REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on September 13, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Williams presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Captain Taraila, Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Mitchell, Mr. Galvin, Fire Chief Bashista, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. Green, and Mayor Speed.
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
Referring to item #7 - Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance Amendments, Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VIII - Committees, Mr. Ruane moved to allow for public testimony, seconded by Mr. Ritter. Responding to Mr. Slavin, City Solicitor Rodriguez confirmed that the motion would be waiving the rules.
The motion to allow for public testimony for item #7 - Final Reading of Proposed Ordinance Amendments, Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VIII - Committees, failed by a roll call vote of seven (7) no, two (2) yes (Mr. Ritter and Mr. Ruane).
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2004
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 23, 2004 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and bore the written approval of Mayor Speed.
PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - CORNELIUS “NEIL” HARMON Mayor Speed, along with Third District Council Members Slavin and Ritter and At-Large Councilman Carey, presented Mr. Cornelius “Neil” Harmon a Certificate of Recognition, read by the Mayor, as follows:
WHEREAS, Cornelius Harmon served as the president of the White Oak Towne Point Civic Association for the past eight years; and
WHEREAS, Cornelius Harmon has led the Association’s membership in their efforts to improve their communities, increase public safety, and contribute to the betterment of our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, Cornelius Harmon has served as a role model in the community, through his civic leadership and tireless energy for his neighbors; and
WHEREAS, Cornelius Harmon has dedicated his life to this community, and has demonstrated in many practical ways his deep and genuine love for this city and the surrounding area;
NOW THEREFORE I, STEPHEN R. SPEED, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER DELAWARE, do hereby award this Certificate of Recognition to
CORNELIUS “NEIL” HARMON
on this 13th day of September 2004, and commend him for being one of our outstanding citizens and thank him for his efforts to better the quality of life in our city.
In addition, Representative Bruce Ennis read and presented a House of Representative Commendation to Mr. Harmon.
Mr. Harmon thanked members of City Council and the State of Delaware for the recognition.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 605 S. STATE STREET, OWNED BY JOSEPH AND REBECCA GATES
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the rezoning of property located at 605 S. State Street, owned by Joseph and Rebecca Gates. The property is currently zoned R-10 (One Family Residence) and the proposed zoning is I-O (Institutional and Office).
Planner's Review
Mr. Galvin, City Planner, reviewed the petition to amend the zoning district and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit 1). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Mr. Galvin noted that in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Land Development Plan recommends residential use for this property; however, the conflict with the Comprehensive Plan has been addressed by the Office of State Planning Coordination by the issuance of a waiver from further State review of the proposal, stipulating that the rezoning is in the interest of the community. A letter from the Office of State Planning Coordination was provided (included in Exhibit 1).
Mr. Galvin also noted receipt of a memorandum from Councilman Ruane outlining concerns of the Institutional Master Plan Review Process (included in Exhibit 1) and his response to the memo (Exhibit 2).
Mr. Ruane explained his concerns with the Council not having to amend its Comprehensive Plan because of a waiver (letter) from the State. It was his understanding that the purpose of the letter was to waive a preliminary land use service review only and does not in anyway take from the authority of Council to either comply with or amend the Comprehensive Plan and requested clarification of this matter. Since the request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Ruane felt that it would be Council’s responsibility to amend the Plan.
Responding, Mr. Galvin felt that the letter from the Office of State Planning Coordination indicates that it would not be necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan because there was a waiver issued by the Director of the State Planning Office. The waiver eliminates the need for any further action, with the exception of action on the rezoning application.
Mr. Ruane noted that the Comprehensive Plan depicts a zoning classification of R-10 for the property and that a request has been received to change the zoning. It was his understanding that similar rezoning requests have been presented before the PLUS (Preliminary Land Use Service) Review with the understanding that the City would be amending the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Galvin explained that other zoning applications have been presented to the PLUS Review; however, because of the nature of this particular project, the Director of the Office of State Planning Coordination has waived the PLUS Review. It was his opinion that the waiver is similar to the deminimus (or minor variation) finding, which he reminded members was included in the Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of State Planning Coordination, explaining that there are some instances that it does not make sense to go through the process of amending the Plan or holding up a project because of a small variation to the land development plan.
Mr. Ruane relayed concern with the presentation of the Institutional Master Plan for Bayhealth and the lack of review by the public, Planning Commission, and City Council and the lack of its use for planning purposes. In addition, he stated that neighbors in the area have relayed environmental concerns. Responding, Mr. Galvin stated that the applicants had provided information regarding the site and were available to respond to any questions on this matter.
