City Council Minutes - Regular City Council Meeting on 01/14/2008

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

The Regular Council Meeting was held on January 14, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Leary was absent.

Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, 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.

Mr. Richard Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, noted that there is an ordinance that prohibits the use of commercial vehicles as advertisement for establishments. He advised members that he recently observed several violations in this respect and requested that the City take the necessary action to enforce the ordinance.

Mrs. Rexene Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, relayed concern regarding the traffic situation on North Street resulting from the medical building. It was her feeling that adequate planning was not done to determine the manner in which vehicular traffic would travel through the intersection at North and West Street. She questioned if the City is taking action to resolve the problem that currently exists and if there are plans to resolve problems that will result as this property continues to be developed, noting that a childcare facility is planned where traffic will be entering and exiting during a time when traffic is excessive. Mrs. Ornauer requested that staff provide her the opportunity to review a copy of the traffic study that was accomplished before the permit was granted for Eden Hill.

Mr. James Bordley, 622 Crawford Avenue, advised members of the difficulty in exiting his development since the building of the new homes in front of Schoolview, as well as another development in the area. He questioned if there are any plans to install a traffic signal in this area and if the City would be willing to survey the traffic in an effort to resolve this problem.

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

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

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

Council President Williams noted that item #9D(d-2), Proposed Zoning Text Amendments to Subsection 1.10 - Portable Storage Units of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report of December 11, 2007 should be included on the consent agenda.

Mr. McGlumphy requested that item #12B(b-4), Waiver Request of Land Subdivision Regulations - Blue Hen Apartments of the Special Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee Report of December 13, 2007, be removed from the consent agenda.

Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 10, 2007

The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of December 10, 2007 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Slavin, seconded by Mr. Hogan and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.

PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION AND CONGRATULATIONS - RONALD L. SHORT, SR.

The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation and Congratulations into the record:

MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Be It Hereby Known To All That

The Mayor and Council Commend

RONALD L. SHORT, SR.

for Dedicated Service to the City of Dover

August 1989 - January 2008

18 Years of Service

The Mayor and Council Extend Sincere

Appreciation and Congratulations

Mayor Carey presented the Certificate to Mr. Ronald Short. Mr. Short thanked the City for providing him the opportunity to work for the City and relayed special appreciation to the Police Department, City Clerk’s Office, and Public Works Department for their assistance during his years of employment.

PRESENTATION - WAL-MART POLICE GRANT

Chief Horvath advised members that Wal-Mart representatives were scheduled to present a grant to the Dover Police Department this evening, which would be for the purchase of taser holsters for detectives and, more importantly, for the purchase of bullet proof vests for Police K-9's. Chief Horvath stated that Wal-Mart has always been an avid supporter of the Dover Police Department and relayed appreciation for their efforts and the contributions continuously provide to the Dover Police Department.

PRESENTATION - MAYOR’S PRAYER BREAKFAST CONTRIBUTIONS - BOYS & GIRLS CLUB AND USO DELAWARE

Mayor Carey noted that each year, proceeds from the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast are donated to an organization of the Mayor’s choice. Mayor Carey announced that the proceeds from the 2007 Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast will benefit both the Boys & Girls Club and USO Delaware. He presented both organizations with a check, in the amount of $500, as follows: 1) Ms. Joan Cote for the USO Delaware; and 2) Mr. Tingle for the Boy’s & Girls Club.

PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - DOVER FIRE DEPARTMENT - 125^TH ANNIVERSARY

On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Mayor Carey presented a Certificate of Recognition to Fire Chief Carey and Dover Fire Department President, Mr. Timothy Mullaney, in recognition of 125 years of dedicated voluntary service by the Dover Fire Department in protecting the lives and property of the citizens of the City of Dover from the devastating effects of fire. Mayor Carey noted the millions of dollars saved as a result of the volunteers of the Dover Fire Department and requested that the citizens of Dover continue to support their volunteer fire department.

Chief Carey relayed his appreciation for the recognition and continued support of the Mayor, Council, and citizens of the City of Dover.

PRESENTATION - CIVIC CENTER FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - REPORT OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Members were provided the Final Report of Analysis and Recommendations of the Civic Center Feasibility Analysis Committee for the Dover Civic Center Facility, dated December 15, 2007. Mr. Phil McGinnis, Chair of the Civic Center Feasibility Analysis Committee, provided the following replacement pages: 1) pages 8 and 9 of the Final Report; 2) Exhibit G; and 3) page 10 of the presentation pages following Exhibit H. He introduced those members of the committee that were present during the meeting. Mr. McGinnis gave a detailed presentation of the Final Report of the Committee (Exhibit #1). He noted that the committee felt that the 2.9% Kent Tax Increase provided in the Johnson Report must have been a misprint and wanted to bring this to their attention so that residents were not misled.

Mr. Ruane referred to the Brookings Institute Study dated January 2005, which was provided to members and questioned if the committee considered the opportunity costs of not investing the money in other public goods (i.e. by committing funds for a Civic Center, what other choices would be eliminated). Responding, Mr. McGinnis stated that such consideration was beyond the scope of the committee’s charge, which was to review the feasibility of the Civic Center and to make recommendations on how to repay the City’s fair share contribution. Mr. Ruane noted that, in addition to those reported, such as the removal of electric lines, reserves, etc., there are other missing costs. Mr. McGinnis also advised members that the total estimated cost of $61M was reduced from $75M as a result of the redesign of the proposed Civic Center. He stated that the $61M estimate would remain if construction were to begin within the next 12 months and completed within the next 24 to 30 months.

In response to Mr. Slavin, Mr. DePrima stated that the Civic Center Corporation has obtained quotes from qualified appraisers to conduct the appraisal for the 40 acres of land contributed by the City; however, since the quotes to conduct the appraisal were costly, they have not taken any action to conduct the appraisal. Mr. Slavin relayed his frustration that when the Civic Center Corporation initially approached the City, there was an indication that if the land were donated by the City, this would be all that the Corporation would ask of the City. He also relayed frustration that there is no information regarding the value of the 40 acres when donated, what the land has appreciated to, and they are now being requested to make a monetary contribution, in addition to the land donation.

Mr. Salters relayed his recollection that the value of the 40 acres of land donated by the City was estimated at $2M when donated approximately 10 years ago.

Mr. Hogan moved for acceptance of the Final Report of Analysis and Recommendations of the Civic Center Feasibility Analysis Committee, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION - CIVIC CENTER FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS COMMITTEE

The City Clerk read the following Certificate of Appreciation into the record:

WHEREAS, the Civic Center Feasibility Analysis Committee was created by the Mayor and Council during their Annual Meeting of May 14, 2007; and

WHEREAS, the initial scope of the Committee was to study the issue of the City's support of the Delaware Civic Center by completing a financial analysis of the capital operational debt service issues related to the Civic Center; and

WHEREAS, members of the Civic Center Feasibility Analysis Committee have worked diligently in researching the issues involved in order to develop a recommendation that is objective and has been thoroughly considered; and

WHEREAS, as a result of their efforts, the Civic Center Feasibility Analysis Committee submitted their Final Report and Recommendations to City Council on January 14, 2008, and thus, is hereby dissolved with gratitude to all members for their time and attention to this matter. It is deemed an honor and privilege to present this

Certificate of Appreciation to

Philip J. McGinnis, Chairman Michael Gast Gerry Records

Michael J. Ambruso, Sr. Timothy Horne Victor Schimp

Scott Brown Linda Parkowski

CITY OF DOVER

CIVIC CENTER FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS COMMITTEE

Best Wishes on all Future Endeavors from the City of Dover

January 2008

On behalf of the Mayor and Council, Council President Williams presented members of the Civic Center Feasibility Analysis Committee with a Certificate of Appreciation and relayed appreciation for their time and efforts. It was noted that as a result of the receipt of their final report, the committee was dissolved.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION - EDWIN L. SAPP

The City Clerk read a proposed Resolution expressing regret for the loss of Mr. Edwin L. Sapp and extending their deepest sympathy to members of his family.

By motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. Hogan, Council, by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent), adopted the following Resolution:

WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover have been greatly saddened by the death of Edwin Lee Sapp, a City of Dover retiree, who passed away on December 31, 2007; and

WHEREAS, Edwin Lee Sapp faithfully served the City of Dover in the Library and Parks and Recreation Department from 1978 until 1996; and

WHEREAS, Edwin Lee Sapp has been a member of the Robbins Hose Volunteer Fire Company, Dover’s Fire Department, since 1961; and

WHEREAS, Edwin Lee Sapp will be deeply missed by his friends and fellow employees of the City of Dover.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:

1. The Mayor and Council express their regret for the loss of Edwin Lee Sapp and extend their deepest sympathy to members of his family and hope that they will be consoled by the memories of his fine life and achievements.

