City Council Minutes - Regular City Council Meeting on 11/13/2007

The Regular Council Meeting was held on November 13, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, and Mr. Salters. Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane were absent.

Council staff members present were Police Major Taraila, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Townshend, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell.

The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Williams declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.

The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.

Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 1, 2007 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Slavin and bore the written approval of Mayor Williams.

The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 22, 2007 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. McGlumphy, seconded by Mr. Slavin and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.

CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - ART BAGNER, CHARLES MUNROE, AND NORM QUIBLE - BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WILD MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Slavin and Mr. McGiffin presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Art Bagner, Mr. Charles Munroe, and Mr. Norm Quible, which was read into the record by the City Clerk, in recognition of their service as members of the Board of Directors of the Wild Meadows Homeowners Association.

Messrs. Quible, Bagner, and Munroe thanked members for the recognition and, having all recently moved to the Dover area, expressed their love for their new residence in the City.

PRESENTATION - RECOGNITION OF SERVICE - KEN ROBERTSON - HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION (SEPTEMBER 2002 THROUGH AUGUST 2007)

Noting the absence of Mr. Robertson, Council President Williams assured members that a Dover Cup would be presented to him in recognition of his many years of service on the Historic District Commission (September 2002 through August 2007) . Having served on the commission along with Mr. Robertson, Council President Williams relayed appreciation for his dedication and commitment to the City of Dover serving in this capacity.

Mr. Fred James, President of Pace Global, and Mr. Tim Sutherland, Chairman and CEO of Pace Global presented Mr. Tom Holt, representing First Night Dover, with a check in the amount of $10,000 for First Night Dover.

Mr. Holt thanked Mr. James and Mr. Sutherland for their very generous donation, noting that this is the second year a donation was received from Pace Global.

WHEREAS, Diabetes affects over 20.8 million Americans, approximately 92,000 Delawareans, and is doubling in America every 12-14 years; and

WHEREAS, the center for Disease Control and Prevention has calculated that one third of Americans may have diabetes by the middle of this century; and

WHEREAS, Diabetes is a serious and debilitating diseases for which there is no cure and is the leading cause of kidney failure, blindness, and non-traumatic amputations of limbs; and

WHEREAS, Diabetes is perhaps the most expensive disease in the Western hemisphere, costing our country over $130 billion dollars per year, representing over 12% of the entire health care budget and over 25% of the Medicare budget; and

WHEREAS, countless citizens in our community and in our families have been affected by diabetes.

NOW, THEREFORE I, Carleton E. Carey Sr., Mayor of the City of Dover, Delaware do hereby proclaim November 14, 2007 as WORLD DIABETES DAY in the City of Dover to help raise awareness of this serious, expensive, and rapidly increasing disease.

WHEREAS, technology plays a vital role in the continued growth of the City of Dover and the use, management, and exchange of geographic information technology is necessary for effective decision making by local, state, and federal governmental agencies; and

WHEREAS, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide data that allows for the identification of patterns and relationships of real-world conditions that ultimately lead to better decisions and improved delivery of services for the citizens of Dover as well as our surrounding communities; and

WHEREAS, geographic information has many useful applications and is a valuable resource used in the analysis of infrastructure, emergency services, homeland security, economic development, and long-range planning; and

WHEREAS, geography, the study of the Earth’s natural resources, features, climate, and population is important in understanding our relationship with the environment, and GIS technology aids us in this vital learning process.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Carleton E. Carey Sr., MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, do hereby proclaim November 14, 2007 as GIS Day, and November 12 – 16, 2007 as Geography Awareness Week.

Mr. Koenig, Public Services Director, stated that although GIS is relatively new to the City, it is becoming more commonplace in the offices due to the efforts of Mr. Nowak, GIS Coordinator. He stated his excitement regarding the capabilities of the GIS and what this technology will be able to do for the staff, residents, and members of Council.

Mr. Nowak relayed appreciation for the recognition and invited everyone to attend GIS Day, which will be held tomorrow, November 14, 2007, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. GIS Day will provide insight into how the City and its employees are using the GIS and what it can accomplish.

PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - APPENDIX B - ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 6 - OFF-STREET PARKING, DRIVEWAYS AND LOADING FACILITIES, SECTION 1 - PERMITTED ACCESSORY PARKING

A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed zoning text amendments to Article 6 - Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 1 - Permitted Accessory Parking of the Zoning Code, which would require a residential driveway to be at least as wide as the off-street parking space requirement of nine (9) feet. Members were advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments.

