COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
City Council met as a Committee of the Whole on May 24, 2004, at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Williams presiding. Members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Slavin, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Proposed Permit, Planning and Zoning, and Fire Protection and Business License Fee Changes
Mr. Galvin, Director of Planning and Inspections, submitted proposed changes to the fees for permits, applications, and business licenses. Mr. Galvin gave a presentation (Attachment #1), explaining that the permit and application fees had not increased in over ten (10) years, the revenues have not kept pace with expenses for the office, the proposed fees are similar to those of other municipalities in the region, and that the fee proposals have been reviewed with several organizations for their comments and input.
Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the permit, application, and business license fee proposal as presented by staff, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Responding to Mr. Slavin, Mr. DePrima explained that the City does not have a policy requiring the Department of Planning and Inspections to become self-sufficient. Many municipalities are required to be self-sufficient; however, he noted that there are laws that prohibit over self-sufficiency. The City has attempted to triangulate between three (3) issues: 1) are we covering expenses to provide a service; 2) the historical trend of the revenues, which has generally been at the 7% range; and 3) comparison to other municipalities in the state and county.
Mr. Frank Tenusak, 880 Schoolhouse Lane, suggested more of a public notice with regards to proposals being considered by members of Council, such as the proposed fee increases. A goal he felt would be important for the City to consider would be to minimize or eliminate fees in order to provide incentives for people to make improvements to their homes. There are many homes throughout the City that are in need of repairs and he suggested that members give consideration to those homeowners who may not have the income to make required improvements. With regards to business license fees, Mr. Tenusak cautioned members that in order to avoid fees, businesses have relocated in the County.
The motion to recommend approval of the permit, application, and license fee proposal, as presented by staff (Attachment #2), was carried with Mr. Slavin and Mr. Ritter voting no. It is noted that the changes will require ordinance amendments, as attached, and that a First Reading will be scheduled to be held on June 14, 2004.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VIII - Committees
Members were provided a proposed ordinance amendment to Chapter 2 - Administration, Article VIII - Committees, that would rescind a previous ordinance adopted by Council on September 22, 2003 which eliminated from the Safety Advisory Committee their responsibilities and functions that related to transportation issues and created a new standing committee entitled Transportation Review Committee. By better defining and expanding the Safety Advisory Committee, the Transportation Review Committee can be disbanded and allow for such matters to be handled by the Safety Advisory Committee, as has been done in previous years.
Council President Williams noted the receipt of correspondence received and copies distributed from Mr. Robert Bewick, Jr., Mr. Steven Cain, and Mr. Dave Petrucci (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk).
For discussion purposes, Mr. Hogan moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Division 3.5 and 2.5 of Chapter 2, Article VIII, of the Dover Code, seconded by Mr. Salters.
Mr. Hogan noted that the proposed amendments actually merge two separate committees into one. Therefore, he suggested additional amendments, as follows: that the title of Division 2.5 and throughout the section indicate “Transportation and Safety Advisory Committee”; and that the wording included in Section 2-172, “State Department of Transportation, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization, and other organizations concerned with transportation issues in the City of Dover” be inserted in the last sentence of Section 2-163 immediately following “Inspections Department” and prior to “and other areas as deemed appropriate.”
Mr. Hogan moved for approval of the additional amendments as stated, seconded by Mr. Carey.
Mr. Salters suggested that rather than “Transportation and Safety Advisory Committee”, the committee be titled Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee. The motion maker, Mr. Hogan, as well as the seconder, Mr. Carey, had no objections to the change.
Mr. Ruane relayed appreciation for the amendment, noting that the proposal negated some of the major responsibilities of the Transportation Committee, one being coordination with major transportation providers. However, he indicated concerns with abolishing the committee, feeling that transportation priorities and future transportation needs will not receive the required attention. Mr. Ruane requested that his memo to Mayor and Council, dated May 20, 2004, be made a part of the record (Attachment #3), which provides a historical outline and an explanation as to why the Transportation Review Committee should continue. He noted that there are important issues that will require review by the Safety Advisory Committee, such as Homeland Security, and therefore, transportation issues will not be given the due consideration that will be necessary. Mr. Ruane felt that it would be a disservice to the City for the proposal to be made only eight (8) months after Council unanimously agreed to the establishment of the Transportation Review Committee as a separate standing committee.
