REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

The Regular Council Meeting was held on February 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Leary, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters and Mr. Ruane.

Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Carey, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Carey.

OPEN FORUM

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.

There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum.

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

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

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

Mr. Slavin requested that item #8B, Amendment to Robbins Hose Company Annual Contribution in the CIP, be removed from the consent agenda.

Mr. Salters moved for approval of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2008

The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 11, 2008 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. Leary and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.

CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS - THE LEVITT’S 50^TH ANNIVERSARY

On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Carey, along with Mr. McGiffin, presented a Certificate of Congratulations to Irving and Phyllis Levitt in recognition of their 50^th Wedding Anniversary, which was read into the record by the City Clerk, as follows:

CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS

Presented to

PHYLLIS & IRVING LEVITT

In Celebration of 50 Years of Marriage

February 2, 2008

Your commitment and love for each other is an inspiration to all

Presented

February 25, 2008

Mr. and Mrs. Levitt relayed their appreciation for the recognition and wished the City a prosperous future.

Mr. McGiffin noted the many and vast contributions made by both Mr. and Mrs. Levitt, not only to the City, but to the community as a whole.

PROCLAMATION - EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION DAY

The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record:

WHEREAS, year after year City of Dover employees continue to work hard for our community and our citizens; and

WHEREAS, all employees of the City of Dover strive daily to promote Community Excellence Through Quality Service; and

WHEREAS, due to the teamwork and the commitment of our employees, the citizens of Dover are able to enjoy some of the lowest utility and tax rates in this region; and

WHEREAS, the City of Dover values its employees, recognizing that every member of the work force - from meter reader to engineer, laborer to policeman, dispatcher to secretary - is an integral part of the day-to-day operations of the City of Dover; and its success is due largely to the pride and efforts of its employees.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Carleton E. Carey, Sr., Mayor, of the City of Dover, Delaware do hereby proclaim Friday, March 7, 2008 EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION DAY in the City of Dover and recognize the dedication and hard work of all City of Dover employees, and request that all citizens take a moment to thank a City of Dover employee for their outstanding service to our community.

PRESENTATION - SOUTH GOVERNORS AVENUE PROJECT (JAMES SATTERFIELD, DELDOT)

Mr. James Satterfield, Project Manager for DelDOT, gave a presentation on the South Governors Avenue Project (Exhibit #1). He advised members that the bids for this project were opened on February 12, 2008 and will be awarded within 30 days. It is anticipated that the work on this project will begin very soon, as they are nearing completion of the signalization project.

Mr. Satterfield advised members that Phase I of the project will consist of a year’s work, with five (5) months to six (6) months of bridge closure. He reiterated the need for traffic to avoid South Governors Avenue as much as possible. The area north of Wyoming will also take approximately one (1) year. In addition to the City, he stated that there are many other parties involved with this project. He announced that a public meeting has been scheduled by DelDOT regarding this project on March 4, 2008 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at W. Reilly Brown Elementary School. Should any member of the public wish to contact DelDOT regarding this project, Mr. Satterfield suggested that they either call 302-760-2080 or visit the website at www.deldot.gov.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Satterfield stated that once the project is complete, there will no longer be any on-street parking available for many of the businesses; however, he has been advised that many of the businesses are relocating to the Eden Hill Farm Medical Complex.

Mr. DePrima relayed appreciation to DelDOT for their work on this project, noting the extra effort on their part of converting overhead utilities to underground and that the expansion of the bridge will assist with flooding issues.

SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 4, 2008

A Special Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on February 4, 2008 with Chairman Slavin presiding.

Discussion of 1988 Consent Decree with City Solicitor

Members were provided the 1988 Consent Decree between the Central Delaware Branch of the NAACP and the City of Dover. Mr. Slavin reminded members that in conjunction with their comprehensive review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations, members had suggested the opportunity for a discussion of the 1988 Consent Decree with the City Solicitor in order to gain an understanding of consent decrees, as well as background information regarding the 1988 Consent Decree.

Due to the interest in this matter, Mr. Slavin advised members that in addition to all members of Council, those invited to attend this evening’s meeting included representatives of the NAACP, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Dr. Margaret McKay. He noted the attendance of Election Board members, Chairman Garfinkel and Mrs. Legates. Mr. Slavin introduced the City Solicitor, Mr. Rodriguez, and Deputy City Solicitor, Mr. Pepper, and requested that they explain what a consent decree is and to provide information regarding the conditions that led to the 1988 Consent Decree and what effect it has on the City.

Mr. Pepper advised members that prior to the Consent Decree, there were eight (8) members of Council (elected at-large for each district) and meetings were presided over by the Mayor. In 1985, the Central Delaware Branch of the NAACP filed suit under the Voting Rights Act against the City primarily to challenge the at-large method of voting for Councilmen. At the suggestion of the City Solicitor, Mr. Pepper stated that the City entered into negotiations with the NAACP and, as a result, both parties agreed to a Consent Order. He explained that a consent order is a settlement that becomes a judgement of the court and can only be modified by a court or by an agreement of the parties. He indicated that the City cannot unilaterally change the Consent Order.

Mr. Pepper stated that as a result of the Consent Order, district voting was created, whereby only residents in a particular district would be eligible to vote for the candidate in that district. In addition, a minority district was created in which the black population had to be 65%. The Consent Order created a new Council position, the Council President, which resulted in a total of nine (9) members of Council. It removed the Mayor as the presiding officer and instead required that the Council President preside over Council Meetings. He noted that the transition was smooth and that there were no problems. However, upon receipt of the 2000 Census, Mr. Pepper advised members that when the Election Board began to redraw the council districts they encountered substantial difficulty in redrawing the minority district to make it equal in population with the other three (3) districts and at the same time, maintaining the 65% black population requirement. He explained that the minority population of the City of Dover no longer resided almost exclusively in certain areas of the City but had dispersed throughout the City. It was his opinion that this issue will occur again when the 2010 Census is received and suggested that it may be impossible to develop a single district where the minority population is 65%. He anticipates that the City would accomplish the requirement by developing eight (8) Council districts, with two (2) minority districts, which would require the Consent Decree to be amended.

Mr. Pepper indicated that when he met with the 2005 Charter Review Committee, there was some interest in putting the Mayor back as the presiding officer. He advised members that the removal the Mayor as presiding officer and creation of the ninth (9^th) Council seat are beyond the remedies available under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. However, he stated that there has been case law since the Decree that indicated that those types of changes could not be forced upon a municipality. Should Council wish to reverse such changes, it could be accomplished by including it in a motion to modify the Consent Order.

Responding to Mr. Shevock, Mr. Pepper stated that the Voting Rights Act does not permit a Court to require the size of the legislative body to be changed. The 65% is usually chosen to assure the election of a representative of their own for that district. Should it become impossible to create a district that has a super majority, whether its 65%, 60%, or 55%, it was his opinion that the Voting Rights Act does not offer a remedy for the minority.

In preparing for this meeting, Mr. Ruane advised members that there have been several Supreme Court decisions since 1988 that also seem to put a city such as Dover in a position where racially conscious redistricting is against some of those Court decisions. He noted that the Court has thrown out some redistrictings due to the gerrymandering manner in which it was accomplished and questioned if the City would be vulnerable in this matter. Responding, Mr. Pepper stated that several of those cases were relative to 14^th Amendment cases, due process and equal protection cases, and that the City’s case falls under the Voting Rights Act, which Congress passed in order to enforce the guarantees provided by the 15^th Amendment that granted the right to vote to blacks. It was his opinion that the City would not be vulnerable under these circumstances; however, he suggested that the vulnerability would be a challenge based on Baker versus Carr. After receipt of the 2010 Census, in 2011, when the City begins to redraw the districts, it was his opinion that the City will have serious difficulty in developing a district consisting of 65% minority population, particularly with maintaining only four (4) districts.

Mr. DePrima noted previous discussion regarding a strong mayor form of government and having the city manager reporting to the mayor. At that time, it was his recollection that it was the opinion of representatives of the NAACP that this would violate the Consent Decree since such a change would in effect put city government under the direction of an individual voted at-large versus members of council. Responding, it was Mr. Pepper’s opinion that such an argument would not have merit under the Consent Decree. He assured members that, outside of the requirements of the Consent Decree, the City of Dover is free to form its government in any way it chooses.