The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of August 27, 2007. The ordinance was considered by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee on September 11, 2007 and, due to deferral by the Committee, the Public Hearing was rescheduled for November 13, 2007. Since the ordinance will amend the zoning text, a public hearing is required.

Mr. Salters moved that the final reading of the proposed zoning text amendment be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reminded members that currently there is no minimum width requirement for residential driveways and that the proposed amendment would require a residential driveway to be at least as wide as the off-street parking space requirement of nine (9) feet.

There being no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Williams declared the hearing closed.

Mr. Salters moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent):

That Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 - Off-Street Parking, Driveways and Loading Facilities, Section 1 - Permitted accessory parking, be amended by adding a new subsection 1.14, to read as follows:

PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - APPENDIX B - ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 10 - PLANNING COMMISSION, SECTION 2 - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL

A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of a proposed zoning text amendment to Article 10 - Planning Commission, Section 2 - Site Development Plan Approval, of the Zoning Code, that would include a minimum threshold of 500 square feet of site disturbance for nonresidential site plans before Planning Commission review is necessary. Members were advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments.

The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of August 27, 2007. The ordinance considered by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee on September 11, 2007 and, due to deferral by the Committee, the Public Hearing was rescheduled for November 13, 2007. Since the ordinance will amend the zoning text, a public hearing is required.

Mr. Salters moved that the final reading of the proposed zoning text amendment be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reminded members that currently, any change of use that requires a certificate of occupancy is subject to review by the Planning Commission if it is adjacent to residential properties. She advised members that this is a cumbersome process and felt unnecessary in instances where a business vacates a building and a new business comes in and there are no exterior changes, no additions, and no site work. Currently, when there is a change of use, the new business is subject to review by the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment would include a minimum threshold of 500 square feet of site disturbance for nonresidential site plans before being subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission.

There being no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing, Council President Williams declared the hearing closed.

Mr. Salters moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent):

That Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 10 – Planning Commission, Section 2- Site development plan approval, be amended by deleting subsection 2.41, Presubmission conference, in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

2.41 Presubmission conference. Prior to the submission of a site development plan, the applicant or his representative shall meet in person with the Planning Office and the City Planner with a sketch plan. The purpose of this conference shall be to discuss proposed uses or developments in order to determine, first, whether the site development plan application shall be submitted to the Planning Office for consideration and review as an Administrative Site Plan or shall be referred to the Planning Commission. Site Development Plans that shall be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration and review include any of the following:

(a) Site Plans for new structures and building additions of 3,000 square feet or greater in floor area; or

(b) Site Plans with a total of 5,000 square feet or greater of new or added impervious surface, including new structures, or building additions; or

If the application is to be referred to the Planning Commission, the applicant shall be informed at the pre-submission conference meeting which elements listed in sub section 2.5 below will be useful in determination of conformity with the provisions and intent of this section, along with any other comments and suggestions intended to bring about conformity with the provisions and intent of this section.

Revised Electric Revenue Fund Financial Forecast FY08 - FY12 and Proposed Bond Issue

Members were provided the Revised Electric Revenue Fund Financial Forecast FY08-FY12 for the Proposed Bond Issue and the Preliminary Bond Issue Schedule. Mrs. Mitchell, Treasurer/Finance Director, reminded members that the issuance of $22,190,000 of Electric Revenue Bonds (repayment over 25 years) was included in the 2008 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) to assist with financing the following projects:

Mrs. Mitchell explained the various factors in the development of the revised forecast. She also reviewed the Electric Bond Schedule, Electric Revenue Fund Comparison of Prior and Current Forecasts, Revised Financial Forecast FY08-FY12, and Key Ratios FY99-FY12 and KWH History. She advised members that in preparation for the Bond Issue, a revised financial forecast was prepared for the Electric Revenue Fund.

In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Tieman distributed and reviewed the Rate Impact Samples by Class.

Staff recommended acceptance of the Revised Financial Forecast as of October 5, 2007 for presentation to the rating agencies as the basis for their analysis of the 2007 Electric Revenue Bonds, in the amount of $22,190,000 (including bond reserve).

The committee recommended acceptance of the Revised Financial Forecast as of October 5, 2007, as recommended and presented by staff, for presentation to the rating agencies as the basis for their analysis of the 2007 Electric Revenue Bonds, in the amount of $22,190,000.

