REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on October 27, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Hogan presiding. Council members present were Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane. Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin were absent.
Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, Ms. Russell, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Fire Chief Carey, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. McDowell, and Mayor Carey.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Hogan declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Mr. McGlumphy requested that item #4A, Draft MAG Report, be removed from the consent agenda.
Mrs. Williams moved for approval of the consent agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF OCTOBER 6, 2008
The Minutes of the Council Workshop of October 6, 2008 were unanimously approved by motion of Mrs. Williams, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2008
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 13, 2008 were unanimously approved by motion of Mrs. Williams, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Carey.
CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION - YOUNG STUDIO 55TH ANNIVERSARY
Due to the absence of the Young family, the presentation of the Certificate of Recognition was deferred.
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - ERIC YOUNG 20TH ANNIVERSARY WITH YOUNG STUDIO
Due to the absence of Mr. Eric Young, the presentation of the Certificate of Recognition was deferred.
PRESENTATION - NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reviewed a presentation of the National Citizen Survey (Exhibit #1).
LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 13, 2008
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee met on October 13, 2008 with Chairman Slavin presiding.
Draft MAG Report
As authorized by City Council, Management Advisory Group, Inc. (MAG) prepared a report for the
Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System to the City of Dover. Members were provided the revised draft MAG Report. It was noted that the initial report was labeled as Part 1 of 2 for the project, which focuses on the elements that were agreed to in revisions to the original work plan, including the classification and compensation aspects of the project. Part 2 for the project will focus more on the performance evaluation elements. It was noted that the report reflects input from the committee, department heads, and also corrections to data in previous drafts, such as hire dates that would have an impact on possible implementation costs. More recent APPA compensation data has also been considered.
Dr. Donald Long, Principle with MAG, reviewed a presentation of the Review and Evaluation of the PFP Evaluation System for the City of Dover (attached to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Minutes of October 13, 2008). In terms of the next step, Dr. Long advised members that meetings have been held with employees to discuss the PFP system and its strengths, weaknesses, and challenges in an attempt to make improvements. This information will be provided to members in Part 2 of this process.
In reviewing the final report provided by MAG, Mr. McGlumphy noted that there are 17 proposed salary adjustments and 30 grade level adjustments. If implemented, he stated that these adjustments would cost approximately $43,000 annualized. He relayed concern that, considering the 20 additional positions being proposed for a possible adjustment by the City Manager, the approximate adjustment costs could significantly increase.
Responding, Mrs. Carolyn Long, representative of MAG, explained that with the implementation scenario, the formula used was to replicate the formula used in the PAS Study. This same algorithm is run on the actual incumbents and their current salary. The algorithm then calculates a target salary. If the formula is run and it is determined that the target salary of the incumbent is at or above the formula salary, there is no implementation of adjustment recommended. In terms of the implementation costs, Mrs. Long stated that, other than the incremental adjustments, there are no additional costs.
Dr. Jones questioned what is necessary to address the administration of the evaluative criteria, explaining her feeling that this should be addressed prior to implementation of adjustments. Responding, Dr. Long stated that the first step would be to assign the positions to the recommended grade, then the City would be provided licensed software in order to maintain the system, and the City’s Human Resources staff would be trained to utilize the software.
Mr. Ruane reminded members that the original notion of the PAS Study was for employees to move within their pay range from beginning to mid-point within seven (7) years and to the maximum level in 20 years. He requested that the final report include a recommendation to provide some consistency to bring it back to the original intent, explaining that it has been suggested that some employees are moving faster than seven (7) years and others that are taking longer.
Mr. McGlumphy requested that a comparison between the June 2008 table provided to members and the adjustments that would be made based on the MAG Report be provided on the 20 positions that resulted in this review. Noting that members were provided the APPA survey, he requested that members also be provided the ICMA data utilized by MAG.
There was no further action taken by the committee.