2. The Mayor and Council direct the City Clerk to place this Resolution in the permanent records of the City of Dover in recognition of the faithful and loyal service of Edwin Lee Sapp.

ADOPTED: JANUARY 14, 2008

PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY (ROUTE 13) AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION WITH COLLEGE ROAD, OWNED BY THE STATE OF DELAWARE (DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY)

A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the west side of North DuPont Highway (Route 13) at the southwest corner of the intersection with College Road, consisting of 17.84^+/- acres of a larger parcel, owned by the State of Delaware (Delaware State University). The property is currently zoned IO (Institutional and Office) and the proposed zoning is SC-2 (Community Shopping Center).

Mr. Salters moved that the final reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of November 13, 2007)

Planner's Review

Mrs. Townshend, City Planner, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #2). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning application.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that there are properties owned by the State and other levels of government that have different zoning classifications. She explained that although most properties owned by Delaware State University have a zoning classification of IO, there are no requirements for this zoning classification.

Public Hearing

Council President Williams declared the hearing open.

Mr. Greg Moore, representing Delaware State University, stated that he is available for any questions and advised members that the University has reviewed the legal nature of leasing parcels on this site to national vendors and have determined that this practice does meet their Charter and is lawful. He advised members that it is a common practice throughout the United States for colleges to seek national vendors in their facility.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Moore confirmed that the University plans to obtain long-term leases to national retailers in an attempt to maximize economic benefit to the University for making improvements to their campus. Mr. Ruane relayed concern with allowing a shopping center use on property owned by the State and his disagreement with the substantiation of the shopping center need, as it will compete with existing and proposed shopping centers in the area.

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

Mr. Salters moved for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hogan and by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Ruane), and one (1) absent (Mr. Leary), Council adopted the following ordinance:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY (ROUTE 13) AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION WITH COLLEGE ROAD

WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and

WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from IO (Institutional and Office) to SC-2 (Community Shopping Center)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:

1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover have been amended by changing the zoning designation from IO (Institutional and Office) to SC-2 (Community Shopping Center) on a 17.84 ^+/- acre portion of that property located on the west side of North DuPont Highway (Route 13) at the southwest corner of the intersection with College Road, owned by the State of Delaware (Delaware State University).

ADOPTED: JANUARY 14, 2008

SPECIAL UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 3, 2007

The Utility Committee met on December 3, 2007, with Chairman Ruane presiding.

Presentation - I & I (Inflow and Infiltration) Removal

Mr. Koenig, Director of Public Services, and Mrs. Duca, Assistant City Engineer of the Public Utilities Department, gave a presentation on the Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (I & I). Members were advised that inflow and infiltration may be the result of cracked mains, storm sewer connections, cracked manholes, faulty manhole covers, roof drain connections from private properties, sump pump connections, broken laterals, etc. Mrs. Duca reminded members that an I & I Study was performed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. As a result of the video inspection conducted, Mr. Koenig advised members of the various repairs that were identified. He also reviewed the results of the smoke testing that was conducted. In regards to the private property issue, he noted that there were actually 13 properties (rather than 21 as indicated in the presentation), identified through property maintenance inspections. Mr. Koenig advised members that the City has worked with the owners in removing the root drains from the sanitary sewer system. In reviewing this information, staff developed and reviewed future actions necessary for both the Public Utilities and the Public Services Departments.

Mr. Koenig explained that Kent County has authorized Impact Fee Credits for removal of inflow and infiltration ($1,430 / E.D.U.), which is a one time credit per removal. Staff recommended that the credit received by the City from Kent County for the removal of private property connections be passed on to the property owner.

In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima expressed the importance of approaching property owners who are in violation in a customer service manner; therefore, to fix the problem, staff is recommending a cost incentive for property owners.

Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. Koenig advised members that it is no longer standard practice to tie roof or area drains into the sanitary sewer system. Although there may not be a substantial amount of money saved by the City for providing a credit to customers, Mr. Koenig stated that the administrative burden of unhappy customers far outweigh the costs of the reimbursement proposed. He explained that the “dollars and cents” on paper is very small in the amount of time it takes to resolve some of these types of issues. He also explained that the City will continue to reap the benefits from the removal of the inflow and infiltration from the system year after year.

Mayor Carey requested that the procedure for the credit provided to the customer be worded so it specifies that only the amount of expense would be reimbursed up to a maximum amount. Responding, Mr. Koenig expressed concern that people value their time differently and that it is difficult for staff to value someone’s time. The manner in which staff has proposed to calculate the credit is purely based on the area of removal, which is very defensible. If a customer spends more than the calculated credit, the customer will have an understanding of the amount that will be credited and if their costs are less, then they will have benefitted.

The committee recommended approval of the impact fee credit proposal, as recommended by staff.

Mr. DePrima indicated that affected residents will be contacted and advised of a public meeting in order for staff to give this same presentation. He requested anyone with suggestions for improving the presentation to contact him after the meeting.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the committee’s recommendation for approval of the impact fee credit proposal, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

Proposed Ordinance - Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article III - Water Service, Division 7 - Water Impact Fees

Members considered a proposed ordinance that would establish water impact fees by creating Division 7 - Water Impact Fees in Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article III - Water Service, in the Dover Code. Mrs. Tieman, Senior City Administrator, reviewed a presentation on the water impact fee proposal, explaining that the impact fees would offer an efficient way to pay for infrastructure and ensure benefits to those who pay them. Without instituting impact fees, the City may not have the revenue necessary to support or sustain growth. She reminded members that the development of the water impact fee was based on projects taken from the City’s Water Master Plan prepared by Whitman, Requardt and Associates and the six-year Capital Investments Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2008-2013.

Mrs. Tieman indicated that the premise of the water impact fee is to establish equitable distribution of the costs associated with the City’s water system expansion related to growth. The City has had a sewer impact fee for 20 years. Recently, the Public Service Commission authorized Tidewater Utilities and Artesian Water to implement water impact fees. Mrs. Tieman stated that the proposed water impact fee ordinance would ensure that the cost of such expansion is proportionately borne by those who receive the benefits of the water system expansion.

Mrs. Tieman advised members that over the next six (6) years, the City’s capital plans include $25.5 million in projects and that $7.5 million is for expansion of our system due to growth. Members were provided detailed information regarding the proposed capital projects for the next six (6) years. If the City continues to subsidize growth the way they have in the past, the existing rate payers will be burdened with funding the $7.5 million for these projects. She stated that this increase would be in addition to any increases needed to maintain and improve the existing water system and its infrastructure and that the six-year plan proposes spending $18 million for improvements to the existing infrastructure.

Mrs. Tieman stated that the impact fee proposed in the ordinance was calculated by dividing the expanded capacity from capital projects, which is $1,900 per equivalent dwelling unit. The implementation of this fee is projected to generate approximately $665,000 per year, which was based on the revenue from the sewer impact fee charges (350 equivalent dwelling units). The total amount collected in each fiscal year should be equal to or greater than the funds that are necessary to cover the water expansion portion of all capital projects. She explained that all funds collected in excess of this amount are to be transferred to the Water Impact Fee Reserve Fund. All impact fees are proposed to be collected upon application for Certificate of Occupancy by the Planning and Inspections Department. Those entities with existing building permits or contracts of sale dated prior to February 1, 2008 would not be subject to the impact fees.

Staff recommended approval of the proposed Water Impact Fee Ordinance as submitted and that the Water Impact Fee be set at $1,900 per equivalent dwelling unit effective February 1, 2008.

Members were advised that on November 1, 2007, an informational meeting was held to present the proposed impact fees and that local builders, realtors, developers, the Central Delaware Economic Development Council, the Delaware Association of Realtors, the Delaware Home Builders Association, and the Chamber of Commerce were invited to attend. Those in attendance were requested to submit their comments, which were provided to members for their review. Mrs. Tieman noted that although several of the comments received reflect an understanding of the purpose and need for a water impact fee, it was suggested that the fees be phased in over time. Should City Council wish to phase in the fees, it was recommended that the Capital Projects plan be adjusted from a six-year implementation to an eight-year implementation plan and increase the final fee by $200. By doing this, staff felt that the fees could be phased in as follows: February 1, 2008 - $700 per EDU; February 1, 2009 - $1,400 per EDU; and February 1, 2010 - $2,100 per EDU. The $200 added in the third year would, within ten years, recoup the loss from the lower fees in the first two (2) years.

The committee recommended approval of the phase in schedule for the water impact fees, as presented by staff.

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

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the proposed ordinance will be revised to include the recommendations of the committee, such as the phase in schedule, prior to its consideration by Council.

Mrs. Tieman indicated that some of the other comments received on the implementation of Water Impact Fees referred to grandfathering issues. Staff recommended that sites meeting the following criteria be exempt from Water Impacts Fees upon enactment: 1) all sites issued a building permit as of the effective date; and 2) all sites which can produce proof of contract with the end user of the proposed facility executed as of the effective date. These exemptions would apply to all forms of development including residential, commercial, institutional and industrial.

