PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT
The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee meeting was held on November 28, 2006, at 4:01 p.m. with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Mrs. Russell (arrived at 4:29 p.m.), Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Lewis (departed at 5:59 p.m.), and Mrs. Horsey. Councilman Hogan (arrived at 5:04 p.m. and departed at 5:45 p.m.) and Mr. DePrima were also present.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. McGlumphy moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried.
Presentation - URS Stormwater Report
Mr. Jared Adkins, Stormwater Engineer with the Kent Conservation District, provided an update on the URS Stormwater Report regarding the Puncheon Run Watershed. Mr. Adkins stated that he would present the first half of the study and provide a detailed look at the water flowing into the Puncheon Run and how much water is in the stream at certain points.
Mr. Adkins stated that the Kent Conservation District has information regarding the flooding issues with the Puncheon Run dating back to the 1970's. He noted that most of the properties along the Puncheon Run have property lines that run to the center of the stream. Most residents have an expectation that the flood plain area can be utilized, which causes a conflict when there is a major event, such as a hurricane, which will cause the stream to rise beyond its bank into the flood plain area and into residents backyards.
Mr. Adkins noted that an initial watershed model was built approximately six (6) years ago for the Puncheon Run watershed, from the railroad tracks to Route 8, which indicated under-management of the area downstream and over-management of the area upstream. He stated that numerous developments such as Hidden Creek, Nottingham Meadows, Kesselring, and Eden Hill have agreed to over-manage their stormwater management ponds to help alleviate the downstream flooding. The water flowing upstream will be held back to allow for the initial peak downstream to clear out. Mr. Adkins provided a summary sheet that compared the Puncheon Run water flows between existing conditions vs post-development (over-detention) and a summary sheet that compared water flows between post-development (current detention practices) vs post-development (with over-detention) (Attachment #1).
Mr. Adkins indicated that the State requirement to manage stormwater for Sussex and Kent Counties is 3.5 inches of rain for a two-year storm and 5.3 inches of rain for a ten-year storm. He noted that the developers were asked to over-manage their stormwater management ponds, according to the 100-year storm requirement.
Mr. Akins stated that, in order to try to alleviate the flooding problems, a survey crew would need to take cross sections of the 90 degree bends located in the Puncheon Run, just upriver from the South Governors Avenue bridge, to see how this affects the water flow. He noted that channel straightening may be involved, which would require the approval of all property owners affected, as well as obtaining a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Adkins felt that it would be best to complete the study prior to requesting permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. He indicated that a funding request in the amount of $30,000 - $45,000 will be made to the Clean Water Council to begin the second half of the study, which will consider options for alleviating the flooding issue.
Mr. DePrima stated that he would like to receive the estimated cost of funding so that a share of that cost can be brought before City Council for consideration.
Mr. Robert Sadusky, 88 Lynnhaven Drive, stated that he has lived along the Puncheon Run since 1977 and that the last two (2) rains, which were 1.9 inches and 1.8 inches, caused the stream to raise above its banks and flood his backyard. He noted that normally that much rainfall did not change the water level of the Puncheon Run. Mr. Sadusky felt that an improvement in water flow would be seen if the riprap, located in the center of the stream, and the two 90 degree bends were removed, as well as the debris from the lower part of the Puncheon Run.
Mr. Rex Bell, 72 Lynnhaven Drive, stated that if buying out the properties would take care of the flooding problem, and be the cheapest solution, then maybe it should be considered. He suggested that a call to the local Legislators should be made asking for assistance with the permitting process from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Responding to Mr. Jack Havck, Caldera Properties, Mr. Adkins stated that commercial and industrial areas will be reviewed to see how water runoff can be addressed.
Mr. Ruane stated that he understood that this was a preliminary view of the URS Stormwater Report and suggested that Mr. Adkins present a more refined update, which would include specific recommendations on how to reduce flooding and an update on the required funding needed to complete the second part of the study.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend that Staff be directed to contact DNREC regarding the removal of debris from Puncheon Run downstream from State Street. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Russell and unanimously carried.
