REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on April 9, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mrs. Russell, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Police Chief Horvath, Mr. Capuano, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Townshend, Deputy Fire Chief Carey, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, and Mrs. McDowell.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Williams declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Council President Williams requested that item #5A - Public Hearing/Final Reading for the Rezoning of 747 North DuPont Highway be considered prior to #4A - Public Hearing/Final Reading of Proposed Amendments to Comprehensive Plan Update 2003 (Blue Hen Corporate Center). She also requested the addition of item #15 - Final Reading, Revised Budget Ordinance.
Mr. Slavin moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Mr. Ruane requested that items #7A - Discussion, Options to Address Regulation 1146 Emission Control Requirements at McKee Run 3 Electric Generation Station, #7C - Proposed Energy Conservation Plan for Dover, and #7D - Franchise Agreement Comprehensive Strategy, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Hogan requested that item #8G - FY07 CDBG Grant Applications, Review, and Recommendations, be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL RETREAT OF MARCH 15, 2007
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for adoption of the Council Retreat Minutes of March 15, 2007, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2007
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 26, 2007 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Speed.
RESOLUTION - SPRING CLEAN UP WEEK
The City Clerk read a proposed Resolution for Spring Clean Up Week.
By motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. Hogan, Council unanimously adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, we are fortunate to live in a City so abundantly blessed with natural assets and we have a continuing responsibility for preserving our environment by keeping it clean, healthy, and beautiful; and
WHEREAS, the Annual Old Dover Days celebration, a period set aside to honor the heritage of the City, will be celebrated May 4 - 6, 2007; and
WHEREAS, during this celebration we have the opportunity to demonstrate to ourselves, our neighbors, and our visitors, our commitment to a clean and beautiful city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That the week of April 23 - 27, 2007 is designated as SPRING CLEANUP WEEK in the City of Dover.
2. That all organized and individual segments of our population participate in this noble effort by developing and carrying out imaginative clean-up, paint-up, and fix-up projects which will serve to enhance, restore, or maintain the beauty of all properties in our community.
3. All Spring Cleanup debris should be placed for pickup along with regular household garbage during the week of April 23 - 27, 2007 so that our City will exemplify cleanliness and beauty during the Old Dover Days celebration.
ADOPTED: APRIL 9, 2007
PRESENTATION - GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER’S ASSOCIATION (GFOA) DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD
The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year beginning July 2006, from Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), was awarded to the City of Dover. This award signifies the excellent manner in which the City prepares and presents its budget. On behalf of the Mayor and City Council, Mr. Salters, Chairman of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee, presented the award to Mrs. Tieman, Director of Administrative Services.
Mrs. Tieman noted that this is the 18th time the City has received this award (16th consecutive).
PRESENTATION - MIRROR LAKE FOUNTAIN
Mr. Gardner, Line Crew Superintendent, presented a Power Point Presentation of the City of Dover Mirror Lake Fountain (As on File in the Office of the City Clerk). He stated that one of his goals for this year was to select an area in Dover to enhance its beauty and establish water quality control.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Gardner explained that the fountain requires 28 amps, which could not be accomplished using solar energy and that a windmill would be very costly. He stated that the daily electric use for the fountain is $8.89. As will be considered later in this meeting, Mr. Ruane stated that the Council will be pledging to make more use of energy conservation measures and would appreciate staff reaffirming their contribution. He requested that in the future, staff incorporate energy conservation measures when considering such facilities.
Mr. DePrima thanked Mr. Gardner and the line crew for their efforts. Concurring with Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that all departments will have goals and the challenge to develop ways of implementing and using energy efficiency, green power, etc. With regards to the Mirror Lake Fountain, he stated that there is an environmental aspect to the project since it will serve to improve water quality. Mr. DePrima stated that staff will be reviewing this project to determine how it affects some of the algae blooms in the lake and it is hoped that it will have a positive affect.
PRESENTATION - POLICE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT
The Police Department submitted their Annual Report to City Council during their Regular Meeting of February 26, 2007. Chief Horvath provided a Power Point Presentation (As on file in the Office of the City Clerk), depicting highlights of the report.