The committee recommended that the water impact fee be effective February 1, 2008 and that the fee not be imposed upon sites for which a building permit was issued before the effective date or for sites for which the owner has produced proof of contract with an end user of the proposed facility as of the effective date.

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

Mrs. Tieman noted that a sliding scale was also mentioned. This would change the charge per EDU based on the type of structure being built - a townhouse would be differentiated from a single family dwelling, etc. This concept would need to be discussed further and examined with Kent County since the City’s impact fees (both sewer and proposed water) are calculated based on Kent County’s formula. No further action was taken by the committee with regards to the sliding scale issue.

The committee recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance, as amended, that would establish water impact fees by creating Division 7 - Water Impact Fees in Chapter 110 - Utilities, Article III - Water Service, of the Dover Code.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent). (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).

Dark Fiber Lease Policy

Members were advised that the City owns and operates a fiber optic loop around the perimeter of the City. This loop is used as part of the electric transmission protection system, two-way radio communications system, and data/telephone transmission for utility facilities. Mr. Lunt, Public Utilities Director, advised members that within this fiber network, there are spare fibers that are not utilized or planned to be utilized in the near future. Bayhealth Medical Center approached the City with a request to install their own fiber optic lines on the City’s utility poles or lease dark fiber from the City. In considering this request, staff felt that it would be mutually beneficial to lease the current assets rather than install new facilities. As a result, staff developed the Dark Fiber Leasing Standard Operating Policy to govern this arrangement. He advised members that this policy was reviewed by Bayhealth and they concur that it is fair and acceptable.

Mr. Lunt advised members that the policy would be the governing document regarding the operation, ownership, and pricing for this service. He noted that the policy includes the following: 1) requires a five (5) or 10 year lease with annual escalation fees; 2) new extensions require a total cost recovery and include a 5% annual maintenance fee plus an 8.5% rate of return; 3) existing fiber lease is $0.0009541/fiber strand/foot/month which includes the 5% maintenance fee and an 8.5% rate of return; 4) includes an annual cost of living escalation fee; 5) includes a $200 engineering fee per splice location to recover expenses related to fiber documentation and design; 6) electric service restoration is a priority over fiber restoration; and 7) the City does not guarantee service and will not be liable for any interruption of service.

Staff recommended approval of the Dark Fiber Leasing Standard Operating Policy.

In response to concerns of Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima assured members that staff would request a legal review of the policy prior to this matter being presented to Council for consideration.

The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation, with the understanding that the policy will be legally reviewed prior to its consideration by Council. (City Clerk’s Office Note: The policy was reviewed by City Solicitor Rodriguez and it was his opinion that the policy was well written and; therefore, no changes were recommended.)

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for acceptance of the committee’s recommendation for approval of the Dark Fiber Leasing Standard Operating Policy (Exhibit #3), seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

PACE/NAES Monthly Report (September and October)

Mr. DePrima provided the PACE/NAES Monthly Reports for September and October 2007. He reminded members that the reports are being provided to give members the opportunity to monitor what is being sold in electric and the revenues received, which will allow members to have a better understanding of any fluctuations and make improvements if deemed necessary. It is not his intent to make a presentation of the report; however, he welcomed any questions.

Responding to Mr. Ruane with regards to the City’s plan to comply with Delaware Regulation 1146, Mr. DePrima stated that in June, DNREC accepted the City’s plan to comply with Delaware Regulation 1146 and that there is an agreement for this to occur by a specific date. As a result of recent meetings with Mr. Blaha, NAES Division Director, Mr. DePrima stated that although they continue to make strides to make the deadline, it was agreed that once it is felt that the City may not meet the deadline, they would approach DNREC. It was his feeling that as long as the City is showing due diligence and making a good effort to locate engineering firms to meet this requirement, DNREC will be reasonable in this regard.

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

TAX APPEALS COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 10, 2007

The Tax Appeals Committee met on December 10, 2007 with Chairman Ruane presiding.

Tax Appeals

Creekstone Properties

Location: 1198 S. Governors Avenue (ED-05-068.05-01-12.00)

Mr. Ruane advised members that the committee originally denied the appeal for Creekstone Properties due to the applicant not appearing before the committee; however, at the conclusion of the meeting, the City Assessor explained that the applicant was not given due process. Therefore, there is no recommendation being forwarded by the committee at this time.

Hertrich Capitol Auto Dealership

Location: 1127 S. DuPont Highway (ED-05-077.18-2-90.00)

Mr. Ruane advised members that there is no recommendation being forwarded at this time, and that this matter will be presented at a later date.

General Discussion - Dover Downs Inc.

Location: 1131 N. DuPont Highway (ED-05-057.00-1-32.00)

Mr. Capuano recommended that the cost approach be utilized versus the income approach, explaining that the cost approach would yield a higher value for this property at this time. If they use the cost approach, they will be using actual invoices by the contractor and should have all their contractor billings by the end of the year. Mr. Capuano recommended that the date be changed to January 29, 2008 due to the enormous amount of paper work involved. Mr. McGlynn stated that they were given an additional sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the Appeal Form to produce an appraisal.

Mr. Capuano explained that although the cost approach will be utilized, it is necessary to value the land as well and that a certified appraisal will be necessary. He advised members of the difficulty for a taxpayer to obtain a qualified appraiser to value the land.

The committee recommended that the date for the Appraisal for Dover Downs, Inc. be extended to February 28, 2008.

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

Stipulations

Joseph S. McDaniel III

Location: 122 Bank Lane (ED-05-077.09-04-48.00)

The committee recommended to accept the stipulated values for 122 Bank Lane, owned by Joseph S. McDaniel III, as shown on attached spreadsheet.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #4), seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

Phoenix Properties

Location: 30 S. New Street (ED-05-076.08-05-68.00)

The committee recommended to accept the stipulated values for 30 S. New St., owned by Phoenix Properties, as shown on attached spreadsheet.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #4), seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

New Hope Housing/New Street LP

Location: 130-134 S. New Street (ED-05-077.09-01-26.00)

The committee recommended to accept the stipulated value of 130-134 S. New St., owned by New Street LP, as shown on the attached spreadsheet.

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

Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #4), seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

Wild Meadows LLC

Location: 223 Units of Manufactured Housing Units (LC-05-058.18-02-01.00 and LC-05-058.14-01-01.00)

The committee recommended to accept the stipulated value of these two parcels, owned by Wild Meadows LLC, as shown on the attached spreadsheet.

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

Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #4), seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

Administrative

Investments Together LLC

Location: 1084 S. State Street (ED-05-077.17-07-19.00)

The committee recommended to accept the corrected value of this parcel, owned by Investments Together LLC, as shown on the spreadsheet provided.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #4), seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

Senior Citizen Request - Essie Durham

Location: 426 Court Street (ED-05-077.10-01-10.00)

The committee recommended to accept the senior citizen request of this parcel, owned by Essie Durham, as shown on the attached spreadsheet.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #4), seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

Mr. Hogan moved for acceptance of the Tax Appeals Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 10, 2007

The Utility Committee met on December 10, 2007 with Chairman Ruane presiding.

Draft Franchise Agreement – Verizon Delaware LLC

Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director/Treasurer, advised members that in January 2007, the City received a request for a cable franchise from Verizon in order to offer FiOS TV services to the residents of Dover. A sub-committee was formed, consisting of Mr. Ruane, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Lunt, and Mr. DePrima to review the request. She advised members that the City obtained the services of Mr. Dan Cohen of Cohen Law Group to assist the City in negotiations with Verizon for the cable franchise. After several negotiation sessions and draft agreements, a final draft agreement has been developed that is felt to be fair and equitable to both the City and Verizon, and that will provide the citizens with an alternative provider.

Staff recommended that a Public Hearing be scheduled before the Utility Committee on January 2, 2008 and that this item to be placed on the January 14, 2008 Council agenda for consideration.

Referring to the 7^th paragraph on page 1 of the draft agreement, Mr. Ruane stated that the major focus of this meeting is to provide public notice to our residents and to set a date for a public hearing. He also noted that any questions regarding the availability of the service should be directed to Mr. Al Karr, Service Manager for Verizon, by calling at 301-282-8339. Mr. Ruane also introduced Ms. Bonnie Metz, Vice-President of Government and State Affairs for Verizon.

Members relayed concern with the vagueness of Section 3.1.1 with regards to service availability. Mr. DePrima explained that Section 3.1.1.1 was a compromise supported by the sub-committee to assure deployment of the cable services in the franchise area. Mr. McGiffin requested that, in addition to the number of subscribers, the location of the subscribers should be provided by the Local Franchising Authority (LFA).