Mr. DePrima noted that a subaqueous permit for the removal of the sandbar at the Governors Avenue bridge has been submitted to DNREC.
Presentation - Survey Results - Spring and Summer Performing Arts Presentation
Mr. Zachery Carter, Director of Parks and Recreation, reviewed the Spring and Summer Performing Arts Survey Results. He advised members that for the past four (4) years, the Delaware State News has donated funds to help support the program. Mr. Carter noted that a drop in attendance is expected once an event is moved inside due to inclement weather.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Carter stated that shuttle buses are utilized as an outreach to citizens in residential facilities.
Mr. Ruane suggested that Mr. Carter present Council with an abbreviated version of the Spring and Summer Performing Arts Survey Results presentation.
Survey Results - Softball Leagues
Mr. Carter reviewed the Softball League Survey Results and distributed the final page of the Softball League presentation that indicated constituent responses (Attachment #2). Mr. Carter stated the ballfields currently being utilized are located at Schutte Park, Dover Park, and New Street. There is only one organization that supplies umpires and the league fees help pay for that cost.
Responding to Mrs. Horsey, Ms. Carolyn Courtney, Administrative Assistant with the Parks and Recreation Department, stated the Summer Men’s Softball League fee was $835 and that the Co-Ed League fee was $485.
Mr. Ruane suggested that Mr. Carter present Council with an abbreviated version of the Softball Leagues Survey Results presentation.
Silver Lake Swimming Statistics
Mr. Carter reviewed the Silver Lake Swimming Statistics presentation with members. He noted that out of the sixty-eight (68) days that the Silver Lake Beach was closed, twenty-nine (29) of those days were due to water advisories and thirty-nine (39) days were due to lifeguards not being available. Mr. Carter indicated that one of the goals for the Parks and Recreation Sports Coordinator is to develop a program to train and recruit lifeguards to help address this issue.
Mr. DePrima stated that an outdoor Splash Park, which is included in the Capital Investments Plan, would be a cheaper alternative when compared to the beach at Silver Lake due to less operating costs, liability, and the number of lifeguards that would need to be on duty.
Evaluation of Bids - John W. Pitts Recreation Center
During the meeting of October 10, 2006, Mr. Carter informed members that due, to the receipt of only one (1) bid, in the amount of $2.9 million, the construction of the project was re-bid with a new due date of November 6, 2006.
Six (6) bids were subsequently received for the construction of the John W. Pitts Recreation Center, with the two (2) lowest bids being received from Kent Construction, with a base amount of $2,745,000, and Bob Smith Contracting, with a base amount of $2,749,000. The bid documents required a single general price and four alternatives that would deduct material from the Center, and one alternative that would add a mezzanine. A unit price for concrete was also requested because each manufacturer’s design of the building is slightly different. The precise location of the columns, especially the corner columns, almost always varies among manufacturers. The concrete price helps gauge possible costs of design changes. The project architect has determined that the differences in concrete unit prices will not impact the low bidder status of each option. After analyzing the bids, staff determined that it was not to the City’s advantage to remove the interior or exterior masonry, as suggested in Alternates #1 and #2 of Exhibit A (Attachment #3), or the Kalwal, as suggested in Alternate #3 of Exhibit A, which lets natural light into the gym. It was also decided not to add a mezzanine to save on expenses.
Staff was willing to evaluate dropping the air conditioning for the gym with the idea that it could be added later, perhaps using geothermal cooling, a green technology which may qualify for grant funding. An analysis was done for the gym using scenarios of “with” and “without” air conditioning and the project with air conditioning leaves $61,605 for contingency costs, while the project without air conditioning leaves $100,605 for contingency. Constructing the project without air conditioning will result in the gym not being able to be used on some days. While there has been no analysis, it would be more costly to retrofit the gym, unless a grant or funding for green energy can be found. Operating expenses without air conditioning would be less. Retrofitting with geothermal will have a long term cost savings on related energy costs and show leadership in this area by the City. Staff was comfortable with either alternate and believes a solid discussion of the pros and cons at the Committee level will render the appropriate decision.