By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

Members were provided Amendment 1 to the Energy Management Agreement. Mr. Lunt, Public Utilities Director, advised members that on May 4, 2006, the City entered into an Energy Management Agreement with Pace Global Asset Management, LLC (PACE) to assist the City with its energy procurement, energy sale, purchase of fuels, establishment and management of risk policies, development and management of hedging protocols, and related energy procurement challenges. Within this agreement, there is a section that outlines the possibilities for incentives for PACE. Mr. Lunt stated that PACE management has contacted the City and expressed concern that the incentive fee was substantially higher than the projected budget amount. PACE suggested that this clause be re-negotiated as it was higher than they had projected and anticipated. Since this is a good faith effort, PACE also requested that the City consider extending the term of the Agreement. He advised members that the City and PACE have been negotiating this amendment and have reached a tentative agreement.

Staff recommended that the City Manager be authorized to execute Amendment 1 to the Energy Management Agreement with Pace Global Asset Management, LLC as presented.

By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #1), seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on October 22, 2007 with Chairman Slavin presiding.

Review of 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations - Article I. General Provisions

During their meeting of September 10, 2007, members approved the schedule to complete a comprehensive review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations, including public hearings in each election district, over the next six (6) months. Members began their review during their meeting on October 8, 2007.

Mrs. McDowell, City Clerk, provided members with copies of the current City Charter, the Model City Charter, and an amendment to the section of the Charter related to annexations, as recommended by staff.

As a result of their previous meeting, Mr. Slavin reminded members that they would review the recommendations of the 2005 Charter Review Committee and formulate recommendations for City Council. As scheduled, members considered the recommendations to Article I - General Provisions, of the Dover Charter, as follows:

Mr. Slavin reminded members that during their meeting of October 8, 2007, Mr. Ruane had suggested that the recommendation of “Mayor-Council government” in the first sentence of the Preamble be amended to “Council-Manager government”.

The committee recommended that the Preamble be amended to reflect “Council-Manager government”.

The committee recommended that the Model City Charter be used for the title of Article I, which will read “Article I, Powers of the City”.

Section 3, City Charter - Enumeration of Power Not Exclusive; Manner of Exercise of Powers; (Section 1.01, Model City Charter - Powers of the City)

The committee recommended that Section 3 be replaced with Section 1.01, as stated in the Model City Charter.

The committee recommended acceptance of Section 1.02, as recommended by the 2005 Charter Review Committee.

The committee recommended acceptance of Section 1.03, as recommended by the 2005 Charter Review Committee.

Section 1 - Municipal Corporation Continued; Boundaries and 1A - Procedure to Extend Boundaries, City Charter

As directed by the 2005 Charter Review Committee, the City Clerk and City Planner submitted a recommended amendment for annexations. For their reference, Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, also provided members with copies of the State Code as it pertains to municipal annexation. She advised members that staff reviewed other municipalities in the development of the proposed amendment. Mrs. Townshend explained the various issues with the current annexation requirements, including the assignment of the zoning classification, which occurs after the annexation of property occurs. She stated that there have been situations when the zoning classification has not been desired by the applicant requesting annexation; however, since the annexation occurs prior to the zoning, this can cause a dilemma. Mrs. Townshend also questioned the necessity of requiring a property owner to actually vote for annexation, when they have applied for annexation.

Staff recommended that the City Charter reference Title 22 of the Delaware Code for annexation. This would eliminate the need to amend the Charter should there be a change to the State Code. Concurring with Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that Title 22 provides very clear guidance for annexations, explaining that annexations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which is very prescriptive for annexations. She explained that staff would have procedures for processing annexations. If there was a need for additional requirements, she suggested that they could be accomplished through an ordinance rather than Charter, which would allow amendments without the need for State legislature approval.

The committee recommended that the City abide by the Delaware Code pertaining to annexations by recommending that Section 1A read as follows: “The City Council shall have the authority to annex any parcel(s) contiguous to the City by complying with the provisions of Title 22, Chapter 1, of the Delaware Code” and that any procedural matters will be addressed by ordinance.

Section 2, City Charter - Status, General Corporate Powers, Specific Provisions for Condemnation of Property

Mr. Ruane advised members that the Delaware Code is specific to the powers and provisions for condemnation of property. Mr. DePrima relayed concern with requiring 3/4 vote of Council on issues other than those required by State law.

For clarification, Mr. DePrima noted that the first paragraph of Section 2 involves additional authorizations other than condemnation and felt that the 2005 Charter Review Committee had maintained that paragraph to assure that those issues are addressed.