Mr. Ritter advised members that past Transportation Review Committee meetings would last from 1½ to 2 hours. It was his opinion that the Safety Advisory Committee has not been as active regarding issues that deserve consideration. If it is the pleasure of Council and he becomes the Chairman of the Safety Advisory Committee, he indicated concerns with the amount of work that would be required of the committee and the length of the meetings.
Ms. Janis Sibbald, 144 Blue Beach Drive, relayed opposition to the abolishment of the Transportation Review Committee since the value of the committee has been proven. She indicated knowledge that, as a result of a request of this committee, DelDOT conducted a study on the Webbs Lane traffic signal on Route 13. The study revealed that 219 cars ran red lights within a 24-hour period. As a result, timing adjustments of the lights have been accomplished by DelDOT and cameras were installed to catch violators; thereby, saving lives and preventing accidents. Ms. Sibbald advised members that this committee also alerted DelDOT to the problems with traffic congestion throughout Dover, not just during special events. As a result, monies have been designated to synchronize the lights and monitor traffic to relieve congestion at all times. The committee has also been very active in discussions regarding the Saulsbury Road Connector. She reminded members that Dover is the capital of the State and is constantly growing. Ms. Sibbald stated that the existing and future residents are affected by transportation issues in this area and that the Safety Advisory Committee and Transportation Review Committee do not have the same concerns and it would be detrimental to both committees if they were merged. As a resident of the Second Council District, she expressed pride in her representative, Councilman Ruane, who also served as the Chairman of the Transportation Review Committee, and stated that she felt that the City was a better place because of his leadership. Ms. Sibbald requested that members not trivialize the important work being done by the Transportation Review Committee by merging it with the Safety Advisory Committee and diluting both of them.
Mr. Richard Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, advised members that he serves as a representative of the Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and a member of the Transportation Review Committee. For clarification, he explained that the MPO serves the entire County plus 11 municipalities, of which Dover is one. The function of the MPO is to take input from all municipalities. The Public Advisory Committee of the MPO visits each municipality, their residents, and officials. Although they work with the City of Dover, they do not represent Dover alone. Mr. Ornauer reiterated the successes of the Transportation Review Committee and the important liaison members of the committee, such as the City Manager, City Planner, Chief Engineer, representative of DelDOT Government Relations, Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce Transportation Chairman, and Executive Director of the MPO. Mr. Ornauer stated that the improvements at the intersection of North and West Street at the Railroad Tracks are a direct result of action taken by the Transportation Review Committee. He explained the committee’s involvement with the TEA21 Project. He relayed regrets that the talent that has been provided to the City through the Transportation Review Committee could be so easily dismissed. He urged members to reconsider any possible dissolution of the committee.
Mr. Chris Asay, 516 Carol Street, stated that he was requested to serve as a member of the Transportation Review Committee because of his involvement with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans. As a member, he became aware that many of the streets in the City are owned and maintained by DelDOT. Therefore, he realized the importance of maintaining a working relationship with DelDOT to assure that the City’s priorities are relayed to DelDOT. He advised members that the Secretary of DelDOT would seek the advice of the committee in order to prioritize transportation related projects for the City of Dover. Mr. Asay explained that, in addition to roadways, the committee reviews other aspects of transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle issues, and other various modes of transportation. He reiterated that the length of the meeting times often went over-time because of the number of issues that must be considered by the committee; therefore, he did not understand the reasoning for combining transportation issues with safety issues.