Mr. McGlumphy noted that the Draft MAG Report has been submitted and that there are several questions and answers that are forthcoming. He stated that members are continuing their review and clarified that its receipt should not be reflective of any approval.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to acknowledge receipt of the Draft MAG Report and that further discussion is warranted on the report, seconded by Mrs. Williams.
Mr. McGiffin noted that the agenda clearly indicates that the MAG Report is a draft and that no action is required. He relayed concern for taking special action to acknowledge receipt of the report, since there could be future reports that action to acknowledge their receipt is not taken and the interpretation would be that there would be a difference with taking such action.
Responding, Mrs. Williams indicated that acknowledging receipt of reports has been the City’s practice in the past, particularly with documents that contain massive amounts of data.
Although he felt no concerns with the motion, Mr. Ruane expressed the need to be cautious in implying the acceptance of the report. As discussed during the committee meeting, he explained that there are items in the report to be acknowledged that are in need of corrections. Members are actually expecting a revision to the report.
On a call for the question by Mrs. Williams, the motion to acknowledge receipt of the Draft MAG Report and that further discussion is warranted on the report was carried with Council President Hogan voting no.
Air Transportation Grant Review
During the Regular Council Meeting of September 22, 2008, members of Council were advised that a Small Community Air Service Grant was filed and approved in the amount of $135,000, and that the paperwork must be filed with the federal government to obtain the grant funds. In accordance with the City’s Grant Application Procedures (#317), Grant Award/Post Award Process, the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee must approve the grant award. Due to timing, members were advised that the review by the committee could not be scheduled by the grant deadline; therefore, the Mayor, along with the City Manager, requested that this part of the policy be waived. In addition, Council was requested to accept the grant award and provide authorization to enter into the grant agreement. Members of Council supported the request for waiving the grant award/post award process with the stipulation that members of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee be briefed on the grant award and agreement. In addition, Mr. McGlumphy had requested that members be provided a copy of the grant application submitted and the details involved with the award.
As requested, Mayor Carey provided details regarding the grant award and agreement. He explained that $150,000 is necessary for the costs of the company that evaluates the need for a Small Community Air Service. He stated that along with the $135,000 grant, the program requires a local share in the amount of $15,000, which would total the $150,000 necessary. He advised members that the following local shares have been committed:
Kent County - $5,000
City of Dover - $5,000
Kent County Tourism - $ 500
Faw Casson & Company - $ 500
Dover Downs - $1,000
Noting that an additional $3,000 is necessary for the local shares, Mayor Carey assured members that he, along with Mr. Wolfensberger, will continue to raise money from corporations, as well as other sources. Although he has not been able to confirm, Mayor Carey indicated that he has been advised that the Town of Smyrna has committed to contribute $500.
At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mayor Carey confirmed that by moving forward in this matter, the City of Dover is in no way obligated to any future costs that may be implied when the final report is received. With reference to the RFQ, Mayor Carey confirmed that there will be due diligence to assure that other potential contractors are provided the opportunity to bid for the project.
There was no further action taken regarding this matter.
Mrs. Williams moved for approval of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Mr. Ruane requested that the 3rd paragraph of the committee minutes regarding the Draft MAG Report be revised since MAG was not aware of the fact that the salaries they were using had been adjusted with an approximate 3% increase. He requested that the minutes be corrected to reflect this matter.
The motion to approve the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, with the understanding of a possible amendment once staff has reviewed the records, was unanimously carried.
SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 15, 2008
A Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting was held on October 15, 2008 with Chairwoman Russell presiding.
Ordinance SA#1 to #2008-39 - Appendix B - Zoning, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 - Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities, Subsection 10.5 - Exemption (Tabled during the August 12, 2008 Committee Meeting) and Ordinance #2008-41 - Appendix C - Downtown Redevelopment, Article IV - Development Incentive
During their meeting of August 12, 2008, members tabled consideration of the proposed ordinance amending Appendix B - Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 - Supplementary Regulations, Section 10 - Open Space, Recreation and Other Public Facilities, Subsection 10.5 - Exemption, in order to provide staff the opportunity to include language as recommended by the committee.