Mr. Hogan alluded to legislation being proposed for consideration by Congress that would allow for defendants to petition the court to remove any consent decree after four (4) years. Mr. Pepper felt that such legislation would create an issue regarding the separation of powers. He is not aware of the proposed legislation or its status with Congress. Mr. Ruane noted that the legislation was introduced to the U.S. Senate and House in November.

In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Pepper confirmed that there has been a lot of movement afoot in an attempt to eliminate consent decrees relating to jail management and educational facilities; however, it was his opinion that it would be disastrous to take this type of action regarding elections.

Concurring, Mr. Salters noted that the minority population in Dover is approximately 30%-35%, which should result in at least 30% representation of Council or any other elective body. Although there have been improvements, he stated that the only assurance of participation by all people is with the current Consent Decree or the possibility of more districts with a minimum of 65% minority population. He advised members that there is concern in the community regarding the City’s consideration of this issue.

For clarification, Mr. Slavin stated that this meeting was called specifically to gain information. He noted that due to a prior commitment, Mr. Pepper had to depart the meeting; however, City Solicitor Rodriguez would be available for any further questions.

Mr. Hogan expressed his pride in the City for its diversity and felt that the reason this has become an issue is because the black enclaves continue to disappear. As a result of the diversity throughout the City, he relayed concern that the City will not be able to meet the 65% black district and questioned what the result would be if this requirement was not met. Responding, Mr. Rodriguez stated that if the City was unable to meet the 65% black district, the City would be in violation of the Consent Decree and would have to explain the situation to the Court. He further explained his opinion that the districts cannot be split, they must remain contiguous.

Considering the possibility that the court could determine to nullify the Consent Decree, Mr. Leary suggested that the Plaintiffs would rather have the opportunity to discuss the alternatives to allow for a 65% black district.

Mr. Slavin suggested that members continue an on-going conversation and dialogue through the receipt of the 2010 Census information, with the understanding that since a decision would not be necessary for a few years, these discussions will remain preliminary in nature.

Referring to previous comments of Mr. Ruane, Mr. Salters indicated concurrence that the issue that should be addressed is relative to economics. It was his opinion that if there were more adequate jobs in Dover, there would be less renters and more homeowners, which would decrease the black population in the Fourth District. He advised members that historically in Dover, no minority has been elected at-large and he felt that if members were to understand the ramifications and reasons for this, they would have a different perspective on this matter. Mr. Salters stated that although the City of Dover has come a long way, the fact is that we are not quite there yet.

Responding, Mr. Hogan reminded members that Mr. Hardcastle was elected to City Council by at-large voting and, although he concurs with Mr. Salters, he relayed concern that there will be a problem meeting the requirements of the Consent Decree and that members must consider a solution.

Although there may be other solutions to the problems, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that if members developed a strong economic development plan, providing livable wage jobs, etc., the dilemma being faced by the City in this regard could be resolved. He also questioned why the at-large elected position was created.

Mr. McGiffin stated his feeling that there is an economic issue to some degree; however, he suggested that members not lose sight of the fact that the problem goes beyond economics, noting that the issue is not with just poor people but rather poor, black people. He explained that these people are not only disadvantaged by the way Dover is set up economically, but are historically oppressed people. He suggested that members not lose sight of this fact while dealing with the problem that the City’s growing diversity has left us.

In closing, Mr. Slavin stated that based on the discussion this evening, during the Review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations, in all probability, members will not be able to formulate any recommendation regarding this matter until the receipt of the 2010 Census. It was also his opinion that members of Council would not take any action on this matter until after 2010 and only if the conditions in the Census warrants any action.

There was no further action taken by members of City Council.

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

SPECIAL SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 5, 2008

A Special Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee meeting was held on February 5, 2008 with Chairman Hogan presiding. City Clerk’s Office Note: Since there was not a quorum at this meeting, no official recommendations were made to forward to Council.

Resolution in Support of Weekend Bus Service (Dover Human Relations Commission)

During their meeting of November 28, 2007, the Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) recommended adoption of a proposed Resolution in support of weekend bus service in Dover. Members were provided with correspondence from the DHRC, as well as the proposed Resolution for their consideration.

Dr. Hoff, Chairman of the DHRC, advised members that the commission believes that there is a need for weekend bus service, such service is a critical quality of life issue, and payments for such services should be provided by the state, county, and local government if possible. The DHRC recommended approval of the proposed Resolution and that it be forwarded to the Governor and General Assembly of the State of Delaware for consideration.

Based on previous discussions, Mr. Hogan indicated his belief that the committee members would support the proposed Resolution; however, since there was not a quorum, no official action could be taken. He noted that it may be necessary to revise some of the language to coincide with Resolutions considered by Council. Mr. Hogan stated that during the next committee meeting of February 26, 2008, members will take action regarding the proposed Resolution to be forwarded to Council for action.

DART Presentation on Funding of Weekend and Late Night Bus Service in Kent County

Members reviewed a letter from Mr. Stephen Kingsberry, Executive Director of the Delaware Transit Corporation, requesting the City Manager for the opportunity to discuss the City’s ability to help fund weekend bus services for Kent County residents and businesses. Members were provided a response from Mr. DePrima, City Manager, suggesting that a presentation be given to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee and that if it is their desire for the City to consider funding for this service in fiscal year 2008-2009 budget year, then a specific request should be included in the presentation. It was noted that the Delaware Authority for Regional Transit (DART) is managed and operated by the Delaware Transit Corporation (DTC).

Ms. Catherine Smith, Planning Manager for the DTC, provided background information regarding the services provided by DTC. Ms. Lisa Collins, Planner for DTC, reviewed the map depicting the fixed route service area for Kent County and the Spring 2008 Saturday Proposal, as well as information regarding the Weekend Bus Service Pilot Program.

Ms. Smith advised members that the cost for the four (4) fixed routes to operate on Saturday would be approximately $360,000 annually (funded by the State of Delaware); the cost to extend the existing fixed route from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the weekday would be approximately $400,000 to $500,000 annually; and the cost to add Saturday and Sunday services, full complement of the fixed routes ran during the weekday, would be approximately $750,000 to $800,000 annually.

Responding to Mr. Hogan, Ms. Collins stated that last year, there were 185,000 users of the service. With regards to the largest ridership for the fixed routes, Ms. Smith indicated that last year there were 20,000 on Route 101; 23,000 on Routes 104 and 109; and 15,000 on Route 114. For each of these routes, there are approximately 160-170 riders per day. Ms. Collins advised members that weekend services has been the biggest request amongst users for the past several years.

Ms. Smith noted that public hearings have been scheduled to be held during the first week in April. She also advised members of the partnerships that have been developed with businesses and it was her feeling that there is an opportunity to expand these partnerships to the downstate area.

Mr. Hogan suggested that the City be provided information regarding the public hearings in order for the information to be included on the City’s Website.

Initial Discussion - Prioritization of Transportation Projects

There being no objections, Mr. Hogan requested that the briefing on DelDOT and MPO Projects occur prior to the committee’s discussion regarding the Prioritization of Transportation Projects since these briefings may provide information that will effect the discussion regarding this matter.

Briefing on DelDOT Projects (Gary Laing)

Mr. Gary Laing, Municipal Liaison for DelDOT, gave members the following updates:

Signalization Project

Mr. Laing advised members that the signalization project continues to progress, although there has been a slight delay due to weather conditions. He stated that the work at the intersection of Loockerman and New Streets should be completed this week, at which time work will begin at the intersection of Loockerman Street and Legislative Avenue. Although Loockerman Street will be closed, the north side of Legislative Avenue must remain open as it serves as an access and exiting point for the Post Office, State offices, and Treadway Towers.

Mr. Laing indicated that upon completion of the Loockerman Street and Legislative Avenue intersection, there will be three (3) more intersections to complete for this project as follows: 1) New and North Streets; 2) Queen and North Streets; and 3) Queen and Water Streets.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Laing stated that the Dover Police Department would have accident data for those intersections that have been completed; however, he stated that DelDOT has received positive feedback as a result of this project, particularly from users of Division Street, which has been totally completed.