Mr. Salters reminded members that by providing a waiver, the State Office of Planning Coordination has not mandated the City to approve the rezoning, but rather has given the City the authority to approve it if deemed appropriate. It was his opinion that neighboring properties should be aware that the hospital is only going to continue to grow.
Referring to the map provided, Mr. Hogan noted that a majority of property being presented for rezoning is surrounded by IO (Institutional and Office) and RG-O (General Residence and Office) properties.
Public Hearing
Council President Williams declared the hearing open.
Mr. Joseph Gates, 605 S. State Street, explained that due to his wife’s medical condition, he is no longer able to tend to the property; therefore, it is necessary for him to sell the property. Although the hospital did not have an immediate need for the property, since it is necessary to sell, as adjacent property owners, the hospital is very much interested for future needs.
Mr. Tom Burns, representing Bayhealth as Chairman of the Board - 640 S. State Street, provided a history of Kent General Hospital (now known as Bayhealth) and future plans. In the 1970's, a decision was made that Kent General Hospital would remain in the downtown Dover area. He assured members that the hospital has planned carefully and diligently with the City and, over the years, has met with Planning Directors to discuss the growth and growth patterns that the hospital would be experiencing. Mr. Burns stated that the hospital is expanding by building upon their current facility. In the long-term, as the hospital continues to grow to meet the population and changing needs of the medical community, they have begun to embark on new ventures. One of the benefits of acquiring the property at 605 S. State Street will be the ability to provide short-term, “over flow” office space for use during the many renovations that are occurring on the hospital’s main campus.
Mr. Burns advised members that the hospital will maintain the current facade of the property and will attempt to blend the building and landscaping with the neighbors and the residential character of the area. He assured members that the hospital is sensitive to the close proximity of this property to the Historic District for Dover. When discussion first began with the owners of the property, the hospital met with the City Planning Department and then a meeting was held with the City and State Planning staff to review the long-term plan for Bayhealth, including the property located at 605 S. State Street. He noted that the plan was specifically based on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Burns explained that the acquisition of the property located at 605 S. State Street was not planned and, therefore, not included in the hospital’s Master Plan. He stated that although the hospital has long-term visions, it is impossible to plan for something that you do not own. After being advised of the Gates’ desire to sell the property, Mr. Burns stated that it was included in the Master Plan. In closing, he reminded members that the City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that all property directly associated with the hospital be zoned IO, which is consistent with the future and intended uses for this property.
Mr. Ruane clarified that his concerns were with regards to the process and that he had no opposition with the hospital.
Mr. Jay Untercoffler, 22 Elm Terrace, stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning, explaining that the rezoning appears to be circumventing the process. Since the Gates’ are applying for the rezoning, it was his feeling that they should be responsible for presenting evidence to justify why they need the property to be rezoned from residential to commercial for their use other than their desire to sell it as a commercial property rather than residential.
Responding, Mr. Galvin stated that it is customary for current property owners to submit applications for an equitable owner. The rational is for the future use that the equitable owner may have for the property, which is what occurred in this particular case.
Mr. Untercoffler advised members of flooding problems on streets in the area. He felt that the hospital should first purchase the property and then present a proposal to the City for their review and approval and that the proposal should include infrastructure issues.
In response to Mr. Ritter, Mr. Galvin explained that when there is a change to a property, a site plan review is required before the Planning Commission. If there is anticipation of greater than one (1) change being made in five (5) years, the hospital would be mandated to submit a Comprehensive Master Plan for the properties depicting the specific changes/construction projects. Ultimately, when the hospital is ready to begin construction, they will be subject to presenting a plan and providing details addressing issues such as stormwater management, etc. He assured members that the City does have the mechanism to address the concerns relayed during this public hearing.
Ms. Kathleen Koshner, 12 Elm Terrace, appreciates the hospital; however, it is her desire to remain at her current residence for a long period of time, not just five (5) years, and she is concerned with decisions being made that involve her neighborhood.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Council President Williams declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Ruane reiterated his concerns with rezoning hearings being utilized in place of planning. It was his feeling that these conflicts exists because of the lack of planning by the institutions involved, as well as the City.
Mr. Sadusky moved for approval of the rezoning request for property located at 605 S. State Street, owned by Joseph and Rebecca Gates, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes, and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane), Council adopted the following ordinance (the First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of July 26, 2004):
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 605 SOUTH STATE STREET
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 R-10 (One Family Residence) to I/O (Institutional/Office).
