to the committee, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
PROPOSED CITY OF DOVER WEEDS ORDINANCE
By request of Council President Christiansen, City Solicitor Rodriguez investigated the possibility of amending the City's weeds ordinance to allow for quicker response time to an offense. Council President Christiansen suggested that the City advertise the provisions of the weeds ordinance at the beginning of the grass season informing the public that the City intends to enforce the ordinance. If a violation occurs, the City would then be required to send a certified letter of notification that the grass must be cut or the City will have the grass cut, with the costs becoming liens against the property. If the same property has a second offense, no notification would be necessary and the City would have the grass cut with the costs becoming liens against the property.
In researching the matter, City Solicitor Rodriguez informed members that there are serious due process problems with the suggested changes; therefore, he felt that it would be inadvisable for the City to amend the weeds ordinance by repealing the notice requirement in the case of repeat offenses. As a possible solution to the problem, Mr. Rodriguez stated that the City could respond to repeat offenses by gradually increasing fines. He advised members that the only fine for which the Dover ordinance provides for is payment of a $50.00 per hour mowing charge. Mr. Rodriguez presented copies of the Kansas City Missouri Code which provides for fines for violation of the nuisance ordinances, and the minimum fine determined by how many times the offense has been committed by the same party in the same location. Similarly, Mr. Rodriguez stated that the City of Dover's weeds ordinance could be amended by providing for fines which are increased if the offending party has been convicted of a previous offense at the same location.
Mr. Lynn moved to recommend that Mr. Rodriguez prepare an amended ordinance that would increase fines for repeat offenses, with the costs becoming liens against the property, and presented back to the committee for review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
RETURN CHECK FEE
Mr. Worley advised members that the City charges a $10.00 fee for all returned checks and that this charge has not been increased in approximately five (5) years. Last year, 536 checks were returned and $4,910 collected in returned check fees. He stated that the procedure for collecting returned checks is time consuming and can be laborious. Mr. Worley stated that the current return check fee of $10.00 does not cover the cost of processing a returned check and that last year, the postage costs alone were 25% of the fee the City recovered.
Staff conducted a survey of the banks and businesses in the Dover area and found that the fee charged for returned checks ranged from $15.00 to $25.00. Staff recommended that the return check fee be increased to $20.00 to cover the increase cost of labor and postage and to maintain consistency of fees with the local community. It is also hoped that it will act as a deterrent and enable the City to collect their receivables in a more timely manner.
Mr. Hall moved to recommend that the City increase the returned check fee to $20.00, seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
1992/93 BUDGET PROCESS
Every year the City conducts a budget process that begins in January and ends with the final approval by Council of the Budget prior to July 1st. During last year's budget hearings, Councilman Lynn requested a more in-depth review of the budget process. In response to this request, staff proposed three afternoon meetings on May 5, 6, and 7, to allow department heads to present and discuss 1992/93 budget programs and goals with Council. Mr. Worley stated that these meetings are intended to provide Council with a much better overview prior to the budget workshops scheduled for May 18, 19, 20, 21, and if needed, May 27.
In summary, Mr. Worley stated that the schedule increases Council's deliberation on the budget from three (3) days to eight (8) days. Staff recommended approval of the following budget process schedule:
May 5, 1992 budget presentations
May 6, 1992 budget presentations
May 7, 1992 budget presentations
May 18, 1992 budget workshop
May 19, 1992 budget workshop
May 20, 1992 budget workshop
May 21, 1992 budget workshop
May 27, 1992* budget workshop * (if needed)
Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of the budget process schedule as recommended by staff, seconded by Mr. Lynn.
Mr. Leary referred to three (3) afternoon meetings scheduled for budget presentations and suggested that they be evening hours since several members of Council work during the day.
Mr. Hare amended his motion to recommend approval of the concept of the budget schedule and that times be set by staff for evening hours. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
JANITORIAL SERVICES - 5 REED STREET
Since the purchase of the WSFS building located at 5 Reed Street, staff requested quotes from four local cleaning firms for maintenance of the building. The only quote received was from "Cleanway", for a price of $3,802.60 per month or $45,619.20. It was noted that the DDDC would provide trash liners, toilet paper, paper towels and hand soap.
Mr. Weyandt was concerned with staff contacting only four cleaning firms when there are ten registered cleaning firms located within the City of Dover.
Mr. Weyandt moved to table the matter until all ten cleaning firms have been contacted, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
City Council held a public hearing on January 13, 1992 to consider several sign regulation amendments to the City of Dover Zoning Code. During the public hearing, Mr. Dale McCalister of Kent Sign Company addressed concerns with the proposed sign ordinance amendments. He advised members that he served on the Sign Review Committee where some of the amendments were reviewed and that many changes were made by the Planning staff after review by the committee as well as additional regulations being added to the amendments. Council tabled action on the sign amendments, stipulating that the amendments be referred back to the Planning Staff and Sign Review Committee for further review.
Mayor Richter advised members that he met with Mr. McCalister and the Planning Staff concerning the sign amendments. He stated that Mr. McCalister remembered participating in all the meetings on the sign amendments with the exception of Article 5, Section 4 that addresses real estate and construction signs. However, Mayor Richter stated that Mr. McCalister has no problem with the amendment. He stated that Mr. McCalister was concerned with Article 7, Section 1.6 relative to non-conforming signs since this could create excessive hardships. Mayor Richter urged approval of the proposed amendments with the condition that Article 7, Section 1.6 (Non-conforming Signs) be deleted.
Mr. Hare moved to recommend acceptance of Mayor Richter's recommendations and that the revised Sign Ordinance Amendments (Attachment #2) be presented to Council for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lynn and unanimously carried.
INTEREST RATE - ELECTRIC DEPOSIT REFUNDS
With the current economy and the interest rates declining considerably, the Finance Director, Mr. Mike Karia, informed members that the City is paying 7% interest rate on electric deposit refunds. He suggested that the rate be reduced to 5.50% or 6%.
Mr. Hare moved to recommend that the interest rate on electric deposit refunds be reduced to 5.50%, seconded by Mr. Lynn.
After further discussion, members considered having the interest rate compatible with bank book savings, to be reviewed every six months.
Mr. Hare withdrew his motion, as did Mr. Lynn his second.
Mr. Hare moved to recommend that the interest rate on electric deposit refunds be compatible with bank book savings, to be reviewed every six months, seconded by Mr. Lynn.
Mr. Worley suggested that the Finance Director be consulted prior to Council action.
Mr. Lynn moved to recommend that the Finance Director consider the committee's suggestions and that a recommendation be submitted to Council at their next meeting (Attachment #3). The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Mr. Lynn moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/jg