PRESENTATION - PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT
The Planning and Inspections Department submitted their Annual Report to City Council during their Regular Meeting of March 26, 2007. Mrs. Townshend provided a Power Point Presentation (As on file in the Office of the City Clerk), depicting highlights of the report.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 747 NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY, OWNED BY 747 ASSOCIATES, LLC
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 747 North DuPont Highway, owned by 747 Associates, LLC. The property is currently zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial) and the proposed zoning is SC-2 (Community Shopping Center).
Mr. Salters moved that the final reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance amendment 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 February 26, 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 #1).
Public Hearing
Council President Williams declared the hearing open.
Ms. Amanda Jones, Morris & Ritchie Associates, relayed support for the project and explained that the rezoning would allow for a greater variety of uses within a commercial zone. She noted that the property is completely surrounded by commercial uses and that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rudolph Ruffin, 705 N. DuPont Highway - property owner of Arby’s Restaurant, stated his support for the requested rezoning, with a stipulation. He stated that the restaurant is the only business on Route 13 that has a pumping station. If any development is made on the Berry Van Lines property, he requested that arrangements be made for the tie in of their sewer line in order to eliminate the pumping station. He has been advised that once the Berry Van Lines property is developed, there is no other means to correct this situation.
Mr. John Paradee, Attorney with Pricket, Jones, and Snyder of 11 N. State Street, relayed his support for the rezoning for the reasons stated by the City Planner and that of the Planning Commission. He stated that the project is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the character of the neighborhood in the area. Mr. Paradee indicated assurance that the property owners would be willing to consider the issue previously mentioned by Mr. Ruffin regarding the sewer connection. He stated that this would be an issue to consider during the site plan process. Although the plans for the sewer lines from the City have not been obtained, he stated that as a matter of public record, they would be willing to look into and hopefully address this issue.
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 unanimous roll call vote, 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 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 747 NORTH DUPONT HIGHWAY.
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 C-4 (Highway Commercial) 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 C-4 (Highway Commercial) to SC-2 (Community Shopping Center) on that property located at 747 North DuPont Highway, consisting of three (3) parcels containing 25.058 +/- acres, owned by 747 Associates, LLC.
ADOPTED: APRIL 9, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2003, AS AMENDED IN MAY 2005 AND SEPTEMBER 2006, BY AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT MAP 11-1 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE TYPE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ON THAT PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF SOUTH BAY ROAD AND EAST OF THE BLUE HEN CORPORATE CENTER, OWNED BY BLUE HEN CC, LLC
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of a proposed zoning text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Update 2003, as amended in May 2005 and September 2006, which would amend Land Development Map 11-1 by changing the land use type from Commercial to Residential Medium Density on that property located east of South Bay Road and east of the Blue Hen Corporate Center, owned by Blue Hen CC, LLC. Council President Williams reminded members that this matter was postponed during the Regular Council Meeting of March 12, 2007. (City Clerk’s Note: See Agenda Item #5B, Rezoning Request from SC-3 to RM-2).
Mr. Slavin moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinance amendment 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 January 22, 2007)
Planner's Review
Mrs. Townshend, City Planner, reviewed the petition to amend the Land Development Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan and the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission. She advised members that the property consists of 23.35+/- acres located east of South Bay Road and east of the Blue Hen Corporate Center. The amendment is being requested by DE Exchange, LLC and Blue Hen CC, LLC. The subject parcels are currently zoned SC-3 (Shopping Center Development) and are depicted on the Land Development Plan map as Commercial. The applicants are requesting a change in the land use designation from Commercial to Residential Medium Density and have submitted an application to rezone the property to RM-2 (Medium Density Residence Zone), which will be considered later in the meeting (Item #5B). Mrs. Townshend noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of amending the Land Development Plan Map designation from Commercial to Residential Medium Density (and amending the zoning classification from SC-3 to RM-2).
Responding to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Townshend indicated that the current zoning classification, SC-3, would allow all retail, office, personal service, recreational, and institutional facilities, which can be shown by market analysis to be needed and which will have no adverse effect on adjacent land uses. The classification is pretty broad in allowing most any retail establishment. In regards to there being no frontage on a public street, Mrs. Townshend stated that it would be necessary to have street right-of-way dedicated to the City as part of this project. It has been determined that the City would require two (2) roadway accesses to the property when this property is developed. She also explained that the property is located almost entirely in the Airport Environs Overlay Zone under Noise Zone A which does permit residential uses. It will be subject to the requirements of the AEOZ regardless of the zoning classification.