South Governors Avenue Improvements

Mr. Laing advised members that the original intent was to begin the South Governors Avenue Improvement project in March. In reviewing this schedule, he stated that it was discovered that the detour route, as a result of the closure of South Governors Avenue, would cause traffic to utilize New Burton Road, which could possibly bring traffic onto Queen Street. He explained that this would not be acceptable since Queen Street may be closed due to the Signalization Project; therefore, DelDOT will be delaying the South Governors Avenue Improvements Project until the Signalization Project is complete. It is anticipated that this project will begin in May, no later than June.

Mr. Laing stated that DelDOT has requested the opportunity for the Project Manager for the South Governors Avenue Improvements Project to provide a presentation to City Council during their meeting of February 25, 2008. He advised members that a public workshop will be held on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at Reilly Brown Elementary School in order to remind the public and provide details as to what the project entails.

Briefing on MPO Projects (Juanita Wieczorek)

Ms. Wieczorek, Director of the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), briefed members on the Planning Studies of the MPO. She advised members that the Route 8 Study was not adopted at the last MPO Council meeting, which will delay how soon those recommendations are forwarded to DelDOT for funding. She stated that there were some issues regarding the manner in which the cultural resource survey was accomplished and reported, which she felt have been resolved. Ms. Wieczorek stated that there was also an issue regarding maintenance of plantings in the median, explaining that the study recommended grass or some sort of plantings in the median between Mifflin Road and Saulsbury Road and that DelDOT has indicated that they would not be responsible for the maintenance. She plans to meet with the City Manager to determine if this would be an issue for the City.

With regards to the North Dover Study, Ms. Wieczorek advised members that meetings will be scheduled with businesses and homeowners in this area to share with them the consultant’s (RK&K) traffic analysis. She indicated that the plan is for this project to be completed by the end of this fiscal year.

Ms. Wieczorek reviewed the draft list of projects approved by the MPO for transportation improvement program projects. Regarding the US Route 13/Division Street Intersection Improvement and Pedestrian Crossing Project, Ms. Wieczorek stated her understanding is that DelDOT is conducting an analysis of the safety issues and that Highway Safety Improvement money will be made available for this project upon its completion. She suggested that the City of Dover also identify this location as a safety issue that requires resolution.

Ms. Wieczorek noted that although it was not included on the Unfunded Projects List, the Chairman of the MPO is submitting a request to DelDOT to review the intersection of West and North Streets regarding concerns of the traffic in the area of Saulsbury Road and West and North Streets. DelDOT is being requested to conduct a study of this area and to incorporate any improvements in the West Dover Connector and/or the Eden Hill Property improvements.

Responding, Mr. Hogan noted that the West Dover Connector will not be accomplished for several years and that there is a problem in this area that requires immediate attention. He suggested the possibility of making West Street one-way southbound as a temporary solution until the West Dover Connector is completed. Ms. Wieczorek advised members that discussions were held with DelDOT several years ago regarding the possibility of making West Street one-way south, and Queen Street one-way north; however, this was not specified by the MPO at their last meeting. The approach DelDOT has requested of the MPO is not to define the solution, but rather to simply provide the problem. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Ms. Wieczorek suggested that this issue be a separate project from the West Dover Connector in order to improve assurance of consideration by DelDOT.

Initial Discussion - Prioritization of Transportation Projects

During their meeting of December 13, 2007, Mr. Hogan requested that members begin to give consideration to prioritizing transportation projects for further discussion. Members were reminded that each year, members of Council submit a prioritization list of transportation projects for the City of Dover to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, as well as the Governor and other distinguished delegates, for their review and consideration. To aid in the initial review, members were provided the letter and the list of projects submitted in 2007.

In addition to the projects mentioned, Mr. Ruane suggested that members also consider the issue regarding Railroad Cars and the relocation of the switching and storage along New Burton Road. There has also been reference to the Kent County Aeropark having an apron installed and suggested that members include this as a project on their list. He encouraged members to continue to support the passenger rail service. He questioned if the Water Street Railroad Crossing has been considered and whether it should also be included on a prioritization list.

Responding, Mr. Hogan requested that Mr. Ruane as well as all members of Council and the committee provide a list with a brief explanation of any items that they wish to be included in the transportation prioritization list for consideration during the next committee meeting on February 26, 2008.

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 11, 2008

The Utility Committee met on February 11, 2008 with Chairman Ruane presiding.

Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Maple Glen

The developer of the Maple Glen Subdivision, Bay Developers, Inc., has requested that all public infrastructure improvements related to this subdivision be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Members were provided a map that depicted all the public improvements associated with the subdivision and a map that depicted the general location and configuration of the subject rights-of-way. Bay Developers, Inc. has constructed all of the improvements in accordance with City standards and specifications. After construction was completed, City staff inspected the public improvements and provided the developer with a list of repairs to be made to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction. As of this date, all work has been completed by the developer and a one (1) year Maintenance Agreement, Letter of Credit, and a Release of Liabilities have been submitted by the

developer as part of the dedication process. In addition, as-built drawings of the infrastructure have also been submitted to the City for our permanent records.

Mr. Koenig, Public Services Director, advised members that all open space/wetlands, stormwater management areas, and the stormwater outfall structure (including 68 l.f. of 24” Class III reinforced concrete pipe) from the pond area are to be privately maintained by the Maple Glen Homeowner’s Association. He stated that he has had conversations with Mr. Gaudioso, representative of the Homeowner’s Association, for several years regarding the dedication of Maple Glen and that he has relayed concerns regarding the pipe culvert adjacent to the Covington property, as well as some public road that is encroaching on that pipe improvement. Mr. Koenig stated that staff will resolve this issue during the one year maintenance period. Mr. Gaudioso also indicated that there are some deficiencies with the improved park area associated with the subdivision. This is a privately owned park area that will eventually be assumed by the Homeowner’s Association. He assured Mr. Gaudioso that staff would work through all the issues related to the private open space, since they appear to be small and cosmetic in nature; however, there are other issues important to the Homeowner’s Association that should be addressed by the committee.

Staff recommended acceptance of dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure in the Maple Glen Subdivision, with the dedication to include all of the referenced public improvements, as follows:

             Sewer Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $321,300.00):

             15” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main                                -             1,958 l.f.

             8” SDR-35 PVC Sanitary Sewer Main                                  -             1,255 l.f.

             6” PVC Sanity Sewer Laterals                                              -             1,350 l.f.   (54 laterals)

             4’ Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manholes                                 -                  21 ea.   (281.67 v.f.)

             Water Utility Infrastructure (Construction Value = $169,675.00):

             8” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main          -             3,085 l.f.

             6” Ductile Iron (Class 52 Cement Lined) Water Main          -                105 l.f.

             1” Polyethylene Water Service Line                                     -             1,125 l.f.   (43 services)

             8” Gate Valves                                                                      -                    7 ea.

             6” Hydrant Valves                                                                 -                    4 ea.

             Fire Hydrants                                                                        -                    4 ea.

             2” Blow Off Assembly                                                          -                    2 ea.

             Storm Water Infrastructure (Construction Value = $179,625.00)

             Catch Basins                                                                          -                  19 ea.

             15” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe                                 -             1,453 l.f.

             18” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe                                 -                384 l.f.

             24” Type III Reinforced Concrete Pipe                                 -                408 l.f.

             15” ADS N-12 Plastic Pipe                                                   -                  20 l.f.

             24” ADS N-12 Plastic Pipe                                                   -                130 l.f.

             Flared End Sections (Concrete)                                            -                    3 ea.

             Street Infrastructure: (0.5765 miles) (Construction Value = $380,500.00)

             Maple Glen Drive                Station 0+00 to Station 26+75                2,673 l.f.

             Covington Drive                   Station 0+00 to Station 2+00                     200 l.f.

             Northgate Drive                   Station 0+00 to Station 1+71                   171 l.f.

3,044 l.f.

Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Koenig stated that if the acceptance is deferred it would affect snow removal, street sweeping, etc., and that the City would be required to work with the developer regarding these types of issues. It was his opinion that the acceptance would remove the developer from the equation and allow staff to work directly with the homeowners regarding their concerns. He also advised members that homeowners always have the recourse of contacting the City Manager or City Council should they be unsatisfied with staff’s action.

For clarification, Mr. Gaudioso, 167 Maple Glen Drive, stated that he does not represent the Homeowner’s Association and, to his knowledge, there are no residents that are members of the Homeowner’s Association, although the Homeowner’s Association has been incorporated. On behalf of the residents (it was noted that there were approximately 20 residents of Maple Glen in attendance), Mr. Gaudioso provided members with pictures of the subdivision (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), depicting the cul-de-sac on Covington Drive and explained the concerns. Several months ago, he requested Mr. Koenig to inspect the area due to concerns regarding the slope of the land leading down to the cul-de-sac (erosion) and the condition within the culvert. He also noted the erosion occurring under the sidewalk and concern with the homeowner’s being responsible for these issues in the future. Mr. Gaudioso also advised members of issues regarding uneven ground in the public open space area and dead trees on public and private land. It was his feeling that the City has the responsibility to protect the residents regarding these issues since they approved the plans for the subdivision. He requested that the City protect the residents from being held financially responsible in resolving these issues.

Responding, Mr. Koenig assured members that the culvert issue will be resolved as a part of the dedication, explaining that any required improvements in the public rights-of-way is covered under the one year maintenance agreement. He advised members that with the approval of the subdivision, there was an obligation of Bay Developers, Inc. to form a Homeowner’s Association. Unlike most developments, during the time of construction, the developer and builder were not the same entity. With the exception of the last lot, Mr. Koenig stated that Bay Developers, Inc. sold all the lots to Middleneck Homes. Therefore, since there is a separate developer and builder for this development, he explained that it has been difficult to obtain its dedication, which should have occurred many years ago. With regards to the issues involving the private open space, Mr. Koenig stated that Bay Developers controls the officers of the Homeowner’s Association; therefore, any problems with these areas are the responsibility of these officers. He stated that it is his intent to advise Bay Developers of the private open space issues in an attempt to have them resolved.

Mr. McGiffin felt that the dedication is a separate issue from the concerns relayed by the residents and that this meeting is not the avenue for which they should be addressed; however, he questioned the appropriate mechanism provided by the City for having such concerns resolved. Responding, Mr. Koenig indicated that there is a building permit outstanding and, although staff has not instituted the “clean hands” ordinance for these types of issues, he advised members that staff deals with developers on these types of outstanding issues on a regular basis. He felt confident that the City has enough options to compel the developer to resolve the issues.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig explained that the City has an obligation to dedicate the public infrastructure. He agreed to provide members with a status report on the action taken regarding the concerns relayed by the residents in two (2) weeks, although they may not all be resolved.

The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for the acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure for The Maple Glen Subdivision, with dedication to include all of the referenced public improvements, stipulating that staff provide a status report on the action taken regarding the concerns relayed by Mr. Gaudioso.

It was noted that staff provided a status report to members during their meeting of February 25, 2008, held earlier in the evening.

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Lighting Project and Rehabilitation Schedule

During the committee meeting of October 8, 2007, in reviewing the Lighting Project and Rehabilitation included in the FY 2007/08 Electric Capital Improvement Projects Briefing, members requested that staff provide a schedule of the neighborhoods/developments that are to be considered.

As requested, Mr. Lunt, Public Utilities Manager, provided members with a schedule of the neighborhoods/developments slated for the lighting project and rehabilitation, which included estimated costs associated with the project. He explained the criteria used in the analysis and prioritization and noted that the schedule may be altered or accelerated based on possible funding from Delaware Legislators through the DelDOT Community Transportation Fund.

The committee recommend acceptance of the schedule as presented by staff.

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Underground Electric Conversion Schedule

Mr. Lunt, Public Utilities Manager, advised members that staff has analyzed and prioritized those developments that require conversion from overhead pole lines to underground pad-mounted equipment. He explained the criteria used in the analysis and prioritization, as well as the process used to convert the developments. Members were provided a schedule for the underground electric conversion, which was developed based on the criteria, as follows: 1) Kent Acres (partially completed); 2) Schoolview; 3) Highland Acres; 4) Crossgates; and 5) Buchanan Acres.

Mr. Lunt noted that, historically, a lump sum is budgeted towards the completion of projects as designated by staff. In addition to funding the overhead to underground projects, the fund also includes the replacement of obsolete or failed existing underground cables and the conversion of circuits for aesthetic reasons. He stated that these projects will take the City well past the current five (5) year plan based on the current funding levels.

The committee recommended acceptance of the schedule as presented by staff.

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Water Main Replacement Priority List

Members were provided a Presentation of the Water Main Replacement Priority List for water quality improvements, which was reviewed by Mrs. Duca, City Engineer for the Public Utilities Department. She introduced Mr. Jason Lyons, the new City Engineer, and advised members that he has been working with her on this project.

Mrs. Duca reminded members that the 2006 Water Master Plan and 2006 Water Quality Evaluation recommended the establishment of a Water Main Rehabilitation Program. She explained that a rated inventory of all water mains maintained by the City was developed in order for the City to meet this recommendation. Such a program would assist the City in meeting industry standards, as well as addressing water quality issues.

In order to develop a water main replacement priority list, Mrs. Duca stated that a Water Main Pipe Rating (WMPR) was developed to rate the condition of water mains based upon key characteristics. These characteristics include pipe size, material, installation date, repairs/leaks, water quality complaints, flushing times, and demand significance. She reviewed the water main replacement priority list, which consisted of the 20 lowest rated water mains.

Mrs. Duca assured members that the water main priority list will be reviewed in conjunction with the street priority list to facilitate the coordination of projects. The Water Main Rehabilitation Projects will be based upon the priority listing and are to be implemented each fiscal year.

The committee recommended acceptance of the priority list as presented by staff.

Members of Council were also provided the Presentation of the Water Main Replacement Priority List for water quality improvements, which was reviewed by Mrs. Duca.

Mr. McGiffin moved for acceptance of the priority list as presented by staff, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.

It was noted that due to time constraints, members deferred the remaining agenda items until the next committee meeting, as follows: 1) Annual Engineering Consultant’s Report on the Operation and Maintenance of the Electric System - Fiscal Year 2007; and 2) PACE/NAES Monthly Report (December).

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

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 11, 2008

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on February 11, 2008 with Chairman Slavin presiding.

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Final Presentation

During their meeting of December 10, 2007, members reviewed the final draft of the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ending June 30, 2007. Mrs. Mitchell, Treasurer/Finance Director, reminded members that this is the first time the Audit Committee approach has been used in the preparation and presentation of the CAFR.

Members were provided a Presentation of the Final Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which was reviewed by Mrs. Mitchell. She also provided a summary and provided explanations to the major highlights of the report.

Mr. McGlumphy stated that as a laymen, the information provided is very difficult to comprehend and suggested that the report allow for more transparency and details to assist members in having a better understanding. Responding, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the terminology and manner in which items are grouped together is a requirement of the new GASB. She explained that the front section of the report contains the items in groups; however, further in the report (pages 90-91), information regarding individual departments is provided.

The committee recommended acceptance of the Comprehensive Annual Finance Report - Final Presentation, as presented by staff.

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Amendment to Robbins Hose Company Annual Contribution in the CIP to Reflect New Cost of Engine 5 Replacement

Members considered a request to amend the Robbins Hose Company annual contribution in the CIP of the City 2007/08 Budget, to reflect the down payment of $5,000 and ordering of replacement Engine #5. Fire Chief Carey advised members that in accordance with the CIP for next fiscal year, the Dover Fire Department sent out a specification for a piece of fire apparatus to replace the current Engine #5, which is a 1989 Mack/Pierce. He indicated that there is a long delivery time for fire engines which requires the order to be placed well in advance of the fiscal year. Although the specification was sent out to four (4) vendors (American LaFrance, KME, Seagrave, and Pierce), he advised members that Pierce was the only vendor to submit a proposal, at a cost of $588,614. Chief Carey stated that they also submitted a bid for an optional cab which would lower the cost to $539,299. The engine committee chose to go with the optional cab and also eliminated several safety items to bring the truck close to the City’s projected budget (CIP), which resulted in a cost of $512,764. By inflating the price for a 3% maximum change order limit, he stated that the cost would be $528,146. To finance this option over three years (using current market rates) would translate into a loan payment of $180,300 for a total financed cost of $540,900. It was noted that the payments are subject to change based on prevailing interest rates at time of financing.