The committee removed the matter from the table.
Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, reviewed an amendment (SA#1 to #2008-39) to the original proposed ordinance, which would require a smaller amount of active recreation for smaller properties with a higher density. She reminded members that the original proposed ordinance would exempt residential development within the Downtown Redevelopment Target area from open space and active recreation requirements in exchange for aesthetic improvements such as public art and streetscape and that the amendment ordinance would address open space and active recreation requirements in the downtown area and beyond.
Mrs. Townshend advised members that the proposed ordinance #2008-41 amending Appendix C - Downtown Redevelopment, Article IV - Development Incentive, is relative to the consideration of the amendment ordinance SA#1 to #2008-39. She explained that proposed ordinance #2008-41 would allow for the waiver of the cash in lieu amount associated with the active recreation area requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for residential development. If an applicant were to request utilization of cash in lieu of recreation area construction, the amount could be waived within the Downtown Target area, and the applicant would pay ten percent (10%) of the value of this waiver to the Downtown Dover Partnership for open space improvements in the downtown. Mrs. Townshend indicated that the Downtown Dover Partnership would be required to use the payments for open space improvements in the downtown area which could include streetscape and recreational improvements along the river, which may not be in the target area but would be used by the people in the target area.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that the amendment ordinance SA#1 to #2008-39 pertains city-wide and that #2008-41 pertains to downtown only.
Mr. Mike Zimmerman noted that there are few properties in the downtown area that contain an acre of land and that the proposed ordinance amendment would require providing 150 square feet of active recreation area per dwelling unit or a 1/4 acre of land, whichever is greater. He advised members of his plans to develop heavy density projects that will be located on property less than 1/4 of an acre.
Responding, Mrs. Townshend stated that staff did not want to develop an ordinance that would relate only to specific projects in the downtown area. She advised members that staff discussed another amendment with Mr. Malmberg that would reduce the requirement for 150 square feet of active recreation area to 75 square feet only for the downtown target area. Staff chose not to submit that amendment. However, she stated that the proposed ordinance amendment provides for a full or partial cash-in-lieu donation that could be made by the developer in lieu of full or partial dedication of land. In terms of active recreation, Mrs. Townshend stated that a developer could be credited for providing a courtyard, recreation room, swimming pool, meeting room, etc. and the remainder be provided by a cash-in-lieu donation in order to meet the requirements. She indicated that the proposed ordinance #2008-41 would allow for the waiver of the cash- in lieu amount associated with the active recreation area requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for residential development.
In response to questions of Mr. Matt Spong regarding the appraised value and amount of cash donation required, Ms. Cornwell, Planner II, referred to Appendix B, Article 5, Section 10 and explained that both Subsections 10.173 and 10.52 require that the City use the appraisal that is used for construction financing; however, Subsection 10.52 indicates that the cash donation shall be equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the appraised value of gross land area and Subsection 10.173 indicates whatever amount of active recreation area remaining to meet the ten percent (10%) is how much cash-in-lieu would be required.
Mr. Zimmerman felt very confused regarding the subject and explained that he has five (5) upcoming projects and cannot determine the fees that will be required.
It was Mr. Ruane’s feeling that there was a need for continued discussions between developers and staff to obtain an understanding of the proposed amendments prior to the committee developing a recommendation for Council consideration.
The committee recommended that the matter be tabled to allow for further discussion between developers and staff with the understanding that this matter be brought back for consideration at the next committee meeting on October 27, 2008.
Mr. Ruane requested that staff provide specific examples of the results of the proposed ordinance for various projects.
By consent agenda, Mrs. Williams moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
Members were provided information regarding the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Since the preparation of the packet material, Mrs. Harvey, Community Development Director, stated that additional information had been received and provided members with the following: 1) a City of Dover Cluster of Foreclosure Listing; and 2) a list of Potential Partners for the Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.