Section 3, City Charter - Enumeration of Power Not Exclusive; Manner of Exercise of Powers

Mr. Slavin noted that members had addressed this recommendation previously during the meeting and that no further action is necessary.

Mr. Slavin stated that members will continue their review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations in accordance with the schedule adopted.

Members were advised that the Fire Department’s current telephone system is outdated and lacks dependability for emergency communication operations. The City purchased a new phone system during the fiscal year 2005/06 budget, and at that time, phones for the Fire Department were included in the purchase. However, after meeting with MTM Technologies and the Information Technology (IT) Department, the Fire Chief concluded that the system was not 100% reliable for 911 operations. Other items were identified that would be needed to make the Fire Department’s new phone system 100% reliable, which included extra phone lines, computer equipment and software needed from MTM Technologies totaling $26,583. In addition, a new recorder system would also be required at a cost of $26,485 from Collins Business Systems, the City’s current vendor. Both vendors were awarded earlier contracts for their equipment and services and are recommended for these extensions.

Staff recommended approval of an expenditure in the amount of $26,583 to MTM Technologies for Fire Station #1 Unified Communications Project upgrade, and $26, 485 to Collins Business Systems for VoIP and Radio Recording Equipment.

Title V Grant - Criminal Justice Coordinating Council - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

During the Regular Council Meeting of July 23, 2007, City Council authorized staff to apply for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Title V Grant in partnership with Aid in Dover, Inc. It was requested that, if approved, the grant budget be submitted to the committee for their review. As requested, members were provided the grant budget. Mr. Slavin noted that this matter is slated to be considered by City Council during their meeting later in the evening.

The committee recommended that the budget in the amount of $53,540 be expended to commence the grant program.

By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 23, 2007

A Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee was held on October 23, 2007 with Chairwoman Russell presiding.

During their meeting of September 15, 2003, the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee reviewed the Active Recreation Area Plan for Lexington Glen: Planned Neighborhood Design. The site is located on the north side of North Little Creek Road, adjacent to the SR-1 off-ramp and consists of approximately 38.36 acres. The applicant is seeking to change the elements of the Active Recreation Plan previously approved for Lexington Glen: Planned Neighborhood Design.

Mrs. Melson-Williams presented the previously approved and revised Recreation Area Plan for Lexington Glen: Planned Neighborhood Design, as follows:

	Required	Approved Active Recreation Plan	Revised Plan Proposal
Common Open Space in PND (Article 3 §24.61b)	Useable open space following the area requirement of Active Recreation Area	Sheet R-5: Active Open Space C Area = 1.67 acres, Overall 15.93 acres of Open Space	Active Open Space C Area = 1.67 acres, Overall 15.93 acres of Open Space
Active Recreation Area (Article 5 §10.16)	275 S.F. per dwelling unit or 0.5 acre, greater thereof 146 DU = 40,150 S.F.	Active Open Space C area = 1.67 acres	Active Open Space C area = 1.67 acres
Active Recreation Amenities (Article 5 §10.15)	Accessible	Crosswalks and accessible ramps provided for sidewalk/path connections	Crosswalks and accessible ramps provided for sidewalk/path connections
Active Recreation Amenities (Article 5 §10.15)	Age Oriented to development	Gazebo (10ft. hexagon cedar); Benches (5); Picnic Tables (2); Open lawn areas; Walking Path; Two swing sets (6 regular swing seats, 2 toddler swing seats)	(Gazebo eliminated) Benches (5)* Picnic Tables (2) Open lawn areas Walking Path One swing set (2 toddler swing seats) Playscape Set (ages 2-5)
	Parking	On site Parking provided at each dwelling unit. On-street parking also available. Also pedestrian access to sidewalk system.	On site Parking provided at each dwelling unit. On-street parking also available. Also pedestrian access to sidewalk system.
	Developed trail area counted toward area requirement.	Walking Path is within the recreation area and provides link from sidewalk network.	Walking Path is within the recreation area and provides link from sidewalk network.
	Setbacks: 30 feet from residential lots and 25 feet from right-of-way for street	Location of gazebo and play equipment in compliance.	Location of play equipment in compliance.
	Landscaping	Tree plantings of deciduous, evergreen and ornamental trees.	Tree plantings of deciduous, evergreen and ornamental trees.

Members were advised that their recommendation will be considered by the Planning Commission during their meeting on November 19, 2007. Following are the comments and recommendations made by the Planning staff upon review of the revised Recreation Area Plan:

1.The project as revised continues to comply with the minimum acreage requirement for Active Recreation Areas. The Open Space areas remain the same size, only the amenities provided are proposed for revision.

