REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on February 23, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Council members present were Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Speed, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Chief Horvath, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Galvin, Mrs. Mitchell, Deputy First Chief Fortney, Mr. DePrima, City Solicitor Rodriguez, Mrs. Green, and Mayor Hutchison.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President McGlumphy declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council was not in official session and could not take formal action.
Mr. Eric O’Brien, 30 North New Street, reiterated his concerns regarding the quality of life surrounding his residence. He noted that the problem of loitering, prostitution, and criminal activity has been on-going for ten (10) years and requested the City to address these concerns.
Mr. O’Brien requested that the three (3) minute time-limit be waived to allow him to read a 4-page letter into the record. Hearing no objections from members of Council, Council President McGlumphy allowed Mr. O’Brien to read the letter (Exhibit #1).
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Speed and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the consent agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2004
By consent agenda, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 9, 2004 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Salters, and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PUBLIC HEARING/FIRST READING - REAPPORTIONMENT OF COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
Mr. Salters moved to waive the reading of the proposed ordinance before Council, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried. Council President McGlumphy reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinance will take place during the Council Meeting of March 9, 2004.
Council President McGlumphy declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Thomas Leary, Chairman of the City of Dover Election Board, stated that the Board used the following criteria in making its recommendation:
Section 5 of the City Charter, which states that council shall use the federal decennial census so that the districts shall be nearly equal in population in accordance with said census; and
The NAACP Consent Decree, which mandates a black or minority district at 65% while maintaining the district at the same overall size as the other three (3) districts.
Mr. Leary stated that understandable lines of division, such as main streets or thoroughfares, were used as long as they coordinated with the individual census cells. He noted that they considered commonality of interest and tried to keep neighborhoods together as much as possible; however, the higher standards were the Charter and the Consent Decree.
Mr. Leary stated that Councilman Speed had approached him about considering alternative proposals. He responded that the Board could consider alternative proposals as long as they did not violate the census. He explained that the Board would not consider a recommendation to Council that would have legal consequences. Mr. Leary stated that Mr. Speed decided not to put forth an alternative proposal for consideration.
Council President McGlumphy declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved for acknowledgment of the First Reading of the following proposed ordinance, by title only, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried:
• CHAPTER 2 - ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION 4 - COUNCIL DISTRICTS, SECTION 2-56 - BOUNDARIES
FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHESTNUT GROVE ROAD, WEST OF KENTON ROAD (Rezoning Deferred from February 9, 2004 Council Meeting)
During their Regular Meeting of February 9, 2004, Council held a public hearing to consider the rezoning of property located on the south side of Chestnut Grove Road, west of Kenton Road, containing 50.8 +/- acres, owned by Chestnut Grove Farm, L.P. The property is currently zoned RS1 - Single Family Residence (Kent County) and the proposed zoning is RM-1 - Medium Density Residence (City of Dover).
Mr. Galvin, City Planner stated that the Department of Planning and Inspections had reviewed the concerns raised during the public hearing on February 9, 2004 related to the zoning classification of the Chestnut Grove Annexation. He offered the following in response to those concerns:
Zoning
The requested and proposed zoning classification for the property is RM-1. In the district, the City allows single family detached houses, rooming houses, one family lot line homes, duplex dwellings, multiplex dwellings and townhouse dwellings. The lots are required to include 8000 square feet (SF) for detached houses, 7000 SF for lot line houses, 5000 SF each for duplexes and 3000 SF each for multiplex and townhouses. A zoning of R-8 allows construction of single family homes at the same density, but not the various housing types.
In the immediate area of the parcel, the zoning for the built subdivisions are as follows:
Westfield R-8
Heatherfield RM-1
Heatherfield East R-8
Fox Hall West R-8
Turnberry RM-1
The Retreat RM-2 and R-10
The City has several other residential zones. For new annexations and subdivisions, the typical zoning classes are RM-1 and RM-2 for multiple housing options, or R-8, R-10, R-15 and R-20 for single family homes. The differences are primarily lot sizes and yard requirements.
The City allows a developer of a parcel greater than 20 acres to propose a Planned Neighborhood Design Option for any of these zones as a Conditional Use which requires specific City Council and Planning Commission review and approval for implementation. The option allows a mix of housing types and layouts with more flexibility than allowed in the traditional zones mentioned above and promotes preservation of common open space, creation of buffers, recreational facilities and conservation easements which, under certain circumstances, provides a density bonus for the site.
Subdivision Design
A majority of the comments from the Council public hearing were related to issues that will be considered by the Planning Commission in the process of reviewing the proposed subdivision that will be required once a zoning district has been assigned. The Commission will be required to review the mix of housing types, the layout of the lots, the street configuration, environmental limitations and all other elements of site design. The Commission may also provide minor waivers from elements of the ordinance related to the site requirements, as well as place greater standards for the subdivision.
Traffic considerations
The Department of Planning and Inspections had obtained a response from the Delaware Department of Transportation during the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) proceedings. The Director of the Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination has written that the anticipated traffic generated from a completed project of 199 units would not exceed the threshold the State uses for requiring a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). City Council had received specific recommendations from the DelDOT Director of Planning stipulating that a TIS was not necessary, the improvements were understood, and the developer of the subject property would be required to be involved in their resolution.