Staff noted that fundraising continues and other legislators are expected to contribute Community Transportation Funds. Private sector fundraising will be easier once construction has been approved.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that the offices, multi-purpose room, and classroom will be air conditioned. If air conditioning is not installed in the gym at this time, the immediate cost saved will increase the contingency cost to $100,605.
Mr. Peter Vyverberg, Architect with Becker Morgan Group, Inc., stated that the cost of a geothermal system would be approximately 35-40% (percent) more than a traditional air conditioning system. A geo-technical study will have to be done to test the soil for conductivity in order to even consider a geothermal system.
Mr. Lewis and Mrs. Russell suggested that the low bid, including the cost for air conditioning the gym, be accepted. Mr. McGlumphy stated that he could not make a firm decision due to the uncertainties with a geothermal system. Mrs. Horsey stated that her preference is for a geothermal system; however, the study regarding soil conductivity must be completed first to see if the site can actually support a geothermal system. Mr. Ruane stated that he favored a geothermal system and suggested that members accept the bid without air conditioning to allow time for staff to present a more detailed cost for a geothermal system.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend awarding the bid to the low bidder, Bob Smith Contracting, in the amount of $2,706,000, excluding Alternate #5, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewis and unanimously carried.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend that staff present a report examining the cost differential between a geothermal system and a traditional air-conditioning system, seconded by Mrs. Horsey and unanimously carried.
Proposed Amendment to 2005 Consolidated Plan - CDBG Citizen Participation Plan
Mrs. Tracey Harvey, Director of Community Development, reviewed the proposed amendment to the 2005 Consolidated Plan - CDBG Citizen Participation Plan, that would assign the functions of the Consolidated Plan Advisory Group (CPAG) to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee.
Mrs. Horsey moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the 2005 Consolidated Plan assigning the functions of the CPAG to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Committee, as recommended by staff (Attachment #4). The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried (Mr. Lewis absent).
Proposed Amendment to Plus Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
On February 9, 2004, City Council approved a Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State of Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination and the City of Dover. The PLUS MOU established a coordinated review of certain development activities in order to achieve a more efficient, effective and timely use of resources and consistency and coordination between the various levels of government and other interested parties. Paragraph 4 of Section C of the PLUS agreement acknowledges that “Any project of any size proposed to the east of Delaware Route 1 and north of South Little Creek Road” would be subject to the State PLUS review in recognition of the Garrison Tract MOU, which acknowledges in Section 2 that the City shall “Strongly adhere to existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the remaining areas east of SR1, which support agricultural uses and low-density development.”
A recent application to the City for rezoning of a property east of SR1 provided evidence that Paragraph 4 of Section C of the PLUS MOU should be amended to include such rezoning applications east of SR1 in the PLUS review process, as well as “any project of any size”.
Mr. Ruane reviewed the proposed amendment to the Preliminary Land Use Services (PLUS) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which would make any rezoning proposed to the east of Delaware Route 1 and north of South Little Creek Road subject to State review under Title 29, Chapter 92, Delaware Code.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the PLUS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment #5), as recommended by staff, and that the amendment be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Horsey and unanimously carried (Mr. Lewis absent).
Discussion - Revisions to Animal Control Ordinance
Due to insufficient time, discussion on Revisions to the Animal Control Ordinance was deferred until the next committee meeting.
Update - Planning and Funding for New Library
Due to insufficient time, the update on Planning and Funding for New Library was deferred until the next committee meeting.
Update - CDBG Program
Due to insufficient time, the update on the CDBG Program was deferred until the next committee meeting.
Mr. McGlumphy moved for adjournment, seconded by Mrs. Russell and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:03 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Eugene B. Ruane
Chairman
EBR/jcr
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes200611-28-2006 PR&CE.wpd
Attachments
Attachment #1 - Puncheon Water Flow Comparison Summaries (original and file copy only)
Attachment #2 - Softball League Presentation - Constituent Response (original and file copy only)
Attachment #3 - Evaluation of Bids - John W. Pitts Recreation Center
Attachment #4 - Proposed Amendment to 2005 Consolidated Plan - CDBG Citizen Participation Plan
Attachment #5 - Proposed Amendment to PLUS Memorandum of Understanding