Mrs. Harvey advised members that the State of Delaware received $19.6M in grant funding to help stabilize the neighborhoods throughout the State and that the City of Dover has the opportunity to apply for a portion of the grant to help stabilize the neighborhoods in the City. She stated that a meeting was held the day before and an overview was provided, including the eligible uses of the funds and the time frame for applying for the request for proposal (RFP). Staff has been meeting with potential partners for the program. Mrs. Harvey noted that there is a very short deadline for applying for the funds, stating that the RFP is scheduled to be let on Friday, October 17th and that any RFP’s must be submitted by October 31st and submitted to HUD by December 1st. Staff is scheduled to meet with the partners on Friday, October 17th, after which proposals will be developed and staff will request a meeting with the committee for their consideration.
Mrs. Harvey reviewed a map depicting the areas with the highest rate of foreclosures. She advised members that the Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA) is encouraging the City to work with areas with clusters and noted that the Mayfair and Crossgates neighborhoods have the largest number of foreclosures.
Mr. Ruane stated that many people in foreclosed homes were given a sub-prime loan without a thorough review of their credit to determine if they could afford the home. Concurring with Mrs. Russell, he stated that an individual’s income does not determine how they take care of their home. If homeowners are unable to pay for their mortgage, Mr. Ruane noted that they certainly would not be able to afford the maintenance of the home. As a result, there is potential deterioration of a neighborhood and the more foreclosures you have in a community, the more it devalues the property in the neighborhood. It was his opinion that the purpose of the grant money is to buy out the foreclosed properties, giving some incentives such as first time homebuyers, and allowing the government to serve as buyers to get the properties off of the market that are currently affecting other properties. He felt that, although this is a good program, the challenge will be to have an understanding of who will manage the program and how. Mr. Ruane relayed appreciation for the potential partners; however, he relayed concern that the descriptions provided should include expertise, philosophies, and actions of these partners; otherwise, from his understanding, they would not be eligible for the grants. He requested that staff clarify those eligible properties and the value amounts.
Responding, Mrs. Harvey stated that the value amounts listed are reflective of the sale price amounts; however, they do not represent the ultimate purchase price, which will probably be less than the sale price.
Noting that the foreclosure listing provided consists only of clusters, Mr. Ruane questioned if staff could identify the 63 and 42 (105 total) properties that the State has listed for foreclosures. Responding, Mrs. Harvey stated that she obtained the list of properties through www.RealtyTrac.com which does not distinguish between bank owned and auction. She advised members that staff only selected properties that are bank owned since those are the only ones that can be considered in accordance with the requirements. For further clarification, Mrs. Townshend stated that the State’s list, consisting of 105 properties, is reflective of all foreclosures since the beginning of the year through August. She stated that some of the properties may have been purchased, explaining that the list of foreclosures is a “moving target”.
Mr. Ruane suggested that staff is requesting guidance relative to this issue as it relates to policy. It was his feeling that one of the policies to be considered is the expectation that these properties are brought up to code. Concurring, Mrs. Townshend also indicated that it may be desirable to make other improvements to the properties, in addition to code issues, such as painting, replacing carpeting, etc.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend questioned if members support the City, as an entitlement program for CDBG, to serve as the lead on the application. Staff recommended that the City serve as a lead applicant with the understanding that there will be a partnership with others.
The committee recommended that the City serve as the lead applicant with the understanding that the City is partnering with those that are on the street and know how to do this and get it done.
By consent agenda, Mrs. Williams moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
Mrs. Townshend advised members that another question is if the City should limit applications to inside the City limits or should the City partner with Camden, Kent County, Smyrna, or others, (still serving as the lead). Staff recommended that the City focus on those properties located within the City limits.
Mr. Ruane noted the benefits of including properties that are contiguous to the City limits, explaining that they have an effect on the community.
Mrs. Russell felt that only those properties located in the City limits should be considered since they are potential taxpayers, explaining that the City would not be provided any tax benefit from including properties that are located in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Lewis felt that there are time constraints that would prohibit the consideration of other jurisdictions at this time.