Chief Carey advised members that the following crash safety options were eliminated: Advanced ABS System, Tire Pressure Management System, Seat Belt Alarms, Side Roll Protection, Additional LED Warning Lights on Cab Doors (exit), Insta Chains, and Frontal Impact. These safety items would bring the cost to $555,478 including the 3% maximum change order limit. To finance this option over three years (using current market rates) would translate into a loan payment of $195,300 for a total financed cost of $585,900.

Chief Carey noted that Engine #5 is 19 years old and the Fire Department currently has a 15 year replacement program. He stated that the current engine lacks dependability which could jeopardize firefighter safety. He also indicated that research was completed to determine if the City paid for the truck being replaced, unfortunately, the files are not complete; however, staff was able to determine that $120,000 of City money was used to pay for the 1989 Mack.

Staff recommended approval of the amendment to Robbins Hose Company CIP sheet of the City 2007/08 Budget, down payment of $5,000 and ordering of the replacement of Engine #5. Chief Carey stated that upon modification of the CIP, the equipment would be ordered and that the order and down payment in the amount of $5,000 must be in by February 27, 2008 to secure current prices. The estimated delivery would be in late 2008.

Mr. McGlumphy relayed concern with the timing of the request and difficulty in supporting the request based on information obtained from studies completed. In reviewing the CIP sheet, he noted that the original budget for the replacement of Engine #5 was $150,000 for FY2009 through FY2011 and now the request has increased to $180,000 to $195,000 per year. It was his feeling that it would be irresponsible for Council to approve an increase for an obligation of this magnitude for this upcoming fiscal year without the knowledge and consideration of the entire budget and needs for FY2009. Mr. McGlumphy suggested that in taking such action, members would be “hedging their bet”, explaining that it is unknown whether the cost for the truck would increase or decrease the next year.

Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Chief Carey advised members that the delivery time for a fire truck is approximately one (1) year ,which is why it is necessary to place the order at this time. The main concern at this time is the down time of Engine #5 due to broken fuel lines. He also advised members that Engine #5 failed the pump test, which is an NFPA requirement. The pump test should be rated at 2,000 gallons per minute and Engine #5 is rated at 1,850 gallons per minute, which is a significant factor for fire fighting efforts.

In response to additional concerns relayed by Mr. McGlumphy, Chief Carey stated that the City’s Purchasing Department did not assist in the specification process and that it was conducted by a committee of the Fire Department. He assured members that all vendors were given the same opportunity for bidding, including the option to eliminate items, and that no member of the Fire Department would benefit financially from this purchase. He also confirmed that the purchase is for a Pierce Truck and would be ordered from Pierce. Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Chief Carey explained that Singer Associates is the distributor for the Delaware and Maryland area and that there is one (1) member of the Fire Department associated with Singer Associates; however, he stated that this member did not serve on the committee and was not involved with the development of the specifications.

Referring to the report by Haggerty and Haggerty Accountants that was previously provided to members, which includes recommendations for the Fire Department, Mr. McGlumphy explained that the reasoning for his questions is that the recommendations are contrary to the request of staff. Until members are provided the opportunity to discuss the merits of the accountant’s recommendations, Mr. McGlumphy stated that he is not in favor of approving any purchases for the Fire Department, nor would he favor approving any purchase of equipment that was not bid through the City’s Purchasing Department.

In response to Mr. McGlumphy, Chief Carey indicated that he would provide members and staff a copy of the bid and final pricing for the requested purchase. With regards to the sale of the current Engine #5, Chief Carey stated that the monies derived from the sale are used to pay for equipment and apparatus for the Fire Department; these funds are not given to the City. Since the City would be paying for the equipment, Mr. McGlumphy suggested that any funds acquired as a result of the sale of such equipment should be submitted to the City.

Responding to Mr. Salters, Chief Carey stated that there is a safety issue involved with Engine #5 and reiterated the need for its replacement.

Mr. DePrima stated that in previous years, the Fire Department would order the apparatus the year prior to the year the purchase was budgeted and if there was an increase in the actual purchase price from the amount budgeted, staff would make an adjustment to the budget. In this instance, the Fire Department took a more proactive approach by notifying Council of the price increase based on the bids received and worked with staff in the development of a revised CIP Sheet.

Being aware that American LaFrance has filed bankruptcy, Mr. Hogan questioned why the other two (2) companies did not submit a bid. In following up with the vendors regarding this matter, Chief Carey stated that KME did not respond to the inquiry and that Seagrave submitted a letter indicating that they were not interested in submitting a bid. He stated that an offer has been received for the purchase of Engine #5 in the amount of $30,000, which is substantially less than the amount desired by the Fire Department. He estimated that the original cost of Engine #5 was $220,000 in 1989.

Referring to the Haggerty and Haggerty Report provided to members, Mr. Leary stated his concerns as a steward of taxpayer’s money and questioned what actions are being taken in conjunction with City staff to rectify the problems. Chief Carey advised members that in previous years, the City would provide the Fire Department with their portion of the loan payment for processing and that now, the Fire Department has no access to the loan funds. He explained that the Fire Department provides the loan payment to the Finance Department for processing. He stated that another correction being made is with the bidding process for equipment, explaining that a blanket bid will be let in July for the entire year. As an example, Chief Carey stated that bids would be let for the purchase of boots in July; however, the boots would be ordered throughout the year only as needed. He assured members that actions are being taken to correct the issues relayed by the accountants.

Several members relayed their support for the Fire Department and appreciation to the men and women who serve the City in this capacity.

Mr. Salters relayed concern that the delay in action by tabling the request could jeopardize the safety of the citizens of Dover.

Chief Carey stated that the City’s Finance Director is currently responsible for handling the loan process, although it will be a loan of the Fire Department. He also advised members that delaying the ordering of the truck will result in a 4% to 5% increase, and noted that the purchase price is only locked in until February 27, 2008.

Mr. Slavin relayed his concern with several issues included in the Haggerty and Haggerty Report, as well as the bid process. He stated that although he supports the Fire Department, members have a responsibility and obligation to provide due diligence regarding this matter. If the matter is tabled, he offered to place the request on the committee’s next agenda, in two (2) weeks, at which time, the Haggerty and Haggerty Report could be brought forward and the Fire Chief would be provided the opportunity to respond to the recommendations.

The committee recommended tabling the request based on such requests being kept within the City’s budget process, the receipt of a report within the next couple of weeks, an improved comfort with the Fire Chief’s plan for improvement, and assurance that all financial matters are handled by the City’s Finance Director.

Council President Williams noted that this matter was requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for its consideration; however, she explained that this matter was considered by the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee during their meeting held earlier in the evening and that their recommendation is scheduled to be considered by members of Council later in this meeting (See Agenda Item #10-A). As a result, there is no need to discuss this matter further at this time.

Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the committee’s tabling recommendation with the understanding that the issue will be considered during the latter part of the meeting (Agenda Item #10-A), seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

Request of Capital School District - New Construction Surcharge

During their meeting of February 26, 2007, members reviewed a letter received from Dr. Michael Thomas, Superintendent of Schools for the Capital School District, requesting consideration of the adoption of a surcharge on new home construction, similar to the ordinance enacted by Kent County Levy Court. The ordinance would provide financial support for the school district in funding future capital projects. At that time, Dr. Thomas indicated that at least one municipality in Kent County (Town of Smyrna) has enacted such a surcharge and that other municipalities are in the process.