Responding to Mr. Cregar, Mr. Ruane stated that the sub-committee was very concerned that there would be recognition of the fact that they were interested in deployment throughout the City and were pleased that the entire City was included in the service area. He stated that members were looking for opportunities to review those areas of the City that would not be able to receive the service and be provided the reasons. It was his opinion that Section 3.1.1.1 would provide the City the opportunity to discuss any reservations or concerns and would allow members of Council to seek information regarding deployment of the service.

Elaborating, Mr. DePrima stated that Verizon provided a service area map that depicted the locations of areas that they were able to provide the service at this time and those areas that they were not. Deployment of the system has no relevance to any socioeconomic demographic information. It was his feeling that the areas of deployment is based on the current system, and its cost effectiveness for planning and deployment.

Mr. McGiffin stated that his inquiry was based on constituents requests and his ability to provide details on the expectations for the service.

With reference to Section 3.1.1, Mr. Hogan noted that the last sentence of Section 3.1.1, which references density requirements, should be corrected to reflect “Section 3.2" rather than “Section 3.1.1.1".

Mr. Hogan suggested that Appendix C, Section 4, Paragraph H also address those instances when only a few channels are lost.

Should members have any questions prior to the public hearing, Mr. Ruane suggested that they contact Mrs. Mitchell who would convey them to Mr. Cohen to obtain clarification. Mr. Ruane requested that any comments, questions, or concerns be submitted in written form, including specifics as to the paragraph of the Agreement, to the City Clerk’s Office to be considered by members during their public hearing. He stated that the committee would acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and provided assurance that they will be addressed at that time.

The committee recommended that a public hearing be scheduled before the Utility Committee on January 2, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall for the purpose of reviewing the Franchise Agreement with Verizon Delaware LLC, as recommended by staff.

Mr. Ruane noted that the committee’s action after the public hearing would be submitted to City Council for consideration on January 14, 2007, at which time members of Council will have the opportunity to formally vote on the proposal.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent). City Clerk’s Office Note: The Special Utility Committee Report of January 2, 2008 was considered by Council during the latter part of this meeting.

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

LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 10, 2007

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on December 10, 2007 with Chairman Slavin presiding.

Review of 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations - Article II (Continued)

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.

Mr. Slavin noted the receipt of additional information provided by Mrs. McDowell, City Clerk. Due to time constraints and there being no objections, Mr. Slavin stated that there will be no further discussion regarding the review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee recommendations during this meeting. At the request of Mr. Slavin, Mrs. McDowell explained the additional documents provided (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), as follows: 1) Regular Council Minutes of February 9, 1987 and April 13, 1987 regarding the ordinance that amended the 6^th paragraph of Section 5 which requires a member of Council to relinquish their seat in order to file to run for Mayor; and 2) a summary of actions by the committee to date.

City Clerk’s Office Note: Members will continue their review of the 2005 Charter Review Committee Recommendations at “Section 36 - Council not to Interfere with Appointments or Removals of Manager; Giving Orders to Subordinates of Manager Prohibited; Penalty for Same (Section 2.05 - Prohibitions, Subsection (c) - Interference with Administration, Model City Charter)” during their next meeting.

Position Change - Treasurer/Finance Director to Controller/Treasurer

During the Treasurer/Finance Director’s evaluation, members of City Council requested the Director to revise the Treasurer/Finance Director position description to include Controller responsibilities. The purpose of which is to emphasize the responsibility for providing support to the Legislative Branch of the City, similar to the State of Delaware.

Members were provided a position description for Controller/Treasurer. Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director/Treasurer, explained that the position is titled Controller/Treasurer since the City Charter refers to Treasurer. Currently, the position is appointed by City Council as Treasurer/Finance Director. In developing the description, she advised members that research was conducted on other like positions using the internet, publications, as well as a comparison to similar high level positions for the City. The pay grade and salary range for this position is to be determined using the City’s position qualification factor software.

The committee recommended acceptance of the position change for the Treasurer/Finance Director to Controller/Treasurer and the position description.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation (Exhibit #5), seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

Proposed Ordinance - Downtown Incentive - Sewer Impact Fee Waiver - New Construction

During their meeting of April 23, 2007, members considered an amendment to Appendix C - Downtown Redevelopment, Article IV - Development Incentives, Section 2 - Multiple Story New Construction Projects of the Dover Code. Although the committee recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment, during the Annual Council Meeting of May 14, 2007, City Council referred the proposed ordinance back to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee to consider a substitute amendment, as well as the entire context in which the proposal is being made, particularly Section 3, which was not available to the committee when they considered the proposed amendment; as well as encouraging them to review not only the fiscal impact statement that they received since the meeting, but also, in larger context, a fiscal note that would take into account all of the incentive package and then determine how it fits into the context and then bring it back to the full Council.

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reminded members that the City of Dover has been working on strategies and incentives to help revitalize the downtown area. The Downtown Dover Development Corporation formed a sub-committee to discuss a variety of incentives. The expansion of the impact fee waiver is one of several incentives discussed.

With regard to the proposed ordinance, Mrs. Townshend advised members that there were previous concerns regarding the effect of the amendment on projects that were currently in progress. She stated that the proposed ordinance amendment has been re-written to specify that those projects that have received Planning Commission approval on or before January 31, 2008 would fall under the current provisions. Any projects considered after January 31, 2008, would be eligible for a full impact fee waiver.

Mrs. Townshend reminded members that the current ordinance does not necessarily help with the preservation of historic buildings located in the Historic District which are in need of extreme repairs. She explained that these types of repairs are very costly. Therefore, staff felt that it would be beneficial to include, as an eligible project, renovations of existing buildings, in addition to the multi-story new construction projects. This will allow for a combination of residential, office, retail, and commercial uses. In addition, Mrs. Townshend stated that rather than waiving half of the impact fee, the entire City impact fee would be waived. It was staff’s feeling that this waiver would reduce the costs for bringing people downtown, allowing them to put these savings into the necessary building renovations.

Mr. Ruane recalled that it was the desire of members for staff to provide financial context, such as an accumulation of all the incentives currently available for a project, such as the Collegian, and what the amount would total.

Responding to Mr. Ruane’s concerns regarding the recent water impact fee ordinance considered by Council, Mrs. Townshend stated that since the current ordinance does not specify “sewer impact fee”, the waiver of the impact fee would expand to the water as well. Regarding the Collegian project, she stated that not all of the information would be available until the application is received since the cost of the building permit is related directly to the cost of construction. Mrs. Townshend noted that the value of some of the incentives is based on certain costs, such as the waiver for the building permit fee. The construction value of the Collegian is not known at this time; therefore, staff would not have an amount for the building permit.

Mr. Slavin cautioned members not to utilize a specific project and suggested that staff utilize a vacant parcel, owned by the Downtown Dover Development Corporation, and create a project to be used as a model to develop the financial impact. Mr. DePrima stated that he would work with the Planning Department and the City Assessor’s Office and develop three (3) examples of various project sizes.

Mr. DePrima advised members that when the ordinance was originally enacted (early 1990's), it provided for a full impact fee waiver. Sometime in the late 1990's, the City Manager had requested to reevaluate the waiver due to concerns since construction was slow at the time. One aspect of the ordinance is that the proposed amendment would return the waiver to its original intent.

The committee recommended adoption of the ordinance amendment to Appendix C - Downtown Redevelopment, Article IV - Development Incentives, Section 2 - Multiple Story New Construction Projects of the Dover Code, with the understanding that when issues are presented to members, that there be a fiscal note provided by staff.

As directed by the committee, Mrs. Townshend provided members of Council with additional information on three (3) projects that qualified for downtown development incentives within the Target Area and how the proposed waiver would have affected these projects (Exhibit #6).

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend explained that impact fees are collected to fund the capital costs associated with those improvements. These impact fees are applicable City-wide.

Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters.

In opposition to the proposed amendment, Mr. Ruane stated his feeling that impact fees are important from a cost sharing perspective in terms of those individuals being responsible for the costs being incurred. He explained his belief that required improvements should be funded by the individuals causing the impact. He noted that many of those that would be eligible for the waiver are eligible for 10-year tax abatement and other waivers. Mr. Ruane relayed concern that these waivers will jeopardize the ability of the enterprise funds to fund the necessary improvements.

The motion for approval of the committee’s recommendation was carried with Mr. Ruane voting no. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).

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

PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 11, 2007

The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee met on December 11, 2007 with Chairwoman Russell presiding.

Explore Locations for Proposed Boys & Girls Club

During their meeting of September 11, 2007, members reviewed the possible sites for a magnet Boys & Girls Club and their pros and cons. Staff explained that the intent of the presentation was to allow members the opportunity to digest the information for its consideration during their next meeting. During their meeting of October 9, 2007, members tabled the matter since all members were not in attendance.