Mr. Ruane noted that some of the contiguous properties are City utility customers; therefore, these properties may affect the City’s revenue. He stated that although they may not be located in the City limits, they are within the City’s service area and that by including them, the City would reap some benefits.
With regards to the time constraints, Mr. McGlumphy questioned the possibility of submitting an amendment to the application at a later time that would allow for the inclusion of other jurisdictions. Responding, Mrs. Townshend explained that the RFP requires the City to identify partners. The City could identify uncommitted partners and include those jurisdictions. She advised members that NCALL is required to serve as a partner since they provide housing counseling. She noted that the area of jurisdiction for the Dover Housing Authority’s (DHA) includes the City of Dover and a three (3) mile area around the City, which would include areas such as Rodney Village and Camden. She also suggested the possibility of using the 19901 and 19904 zip codes.
The committee recommended that the initial application include the notion of partnering with the Dover Housing Authority with the understanding that if they go for it, they will do the housing within the City of Dover and a three (3) mile radius around the City.
By consent agenda, Mrs. Williams moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
Mrs. Townshend stated that another question to be addressed is the amount of funds to be requested.
Responding, Mr. Ruane felt that prior to a recommendation, staff should provide members with specific amounts. He suggested that the City include the full amount for administration; however, there would be no support if there is a financial impact on the City of Dover. In addition, he requested that all acquisition costs should be provided to members when this matter is brought back to the committee.
The committee recommended that the application include the City’s due proportion for administration and that the application to be reviewed by members at the next meeting include all sufficient dollars necessary to bring the houses up to code before they are sold and to make a recommended amount to be specified for other improvements with “not to exceed” amounts.
By consent agenda, Mrs. Williams moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Townshend stated that the grant funds must be allocated within 18 months and expended in four (4) years.
There were no objections relayed by members regarding the suggestion of Mrs. Harvey for the possibility of setting aside funding for homeownership assistance, which is an eligible activity for the grant.
Mrs. Townshend suggested that a meeting be scheduled for October 27th, which would allow staff to provide members with additional information for their consideration. She noted that the committee’s recommendation would need Council’s approval, and that the next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for October 27th, reminding members that the application deadline is October 31st.
It was the consensus of members that a meeting be scheduled for October 27th at 3:30 p.m. and that all members of Council be encouraged to attend since the matter will be submitted to Council for consideration during their meeting later in the evening.
In reviewing the regulations, which lists all eligible uses, Mr. Ruane questioned if there are any uses that would not be included. Responding, Mrs. Townshend noted that the City would participate in all eligible uses and briefly explained the City’s role for each of those uses.
Mrs. Townshend stated that the City’s establishment of a financing mechanism would be to provide for down payment assistance and not function as a mortgagor. She explained that the City’s homeowner assistance is a forgivable loan.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Harvey stated that the homeowner assistance would be handled by the City and not through the partners. Mr. Ruane relayed his opposition due to the impact on City staff.
After much discussion and due to time constraints, Mrs. Russell requested that members allow staff to move forward as directed. She noted that members would be given the opportunity to further discuss any concerns during their next meeting.
Youth Advisory Committee Update
During their Regular Meeting of June 23, 2008, City Council adopted a Resolution establishing a Youth Advisory Committee (as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Enhancement Committee during their meeting of June 10, 2008).
Mrs. Rollison, City Clerk’s Office, advised members that an email was sent to superintendents of the schools advising them of the City’s Youth Advisory Committee and that applications were then sent to the schools. As of today, she stated that there has been no response. Following an inquiry by the City Clerk’s Office, Mrs. Rollison indicated that it was suggested that since the City provided a deadline, most students will wait until the deadline to turn in their applications. She stated that another school district had indicated that the information was provided to the Honor Society and Student Council and that it is hoped that a response will be forthcoming. (City Clerk’s Office Note: The schools were initially given an October 31, 2008 deadline for submitting applications. Each district contacted assured the City Clerk’s Office that they were personally selecting applicants and felt sure that the students were aware of and would meet the deadline. Additionally, the Youth Advisory Council has been advertised on the City’s Website, Verizon Channel and Comcast for the entire month of October and applications have been placed in City Hall, Dover Park, The Pitts Center, and the Library.)