Mrs. Mitchell, Treasurer/Finance Director, provided members with copies of the ordinances adopted by Kent County and the Town of Smyrna, and a compilation of sample charges. She also provided and reviewed a recap of each ordinance.

Dr. Thomas explained that the proposal submitted by the Capital School District is to charge an impact fee in the amount of 1.25% of the construction value of the building permit of new residential dwellings and new non-residential structures of all types. The funds for the impact fee would be collected by the City and transferred to the Capital School District quarterly. These funds would be used specifically by the Capital School District for capital construction to enhance the provision of educational facilities to the residents of the City.

Dr. Thomas advised members that both the State of Delaware Department of Education, and the Capital School District conducted an enrollment study. It is felt that the growth enrollment predictions of the Capital School Districts are more realistic. He noted that an important fact is not only with regards to growth but the need to modernize facilities for the Capital School District. He stated that the State of Delaware estimates that within the next five (5) to ten (10) years, there would be an increase of 6,300 to 6,400 and thereafter, the enrollment numbers would maintain; the Capital School District estimated that there would be an additional 300-400 enrollment growth beyond ten (10) years.

Mr. McGlumphy noted that many of the residents of the Second Council District are within the Caesar Rodney School District. Responding, Dr. Thomas stated that the bulk of the Caesar Rodney School District lies within Kent County boundaries. He is not aware of any action taken by the Town of Camden regarding this concept.

Mr. Ruane questioned if there has been any analysis of the results of the surcharge as it relates to the cost for a new home. Dr. Thomas stated that he is not aware of any analysis.

Responding to Council President Williams, Dr. Thomas explained that there are several issues that drive the need for facilities: enrollment and programs and services provided to children. He suggested that, considering education in general, over the past 30 years, there have been other factors that have driven the need for additional space that are not relative to enrollment. He explained that there is the issue of providing services to special needs children, as well as providing for full-day kindergarten, and that these issues require additional space.

Mr. Thomas Keitel, Capital School District Board Member, advised members that there is no extra empty classroom for kindergarten through fourth grade; therefore, any growth whatsoever puts a binding pressure on the school district. He noted that there is now an extra concern with the initiation of Pre-K. He stated that the current facilities of the Capital School District are inadequate for the current student population.

In response to Mr. Shevock, Dr. Thomas stated that the County impact fee is collected only for properties located outside of the City limits. If the proposed impact fee were instituted for the City, he suggested that the impact fees collected for properties that are within another school district would benefit that particular school district and not the Capital School District.

Mr. Hogan noted that the impact fee collected by the County provides for Polytech School District as well. It was his opinion that if the City were to initiate the impact fee, there would need to be a determination as to the amounts that would be assigned for each of the school districts: Capital, Caesar Rodney, and Polytech. Responding to Mr. Hogan, Dr. Thomas stated that as of the last report provided by Kent County, they have collected $269,642.70 for Capital School District; however, none of this money has been applied for by the Capital School District. He stated that the Board has decided that the Capital School District would apply for the funds at such time as a referendum is held for the construction of the new high school. He noted that the construction costs for the new high school are currently estimated at $101M and that every year it is delayed, due to inflation and construction costs, this amount will increase.

In reviewing the committee minutes of February 26, 2007, Mr. Slavin questioned the receipt of the following information: 1) an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding any restriction in the City Charter that would prohibit the City from adopting such an ordinance; 2) a determination as to whether or not there is legislation that would require the State to grant the City authorization to institute such a surcharge, noting that the County had to obtain such permission; and 3) a report from staff in accordance with the motion. There being no objections, Mr. Slavin stated that no further action would be taken regarding this request until such time that the requested information has been provided to members.

Due to time constraints and there being no objections, Mr. Slavin deferred action on the Status of Incentives for Downtown until the next committee meeting scheduled for February 25, 2008.

There was no further action taken by City Council.

Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 12, 2008

The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on February 12, 2008 with Chairwoman Russell presiding.

Animal Care and Control Service

During their meeting of January 15, 2008, members were provided an update by the City Manager on the cost benefit analysis for providing animal control services by considering the elimination of the City’s animal control officer and contracting with the SPCA. Members were advised that the City Manager was in the process of finalizing the material for developing a final report to be considered by members during a future meeting. As a result of several questions, it was suggested that Mr. Goldwaithe, Executive Director of SPCA, be invited to meet with members.

Mr. DePrima reminded members that Mr. Goldwaithe was requested to provide members with information regarding those services that are provided by the SPCA in Kent County and the City, and an understanding of what services are provided to the City through the contract with the County or State.

Mr. Goldwaithe advised members that there is no contract with Kent County and that the SPCA is contracted by the State of Delaware to enforce the State Dog Law. There are two (2) contracts with the State: one through DNREC, which handles the dog management control; and the Board of Health, Department of Social Services, which handles rabies control (animal bites). Under the State’s contract, Mr. Goldwaithe stated that those municipalities that already had their own animal control laws and services were not included since it was their preference not to be included. The only contract that the SPCA has with the City of Dover is for housing animals. The SPCA does provide services to the City, on an hourly basis, when the animal control officer is not available or when the Police Department requests assistance.

Responding to Mr. DePrima, Mr. Goldwaithe stated that DNREC continues to be responsible for dog management control. There is a three (3) year plan, as a result of new legislation, that requires cities and towns to pay for animal control through the County. He stated that beginning his year, DNREC has paid half of the contract fees and that for the following years, the County will pay for all contract fees; however, the program will continue to be managed through DNREC.

Mr. McGlumphy reminded members that staff was requested to conduct a cost benefit analysis for providing animal control services by considering the elimination of the City’s animal control officer and contracting with the SPCA. He requested Mr. Goldwaithe to provide his opinion regarding the costs and services for outsourcing animal control and details regarding the services that are provided by the SPCA that are not currently provided by the City. He noted that staff has suggested the possibility of hiring additional animal control officers. In an attempt to control costs, he questioned the benefits of the City hiring additional officers versus having the services provided by the SPCA. Mrs. Russell also requested details as to the types of training provided by the SPCA for their animal control officers.

Mr. Goldwaithe stated that animal control officers for the SPCA are provided training through the OGP Guidelines and state and national training conferences to obtain certification. The State of Delaware does not currently require animal control officers to be certified as law enforcement officers; however, these officers are certified for providing law enforcement services that are animal related, such as warrants, arrests, prosecutions, etc. He explained that the SPCA is governed by the Delaware Code to provide animal enforcement in the State of Delaware.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Goldwaithe stated that the animal control officers are required to obtain National Certification, which authorizes them to administer tranquilizers. Animal control officers would be required to obtain federal licenses for control and narcotics, explaining that the SPCA is also an animal hospital. Only those officers that have obtained certification and their department has acquired the required DDA licensing are permitted to administer tranquilizers.

Mr. DePrima stated his belief that training is available, at a minimal cost, for the City’s animal control officers to obtain the certification and authorities for providing law enforcement services. With regards to the tranquilizing, it was his feeling that the Police Department could obtain DDA licensing.

In response to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Goldwaithe advised members that officers of the SPCA are available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. He noted that he has provided the City’s Police Department with three (3) different proposals for providing services to the City. A comparable to the City’s current services, he stated that the SPCA could assign an officer specifically for the City, 7 days per week, 12 hours per day. He advised members that most complaints are received between 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and then 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Goldwaithe stated that, unlike the City, the SPCA would not require a police officer to assist with any animal control issue, which eliminates the need to take a law enforcement officer away from their duties. The SPCA provides all the animal housing, which he estimated would take an hour trip for a City officer.

Regarding the proposals submitted to the Police Department, Mr. McGlumphy requested that members be provided copies of the proposals. Mr. Goldwaithe indicated that the proposals consisted of alternatives for 60 days, 90 days, and one (1) year.

Responding to Mr. DePrima, Mr. Goldwaithe stated that the SPCA responds to all animal complaints, including cats. He advised members that last year, the SPCA responded to 55 complaints and 84 assists in the City. The SPCA took in 715 cats, 278 dogs, 7 exotics, and 2 goats, and handled 10 wildlife cases.