Mr. Ruane noted that included in the packet (and made a part of the record) are: 1) April 3, 2007 Memo from Ann Marie Townshend; 2) Letter from Mr. Gregg Moore, Principal of Becker Morgan Group, dated March 19, 2007; and 3) April 4, 2007 Memo from Sharon Duca, Assistant City Engineer, regarding the Preliminary Assessment of Pump Station #6 (Schoolview).
At the request of Mr. Ruane, and there being no objections, Mrs. Duca, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the Preliminary Assessment of Pump Station #6 (Schoolview). She stated that one of the main requirements for any developer, when they connect to the City’s water or sewer system, is that they are required to make any capacity adjustments or any other required improvements to the system at their expense. With regards to Pump Station #6, she stated that there are two (2) limiting factors that would require additional system upgrades, as follows: 1) sanitary sewer entering Pump Station #6; and 2) sanitary sewer in which Pump Station #6 discharges. The sewer entering the pump station has a limit of 68 EDUs that would give it a full flow capacity which in and of itself is not recommended (City desires 3/4 full). The pump which it discharges into is limited to approximately 118 EDUs, that would have similar stipulations as the incoming pipe. Mrs. Duca stated that various upgrades were not investigated that would be required at the pump station because there are various combinations that can be accomplished in relation to the size of pipe that is exiting, changes to the wet well, changes to the pump itself, etc., which is outside the scope of the what city staff does since this falls on the developer to propose potential improvements for city staff to review. In order for additional units to enter this station, there would need to be some significant upgrades to the sewer lines and the pump station involved. She also noted that there are sewer facilities available to the west of the site and to the north and that the developer could add a private pump station. The City would not object to either of these alternatives.
Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mrs. Townshend explained that in 2005, when the City was considering amending the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update and the Comprehensive Rezoning, staff initially proposed changing the land use designation to what is currently being requested, as well as a zoning classification of RM-2. She stated that it was felt that this property would be an appropriate area of the City for a medium density residential zone, since it would provide a transition from the more intense shopping center use to the residential use to the rear of the property, near the Schoolview property. From a planning perspective, Mrs. Townshend stated that such a change in the use would provide for in-fill development, also the opportunity for residential uses in an area where the City is looking for economic development to occur, and provide for the “live where you work” scenario, which provides positive aspects to air quality, community, etc.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Townshend stated that the City received a petition from the residents of Schoolview in opposition to the proposed rezoning. During staff’s initial analysis of the petition, it was determined that the signatures comprised 25.79% of the land area adjacent to the subject parcel. In accordance with Title 22, Chapter 3, of the Delaware Code, since this exceeds 20% of the property owners within 100 feet of the subject parcel, an affirmative vote of 3/4 of City Council would be required to approve the rezoning. However, she explained that after discussions with the City Solicitor, it was determined that the actual qualified signatures comprised 14.46% of the land area adjacent to the subject parcel, which would require a simple majority vote of Council rather than a 3/4 vote. Mrs. Townshend indicated that this vote is relative to the rezoning request and not for the Plan Amendment. Mr. Ruane suggested that future notices sent to adjacent property owners include petition requirements.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy regarding valid signatures, City Solicitor Rodriguez stated that a property that is owned by a husband and wife would require both signatures. A signature that is written as “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe” does not qualify as a signature of either owner. He explained that the actual property owners, as listed on the deed, would be required to sign the petition in order to qualify. The signature requirement is State law and also interpretation by the courts in the State of Delaware. City Solicitor Rodriguez did not feel that it would be incumbent upon the City to notify the residents that the petition does not qualify for the 3/4 vote requirement due to unacceptable signatures. He further stressed his opinion that the City should not get into the position of advising the public of the law, explaining that it could cause legal issues. He suggested that residents obtain the advice of outside counsel.