2.Staff recommended the following in regards to the proposed revisions to the recreation area improvements:

a.Retain the gazebo element as an amenity for all age groups. Revisions to the design of the gazebo may reduce the cost while maintaining the function. An alternative to the gazebo would be the installation of a series of benches and/or picnic tables near the walking path in the same area between Lots 54 and 55.

b.Upgrade the playscape structure to serve ages 5-12 rather than ages 2-5. This will better serve a variety of ages.

c.In the revised proposal, the swing set only has toddler swing seats. The swings previously approved included regular swing seats and toddler swing seats thus appealing a wider age range.

The committee recommended approval of the revised Recreation Area Plan for Lexington Glen: Planned Neighborhood Design as presented to include staff’s comments and recommendations, excluding 2(c).

The committee recommended approval of the applicants request to provide one (1) swing set to consist of two (2) toddler swing seats.

Review of Proposed Amendments - C-2 (Central Commercial) and C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) Zoning Districts

Members reviewed proposed zoning text amendments to Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 14 - Limited Central Commercial Zone (C-2A); Article 4 - Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations, Section 4.14 - [C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-2A Zones]; and Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 - Open Space, Recreation, and Other Public Facilities.

Mrs. Townshend explained that the proposed ordinance amendments would make changes to the uses permitted in the C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) Zone and to the parking and bulk standards of the C-2 (Central Commercial) Zone and C-2A Zone. She stated that they would also amend the requirements for active open space within these zones. The proposed amendments were developed to better facilitate mixed use development and redevelopment within the downtown area; however, Mrs. Townshend noted that there are other areas that would be affected by the proposed amendments.

Mr. Ruane requested that, in the future, staff provide maps that depict the areas associated with the proposed amendments. He suggested that staff include language that would assure that the amendments are specific to the areas they wish to be affected, such as the downtown area. Mr. Ruane also relayed concern with the proposed amendments regarding parking, explaining his opinion that any new apartment complex should be required to provide a parking lot for tenants. He disagreed with allowing use of other parking “in the area”, including on-street and public parking lots, and suggested that the developer provide specific parking sites.

Referring to the active open space requirements, Mr. Ruane suggested that the City establish a recreation plan for the downtown area that would include an area designated specifically as the active recreation area for downtown. Another suggestion would be for the City to specify some of the “pocket parks” in the downtown area that a developer, by having access, could be forgiven for providing an active recreation area by contributing to an area specified by the City. Mr. Ruane explained that these would be areas within the City that could be built upon. As an added value, it was his feeling that such action would offset crime by providing youth in the area an alternative. Responding, Mrs. Townshend suggested that she meet with the Parks and Recreation Director to discuss the possibility of structuring this suggestion.

Mrs. Townshend recommended that the committee refer the proposed ordinance amendments back to staff to incorporate suggestions of committee members.

The committee recommended that the proposed ordinance amendments be revised to include the suggestions of members and that it be brought back to the committee for further review and recommendation. Mr. Ruane requested that when this matter is brought back to the committee, that staff present it in a contextual manner, inclusive of examples and transparency.

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, distributed a Timeline/Public Outreach Strategy for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. She stated that the intern hired to work on this project is scheduled to begin working with the City on January 16, 2008. In order to obtain the desires of the public, she advised members that an RFP will be issued for a workshop facilitator.

Mr. Ruane suggested that staff meet with the various Council committees to obtain their comments and suggestions. He recommended that staff review the plan to determine which elements each committee should consider. This would assure that members of Council, as well as the two (2) lay members serving on each committee, will have had an opportunity to review and comment so that when it is presented to Council it truly reflects active participation by Council committees. Mr. Ruane recommended that these committee reviews be included on the timeline presented by staff. He also questioned the possibility of involving other interest groups such as housing, economic development, etc. that could be requested to review pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan Update for input.

In addition to specific topics, Mrs. Townshend requested that the agenda for the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee include an update each month in order for members to be kept apprised of the status of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update.

The committee recommended approval of the Timeline/Public Outreach Strategy for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, with the amendment that it be reflective of Council Committees input.

By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #2), seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met on October 23, 2007 with Chairman Hogan presiding.