Mr. Frank Fantini, Board Member of the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club, advised members that Kent County Levy Court supports the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club with acquiring the Lewis Farm for a site for a magnet Boys & Girls Club. Unfortunately, he explained that the property is not currently owned by Kent County and that depending on the ability of developing the property, the future of this property is not known. As a result, the option to have the site located at Schutte Park is most desired.

Mr. Bob MacLeish, Greater Dover Committee, explained that the Schutte Park site would serve both school districts, Capital and Caesar Rodney, and better serve as a magnet club.

Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Chris Basher, Vice President of Operations for Boys & Girls Clubs, assured members that the Boys & Girls Club will provide full funding regardless of the receipt of grant moneys.

Mr. DePrima reminded members that the City of Dover’s preference would to have the magnet club located at Dover Park. However, he noted that the Boys & Girls Club have indicated that they are not interested in this location due to its small size, which he understands. He noted that the Boys & Girls Club has conceded to the idea of their site being separate from the John W. Pitts Recreation Center. Of the two (2) remaining sites in this area, he stated that the City would prefer the Wyoming Mill Road site due to accessibility and visibility. From a program prospective, this site would address many of the conflicts that the City had with regards to the close proximity of a Boys & Girls Club to the Pitts Recreation Center. Mr. DePrima explained that if the Boys & Girls Club were attached to or in the immediate vicinity of the Pitts Recreation Center, it would preclude many of the visions that the City had for future facilities in this area. It was his opinion that the Wyoming Mill Road site would be workable if selected by City Council.

Mr. DePrima stated that the Wyoming Mill Road site is currently used for soccer and other field sports for the City. He advised members that the City anticipates the receipt of 14 acres west of Schutte Park from Stover Builders as a land donation, and that the loss of the fields will be supplemented with the donation of this additional land.

Mr. Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the concern with the location at Schutte Park is the loss of outdoor recreational space that is utilized for soccer, field hockey, and other field sports. Without additional drawings considering the Boys & Girls Club, he stated that this exact loss is not known.

Mr. Ruane indicated his desire for a clear indication of what the proposal would require in terms of exact space and what would be lost for the City of Dover as a result. He stated that the City’s commitment to outdoor recreation is very well known and that the soccer and field hockey associations have built an expectation that must be met and fulfilled by the City. Mr. Ruane reiterated that the issue is that these facilities are to serve regional population and not just the citizens of Dover, explaining that there is a need to involve Kent County. He suggested that dialogue is needed between the Boys & Girls Club, Kent County, and the City to work the ideas out, such as a dedication of space for outdoor recreation to supplement the loss of outdoor recreation space for the City.

Mr. Michael Harrington, President of the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club, stated that the organization has attempted to work with both the City and the County, as suggested by Mr. Ruane. It was his feeling that Kent County’s involvement would cause an additional delay and jeopardize the January deadline for funding consideration by the State Boys & Girls Club.

Mr. Ruane reminded members that there would be a loss to the City, as well as current and future users of Schutte Park, by selecting the Wyoming Mill Road site. He stated that there has not been a united front by the recreation community on this issue. He noted that should the use of this site be selected, there would not be any dedication of outdoor space. If there is a need for outdoor recreation to be associated with the facility, he felt that the better prospect would be for the magnet Boys & Girls Club to be located within the County. He stated that he would not support the use of any additional land, with the exception of the area required for the building.

Being involved in the original Schutte Park proposal, Mr. McGlumphy felt that the City continuously creates “road blocks” in front of ideas to benefit children. He stated that the City utilizes the concept “regionalism” when it is time to consider funding these ideas. He suggested that members make a decision on this issue to provide the Boys & Girls Club direction in this regard.

The committee recommended acceptance of the Wyoming Mill Road location for the magnet site for the Boys & Girls Club.

Mr. Ruane questioned if the intent of the motion was to move forward without any additional specific information. Responding, Mr. McGlumphy stated that the intent is to move forward with the drawing presented, with the understanding that the facility will be built, and that it is recommended that the Wyoming Mill Road location to be used for this site.

Mr. DePrima stated that a presentation would be developed to present to Council and that additional information would be provided in terms of details.

Mr. Ruane requested that members acknowledge that this action would create an unspecified loss of outdoor recreation and requested that staff identify this loss to members and provide options to remedy this loss.

Responding to Mrs. Russell, Mr. DePrima assured members that additional details would be provided that would include a plan of action as requested by Mr. Ruane.

Mrs. Russell reported to Council that during the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting of July 10, 2007, the Boys & Girls Club and the Greater Dover Committee provided a presentation on the increasing needs of Dover's youth. It was noted that an independent study of community needs was performed, which identified the need for additional recreational outlets and additional affordable wraparound after school care services. City Staff was then requested to explore possible land options for the proposed club and report back to the committee.

Another presentation was made in September 2007, at which time it was indicated that the Greater Dover Boys and Girls Club was in a position to raise capital dollars for the construction of a 40,000-50,000 sq. ft. magnet club if they could obtain the land to build the facility. The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee considered three (3) possible locations for the Boys & Girls Club magnet site: The Lewis Farm, which Kent County would have to acquire, Dover Park, and Schutte Park.

During the committee meeting of December 11th, the committee recommended approval of the Wyoming Mill Road location for the magnet site for the Boys & Girls club, as presented, and requested that specific information be provided regarding the loss of space, what that loss would mean for the City of Dover and its commitment to outdoor recreation, specifically to the soccer and field hockey associations, and a plan of action to remedy the loss. Noting that these facilities are to serve regional population and not just the citizens of Dover, the committee felt a need to involve Kent County and suggested dialogue between the Boys & Girls Club, Kent County, and the City to work out the ideas for a dedication of space for outdoor recreation to supplement the loss of outdoor recreation space for the City.

Mrs. Russell advised members that Mr. Darryl Tingle of the Boys & Girls Club was present to provide the requested information. Additionally, Kent County Levy Court Commissioner Eric Buckson, the Central Delaware Soccer Association, and the Greater Dover Committee have requested time to comment on the recommendation.

Mrs. Russell moved to waive the rules to allow each of them (3) minutes to speak at the conclusion of the Boys & Girls Club presentation, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.

Mr. Tingle introduced the following Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club Board Members: Mr. Michael Harrington, Jr., Board President; and Mr. Frank Fantini, Chair of the Task Force Committee. Mr. Fantini gave a presentation of the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club and the programs offered (Exhibit #7). Mr. Fantini noted that they would be building a swimming pool, gymnasium, locker room and showers, all of which would be open for use by the general populous during non-club hours. He also noted that the Boys & Girls Club parking lot would serve as expanded parking for Schutte Park during non-club hours. Mr. Fantini emphasized that these benefits would come at no cost to the City of Dover. Mr. Tingle reviewed the drawing included in the presentation which depicted conceptual floor plans and site plans proposed for the magnet club. The building itself would be situated on the southwest corner of Schutte Park, on approximately six (6) acres of land, which includes parking lots. Mr. DePrima noted that the drawing depicts the alignment of Wyoming Mill Road after it has been re-aligned.

In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that due to the federal requirements involved with the re-alignment of Wyoming Mill Road, the 14 acres was not considered an alternative location for a magnet club. It was his opinion that if the club is not built for a few years, then there would be the potential for consideration of the building to be located on the 14 acres.

Mr. James Bordley, long time Board Member of the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club, advised members that he was one of the original members of the Board of Directors and that he has witnessed the good citizens that resulted from the children who participate at the Club. He advised members of the need for such a facility in Dover, not just for poor, minority children, but for all children and urged their support of the request.

Kent Levy Court Commissioner Eric Buckson offered assistance to City Council, CDSA, the Boys & Girls Club, and County. It was his personal opinion that the Schutte Park location would better serve the Boys & Girls Club and that the Lewis Farm could become a soccer facility for the CDSA. He offered to meet with the CDSA after the meeting to further discuss this option.

Mr. Trevor Johnson, representative of the CDSA, relayed appreciation to the City of Dover and the Boys & Girls Club for their efforts in providing recreation for the children of the community. He advised members of the current land situation for the CDSA and noted that the CDSA has grown as a result of the City’s generous opportunity to use land at Schutte Park. Mr. Johnson provided members information of the CDSA (Exhibit #8).

Responding to Mr. Hogan, Ms. Christine Malik, Vice-President of the CDSA, stated that one of the reasons they have concentrated playing at Schutte Park is due to so many children of the same family participating, which provides parents the opportunity to coach more than one team since their children are at one location. Utilizing schools can prove difficult since games are scheduled at different schools, which prevents parents from attending the various games where their children are participating.