Mr. McGlumphy advised members that he has been working with the residents of Schoolview since last April and that he is aware that there was a previous petition that was signed by approximately 90 individuals that were opposed to the proposed hotel. He relayed disappointment in receiving notification of the petition’s invalidation just prior to the meeting. It was his feeling that the City should have given the residents notification regarding their petition.
Concurring with City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mr. McGiffin felt that it should not be the City’s responsibility to interpret the law for residents. He advised members that ignorance of the law is not a defense to any action and that it is incumbent upon the residents to determine how to handle matters.
In response to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Townshend confirmed that the Day Care Center, located on the northern end of the proposed site, is not included in the amendment, as is indicated on the map.
Mr. Ruane stated that he would not suggest that the City should interpret the law for residents; however, he suggested that a copy of the existing statute could be provided by the City as a courtesy to the public and to avoid situations such as the one before them.
Responding, Mrs. Townshend advised members that it is not the law in Delaware Code that is the issue. Delaware Code addresses the voting requirements when a petition is received from property owners within 100 feet. It is case law in the State of Delaware that determines what constitutes a valid signature.
It was City Solicitor Rodriguez’ feeling that the residents, as well as staff, were aware of the Delaware Law requiring signatures of 20% of the property owners within 100 feet of the site; however, it is the interpretation of actual cases that is the issue. If the City were to begin publishing the case laws and interpreting what the case law is, the City will be getting themselves into trouble.
Responding to Mr. Carey, City Solicitor Rodriguez noted that the public hearing scheduled for this time and place has not yet been held. It was his opinion that if the matter was tabled and the public hearing rescheduled, a new petition could be filed. He further explained that the public hearing would need to be closed tonight if it were opened tonight and then no further information could be received from the public once the public hearing is closed.
Mr. Carey moved to table the matter until the next meeting scheduled for April 23, 2007, seconded by Mrs. Russell.
Mr. Slavin stated his feeling that a lesson has been learned, explaining that he was not aware of the case law. In response to a previous statement made by a fellow member regarding the City’s responsibility to educate residents, he noted that all members of Council were provided the information and some members have been meeting with the residents. It was his opinion that those members of Council had the responsibility to learn and know what constitutes a valid petition as well. However, he wanted those signers of the petition to realize that members of Council are not just ignoring their position. Although the petition may not qualify to require a 3/4 vote of Council, Mr. Slavin indicated that Council takes into consideration the intent of the signers whenever a petition is received.
Mr. Slavin encouraged members to move forward with the public hearing, noting that some points have already been resolved, such as the sewer issue, and that there has been a substantial amount of information provided for the public record.
At the request for clarification by Mr. Salters, City Solicitor Rodriguez confirmed that if there are four (4) people listed on the deed for one (1) property, for a signature to be valid on a petition of this nature, all four (4) signatures would be required.
On a call for the question, the motion to table the consideration of a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Update 2003, as amended in May 2005 and September 2006, which would amend Land Development Map 11-1 by changing the land use type from Commercial to Residential Medium Density on that property located east of South Bay Road and east of the Blue Hen Corporate Center, owned by Blue Hen CC, LLC until the next Regular Council Meeting of April 23, 2007 was carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes, and three (3) no (Mr. Slavin, Mr. McGiffin, and Mr. Salters).
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF SOUTH BAY ROAD AND EAST OF THE BLUE HEN CORPORATE CENTER, OWNED BY BLUE HEN CC, LLC
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located east of South Bay Road and east of the Blue Hen Corporate Center, owned by Blue Hen CC, LLC. The property is currently zoned SC-3 (Regional Shopping Center Development) and the proposed zoning is RM-2 (Medium Density Residence). This matter was postponed during the Regular Council Meeting of March 12, 2007.
Due to the tabling of the previous item, Council President Williams noted that no further action can be taken regarding the rezoning application.
Mr. McGiffin moved to table the rezoning request of property located east of South Bay Road and east of the Blue Hen Corporate Center, owned by Blue Hen CC, LLC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
SPECIAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - MARCH 19, 2007
A Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting was held on March 19, 2007 with Chairman Ruane presiding.