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 R-10 to I/O on that property located at 605 South State Street, owned by Rebecca and Joseph Gates.
ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT - AUGUST 25, 2004
The Safety Advisory Committee met on August 25, 2004 with Chairman Ritter presiding.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Street Width Waiver Requests for New Developments - Fire Chief Bashista and James Galvin, Director of Planning and Inspections (Continuation from Committee Meeting of July 14, 2004 - City Inspector Report - Student Housing)
Mr. Galvin, Director of Planning and Inspections, provided members with Proposed Amendments to Appendix A - Land Subdivision Regulations, Article VI. He advised members that the amendments would be reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Development Advisory Committee (DAC), and other departments for a recommendation to the Safety Advisory Committee.
After reviewing the amendments, it was the consensus of the Committee that the City Planner should move forward with the review of the amendments.
Legal Opinion - Underage Consumption/Unlawful Leases/Student Housing - Proposed Amendment to Section 10-41, Unlawful Leases - Inclusion of Consumption or Possession of Alcoholic Liquor (Continuation from Committee Meeting of July 14, 2004 - City Inspector Report - Student Housing)
During the Regular Meeting of July 28, 2004, members reviewed possible amendments to Section 10-41, Unlawful leases. Due to concerns of members, a legal opinion was requested regarding the possibility of having to evict an entire family when one (1) family member is convicted a second time of underage consumption, as well as the possibility that targeting student housing could be interpreted as discrimination.
Deputy City Solicitor Pepper stated in his opinion that he does not believe that underage consumption should be added to Section 10-41 since it is currently covered under Section 14.6, which addresses intoxication. He also stated that if the committee felt that Section 10-41 needed to be amended, the ordinance, as currently drafted, only applies to the person convicted. Thus a roommate(s), housemate(s), and family would not be evicted.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Chief Horvath stated that the Police Department would begin notifying the Planning and Inspections Department when a citizen is arrested for underage consumption. The Planning and Inspections Department would then notify the landlord that a second conviction would result in eviction.
Legal Opinion - Procedure for Towing Illegally Parked Cars
Chairman Ritter noted that a legal opinion was received regarding the City’s ability to tow illegally parked cars. According to Sec. 13-56 of the Dover Code, the City has the right to have an enforcement officer, being the health inspector or any member of the police department, remove from public or private property any illegally parked or abandoned vehicle, or to cause the same to be done. Chief Horvath stated that there are instances when a ticket would be issued if a car is parked illegally, rather than towing it. If the car is causing a hazzard or parked in a fire lane, then it would be towed. Currently, if the Planning and Inspections Department requires that a vehicle be towed, they contact the Police department. Responding to Mr. Ritter, Chief Horvath stated that he would look in to the possibility of authorizing the Parking Attendants to have cars towed.
Safety Issues - New Complex at Delaware State University (Report by Police Chief)
At the request of Chairman Ritter, Chief Horvath provided an update on security issues at the University Courtyard Apartments and suggestions for increasing safety. Chief Horvath stated that the apartments are within the jurisdiction of the City of Dover Police Department. The dormitories which were recently built on campus are under the jurisdiction of the Delaware State University Police. He stated that, currently, the City of Dover Police Department responds to the campus for any felonies or serious crimes. It was the Chief’s understanding that the University is very close to retaining ten sworn officers.
Chief Horvath noted that the University Courtyard Apartments are owned by a private corporation and managed by another corporation; however, the land is owned by Delaware State University. After 25 years, ownership of the property will be turned over to Delaware State University. Chief Horvath stated that the complex was initially built to house graduate students and their families; however, they were not successful in filling it in that capacity and it was opened to undergraduates and freshmen. He expressed concern that some of the tenants have associations with gang members.
Chief Horvath reported that City Officials have worked with the Public Safety Officers at Delaware State University to install security cameras, closing gates, traffic spikes, and improved parking arrangements to increase security. He noted that security officers had also been retained.
Chief Horvath advised members that Delaware State University was considering stricter entrance requirements which will attract better quality students, resulting in less crime.
Updates on Transportation Issues
Eden Hill Farm
Mr. Gary Laing, DelDOT Municipal Liaison, reported that DelDOT has formed a working group consisting of approximately 36 elected and appointed officials, business members, and citizens associated with civic associations. To date, two meetings have been held, the first being an informational meeting and the second being interactive. Mr. Laing noted that the next meeting is scheduled for September 22, 2004 and will be a bus tour of the study area which will provide a “passenger’s” perspective. He stated that a public workshop to present the information gathered will probably be scheduled for November.