Presentation - Delaware 8 Concept Plan and Operations Study Overview and Recommendations (Juanita Wieczoreck)

As requested during their meeting of September 25, 2007, Ms. Wieczorek, Director of the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), provided a Power Point Presentation on the Route 8 Concept Plan and Operations Study. She noted that the Project Advisory Committee for the Route 8 Study has developed a preferred alternative and that the plan for implementation is to develop a Memorandum of Understanding between Dover, DelDOT and Kent County; develop Early Action Contracts; and to submit projects to DelDOT for Funding.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Wieczoreck stated that the report includes a section regarding the Corridor Overlay Zone and the need for in-fill development, and context sensitive design issues that need to be considered when improvements are made. She stated that the presentation is not inclusive of all recommendations included in the study report. Mr. Hogan requested that members be provided copies of the complete study report.

Mr. Ruane indicated that members of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee, during their meeting of October 23, 2007, requested that the Director of Planning and Inspections incorporate time to meet with all Council Committees to review their topical areas of interest and provide expertise for inclusion in the development of the Comprehensive Plan Update. It was his opinion that the Comprehensive Plan Update should include the Route 8 Concept Plan, prioritization list, etc.

Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Codes, Section 46-128 - Sprinkler Requirements

Mr. Truax, Fire Marshal, advised members that in March 2007, a committee was formed to help assist with the development of a townhouse sprinkler ordinance. In addition to himself, he stated that the committee consisted of representatives of the Realtors Association, Home Builders Association, Chamber of Commerce, and C.S. Kidner Associates. He stated that the proposed ordinance is the fairest that could be reached by all parties involved. Mr. Truax assured members that the committee was invited to attend this meeting for further comments.

Staff recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Code, Section 46-128 - Sprinkler Requirements, of the Dover Code. Mr. Truax advised members that the proposed amendment was also reviewed by the City Solicitor and that as a result, revisions were made. He requested that the proposed ordinance become effective January 1, 2008. If agreed by members, Mr. Truax stated that this date would be included in the proposed ordinance when presented to Council for approval.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Truax explained that approval of the Planning Commission, as indicated in Section (b), Subsection 1, would be when the subdivision has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as an acceptable subdivision and ready for construction. Such a subdivision would be exempt if this approval occurred before the date in which the ordinance takes effect. Noting that there have been interpretation issues for approval levels, Mr. Ruane suggested that the ordinance clarify that the approval would be at the site plan approval level. Mr. Truax indicated that he would request the City Solicitor to review the wording of Section (b), Subsection 1 to address this concern.

For consistency, Mr. Ruane also suggested that the same language be considered for Subsections 2 and 3 of Section (b), where there is reference to “adoption of this ordinance” and “effective date of this ordinance”, noting that these could be different dates. Responding, Mr. Truax assured members that reference to “adoption of this ordinance” as indicated in Section (b), Subsection 2, will be revised to read “effective date of this ordinance”.

Mr. Ruane suggested that Section (b), Subsection 4, be amended by deleting “as determined by the City Assessor” and inserting in lieu thereof “the City’s most current assessed value of the property by the City Assessor”.

The committee recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance, with an effective date of January 1, 2008, as recommended by staff, and with the changes that the committee has noted. (City Clerk’s Office Note: There was a misunderstanding of the date/time of this meeting by members of the committee that assisted with the development of the townhouse sprinkler ordinance, who requested the opportunity to comment on the proposed ordinance further; therefore, the proposed ordinance, as revised, will be re-submitted to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee for their review and recommendation during their meeting scheduled for November 27, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.)

By consent agenda, Mr. McGlumphy moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Slavin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

A Special Utility Committee meeting was held on November 6, 2007 with Chairman Ruane presiding.

Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 29 - Source Water

Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ) (Referred by City Council on October 22, 2007)

During the Regular Council Meeting of October 22, 2007, a public hearing was scheduled to consider the adoption of proposed zoning text amendments that would establish a Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ), which affects over 500 parcels within the City. It was noted that the proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee during their meeting of October 9, 2007. Based on several comments and other discussions that occurred since the Planning Commission meeting on October 15, 2007, it was staff’s opinion that providing for an exemption may not be the best alternative to address impervious cover limitations, and suggested the possibility of balancing important economic development factors with the protection of the recharge areas. Staff recommended that the proposed ordinance be referred to the Utility Committee and that a Public Hearing be rescheduled for January 14, 2008, to allow staff and the Utility Committee to work through these issues to bring forward an ordinance that addresses the concerns realistically. Members of City Council, during their meeting of October 22, 2007, deferred the public hearing for the proposed zoning text amendment and referred the ordinance amending Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 29 - Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ), of the Zoning Ordinance, to the Utility Committee in order to reconsider protective land use policies to protect Dover’s excellent water recharge areas and its well-heads and to present a revised ordinance to City Council for public hearing on January 14, 2008.