Mr. DePrima noted that both the State of Delaware and Kent County pays the SPCA for animal control services. The City of Dover residents pay State and County taxes; however, the residents are not provided any of these services. When the SPCA responds to a City request, the City pays for this service (hourly rate and flat fee for housing). It was his opinion that this is an unfair situation for the resident of Dover, explaining his opinion that the residents of Dover should be receiving services equal to the County and State residents. He felt that, in essence, the City is subsidizing services in the County since the City chose to have an animal control officer. Mr. DePrima further explained that, due to the fact that the City does have an animal control officer, there is less burden for the SPCA. He suggested that there should be a certain amount of services provided by the SPCA to the residents of Dover since they too are taxpayers of the State and County. He stated that a part of the cost benefit is analyzing why the City is required to pay extra for a service, when, in the County, those residents are not required to pay for the service.

Responding, Mr. Goldwaithe advised members that the SPCA met with Police Chief Horvath and Ms. Herman, Program Manager for DNREC, at which time the Police Chief indicated that the City of Dover was not interested in the SPCA providing animal control services to the City. Therefore, he explained that the City was not figured into the SPCA contract with the State of Delaware for dog control. He assured members that this service is paid for; however, the costs were not included in the contract with the State since the City did not want to be included.

Noting that the City was not included in the State’s contract relating to dog control, Mr. DePrima noted that the City has contracted with the SPCA for additional services, such as housing for animals, which he felt should be included in the State’s contract. Responding, Mr. Goldwaithe suggested that if the City indicated a desire to have these services included in the contract with the State, the contract would be developed accordingly. He noted that the SPCA is currently in the second year of a three (3) year contract with the State. If desired, he suggested that the City meet with Ms. Herman to determine if the City could be included in this regard and advised members that the SPCA is in the process of submitting a contract to the City for the housing of animals.

In response to Mr. DePrima, Mr. Goldwaithe stated that the fees paid for dog licensing is credited to the State for dog control. Mr. DePrima noted that there is no credit provided to the City for dog licenses purchased by City residents; therefore, Dover residents pay for these services through taxes as well as licensing.

Mrs. Horsey questioned which municipalities are provided animal control service by the SPCA. Mr. Goldwaithe stated that the Towns of Milford and Smyrna have contracted with the SPCA for animal control services. He stated that it would be necessary for the SPCA to add an additional officer if they were to provide animal control services for the City of Dover.

For clarification regarding cat control, Mr. Goldwaithe explained that there are no current laws regarding cats; however, the SPCA will provide assistance if a resident has a cat problem or there is an indication that there are sick cats, due to the possibility of a rabies control issue.

Mrs. Russell suggested that members be provided the proposed contracts submitted to the City and that the Police Chief and Mr. Goldwaithe attend the next committee meeting on March 11, 2008 to further discuss this issue. As directed during the committee meeting of January 15, 2008, Mr. McGlumphy noted that staff was requested to contact the City of Newark and Wilmington to obtain information as to how they handle animal control within their jurisdiction and requested that this information also be provided to members during their next meeting. Mr. Ruane suggested that the City Manager include his recommendation with regards to the Police Department in the final report of the cost benefit analysis for providing animal control services. In order to allow for appropriate review, Mrs. Russell reiterated the need to include all the information in the packet for the meeting and that the information not be presented to members at the committee meeting.

Noting that another option has been presented to members, Mr. Ruane requested that the City Manager’s report include the alternative of having the animal control services provided by the SPCA through the State of Delaware contract, to be paid for by the resident through the licensing fees and taxes paid to the State and County. For clarification, Mr. Goldwaithe indicated that the State’s contract only provides for animal control services for dogs and wildlife.

Mr. Ruane suggested that the draft amendments to the City’s animal control ordinance be provided to the representatives of SPCA for their review and comments. Due to the amount of time it has taken in the development of this draft, he questioned if members wish to pursue the amendment, to determine if he should continue to work on this project.

Responding, Mrs. Russell suggested that members have been delaying the consideration of the proposed ordinance amendment for receipt of additional information, such as that which is being obtained regarding the animal control services.

Updates

Members were provided the following updates:

Puncheon Run Watershed Action Team Update

Mr. Koenig, Public Services Director, indicated that no further action has been taken since the last update; therefore, the next update will be provided to members during their meeting of March 11, 2008. Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig stated that he anticipates a meeting to be held by the Puncheon Run Watershed Action Team prior to the committee’s meeting on March 11, 2008 and that members will follow-up on the recommendations of the URS Corporation that were submitted to the Conservation District.

Mr. Koenig stated that he also requested that the concerns previously relayed by Mr. Ruane be addressed regarding the flood plain of the Puncheon Run.

Mr. Ruane reiterated the importance of notifying residents due to the affect the results could have on their obtaining insurance. He stated that the committee will be given the opportunity to be supportive of recommendations to be forwarded to the General Assembly.

John W. Pitts Recreation Center

Mr. Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, reviewed the update for the John W. Pitts Recreation Center, and advised members that the opening is scheduled for March 2008; therefore, he stated that this should be the last update provided to members.

Responding to Mrs. Russell, Mr. Carter stated that once the building is completed, he would contact her to schedule a tour of the facility for members of the Services for Seniors Committee. In response to her request regarding the basketball team, Delaware Finest, Mr. Carter stated that there are no other City facilities available to provide basketball courts and that the space at the new Center will be made available for leasing.

Mr. Ruane requested that during the next committee meeting, staff be directed to provide members an update on the status regarding the Schutte Park issue involving the Boys and Girls Club and the CDSA, which was previously discussed by members.

Mr. Frank Tenusak, 880 Schoolhouse Lane, indicated his interest in additional facilities for residents. He stated that he has found difficulty in locating a place for individuals who wish to play basketball, exercise, etc., due to the facilities being rented and leased to groups. He suggested consideration of public comments on what would be desired of the various facilities. Responding, Mrs. Russell suggested that Mr. Tenusak attend the Services for Seniors Committee meeting tomorrow, which was developed as a result of several of these same concerns.

Mr. Carter advised members that staff is continuing to meet with senior citizens in an attempt to address their needs in this community relative to recreation, including the Senior Olympics.

Planning and Funding for New Library

Mr. Richard Thau, Library Director, provided an update on the planning and funding for the new library.

Mr. Ruane requested that staff provide a brief financial report regarding the new library during future updates.

Mr. Frank Tenusak, 880 Schoolhouse Lane, advised members of his involvement at the State level, prior County meetings, and recent Library Commission meetings. Being supportive in the development of library facilities, he was requested to participate in fund raising efforts. Having attended a recent fund raising meeting, it was his feeling that prior to asking the public for contributions for this cause, as well as other groups beyond the monies available from governments, that the known status of the project be defined clearly as it applies specifically to the City of Dover. He explained that although there have been studies conducted, it would behoove those involved in the fund raising efforts to have information relative to the decisions made by Council regarding the construction and funding for the new library. He also requested any documents that may exist that specify the current status of the plans for the new library. Mr. Tenusak stated that this information is critical so that when members approach the people for contributions and they have questions, members will be able to respond.

Mr. Thau assured members that once the “team of consultants” has been acquired, their responsibility would be to consolidate the project and clarify the elements therein in order for the development of a cohesive plan.

2008 Comprehensive Plan Update

Mr. Koenig, Public Services Director, reviewed the update on the Comprehensive Plan development process for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Ruane requested that staff provide members with a copy of the current Comprehensive Plan to allow members the opportunity to better understand the various elements.

It was noted that staff would like to have determined at what point during this process they should no longer accept applications to amend the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Koenig explained that this deadline would allow staff to prepare a Comprehensive Plan to be submitted to the State in a final format, without pending amendments. Staff recommended that a deadline of May 2, 2008 be established for these applications. This would allow for Council to take action on the applications in July, which aligns with the submission of the draft to the State for their review.

Mr. Ruane noted that during the review of the previous Comprehensive Plan, the City Committees were involved since there are certain elements of the Plan specific to their area of expertise. As an example, he stated that the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee had a very significant role in the development of the transportation section of the current Plan. He urged staff to schedule meetings with the various committees to allow for their input and allow for the committee’s priorities and goals to be included, as well as to obtain their support of the Plan.

