SPECIAL
PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT
A Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Meeting was held on October 15, 2008, at 12:10 p.m. with Chairwoman Russell presiding. Members present were Mr. Ruane, Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Horsey, and Mr. Lewis.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Ruane and unanimously carried.
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.
Mr. Ruane moved to lift the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
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.
Mr. Ruane moved to recommend 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Mr. Ruane requested that staff provide specific examples of the results of the proposed ordinance for various projects.
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 has been received and provided members with the following: 1) a City of Dover Cluster of Foreclosure Listing (Attachment #1); and 2) a list of Potential Partners for the Neighborhood Stabilization Programs (Attachment #2).
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 (see Attachment #2). 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 (Attachment #3). 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 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.
Mr. Ruane moved to recommend 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
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.
Mr. Ruane moved to recommend 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
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.
Mr. Ruane moved to recommend 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
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.
Mr. Ruane moved to recommend that the City issue a press release announcing the City’s request for applicants for the Youth Council, seconded by Mrs. Horsey and unanimously carried.
Mr. McGlumphy moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 1:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sophia R. Russell
Chairwoman
SR/rr/tm/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes200810-15-2008 Special PR&CE.wpd
Attachments (to Original Minutes and File Copy)
Attachment #1 - City of Dover Cluster of Foreclosure Listing
Attachment #2 - List of Potential Partners for the Neighborhood Stabilization Programs
Attachment #3 - Map Depicting the Areas with the Highest Rate of Foreclosures