Members were provided a draft ordinance that depicted changes recommended by the Planning Commission (red text) and Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee (blue text).

Mr. Koenig, Public Services Manager, reviewed a presentation of the Dover’s Source Water Protection Overlay Zone.

Mrs. Townshend distributed an alternative draft ordinance entitled “Wellhead Protection Only” and explained that if members are not able to come to a consensus regarding the excellent recharge areas at this time, the alternative could be considered. She explained that the State is requiring the City to adopt the Overlay Zone prior to the end of the year and felt that the alternative may satisfy the requirement at this time.

Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Barndt, Program Manager for Source Water and Wellhead Protection Programs for the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), explained that the definitions for hazardous substances were derived from the record program which is defined by the federal government and includes certain quantities. If there are quantities below a certain threshold, they would not be reportable. He stated that there are specific citations that could be included to clarify hazardous substances.

The committee recommended that staff clarify the application of the phrase “hazardous materials and substances”.

Mrs. Townshend assured members that staff will use the definitions provided by the State that references the proper amounts.

In response to Mr. Scott Kidner, representing local realtors, Mrs. Townshend explained that any property owners that would be affected by either the excellent recharge area or the wellhead protection area have been notified by mail twice to date. Although comments have not been received from the property owners within the wellhead protection areas, staff has received comments from the property owners within the excellent recharge area.

Responding to Mr. Ruane’s concern for clarification of Subsection 29.87, Boundary Disputes, Mrs. Townshend suggested that “within primary wellhead protection areas” could be added.

The committee recommended that staff clarify Subsection 29.87, Boundary Disputes, by including language that specifies that the boundary disputes were specific to the primary wellhead protection areas.

Mr. Phil McGinnis, McGinnis Commercial Real Estate Company, noted that the “blue” area on the map overlaps the Garrison Property and questioned if the blue area represents the area of the set back from the wells. Responding, Mr. Koenig explained that the blue areas represent the wellheads and from there, you begin to measure your protective measures.

For further explanation, Mr. Barndt stated that the blue area is what is regarded as the entire wellhead protection area for those shallow unconfined wells, which have a much larger wellhead protection area than the confined wells since the confined wells are regarded as naturally protected by overlaying confining layers. He indicated that the setbacks are less than the official wellhead protection area that DNREC delineated for the City.

Mr. Michael Albert, City Planner, advised members that with the Tier 2 areas, what should be kept in mind is that they pertain to the 300-500 foot radius buffered areas around the wells. Everything in Section 29.8 is specific to that radius. The blue and green areas from the recharge all count as the overlay zone; therefore, the areas mentioned in Sections 29.1, 29.2,29.3, 29.4,29.5, and 29.6, pertain to both the green and blue areas. The Tier 1 section is a breakdown of more specific matters around the wells; however, the use restrictions apply to the mile radius around the wells.

Responding to Mr. Moore, Becker Morgan Group, Mrs. Townshend explained that the alternative proposed ordinance, if forwarded for adoption, would require the green areas to be removed from the map and the excellent recharge areas text removed from the ordinance. She noted that the alternative proposed ordinance reserves Section 29.7 for the excellent recharge areas and that when it is adopted, the green areas would be added to the map.

Mr. Moore explained his interpretation of Subsection 29.81(a) that the tier 2 areas (blue areas) will be designated as open space and would, therefore, be unbuildable, and that the government plans to purchase these areas. He questioned if the City of Dover, Kent County, or DNREC intends to purchase these properties. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that Subsection 29.81(a) is a policy statement indicating the City’s desire for these areas to be preserved. Developers would be permitted to develop these areas as long as they are in compliance with Subsections 29.82, 29.83, 29.84, 29.85, 29.86, and 29.87.

Mr. Paradee, Attorney with the law firm Pricket, Jones, and Elliott, stated that he represents clients that own property in the tier 2 areas and relayed concern with reference to the areas being designated as open space, as specified in Subsection 29.81(a). If this concept is a policy statement, he suggested that members eliminate it from the ordinance and adopt a resolution, since an ordinance has a force and effect of law. Mr. Paradee suggested the deletion of 29.81(a) in its entirety. With reference to the language regarding hazardous waste, he noted that there are other areas within the ordinance where similar language has been used. He suggested that staff review the proposed ordinance to assure the language is uniform throughout.