FY07 Grant Application Presentation, Review, and Recommendations
It was noted that the committee will serve as the FY07 Grant Application Review Panel for the Community Development Block Grant Applications for Fiscal Year 2007. As such, members were provided application details, staff reports summarizing each application, a CDBG Review Panel Scoring Sheet, and a worksheet for summarizing individual evaluations of each application. Mrs. Harvey, Community Development Coordinator, requested that each member summarize their evaluation of each application on the CDBG Review Panel Worksheet based on needs determined from the site visit, oral presentations from each applicant, and individual scoring of each applicant. She explained that the number in the parenthesis for each measure to be scored is the maximum score for a given category. The maximum total points is 100. Mrs. Harvey advised members that the total grant available for activities is $238,660 and explained the allocation requirements of the grant, as follows:
CDBG Funds allocation $278,978
Anticipated Program Income $ 19,346
$298,324
20% of the Grant must be allocated $298,324
for Program Administration x .20
$ 59,664
Public Service Activities cannot $298,324
exceed 15% of the Grant x .15
$ 44,748
Total Grant Available for Activities $238,660
ORAL PRESENTATIONS
Each applicant was provided an opportunity to make oral presentations before the committee, as follows:
First State; Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D) - $25,000
Ms. Christne L. Stillson, Director of Emergency Home Repair Project for the First State Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D), explained that the grant application, in the amount of $25,000, is to support the activities of the Emergency Home Repair Project for repairing an estimated eight (8) to ten (10) homes in the City of Dover during the 2007/2008 fiscal year. She advised members that these funds will assist very low income homeowners in the elimination of severe housing conditions that constitute immediate health or safety hazards to the residents of the home, such as heating systems, roof replacements, hazardous electrical systems, and wheel chair ramps.
Having received CDBG Grant money in previous years, Ms. Stillson stated that there have been a total of 14 sites receiving repairs in the City limits. Members were provided details regarding the site locations and the repairs received from July 2005 to date.
Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. - $25,000
Ms. Kirsten Olson, Director of Development and Housing for the Connections Community Support Programs, Inc., advised members that the organization serves individuals that have been chronically homeless for one (1) year or more and have extremely low income. The grant application, in the amount of $25,000, is to support their new Easy Access 2 Permanent Housing Program, which is the first permanent supportive housing program for the chronically homeless to be sited in the City of Dover.
Ms. Olson explained that Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. provides a comprehensive array of community-based treatment, support, housing, and rehabilitation services for people recovering from and living with mental health and substance use conditions, homelessness, and HIV/AIDS.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Olson indicated that she has had discussions with the City Planner and has obtained an attorney to determine if there is a zoning issue with the current activities of the Connections facility.
House of Pride - $33,050
Mr. Mondoe Davis, Operations Manager for the House of Pride, as well as Planning Coordinators, Ms. Lisa Davis and Mr. Gary Kennedy, addressed members regarding the House of Pride CDBG application in the amount of $33,050. The request is to provide extermination services for wood destroying insects, rodents, and cockroaches, and heat installation. Mr. Davis stated that the organization provides transitional housing for substance abuse and drug addicted individuals. It was noted that the House of Pride received a CDBG grant in 2003 for $25,000, which was returned to the City for failure to comply with program guidelines and to expend the funds in a 24 month period.
Tolano and Cathy Anderson - $57,000
Mr. Tolano Anderson, Owner/Manager, and Mrs. Cathy Anderson, Co-Owner/Assistant Manager, advised members that their goal is to provide residential housing for low to moderate income and handicapped persons and assists in the revitalization efforts in the downtown target area. The properties to be rehabilitated are located at 301B, 303A, 303B, and 305A W. Loockerman Street. Mr. Anderson explained that the funds would be used for structural framing, roof and ceiling work, plumbing, electrical, and HVAC, walls, sub-floors, windows and fixture installation, trim work, floor covering, and appliances, as well as landscaping, parking, security, and lighting. He noted that the commercial storefront located at 301 W. Loockerman Street will be developed exclusively at the owner’s expense.
Delaware Valley Development Company - $150,000
Mr. Glenn Worgan, Vice President of the Delaware Valley Development Company, explained that the grant application, in the amount of $150,000, is to assist with the revitalization of the Walker Woods rental community. He advised members that the Delaware Valley Development Company is a full service real estate development, building, and investment company specializing in affordable housing. He noted that the total development cost is approximately $8,000,000.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Worgan indicated that a letter of support from the City of Dover would improve the chances of obtaining grant monies from the State of Delaware.