In addition, Mr. DePrima suggested that the civilian committee members be invited to attend the Planning Commission/Council Workshop scheduled for April.

The committee recommended that a deadline of May 2, 2008 be established for accepting applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by staff.

Mrs. Townshend noted that a timeline for the Comprehensive Plan was presented to members of the committee; however, due to there being several questions of members of Council, she requested the opportunity to review this schedule with members of Council. She advised members of the various workshops that have been scheduled and assured members that several of these workshops will be held in various locations throughout the City to provide a convenience to all residents.

Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation that the deadline for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications be set for May 2, 2008, seconded by Mr. Leary.

Mr. Hogan moved to amend the motion to include that the City would re-start accepting amendments once the Comprehensive Plan has been approved, seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried.

The motion for approval of the committee’s recommendation that the deadline for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications be set for May 2, 2008, and that the City would re-start accepting amendments once the Comprehensive Plan has been approved was unanimously carried.

Mr. Ruane moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 25, 2008

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on February 25, 2008 with Chairman Slavin presiding. Council President Williams explained that except for the following time sensitive issue, the remainder of the items considered by the committee will be presented to Council during their Regular Meeting of March 10, 208 for Council’s review and consideration.

Amendment to Robbins Hose Company Annual Contribution in the CIP

During the committee meeting held earlier this evening, members considered a request to amend the Robbins Hose Company annual contribution in the CIP of the City 2007/08 Budget, to reflect the down payment of $5,000 and ordering of replacement Engine #5. Mr. Slavin reported that this issue was previously considered by members during their meeting of February 11, 2008, at which time several members had relayed concern regarding several issues included in the Haggerty & Haggerty Report, as well as the bid process and although they support the Fire Department, members felt they have a responsibility and obligation to provide due diligence for this matter. As a result, the committee tabled the request based on such requests being kept within the City’s budget process, the receipt of a report within the next couple of weeks, an improved comfort with the Fire Chief’s plan for improvement, and assurance that all financially matters are handled by the City’s Finance Director.

Staff recommended approval of the amendment to Robbins Hose Company CIP sheet of the City 2007/08 Budget, down payment of $5,000 and ordering of replacement Engine #5. Upon modification of the CIP, the equipment would be ordered. Members were reminded that the order and down payment in the amount of $5,000 must be in by February 27, 2008 to secure current prices. The estimated delivery would be in late 2008.

During the committee meeting, Mr. McGlumphy reiterated his concern with the request. He stated that, based on the information received, it was his feeling that there is an issue involving impropriety. He explained that when a member of the Fire Department who also works for a company that is a successful bidder, the use of proprietary information is questioned. Referring to the responses received from other vendors, Mr. McGlumphy relayed his concern regarding their reasons for not submitting a bid, which he felt confirms his concerns with this issue.

Responding, Chief Carey assured members that the member in question did not participate in this matter whatsoever and noted documentation received to that affect. Regarding the timing issue concerns relayed by Mr. Straus in the email provided to members, Chief Carey provided various examples of bids solicited by other fire departments that required submission of a response within a two (2) week time frame, considering the elimination of holidays, weekends, etc.; therefore, he assured members that the amount of time allowed for the bid submission was adequate. He stated that the Front Non Drive Axle requested in the specs (page 8) requested an “independent front suspension” not a “TAK-4 suspension” as indicated in the email from Mr. Mortka. Chief Carey reiterated his assurance that the bid specifications was not referencing proprietary equipment.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Chief Carey explained that the emails from those vendors, who chose not to submit a bid, alluded to there being only one (1) vendor who could meet the spec requirements, which is not the case. He advised members that the same spec used by the City was also used by Christiana Fire Department and that two (2) vendors submitted bids, Seagrave and Pierce. Chief Carey stated that the information contained in the emails provided to members is inaccurate and assured members that the inaccuracies can be proven.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency and in an effort to avoid confusion or concerns in the future, Mr. Ruane suggested that the Fire Department consider meeting with vendors to clarify any questions or concerns.

The committee recommended approval of the amendment to Robbins Hose Company CIP sheet of the City 2007/08 Budget, down payment of $5,000 and ordering of replacement Engine #5.

Mr. Slavin moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, allowing Robbins Hose Company/Dover Fire Department to order the new replacement for Engine #5 with the crash safety options, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

MONTHLY REPORTS - JANUARY 2008

By motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. Leary, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda:

            Budget Report

            Chief of Police Report

City Assessor Report

            City Manager's Report

            Planning and Inspections Report

            Dover Fire Department Report (December and January)

            CIP Report

ANNUAL REPORTS

The following Annual Reports were presented to members for their review:

Dover Human Relations Commission

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Annual Report of the Dover Human Relations Commission (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Fire Department

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Annual Report of the Fire Department (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Police Department

By consent agenda, Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Annual Report of the Police Department (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), seconded by Mr. Leary and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

CONTRACT WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGY FOR ASSESSING SERVICES AS NEEDED

As a result of the recent departure from City employment of the City Assessor, Mr. Capuano, Mr. DePrima, City Manager, advised members that there is a temporary but immediate need for a variety of tax assessing services. These services include, but are not limited to, commercial appraisals, reviewing commercial tax appeals, and advising the tax appeal committee. He stated that Tyler Technology is currently under contract for the City’s CAMA software and had provided assessing services during the last interim period between City Assessors. Tyler Technology has advised the City that they have staff available for on call services. Mr. DePrima noted that much of the work that would be required could be done “off site” with support from the Assistant Assessor, Ms. Cheryl Russell.

Due to the immediate need for these services and due to the familiarity with the City and its CAMA systems, Mr. DePrima stated that a Request for Proposals, as required in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy, is not recommended at this time. He assured members that if it is determined that there is a more permanent need for these services, a Request for Proposal will be sought. The amount of expenditure will depend on the length of time it takes to fill the City Assessors position. Mr. DePrima stated his expectation is that the expenses for this service will vary from $10,000 to $25,000 and that the required funding would come from the money budgeted for the salary of the City Assessor. In addition to these funds, he reminded members that a “commercial appraiser” position was budgeted for this year; however, this position will not be filled until the Assessor’s position is filled.

Staff recommended that the City Manager be authorized to sign a contract with Tyler Technology at the rates provided for assessment services as needed in support of the Tax Assessment Office, waiving the purchasing policy requirement for Request for Proposals. Mr. DePrima provided members with the Time and Material Rates submitted by Tyler Technology. He noted that Tyler Technology is currently providing similar services to the Town of Smyrna.

Mr. Ruane moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Russell.

Mr. Salters moved to amend the motion by stipulating that the expenditure for this service is not to exceed $25,000, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.

The motion authorizing the City Manager to sign a contract with Tyler Technology at the rates provided for assessment services as needed in support of the Tax Assessment Office, waiving the purchasing policy requirement for Request for Proposals, and stipulating that the expenditure for this service is not to exceed $25,000, was carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

EVALUATION OF BIDS - 69 KV CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR PHASE I FEEDERS 3 & 4

Mr. Lunt, Public Utilities Director, advised members that bids were solicited for the construction contract for Phase I of the 69 Kv Feeders 3 & 4. He stated that a mandatory pre-bid was advertised in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy, and that nine (9) potential bidders attended the meeting. Specifications and drawings were distributed to the bidders, their questions were answered, and they were instructed to submit their proposal by January 30, 2008.

Mr. Lunt indicated that the City received four (4) proposal responses, which were evaluated by staff using the following criteria: cost, experience, references, resources, safety records and exceptions to bid documents. Upon review, it was determined that all four (4) bidders were qualified. The two (2) lowest bidders were interviewed to discuss their experience and ensure understanding of the project. Both bidders understood the project scope, had experience with this type of construction, had good references and safety records, and were deemed to be qualified. After a thorough review, both Shaw EDS and City staff determined that a contract offer should be extended to the low bidder, C.W. Wright.

Mr. Lunt advised members that during the interview with C.W. Wright, it was discovered that they were not aware of the new DelDOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices publication (which was released after the bid opening) and had not included an att