Mr. Bob MacLeish, Chair of Youth Committee for the Greater Dover Committee, advised members that youth in the community is a part of the mission and guiding principles of the Greater Dover Committee. He stated that in 2004/2005, the Youth Committee conducted an assets inventory and needs assessment in the community to determine whether or not there was a need for additional facilities and/or services for the youth. The results showed that the current organizations in the Greater Dover area, including the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club, are not adequately serving the current youth population. In addition, the research showed that most of the other youth programs are either “full” or have significant costs associated with their youth programs, making them unavailable to many of the children who need them the most. Mr. MacLeish stated that it was the Youth Committee’s belief that the Boys & Girls Club, and its core programs, best serve the families in the Greater Dover area. With more and more children growing up in homes with both working parents or a single working parent, he stated that today’s families can benefit from a safe, structured, learning opportunity that after-school programs provide. It is the Greater Dover Committee’s goal to empower the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club to serve all the children in need. Mr. MacLeish assured members that the Greater Dover Committee is ready and willing to assure that the needs of the youth of Dover are addressed and is prepared to take on the responsibility to reach out to the community for support of these efforts.

Mr. MacLeish read a letter received from Mr. Gary Stover, President of Stover Homes, in support of the new facility for the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club at Schutte Park.

Mr. Slavin advised members that he is on the Board of Directors for the Greater Dover Boys & Girls Club and hopes for a compromise by both the Boys & Girls Club and the CDSA.

Mr. Ruane advised members that the committee was not provided the schematic of the proposal submitted by the Boys & Girls Club when they forwarded their recommendation for approval of the Wyoming Mill Road location. He also noted that the recommendation referred to their desire that the proposal would not cause the loss of space. He suggested that members agree to offer space at Schutte Park to allow for the magnet club for the Boys & Girls Club without identifying the specific location, that there be a stipulation that the fields currently assigned to CDSA remain, and that every effort be made for the final proposal to depict the use of the 14 acres of land west of Schutte Park that is proposed to be dedicated to the City by Stover Builders.

Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of Schutte Park to be used as the location for the magnet site for the Boys & Girls Club, without being specific to its location at Schutte Park, and the stipulation that its use will not cause any current loss in field space for the CDSA, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent).

Parks and Recreation/Open Space Plan - Review of Active Recreation Areas - Farthing Woods

In accordance with Article 5, Section 10, of the Zoning Code, all residential developments shall provide Open Space and an Active Recreation Plan, which must be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee for a recommendation prior to consideration of the Conditional Use Site Plan by the Planning Commission. Subsection 10.7 of Article 5, Section 10, of the Zoning Code requires that all areas planned for public dedication, or cash donations provided under this section, must be submitted to and approved by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee and shall be subject to final review and approval by City Council prior to acceptance by the Planning Commission.

Members were provided details of the Recreation Plan for Farthing Woods. The subject property consists of one parcel of land totaling 6.89 ^+/- acres, located on the south side of West Denneys Road, west of McKee Road. The owner of record is Denneys Road, LLC. The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel into seventeen (17) residential lots and identify the new street to serve the development. The development will consist of a total of 17 dwelling units and residual land to be used for stormwater management, the entry road, and open space. The subdivision offers the single housing type of single family detached units on approximately 1/5^th acre (approximately 8,700 S.F.) lots. The entrance street leading into the site is from West Denneys Road.

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, noted that a minimum area is required to be reserved for the pursuit of active recreation activities. The size of this area is based on 275 square feet of land area per dwelling unit or one half acre, whichever is greater (Art. 5 §10.16). At 17 proposed units, this accounts for 4,675 S.F. of required active recreation area. Since this total does not meet the minimum requirement, one half acre of land for active recreation would be required. Farthing Woods does not meet the guidelines for exemptions to the recreation areas for small developments as outlined in Article 5 § 10.5 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Instead of recreation area construction, Mrs. Townshend advised members that the applicant is proposing the dedication of land for park lands. The developer has a pending agreement with DNREC to deed a portion of the subdivision to the State of Delaware for the benefit of the Anne McClements Woodlands of Fork Branch Nature Preserve. Article 5 § 10.3 are the regulations for public facilities. By definition, parks are a type of public facility. Section 10.32 allows the amount dedicated to be deducted from the amount of active recreation area requirements of Section 10.1. Mrs. Townshend stated that the land proposed to be deeded for the Fork Branch Nature Preserve was identified as a potential solution to the issue of adjacency to the Nature Preserve during the September 17, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. The adjacent Nature Preserve is identified as Open Space on Map 11-1 Land Development Plan of the Comprehensive Plan Update 2003 as amended 2005 and 2007.

In summary, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the area required for active recreation space is 0.5 acres. The area to be deeded to DNREC is yet to be specifically determined. The current plans show Common Open Space #2 as an area of approximately two (2) acres, but also indicates that the total size has yet to be determined. The transfer of land would occur in place of the recreation area construction or a cash-in-lieu payment for the 0.5 acres would be required. The plan for Farthing Woods submitted by Pennoni Associates, Inc. meets the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and is acceptable to the Department of Planning and Inspections. Staff recommended that the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee forward the Plan to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval of the proposal for land donation.

Following the review of the proposal for land donation in lieu of Active Recreation Area construction and the overall Open Space, the Department of Planning and Inspections staff submitted the following recommendations:

1.Staff recommended approval of the overall Open Space provided for the project. Recommendations suggested as conditions of this approval are listed below:

a.Staff would not object to this mutually agreed upon solution so long as the total land area deeded to the State of Delaware (DNREC) for the Nature Preserve is equal or greater than the required one half acre required for active recreation and so long as the property lines for Farthing Woods are established accordingly.

b.Specific details about the amount of land to be deeded to DNREC must be shown on the Plan including the new parcel created for dedication.

c.All calculations pertaining to open space must be clearly stated on the plan.

d.The details concerning the easement pertaining to Common Open Space Area #1 must be stated on the Plan.

2.The portion of the subdivision which is to be deeded over to the State of Delaware must made into a separate parcel.

3.Tree plantings must be agreed upon and approved by DNREC Division of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to avoid the placement of invasive or noncompatible trees and plants.

4.Identify the type of lighting proposed.

5.An element of separation should be included between lot #12 and the stormwater management facility to ensure the proper longevity of the facility.

6.There shall be provisions which insure that the remaining common open space land (lands not included in the dedication to the state) shall continue as such and be properly managed and maintained. The developer shall either retain ownership and responsibility for maintenance of such open land; or provide for and establish one (1) or more organizations for the ownership and maintenance of all common open space i.e. a Homeowners Association. The organization shall be responsible for maintenance, insurance and taxes on the common open space.

7.In the event, that major changes and revisions to the Preliminary Subdivision Plan which affect the Recreation Plan occur in the review process and finalization of the Plan resubmittal may be required for review by the Parks Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee or other agencies and commissions making recommendations in regards to the plan.

Mr. Ruane relayed concern with the nature preserve being considered as a part of the open space/active recreation plan, explaining that the purpose of the designation is to provide access to the public, particularly children. Rather than providing active recreation area, Mrs. Melson-Williams explained that the developers are seeking dedication of a public facility, which would be parkland for the reserve. Mrs. Townshend emphasized that the Zoning Code provides for an alternative, explaining that if a developer dedicates a public facility, it can be used rather than active recreation. The idea is to not provide access from this site to the nature preserve at the request of the State Park Division. It was her understanding that the access to the preserve would be provided via Kenton Road.

Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Jordan Ashburn, developer of Farthing Woods, explained that the alternative was prepared after consultation with representatives of DNREC. He advised members that the area that would be required for open space/active recreation would be minuscule and that the proposal provides for a better area and would be accessed by more people than just those residing in the development.

Mr. Ruane stated his opinion that, in effect, the developer would not be contributing to the purpose and intent of the ordinance, which is to require some contribution, and if the land is not available, then a cash-in-lieu of land should be required.

The committee recommended denial of the open space/active recreation plan submitted for Farthing Woods and that a cash-in-lieu of land be required if there is no willingness to offer an actual “tot lot” plan.

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

CDBG Program Guidelines for Review

According to HUD guidelines, a CDBG grantee will be considered to be failing to carry out its CDBG activities in a timely matter if, 60 days prior to the end of the current program year, the balance in its line of credit exceeds 1.5 times the annual entitlement grant. The City of Dover has been in compliance with this regulation annually due to the majority of grant funds being expended from city projects. Over the past few years, funding had to be reallocated from subgrantees that failed to expend CDBG funds in a timely matter or failed to meet the program requirements. Members were advised that currently, four (4) out of the five (5) subgrantees have been delayed in expending grant funds due to housing or zoning code violations or failure to meet program requirements, which could cause the City to fall short of this timeliness standard.

Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Community Development Director, provided members proposed revisions to the CDBG Program Guidelines, including the subgrantee scoring sheet and City Project scoring sheet. In order to continue to meet the HUD Timeliness Standard, staff recommended that no more than 80% of CDBG funds, including program administration, be allocated to city projects and that no more than 30% of CDBG funds be allocated to subgrant projects that will serve the low to moderate income households, as well as those with disabilities. Mrs. Harvey noted that the proposed amended guidelines also include a separate scoring sheet for subgrantees with a scoring and voting system for committee members to use for city projects due to the different nature of subgranting versus allocating funds to City projects (including housing rehabilitation and homeownership assistance). She advised members that there is also a request to change the scoring requirements so that any applicant scoring below 70 points would not be considered for a CDBG grant. Staff recommended approval of the amended changes to CDBG Program Guidelines.

Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Mrs. Harvey stated that there were several applicants that received scores less than 70 points that received CDBG grant monies in the past.

Several members relayed concern regarding the grantees not expending the grant money in a timely manner. Mrs. Harvey explained that each grantee is required to submit monthly status reports; however, many of the grantees are not complying with this requirement. Mrs. Russell noted that delays are often due to the contractors. Responding, Mrs. Harvey stated that her experience has been that delays are the result of the subgrantee.

Mr. Ruane questioned what penalties have been instituted or what other efforts have been made to assure that the program has been progressing in a timely manner and, if none, has there been any action to have the money re-programmed. Responding, Mrs. Harvey stated that many of the projects were delayed due to housing and zoning code issues. Mr. Ruane relayed opposition to the proposed amendments to the guidelines and suggested that members delay consideration of the scoring sheet for subgrantees. He requested staff to provide members with the rules that are in place to remedy the problems that are occurring, and what is done prior to six (6) months elapsing to remedy any concerns. It was his feeling that the proposal is a reflection of poor planning and monitoring.

The committee recommended to defer consideration of the proposed amendments to the CDBG Program Guidelines until the January meeting, to be first on the agenda, with the understanding that members will be presented a decision sheet on each one of the actions that have been taken between now and January with a recommendation for re-programming if necessary within the guidelines. Additionally, that staff reconsider arbitrarily setting a percentage and allow all applicants to be equal regardless of the resulting applicant percentages.

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

Proposed Zoning Text Amendments - Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 10 - Institutional and Office Zone (IO)

The committee recommended tabling consideration of the proposed zoning text amendment to Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 10 - Institutional and Office Zone (IO) until the next committee meeting.

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

Proposed Zoning Text Amendment - Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 1 - Supplementary Regulations Applying to Residence Zones, Subsection 1.10 - Portable Storage Units

During their meeting of October 9, 2007, committee members recommended adoption of a proposed zoning text amendment to Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 - District Regulations, Section 1 - Supplementary Regulations Applying to Residence Zones, Subsection 1.10 - Portable Storage Units that propose to establish regulations relating to portable storage units. It was noted that the Planning Commission also recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Following a public hearing before City Council during the Regular Council Meeting of October 22, 2007, members referred the proposed ordinance amendment back to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee for further study.

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reviewed the revised proposed ordinance amendment that would limit the amount of time that a portable storage unit could be located on a

residential lot.

Mr. Ruane stated his opinion that the revised proposed ordinance addresses many of the concerns previously expressed by members of City Council.

The committee recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment as presented by staff.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent). (The Public Hearing/Final Reading of the zoning text amendment will take place during the latter part of the meeting).

Updates

Members were provided the following updates:

Puncheon Run Watershed Action Team Update

There was no update on the Puncheon Run Watershed Action Team.

John W. Pitts Recreation Center

Mr. Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, advised members that the outside work for the John W. Pitts Recreation Center, such as parking lot, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. should be completed within the next two (2) weeks and that the building should be fully enclosed within the next week. Due to the weather, he anticipates a February 2008 opening.

Planning and Funding for New Library

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

Mr. McGlumphy felt that construction for the new Library should begin in the very near future since the price of materials will continue to increase.

The committee recommended that staff be requested to present information on what would be necessary to make a recommendation on the bond aspect for this project.

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

CDBG Program

There was no update on the CDBG Program.

2008 Comprehensive Plan Update

There was no update on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.

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

Mr. Salters moved for a brief recess, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.

Meeting Recessed at 10:18 P.M.

Mr. Hogan moved to reconvene, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

Meeting Reconvened at 10:25 P.M.

PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT

A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed zoning text amendment to Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 1 - Supplementary Regulations Applying to Residence Zones, Subsection 1.10 - Portable Storage Units that would limit the amount of time that a portable storage unit could be located on a residential lot. Members were advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment.

During their meeting of December 11, 2007, the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee reviewed the proposed zoning text amendment and recommended adoption. Since the ordinances will amend the zoning text, a public hearing is required.

Mr. Slavin moved that the final reading of the proposed zoning text amendment be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of September 24, 2007)

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reminded members that the proposed ordinance amendment that would limit the amount of time that a portable storage unit could be located on a residential lot.

Council President Williams declared the hearing open.

Mr. Chris Rothel, 30 Lotus Circle North, stated that he was present on behalf of PODS in support of the proposed ordinance. He thanked Mrs. Townshend for working with PODS on their concerns with the proposed amendments as originally submitted.

Council President Williams declared the hearing closed.

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

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:

That Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 – Supplementary Regulations, Section 1- Supplementary Regulations Applying to Residence Zones be amended by inserting a new subsection as follows:

1.10 Portable Storage Units. For the purpose of this section the following definitions shall apply:

Portable storage unit means any container designed for the storage of personal property which is typically rented to owners or occupants of property for their temporary use and which is delivered and removed by truck.

1.101 Number, Duration, and Removal. There shall be no more than one portable storage unit per lot. No portable storage unit shall remain on a lot in a residential district in excess of thirty consecutive days, unless the lot is the subject of an active building permit, in which case it may remain as long as the building permit is active.

1.102 Cumulative Time Restriction. No portable storage unit as defined in Section 1.10 of this Article shall be placed at any one site in a residential district in excess of sixty days in any calendar year, unless the lot is the subject of an active building permit.

1.103 Location. The location of the portable storage unit shall not affect the health, safety and/or welfare of the neighborhood including, but not limited to, blocking access to a fire hydrant and obstructing the view of street intersections.

ADOPTED: JANUARY 14, 2008

SPECIAL UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 11, 2007

The Utility Committee met on December 11, 2007 with Chairman Ruane presiding.

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

Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ), Section 29.7 - Tier III (Continued from Meeting of November 27, 2007)

During their meeting of November 27, 2007, members began a review of Section 29.7 - Tier III, of Article 3 - District Regulations, Section 29 - Source Water Protection Overlay Zone (SWPOZ) of Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance. Due to time constraints, members deferred their review of the proposed zoning text amendment to be continued during a Special Meeting at this time and place.

Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, provided members with a revised draft of Section 29.7 - Tier III, of the Dover’s Source Water Protection Overlay Zone, which included recommendations of the committee as a result of their last meeting, and reviewed the proposed text amendment in detail. She reminded members that during their last meeting, there was much discussion regarding Section 29.72 and that staff has reviewed the material and developed more appropriate language. In addition, Mrs. Townshend stated that the word “mitigation” in Section 29.711, should be replaced with the word “compensation”. As a result of a meeting with engineering and real estate representatives, she stated that staff added Section 29.710, Special Environmental Considerations; however, the phrase “to the affected areas” should be added to the end of the first sentence.

Responding to Mr. Snaman, Mr. Koenig, Public Services Manager, stated that there is no indication that the ground water under the downtown area is in jeopardy because the water is coming from the confined aquifer and not the shallow unconfined groundwater area. There are several sites in the downtown area that have affected the very shallow groundwater area, that would be the unconfined groundwater area; however, that is not where the drinking water is coming from. He stated that any problems downtown are not affecting the groundwater supply at this point. If there is no problem, Mr. Snaman questioned the need to institute these requirements to the downtown area. Mr. Koenig explained that the requirements of the ordinance for the downtown area would effectively, over time, either reclaim areas that are currently impervious and turn them into pervious or it would allow the City to purchase excellent recharge areas in other parts of the region. He stated that, over time, the downtown condition would essentially migrate, through development, to a condition that would be better for regional water resources than it is today.

Noting that the City has put a lot of effort, time, and money into the redevelopment of the downtown, Mr. Cregar felt that the regulations would impede these efforts and questioned why this area could not be exempt from the regulations. Mr. Koenig stated that the compensation portion, under Section 29.79, has been recommended as an advocate for water utility and resources. Mrs. Townshend reminded members that the initial draft ordinance had an exemption for the downtown area. Although the exemption concept remains, it was felt that the proposed compensation is a way that would not impede development and at the same time includes all areas in the requirements. She noted that there is precedent in the Code that provides for different treatment of the downtown area.

Responding to Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Townshend stated that it is the opinion of the City Solicitor that it would be a legally defendable position to exempt the downtown area based on the Comprehensive Plan and other precedence within the Dover Code.