City of Dover Community Development Projects: Program Administration - $59,635; Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Program - $50,000; Homeownership Assistance Program - $40,000; and City Facilities ADA Improvements - $26,800
Mrs. Tracy Harvey, Community Development Director, advised members that the Program Administration funds, in the amount of $59,635, will be used to oversee management, monitoring, and coordination of the CDBG program in the City of Dover. She stated that the Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Program funds, in the amount of $50,000, will be used to rehabilitate qualified owner occupied homes found in violation of the City’s Housing Code. She indicated that the Homeownership Assistance Program funds, in the amount of $40,000, will be used to provide downpayment or settlement assistance to first time homebuyers who purchase property in the City of Dover.
Mr. Scott Koenig, Public Utilities Director, advised members that the City Facilities ADA Improvement funds, in the amount of $26,800, will be used to replace the water coolers in Weyandt Hall so that they are handicapped accessible; a no slip tread will be added to the stairway in Weyandt Hall; the men’s bathroom in City Hall will be converted to a handicapped accessible bathroom that will be a family bathroom; and no slip treads and an additional a handrail will be installed on the steps to the Mayors Office.
Whatcoat Social Service Agency - $15,000
No one was present to speak on behalf of Whatcoat Social Service Agency.
Noting that each of the applicants, with the exception of the City of Dover, had completed a Sub-Recipient Application Form, including additional required information, Mrs. Russell felt that City staff should be required to submit the same material as required of all other applicants.
Mr. McGlumphy also relayed concern that all applicants are not aware of the deliberations of the committee and that they should be given the same opportunity as City staff to attend these deliberations.
The committee directed staff to provide additional details regarding the City’s Community Development Projects (Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Program, Homeownership Assistance Program, and City Facilities ADA Improvements), similar to the required paperwork received from all other applicants.
The committee directed that the committee be provided details regarding any carryover amounts from the FY06 CDBG Funds.
The committee directed that staff be directed to contact Whatcoat Social Service Agency to determine why they did not attend today’s meeting and give them the opportunity to provide an explanation.
The committee directed staff to provide a “clean hands” report regarding any outstanding City issues involving any of the applicants.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Special Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - MARCH 26, 2007
The Utility Committee met on March 26, 2007 with Chairman Carey presiding.
Discussion - Options to Address Regulation 1146 Emission Control Requirements at McKee Run 3 Electric Generation Stations
During their meeting of January 22, 2007, Mr. DePrima, City Manager, reviewed the requirements of Regulation 1146, Emissions Control Requirements. Having several concerns, members authorized the City Manager to instruct staff to have before this committee within one (1) month, the refining of the costs, results of the scenarios, and additional information on other options that were discussed by members. During their meeting of February 26, 2007, members were advised that a few weeks ago, staff met with representatives from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to further discuss and understand some of the requirements of Regulation 1146, and how the City may proceed to meet these requirements. In the meeting, one (1) of the options discussed was fuel switching and use of different types of fuel. Another option suggested was the low Nox burners, which is refitting our plant with burners that have low Nox emissions. Because of this suggestion, along with the requests of members, Mr. DePrima stated that staff would be making a presentation to members during their second meeting in March, which will include alternatives to comply with Regulation 1146.
Mr. Carey noted that there was an executive session held immediately preceding this meeting to discuss strategy options and questioned whether there was a need for further discussion at this time.
Mr. Ruane felt that the motion was inappropriate, explaining that such a generalized motion is not in order. More importantly, he suggested that staff provide a summary of the executive session since, in his opinion, the options discussed are not restricted to any executive privilege.
Mr. Primos, City Solicitor’s Office, presented a summary of the purpose of the appeal, explaining that although the appeal has been filed by the City, it is hoped that a resolution could be reached that would be satisfactory to both the City and DNREC. It is the City Solicitor’s opinion that it is important to preserve and continue with the appeal in order for the City to have the ability to reach an agreement with DNREC. It was his belief that the initial concern with the Regulation was that it could mean significant increases in both operating and capital costs (City’s resources and funds), which was previously explained to members.