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Russell noted that, according to the Dover Code, individuals must be 21 years of age in order to serve on City Council.
The committee recommended that the City issue a press release announcing the City’s request for applicants for the Youth Council.
By consent agenda, Mrs. Williams moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
By consent agenda, Mrs. Williams moved for acceptance of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - OCTOBER 27, 2008
A Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting was held on October 27, 2008, with Chairwoman Russell presiding.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program - City of Dover Funding Request
During the committee meeting held earlier this evening, members considered a grant application for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Due to time constraints, it was requested that this matter be presented to Council at this time for final action.
During a Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting held on October 15, 2008, members were provided information regarding the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Staff advised members that the State of Delaware received $19.6M in grant funding to help stabilize the neighborhoods throughout the State and that the City of Dover has the opportunity to apply for a portion of the grant to help stabilize the neighborhoods in the City. After much discussion, members recommended the following:
1)that the City serve as the lead applicant with the understanding that the City is partnering with those that are on the street and know how to do this and get it done;
2)that the initial application include the notion of partnering with the Dover Housing Authority with the understanding that if they go for it, they will do the housing within the City of Dover and a three (3) mile radius around the City; and
3)that the application include the City’s due proportion for administration and that the application to be reviewed by members at the next meeting include all sufficient dollars necessary to bring the houses up to code before they are sold and to make a recommended amount to be specified for other improvements with “not to exceed” amounts.
Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Inspections, introduced the “team of partners” involved in the Neighborhood Stabilization Program for the City of Dover that were present, as follows: Mr. Phil McGinnis, Kent County Board of Realtors; Mr. Carlyle Hooff, National Association for Mental Illness Delaware; Ms. Jeanine Kleimo, Interfaith Mission for Housing; Ms. Ami-Sebastian Hauer and Mr. Rufus Minsley, Dover Housing Authority/Dover Community Partnership; and Mrs. Tracy Harvey, City of Dover, who has served as the leader for this program. She also noted that there were several others partners not in attendance, as follows: Diamond State Community Land Trust, NCALL, and Kent County.
Mrs. Townshend explained that the grant funds would go through the Delaware Housing Authority. The City will be provided 18 months to obligate funds and four (4) years to expend the funds. She advised members that if a house is purchased, rehabilitated, and sold, there will be proceeds which will be put back into the program for the purchase and rehabilitation of another house. She explained that although the grant request is for an estimated $6.6M, with the recycling of these grant funds, there will be program income, which would provide additional funds for the program.
At the request of Mr. McGlumphy, each partner explained their participation in the program.
Mrs. Harvey, Community Development Director, reviewed the Delaware Neighborhood Stabilization Program and explained the Request for Proposals.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that between now and Friday, staff can ensure that the grant is consistent in its application between the Community Land Trust and the Dover Housing Authority in terms of how they are portrayed and maintaining the $6.6M grant. Due to the time frame, she indicated that there would not be ample time to bring this matter back to the committee for their review. For further clarification, Ms. Sebastian-Hauer stated that there would be a total of 70 homes between the Community Land Trust and Dover Housing Authority.
Mr. Ruane referred to the budget pages and questioned the discrepancy with the estimated activity costs provided in the individual charts for appraisals ($3,600 and $14,000) and the total budgeted amount provided for appraisals ($17,500). Responding, Mrs. Harvey explained that each applicant included estimated appraisal fees and that after meeting with the realtor, a revised estimate of $17,500 was provided, which reflects 50 properties at a cost of $350 per property. She concurred that the budgets will be modified to be reflective by eliminating the appraisal estimate in the budget for the Dover Housing Authority and including the estimate provided by the realtor in the budget.