Mr. Laing noted that this project should be referred to as the West Dover Connector or Extension in the future.
Traffic Studies - SR1/Route 8 and East Dover Housing Development Projects
Mr. Laing stated that a traffic study had been completed; however, in the interim, proposals for three large housing projects came forward. The City requested DelDOT to perform a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) which would include the proposed projects. Mr. Laing noted that the report has been completed and the consultants report is expected to be complete by November of 2004. Responding to Chairman Ritter, Mr. Laing stated that funds had been set aside for traffic mitigation related to the opening of Route 1.
Mr. Galvin advised members that one development project has completed the preliminary phase, one is at the conceptual phase, and one will not move forward until the Traffic Impact Study is complete. Mr. Ruane suggested that there be correspondence between the City and DelDOT regarding the impact that the length of time for TIS review is having on development. Chairman Ritter stated that no action should be taken until the Transportation Review Committee is officially assumed by the Safety Advisory Committee.
Division Street Railroad Track Removal
Mr. Laing reported that the Division Street railroad track had been removed. Mr. Carey expressed concern that railroad ties were still lying by the North Street tracks. Although they are not on the street, he would like to see them removed.
Clarence Street
Mr. Galvin stated that he would be meeting with the Federal Highway Administration regarding the Westside Plan, which includes Clarence Street. He noted that more information would be available in a few weeks.
College Road
Ms. Juanita Wieczoreck, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), reported that College Road improvements are a part of the 2006 Capital Transportation Program. She noted that the concept of sidewalks and shoulders between Dover Kenton Road and Saulsbury Road are a part of the program.
Ms. Wieczoreck noted that the Capital Transportation Program will be on display at the DelDOT Administration Building September 8, 2004, from 6:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m, with testimony starting at 7:00 p.m..
Parking Study Results
Mr. Galvin reported that the only amendment being considered at this time is for North of Division Street and the parking for Wesley College.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Mr. Galvin stated that the City mandates bicycle and pedestrian access and they are in the process of connecting segments to make more routes viable.
Mr. Chris Asay expressed concern that there are several gaps in the bike lanes between Saulsbury Road and North Street. He noted that people tend not to use the bike paths if breaks occur. Mr. Koenig noted that most of the major roads through Dover belong to DelDOT and they, therefore, determine what is to be constructed and if sidewalks are required. Mr. Galvin reported that a crossover to connect New Burton Road with Schutte Park is still included in the Capital Improvements Projects. Mr. Ritter requested Mr. Asay to provide a report on the broken segments and the most critical areas for consideration.
Mr. Laing reported that a Public Workshop would be held at W. Reily Brown on September 23, 2004 from 4:00 p.m. to - 7:00 p.m. to discuss South Governors Avenue between Webbs Lane and Water Street.
Responding to Mr. Carey, Ms. Wieczoreck stated that she would determine the status of the request for a signal study at Greenway Lane and Kenton Road.
Ms. Wieczoreck stated that a Plan Update and public review of the Strategies and Core Plan Model would be presented at the Public Advisory Committee meeting on October 26, 2004.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Safety Advisory Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
MONTHLY REPORTS - JULY 2004
By motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Sadusky, the following monthly reports were accepted by consent agenda:
Budget Report (for June 2004)
Robbins Hose Company No. 1 Report
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF NEW COUNCIL NOTEBOOKS
Mrs. Green, City Clerk, presented New Council Notebooks (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk) to be distributed to newly elected members of Council for referencing throughout their term. This was a new project for the City Clerk’s Office to provide information and insight to newly elected members of Council, such as how matters are handled, what is expected, who to contact, how to handle a constituents concern, how and when to ask questions, meeting procedures, employee union contracts, etc. Mrs. Green explained that all informational material provided is supported either by Charter, Code, policy, procedure, or practice and that such references have been included. She also advised members that it will be necessary to replace pages, including policies and procedures, telephone listings, etc. throughout their tenure, and that it may also be necessary to add items, such as legal opinions, as they are received.
Mrs. Green relayed special appreciation to Ms. Denise Devine (college student) who assisted in seeing this project come to fruition. Staff recommended that members acknowledge receipt of the New Council Notebooks.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved to acknowledge receipt of the New Council Notebooks as presented by the City Clerk, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The First Reading of the following proposed ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of August 23, 2004.
Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VIII - Committees, Division 2.5 - Safety Advisory Committee (Section 2-163 - Functions) and Division 3.5 - Transportation Review Committee
Mr. Carey moved that the Final Reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Salters moved for adoption of the ordinance amendments to Chapter 2 of the Dover Code, seconded by Mr. Carey.