Mr. Ruane reminded members that the committee had previously authorized the City Manager to instruct staff to have before this committee the refining of the costs, results of the scenarios, and additional information on other options that were discussed by members (during their meeting of January 22, 2007), one of which was the request to find an alternative power source. He felt that the information requested by members was separate and apart from or in addition to the on-going negotiations with DNREC.
Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that there is no added information regarding other options, which he felt had been provided, and that this matter was extended to this meeting for the purpose of having the executive session and providing the results. He explained that there is no new information other than what was presented to members during their meeting of February 26, 2007. As was explained at that time, Mr. DePrima reminded members that building new generation is not an option for meeting Regulation 1146 simply because of the time that it would take to permit and build such generation.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that new generation is absolutely a matter that will continue to be reviewed by staff, reminding members that a new committee (2030 Committee) has been formed to study new generation. However, he reiterated that new generation is not an option for meeting Regulation 1146.
Disagreeing, Mr. Ruane suggested that the committee reiterate its interest in and need for the requested reports, including the action that has been taken by the new 2030 Committee. He explained his concern is with the sense of secrecy regarding the ideas that are germane and in the public record. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the options have been discussed in open session and made a part of the public record, explaining that there are no new options to present at this time.
Responding to Mr. Snaman, Mr. Primos stated that many of the legal issues that all three (3) appellants are concerned with are the same. The most significant aspect is that the Environmental Appeals Board itself desires that the appeals be consolidated, explaining that this is a public Board that consists of public members who have limited time to devote to an appeal; therefore, they prefer that the matters be consolidated to save time and resources that would otherwise have to be devoted to consider the appeals separately.
The committee recommended that Council proceed with the actions noted in the executive session pertaining to the City’s appeal of Regulation 1146.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, City Solicitor Rodriguez confirmed that the City has filed a motion in Superior Court. Mr. Ruane questioned if the schedule for pursuing the appeal or the Superior Court case has been established. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that there are some tentative dates being discussed for the appeals to the Environmental Control Board and that the court was not going to schedule any dates until after the outcome of the Environmental Control Board is known.
As the maker of the motion during the committee meeting, Mr. Slavin explained that the motion supports the legal strategies that were discussed in executive session and that is as far as he will discuss the issue on the public floor.
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation that Council proceed with the actions noted in the executive session of March 26, 2007 pertaining to the City's appeal of Regulation 1146, seconded by Mr. Carey.
Mr. Ruane felt that the motion represents a disingenuousness of the City and that the City has the responsibility to its citizens to prove it is environmentally responsible and that by filing any legal case, the City is doing just the opposite. It was his feeling that there are methods available other than an adversarial manner in a court of law. In addition, he stated that members of Council are not aware of the cost expenditure to date and expected costs. Therefore, he stated that he could not vote in favor of the motion without expense information.
Mr. McGiffin relayed his opinion that members of Council can be completely environmentally appropriate and committed to doing the right thing in terms of the environment and still maintain our options in this particular, very discreet, legal matter.
On a call for the question by Mr. Hogan, the motion to approve the committee’s recommendation that Council proceed with the actions noted in the executive session held on March 26, 2007 pertaining to the City’s appeal of Regulation 1146 was carried with Mr. McGlumphy and Mr. Ruane voting no.
Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Public Infrastructure - Fox Hall West Phases II and III
The developer of the Fox Hall West Addition Subdivision (Phases II and III), Tony Ashburn, Inc., has requested that all rights-of-way, public open space, and public infrastructure improvements related to this subdivision be dedicated to the City of Dover for permanent ownership and maintenance. Tony Ashburn, Inc. has constructed all of the improvements in accordance with City standards and specifications. After construction was completed, City staff inspected the public improvements and provided the developer with a list of repairs to be made to meet the City of Dover Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction. As of this date, all work has been completed by the developer. A one (1) year Maintenance Agreement, Maintenance Bond, and a Release of Liabilities have been submitted by the developer. In addition, as-built drawings have been submitted to the Department of Public Works for their permanent records.
Staff recommended acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way and public infrastructure in Phases II and III of the Fox Hall West Addition Subdi