At the request of Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Harvey explained each applicant’s individual budget.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Sebastian-Hauer advised members that the program regulations allows for the development on vacant land and that the Dover Housing Authority has proposed to build five (5) new houses on vacant property that they plan to purchase. It was Mr. Ruane feeling that there should be additional comments provided in the summary to better clarify the intention to redevelop vacant property.
Referring to the map provided to members, Mr. Ruane noted that it is reflective of a time frame of January 2008 through August 2008 and is not reflective of the current foreclosures in the City of Dover and surrounding areas. He stated that since foreclosures occur on a daily basis, the information is constantly changing. He suggested that staff include a statement on the map indicating that the information is reflective of a time frame of January 2008 through August 2008, as well as the source: Delaware State Housing Authority - information obtained from www.LexusNexus.com. Responding, Mrs. Harvey explained that the Delaware State Housing Authority indicated that the map provided on their website should be included in the grant application packet.
The committee recommended approval of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program application with the changes indicated by members and the understanding that there may be additional changes necessary as the document is “scrubbed” further by staff.
Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation authorizing the submission of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant application in the amount of $6,673,560, seconded by Mrs. Russell.
Mr. Ruane explained his understanding that staff will be provided more specific details to re-examine the issues, particularly the administrative budget, since there was an indication that there may be a need for an additional temporary position.
The motion for approval of the committee's recommendation authorizing the submission of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant application in the amount of $6,673,560 was carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes, one (1) abstention (Mrs. Williams), and two (2) absent (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin).
Mrs. Williams explained that her abstention was due to her serving as a Commissioner of the Dover Housing Authority.
Mr. Ruane moved for acceptance of the Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
QUARTERLY REVENUE REPORT
Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, reviewed the Revenue Report as of September 2008.
Responding to Mrs. Russell regarding discussion that occurred during the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting held earlier in the evening concerning the November Health Insurance Premium Refund, Mrs. Mitchell stated that the committee recommended to reserve an amount of approximately $375,000 of City savings realized from the November Health Insurance Moratorium to address potential budget constraints in Fiscal 2009.
In response to Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Mitchell stated that there is an additional carry forward balance in the amount of $3M in the Electric Fund. Details regarding the carry forward balances will be presented to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee during a future meeting.
Mrs. Williams moved for acceptance of the Quarterly Revenue Report as of September 2008, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
SEMI-ANNUAL INSPECTION BY CITY MANAGER - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY
In accordance with Section 46-43 of the City Code, the City Manager, Mr. DePrima, met with Fire Chief Carey to discuss fire company issues. Mr. Leary, as Chairman of the Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee, also participated in the inspection. Mr. DePrima reported that the vehicles appeared to be in their usual good condition. Chief Carey gave an extensive tour of the new Engine #5, which combines the utilities of both a pump truck and a rescue truck. Mr. DePrima stated that a tour of Stations #1 and #2 was also conducted and that both appeared in excellent condition. He stated that most of the information that was provided is published in the Fire Chief’s Monthly Report.
Mr. McGiffin moved for acceptance of the report of the Semi-Annual Robbins Hose Company Inspection, as submitted by the City Manager, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
EVALUATION OF BIDS - BULK REFUSE TRUCK
The Department of Public Services prepared a bid package and solicited bids for the replacement of a bulk refuse truck with loader (Vehicle #446) in the Sanitation fleet. The following vendors submitted bids:
Company Location Model Bid Amount
Delmarva Kenworth* Dover, DE 2009 Kenworth w/Pac Mac Grapple $120,814 ($117,190)*
Elliott Equipment Co. Easton, MD 2009 International w/Peterson Grapple $117,406
Mid-Atlantic Waste Easton, MD 2009 International w/Pac Mac Grapple $121,559
Although after evaluating the bids, staff determined that the low bid (using the local vendor preference of 3%*) was submitted by Delmarva Kenworth, Mr. DePrima stated that staff recommended acceptance of the second low bid received from Elliott Equipment Co. to replace vehicle #446 for the following reasons:
1.Truck Chassis - 90% of our large truck fleet are International trucks. Fleet Maintenance keeps a large stock of International parts. Our fleet mechanics are well trained and experienced in anticipating problems, diagnosing problems, and repair most defects.