Mr. Paradee noted a recent decision by Chancellor Chandler relative to overlay zones being in violation of the uniformity requirements in Title 9 and Title 22 of the Delaware Code. Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City Solicitor has reviewed the proposed ordinance and, since the State Code is requiring the City to adopt the overlay zones, it was the City Solicitor’s opinion that there would be no issues. She stated that this is an area where there is conflict within the Delaware Code. She assured members that it is the opinion of the City Solicitor that the City should move forward with the consideration of the proposed ordinance.

Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend stated that Subsection 29.81(a) does not provide the City with any additional regulatory authority; however, it does provide a statement of policy. She noted that staff is beginning to work on the Comprehensive Plan and suggested that if this statement is eliminated from the proposed ordinance, staff will include it in the Comprehensive Plan.

Mrs. Townshend stated that if the committee recommends that Council move forward with the alternative ordinance, Wellhead Protection Only, then staff would revise the map by eliminating the green areas.

Ms. Casey, Treasurer for the State Home Builders Association, concurred that Subsection 29.81(a) should be eliminated from the proposed ordinance and that such a policy statement should be included in the Comprehensive Plan.

The committee recommended adoption of the alternative proposed ordinance, as amended, and that a public hearing be scheduled accordingly (it is recommended that a public hearing be set for November 26, 2007, at 7:30 p.m.). Mr. Ruane announced that members will further consider the Tier 3, Excellent Recharge Areas (Section 29.7 of the proposed ordinance amendment) during the Utility Committee Meeting on November 27, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.

Mrs. Townshend explained that the committee’s recommendation would put forth the Wellhead Protection Area component of the ordinance for a public hearing before City Council and adoption. She stated that the other component, the Excellent Recharge Areas, of which there is discontent amongst members at this time, will be further considered by the Utility Committee for a recommendation to Council.

Due to the absence of several members of Council, Mr. Slavin relayed concern with the concept of splitting the ordinance without having their opinions known.

Mr. McGlumphy moved to table the matter until the next Council Meeting to allow for all members of Council to be present and to allow for the entire ordinance to be presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slavin.

Having been in attendance at the Utility Committee Meeting, Mr. McGiffin explained that the Wellhead Protection is not controversial; however, the Excellent Recharge Areas is very controversial, which is why it has been separated from the ordinance at this time.

Mrs. Townshend relayed concern with the delay, explaining that State Law requires the City of Dover to adopt Source Water Protection Overlay Zone or an ordinance to protect the City’s source water protection areas by December 31, 2007. The thought was that by dividing the ordinance and putting forth the Wellhead Protection component of the ordinance at this time so that it would be adopted and in place before December 31, 2007, the State would be a little more relaxed knowing that a portion of the requirement had been met with the assurance that the Excellent Recharge Areas are being worked on by the City.

Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation for adoption of the alternative proposed ordinance, as amended (Exhibit #3), and that a public hearing be scheduled for November 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

Mr. McGiffin moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.

During their Regular Meeting of October 22, 2007, City Council adopted a recommendation of the Tax Appeals Committee to extend the time allowed for tax appeals and the submission of appraisals. The recommendation was to extend the time to allow for an appeal from 14 days to 30 days and an additional 60 days for a commercial/industrial property to submit an appraisal as part of the appeal process in cases requiring such appraisals. The Tax Appeals Committee’s intent was to have these extended times to apply to tax billings resulting from the quarterly supplemental property reassessments, including the quarter that ended September 30, 2007; however, this was not made explicit in the motion that was approved. By making this explicit, Council will assure due process for any appeal of supplemental tax billings for the period ending September 30, 2007.

Staff recommended that the Tax Assessor be instructed to allow 30 days for a tax appeal of supplemental tax billings for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 and an additional 60 days for commercial/industrial property owners to provide an appraisal in those cases where such an appraisal is required.

Mr. Salters moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mrs. Russell, Mr. Hogan, and Mr. Ruane absent).

Members were reminded that the Lighting Project and Rehabilitation was developed, in part, to replace existing street lights that have reached the end of their useful life. Bids were solicited for street lighting materials to replace the lights on North State Street from Walker Road to Lepore Road (a total of 22 lights). The majority of the current light poles are made of concrete and have deteriorated to a point that their integrity is questionable. In addition, the new lights will be spaced evenly to provide a more uniform lighting pattern and the four (4) lights attached to the top of the Silver Lake Bridge will be changed to match the new lights.

Staff recommended awarding the bid to the low bidder, United Electric Supply, for the purchase of 22 lights, in the amount of $45,692.90.