Mr. John Barndt, Program Manager for Source Water and Wellhead Protection Programs for the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), stated that the development process of the proposed ordinance has been commendable, which has resulted in several changes that are both pragmatic and protective of the resource. With regards to exempting the downtown area, he stated that there were legal concerns; however, he noted that the City Solicitor has indicated assurance in this regard.

In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Barndt stated that Kent County has recently begun the process of developing an ordinance, which is currently very similar to the City’s. At this time, he does not have an opinion as to the effect any exemption would have with Kent County.

Mr. Greg Moore of Becker Morgan Group, representing the Greater Dover Committee, indicated his support for providing an exemption for the downtown area, feeling that otherwise, the proposed ordinance would jeopardize the downtown and would lose the need to redevelop. The Sections of the proposed ordinance that provide for cash-in-lieu would actually provide disincentives to redevelopment of older buildings and provide incentives to take the redevelopment dollars towards new properties and expand, thus creating sprawl. On behalf of the downtown, he requested that members provide an exemption for the downtown area. As a representative of Bayhealth, he relayed concern with the requirements proposed for the downtown if the area is not exempted.

Responding to Mr. Moore, Mrs. Townshend stated that a stormwater management pond that is wet would not be considered impervious. Mr. Moore requested that the ordinance include language that would specify this fact. Mrs. Townshend suggested that, separate from the ordinance, a definition for impervious surface be added to the zoning ordinance.

As a representative of Dover Downs and Delaware State University, Mr. Moore noted that these institutions are the single largest land owners in the excellent recharge areas on Route 13. At one point, these areas were also exempted; however, the exemption was removed when the downtown exemption was removed. Each of these institutions believe that the maximum impervious coverage limits will affect the continuation of their institutions. He explained that the Dover Downs property contains two (2) separate operating entities, the casino operation and the Nascar operation. The Nascar property is wholly in the excellent recharge area and is not completely developed. Mr. Moore stated that Dover Downs is concerned that, over time, the imposition of 60% maximum will limit their ability to develop some of the undeveloped parcels and meet Nascar or market requirements to sustain a competitive advantage. He noted that Section 27.77, Master Plans, does not provide for any credit for directing water from the tier 2 areas and infiltrating it to the tier 3 areas. He questioned the possibility of providing some flexibility to Section 27.77 that would allow for additional buildable areas. He explained that big properties such as Dover Downs and Delaware State University are looking for this type of flexibility in site plan and master planning.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Moore stated that until the last committee meeting, both Dover Downs and Delaware State University were under the impression that they were exempt. The comment on the Master Plan Section is a result of the response from the Corporate Attorney for Dover Downs. Mrs. Townshend advised members that there are currently two (2) separate Master Plans for Dover Downs, one (1) for the casino/hotel operation and another for the speedway, which have been approved and are, therefore, not subject to the proposed ordinance. She stated that, in the future, Dover Downs could submit one (1) Master Plan for all of their land holdings.

Mr. Moore requested that Section 27.77 be amended to include language that would allow for the City Planner and City Engineer to have the opportunity to increase the impervious an additional 15% if the Master Plan can demonstrate superior infiltration design that would meet the intent of the Dover Code.

Mr. Koenig explained that the goal of the proposed ordinance is to preserve the amount of water that enters the ground, to preserve the resource; therefore, he did not have any objections to the request for such an amendment.

Responding to Mr. Moore, Mr. Ruane reiterated that the intent of members is that a stormwater management pond that is wet would not be considered impervious.

Mr. Phil McGinnis, Kent County Association of Realtors, indicated support for the proposed ordinance, with consideration of the comments and concerns relayed by Mr. Moore. Should members not include an exemption for the downtown area, he relayed concern with the use of the City’s assessment of property, as indicated in Section 29.79(a), due to many of these assessments being higher than the market value; therefore, an appraisal done by a qualified, certified appraiser would be preferred. He suggested that the third, fourth, and fifth sentences of Section 29.79(a) be deleted and replaced with the following: “Payment-in-lieu of land easement shall be permitted and such payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Such cash payment shall be determined by either a qualified appraisal (conforming to Delaware Statute for real estate valuation) submitted by the applicant at the applicant’s expense or the City’s assessed value of the underlying land as affected by the ordinance. The amount of the cash payment shall be calculated by multiplying the appraised value of the underlying land times a rate, which shall be the difference between the percentage of impervious cover of the lot minus 60%. For example, a property with 70% impervious cover would be required to pay a cash donation of 10% of the underlying land value prior to the applicant receiving a certificate of occupancy.” He stated that the sixth sentence beginning with “Money paid to . . .” and thereafter would remain.

The committee recommended that in Section 29.79, the word “mitigation” be changed to “compensation”.

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

The committee recommended that the phrase “to the affected areas” be added to the end of the first sentence of Section 29.710.

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

Referring to Section 29.77, Mr. Koenig stated that staff is proposing to add the following to the existing paragraph: “On a site development Master Plan, when the City Engineer certifies that the project utilizes superior infiltration design that maximizes groundwater recharge, impervious cover may be increased to 75%”. He requested the opportunity to evaluate this sentence between now and consideration of the proposed ordinance by Council. Responding, Mr. Ruane felt that this assumption would be for all of the proposed changes being recommended.

The committee recommended that the following sentence be added to Section 29.77: “On a site development Master Plan, when the City Engineer certifies that the project utilizes superior infiltration design that maximizes groundwater recharge, impervious cover may be increased to 75%”.

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

With reference to Section 29.79(a), Mrs. Townshend submitted an amendment, substituting the third, fourth, and fifth sentences as recommended by Mr. McGinnis.

The committee recommended striking the third, fourth, and fifth sentences of Section 29.79(a), from “Payment-in-lieu...” through “...development application”.

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

For clarification, Mr. McGiffin suggested that the proposed rewording for Section 29.79(a) be amended by deleting the word “either” and including, in the second sentence, after “applicant’s expense or” the words “absent an appraisal”.

The committee recommend that the third, fourth, and fifth sentences of Section 29.79(a) be replaced with the following: “Payment-in-lieu of land easement shall be permitted, and such payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Such cash payment shall be determined by a qualified appraisal (conforming to Delaware Statute for real estate valuation) submitted by the applicant at the applicant’s expense or, absent an appraisal, the City’s assessed value of the underlying land. The amount of the cash payment shall be calculated by multiplying the appraised value of the underlying land times a rate which shall be the difference between the percentage of impervious cover of the lot minus 60%. For example, a property with 70% impervious cover would be required to pay a cash donation of 10% of the underlying land value prior to the applicant receiving a certificate of occupancy.”

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

Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. Koenig stated that there are parcels in the downtown area that exceed two (2) acres.

Mr. Ruane relayed his concurrence with staff’s position in regards to this matter and reminded members of stewardship responsibilities that would be inclusive of property owners in the downtown area. It was his feeling that the language that staff has proposed allows for an exemption based on size and provides for a method to compensate in lieu of having the required abilities.

The committee recommended that Section 29.79, Downtown Target Area, be struck and replaced with the following wording: “Section 29.79, Downtown Redevelopment Target Area. The Downtown Redevelopment Target Area as defined in Appendix C, Article II, Section 3 [Target Area] of the City of Dover Code of Ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements and restrictions of the Source Water Protection Overlay Zone.

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

The committee recommended that the proposed ordinance, as revised, be forwarded to City Council for consideration during their Regular Meeting of January 14, 2008 for a First Reading and referral to the Planning Commission and setting of a public hearing before City Council.

By consent agenda, Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Hogan and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary absent). (The First Reading of the ordinance and setting of the public hearing will take place during the latter part of the meeting)

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

SPECIAL SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT - DECEMBER 13, 2007

The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee met on December 13, 2007 with Chairman Hogan presiding.

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

During their meeting of October 23, 2007, members considered a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 46 - Fire Prevention and Protection, Article III - Fire Code, Section 46-128 - Sprinkler Requirements, of the Dover Code. 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 had noted. However, 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 had requested the opportunity to comment on the proposed ordinance further; therefore, the proposed ordinance, as revised, was re-submitted to the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee for their review and recommendation at this time.

Mr. Truax, Fire Marshal, advised members that in March 2007, a committee was formed to assist with the development of a townhouse sprinkler ordinance. In addition to himself, 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 as fair an ordinance as could be reached by all parties involved. Mr. Truax reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment in detail.

Mr. Hogan noted the receipt of correspondence provided to members regarding this issue (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk), as follows: 1) letter from Kent County Association of Realtors; 2) letter from Mr. Paul Eichler, Robbins Hose Fire Company; and 3) a publication entitled “Fire Sprinklers and Home Insurance” printed from the website HousingEconomics.com.

Responding to Mr. H