2.Body - two of our three existing bulk trucks have Petersen bodies. Lines, hoses, cylinders, and motors are easily accessible. This reduces vehicle down time dramatically.
3.Operation - Our operators state the Petersen body is preferable over other models offered. Comfort, ease of operation, and controlled response to lever commands are the primary reasons.
4.Purchase is over budget, selecting Delmarva Kenworth would increase the funding gap.
Noting that an amount of $116,000 was budgeted for this purchase, staff proposed to use revenue from the sale of assets (old Vehicle #446) to fund the $1,406 overage.
Staff recommended awarding a purchase order to Elliott Equipment Co. in the amount of $117,406.00 for the purchase of a Bulk Refuse Truck with Loader.
Mr. McGiffin moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
EVALUATION OF BIDS - AUTOMATED TRASH TRUCK
The Department of Public Services prepared a bid package and solicited bids to replace one (1) 22 Cubic Yard Automated Side Loading Refuse Truck (Vehicle #455) within the City’s Sanitation fleet.
Noting that an amount of $199,000 was budgeted for this purchase, staff proposed to use revenue from the sale of assets (old Vehicle #455) to fund the $11,978 overage.
Staff recommended awarding a purchase order to Elliott Wilson Trucks in the amount of $210,978 for the purchase of one (1) 22 Cubic Yard Automated Side Loading Refuse Truck with a Peterbilt
Chassis and Heil Body.
Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).
EVALUATION OF BIDS - FY09 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIR PROGRAM - AUTHORIZATION FOR CONTRACTOR CHANGE
Mr. DePrima reminded members that on August 11, 2008, City Council awarded a contract to Pirate Construction, LLC for the Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Program. Approximately $20,000 of work was completed by Pirate Construction, LLC. On Wednesday, October 1, 2008, the Public Services Manager terminated the contract with Pirate Construction due to failure to adhere to directions from City staff, poor workmanship in some locations, and various other reasons.
Mr. DePrima advised members that he has administratively authorized the second low bidder, Bulls Eye Construction, to begin on the remainder of the scope of work for an amount up to $25,000 for Bulls Eye Construction. Staff is seeking authorization to award as much as $40,000 worth of work to Bulls Eye Construction to commit the remaining funds for Project #ST0902.
Staff recommended authorization to expand the administrative authorization granted to Bulls Eye
Construction on the Miscellaneous Concrete Repair Program to allow approximately $40,000 worth of work to be completed under the unit prices bid by Bulls Eye Construction.
Mrs. Williams moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
EVALUATION OF BIDS - CHAPEL TO ESRI CONVERSION CONTRACT
Mr. DePrima, City Manager, advised members that the electric utility is currently using Chapel Mapping Geographic Information System (GIS) software for the system maps. The City has standardized the ESRI GIS program and is currently using this system for all GIS applications. By using two systems, Chapel and ESRI, the utility is required to maintain two (2) databases which require a duplicated effort to manage the mapping systems. Mr. DePrima explained that this contractor would convert the Chapel system into the ESRI system that would result in a comprehensive single mapping system standardized throughout the City.
It was noted that the recommended contractor, Telvent Miner & Miner (TM&M), is the only ESRI partner that is allowed to write software in the ESRI platform, which is a requirement for this conversion. Upon completion, TM&M will provide Dover with a configured Geodatabase built from the Chapel data and usable in the ESRI program. Mr. DePrima advised members that currently, the maintenance for the Chapel Mapping system costs the City approximately $10,000 a year. Once the conversion is complete, the maintenance fee will no longer be required.
Staff recommended authorization to issue sole vendor contract to Telvent Miner & Miner in the amount of $98,119.50 for the Chapel to ESRI Conversion Contract.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGiffin and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (Mr. Leary and Mr. Slavin absent).