Ms. Ann Ryder, 124 Blue Beach Drive, expressed her opposition to the elimination of the Transportation Review Committee. It was her feeling that it is of the utmost importance for the City to maintain this committee in order to respond to problems and issues pertaining to transportation in the City of Dover. She stated that the City is growing at an alarming rate and anticipates that in the near future, there will be many changes to major roadways, such as the expansion of Governors Avenue and the extension of Saulsbury Road. Ms. Ryder stated that the City will need to have the Transportation Review Committee available to coordinate issues with the State of Delaware, and the MPO, and to make recommendations to Council. She suggested that the committee’s importance and work as a separate committee should be recognized, not dispersed to subsidize and strengthen another committee. It was her opinion that the City would only benefit from the inclusion of both committees, each operating to ensure that the citizens of Dover are represented on both transportation issues and important safety issues.
The motion to approve the amendment to the main motion, as follows: that the title of Division 2.5 and throughout the section indicate “Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee”; and that the wording included in Section 2-172, “State Department of Transportation, Dover/Kent County Metropolitan Planning Organization, and other organizations concerned with transportation issues in the City of Dover” be inserted in the last sentence of Section 2-163 immediately following “Inspections Department” and prior to “and other areas as deemed appropriate” was unanimously carried.
The motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Division 3.5 and 2.5 of Chapter 2, Article VIII, of the Dover Code, as amended (Attachment #4) was carried by a roll call vote of five (5) yes, and four (4) no (Mr. Pitts, Mr. Sadusky, Mr. Ritter, and Mr. Ruane).
230 KV Tie Change Orders
The 230 KV Project was authorized on May 27, 2003 by City Council. The construction of a 230 KV tie station will allow the City to purchase power through the more reliable 230,000 volt system. This would accommodate the City’s load growth for a period of 20-30 years. The project is currently on target for completion in June 2004. The total project budget ($9.6 million) includes the construction of the 230 KV tie station, connecting 69 KV electric lines, connecting 230 KV electric lines and property acquisition.
Mr. DePrima explained that the City Manager was previously authorized to approve change orders for up to 25% of the contracts for projects over $25,000. However, a recent change to the Purchasing Policy limits this authorization to 25% of the original purchase amount with a not-to-exceed amount of $25,000. He advised members that there have been several change orders related to the 230 KV tie station construction and provided details for each.
Staff recommended acceptance of the 230 KV Tie Project Change Orders to date, as follows:
Change Order #1 - $165,800
Change Order #2 - $140,000
Change Order #3 - $50,000
Mr. Carey moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Sadusky and unanimously carried.
Kesselring Utility Easement Purchase
Members were reminded that the Mayfair to VanSant 69 KV line has been a CIP project for several years but has been unable to move forward because of the inability to secure a utility easement through the Kesselring Farm property in South Dover. The project is a part of the City’s efforts to link all of its substations to the 69 KV ring. Recently, the Kesselring family agreed to allow the easement, which will also be used for water and sewer lines as the area develops, specifically the Puncheon Run Interceptor Project. Mr. DePrima advised members that the cost of the easement is $50,000, which is below its appraised value and the amount budgeted ($60,000). He assured members that the easement has been reviewed by the Deputy City Solicitor.
Staff recommended that the City Manager be authorized to sign the Easement Agreement.
Mr. Carey moved to recommend that the City Manager be authorized to sign the Agreement for the Kesselring Utility Easement (Attachment #5) at a cost of up to $50,000. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried. It was noted that, due to time constraints, staff requested that this matter be considered during the Council Meeting later this evening for final approval.
Mr. Carey moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hogan and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:14 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly C. Williams
Council President
BCW/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20045-24-2004-Committee of the Whole.wpd
Attachments (*As on file with the Original Minutes)
*Attachment #1 - Presentation - Proposed Changes to the Fees for Permits, Applications, and Business Licenses
Attachment #2 - Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Permits, Applications, and Business License Fees
*Attachment #3 - Memo to Mayor and Council, dated May 20, 2004 from Councilman Ruane
Attachment #4 - Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Division 3.5 and 2.5 of Chapter 2, Article VIII
*Attachment #5 - Kesselring Easement Agreement