In opposition to the motion, Mr. Ruane read a memo dated September 13, 2004 to Mayor and City Council (Exhibit 3). It is noted that the memo requested that a reference to his memo dated May 20, 2004 be included in the minutes of this meeting (Exhibit 4).
Disagreeing, Mr. Slavin stated that although he appreciates the concerns regarding the issue and the wisdom and intelligence brought to the subject by Councilman Ruane, he felt his comments were unfair. He did not agree that the rules should be waived because there has been ample opportunity for public input on the issue, which Council has received, and which he fully understands.
The motion amending Chapters 2.5 and 3.5 of the Dover Code was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes and two (2) no (Mr. Ritter and Mr. Ruane):
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
That Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VIII - Committees, be amended by renaming the committee’s title as noted in Division 2.5 - Safety Advisory Committee, to “Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee”
That Section 2-163 - Functions, of Chapter 2 - Administration, Division 2.5 - Safety Advisory Committee, Article VIII - Committees, be amended by inserting language as noted in bold italics, as follows:
Sec. 2-163. Functions.
The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee shall advise City Council on vehicle regulations, traffic, parking, pedestrians, and other transportation related matters; and shall advise City Council on public safety issues, policies, procedures, and operations relative to emergency operations, and fire and police services. The Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee shall act as an advisory committee to the City Council regarding matters relating to the Police Department, Fire Department, Inspections Department, State Department of Transportation, Greater Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization, other organizations concerned with transportation issues in the City of Dover, and other areas as deemed appropriate.
That Division 3.5 - Transportation Review Committee of Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VIII - Committees, be deleted in its entirety.
ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS
Mr. Carey commended the City Clerk’s Office for preparing the New Council Notebooks for members, feeling that it will be helpful to senior members as well as freshmen to assist in conducting City business.
Mr. Slavin referred to several pieces of correspondence regarding the recent action taken by the Pension Board to change pension investment funds. In addition, he has received telephone calls from participants of the plan, as well as constituents who also have concerns. Although it is evident from the correspondence that there are some issues that need to be further discussed, he relayed concern with the confusion over the issue. He understands that the Pension Boards may have the independent authority to make decisions relative to the plan; however, if the investment strategies fail, Council will be held responsible, which could ultimately affect the taxpayers.
Because of the complexity of this issue and its possible impact on the City, Mr. Slavin moved to refer the issue to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee for a review and to instruct Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director/Treasurer, to be present to answer questions, seconded by Mr. Hogan.
Mr. Salters questioned if the motion was in order and reminded members that the Pension Board has full authority to make decisions relative to the pension plan investments. He relayed concern that Council would suggest any impropriety or that there is something wrong with the process.
At the request of Council President Williams, City Solicitor Rodriguez stated his opinion that the motion would be in order since it simply refers a matter to a Council Committee for their review and discussion.
Responding to Mr. Hogan, Council President Williams stated that the Pension Boards are not required to present pension decisions to Council for approval and that they have final approval with regards to decisions on the pension plans.
Mr. Ruane stated that the item on the agenda to allow for the “Council Comments” was never intended to introduce a new subject and that to allow it would be a violation of the Freedom of Information Act and challenged the Council President to allow discussion to continue.
In response to Mr. Carey’s concerns regarding the manner in which the motion was introduced, City Solicitor Rodriguez reiterated his opinion that it would be proper for Council to vote on the motion since it is merely a referral and not an addition to the agenda.
The motion to refer the issue involving the Pension Plan Investment Strategy be referred to the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee and that the Finance Director be present at the meeting to respond was carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) no (Mr. Ruane).
Mr. Carey moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Ritter and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:55 P.M.
JANICE C. GREEN
CITY CLERK
All orders, ordinances, and resolutions adopted by City Council during their Regular Meeting of September 13, 2004, are hereby approved.
STEPHEN R. SPEED
MAYOR
/JG
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCouncil-Minutes20049-13-2004.wpd
Exhibits Attached to Original Minutes and File Copy
Exhibit #1 - Findings and Recommendations of the Planning Commission Report
Exhibit #2 - Memorandum Dated August 17, 2004 from Mr. Galvin - RE: Dover’s Institutional Master Plan Inclusion
Exhibit #3 - Memorandum Dated September 13, 2004 from Councilman Ruane - RE: Transportation Review Committee
Exhibit #3 - Memorandum Dated May 20, 2004 from Councilman Ruane - RE: Transportation Review Committee