DelDOT would be the agency reviewing any TIS for the development. A requirement by the City of Dover that the developer prepare a TIS would seem to be redundant and only succeed in delaying the project.
Other Site Considerations
Habitat: The site does not include unique or significant habitat for local wildlife.
Flooding: The site includes an area designated as the 100 year flood plain (Zone AE) as described on the Flood Insurance rate Map Number 10001C0162H and defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The area of the flood zone is at most 250 feet from the tax ditch/creek/property line on the Southwest property line of the site. Other areas of the site included in the Zone AE are closer to the tax ditch/creek.
There is an area toward the front of the site that is included in Zone X, which is defined as an area subject to flooding during a 500 year flood event. Such areas are not controlled by FEMA or the City of Dover. While there seemed to be some contradictory statements made during the meeting about the relative elevation of the property, these designations and the soil characteristics define the actual conditions and will be considered during the subdivision process.
Tree Preservation: The City of Dover Zoning Ordinance allows the removal of up to 50% of the trees on a development site (Art. 5 §16.53). It also limits the clearing of trees in areas of new construction to areas "… limited to an area of thirty feet from proposed building foundation, and fifteen feet from off street parking lots, and utility placement." Further, areas of wetlands shall remain undisturbed, including the trees. The Zoning Ordinance also requires a developer to plant new trees at the rate of 1 per 3,000 square feet of lot area. If the lots are to average approximately 8,000 square feet, an average of three new trees would be required or each lot.
Annexation Map: The City's Annexation Map that is included in the Comprehensive Plan identified this property as potential for residential development with no quantification.
Alternatives: There were many suggestions for the site offered during the public hearing, ranging from preserving tree buffers to a lower density zone to no development at all. The property is available for development at similar levels under the current Kent County ordinance. The "no development" option is not viable. It can and will likely be developed if left in the County. The developer has requested a specific zone designation and has brought the property to this point with expectations that this was going to be the category. Other categories may be proposed, but the developer has the option of requesting a Planned Neighborhood Development that could include most of the elements of the original plan in any of the likely residential zone designations. The opportunity for concerned neighbors and the City to affect the outcome of the development of the site in this case is during the subdivision process before the Planning Commission.
Aquifer Capacity/Impact: The City currently has permits for daily withdrawals for the Cheswold, Piney Point, and Columbia aquifers and water withdrawals are carefully regulated by the State of Delaware. The Columbia aquifer has the greatest capacity to serve new development and would be the source of water for this development. The City currently operates below the permitted use level.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Galvin stated that the comments addressing traffic concerns contained in the letter from Mr. Ralph Reeb, DelDOT Director of Planning DelDOT, dated February 6, 2004, would be included in the DAC report. Mr. Galvin noted that the Planning Commission could make those comments a part of the approval process, which he would recommend. He also advised members that approval of the stormwater management plan by the Kent Conservation District would be necessary prior to approval of the final plan.
Mr. Galvin stated that the development of this parcel would go through several more review steps and neighboring property owners would be notified of those meetings.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mr. DePrima, City Manager, stated that the City no longer allows new developments to store trash containers in front of the property. The developer would have to provide a storage area for the residents or make the containers accessible from the rear of the property.
Mr. Ritter moved for approval of the request to rezone property located on the south side of Chestnut Grove Road, west of Kenton Road, from RS1 - Single Family Residence (Kent County) to RM-1 - Medium Density Residence (City of Dover), as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pitts.
Mr. Speed stated that he heard some of the citizens in attendance at the public hearing felt that he was not paying attention. He assured them that he was paying attention and has a pretty good understanding of just about every issue which comes before Council.
Mr. Speed read the following paragraph from the minutes of a previous City of Dover Planning Commission meeting (names were not stated since its purpose was not to indicate who made the comments):
“Mr. S stated that he was concerned because they are going to have an entrance and exit on Road 158. He said that at 7:30 a.m. the traffic is backed all the way up. He said there are many accidents and asked if they were going to update Road 158. The Chairman said that DelDOT is supposed to be reviewing the whole city area, but he didn’t know if this area was included. Mr. S also said he was concerned about where the stormwater was going to go. Mr. P (Planning Staff member) pointed out the two (2) stormwater retention areas along the easterly perimeter of the site. He said they would meter out into existing storm drains. Mr. S said they already had a flood problem without the development.”
Mr. Speed stated that there were also comments about trees, access to and from this development from other properties, concerns regarding children going from one development to another, etc. He noted the purpose of this information was to advise that many of the concerns expressed by the citizens at the public hearing were not uncommon.
Mr. Speed advised members that the Planning Commission minutes referenced were for a public hearing on the Westfield Subdivision. It was his feeling that the citizens who decided to live in Westfield would probably say that the City followed the Code, enforced the rules, and came out with a development that is beneficial to the City of Dover.
Mr. Speed stated that he was prepared to vote against the rezoning because he believes that the property should be zoned R-8 instead of RM-1. He stated that, in practical terms, they are voting on whether or not they want the City to annex additional property. Mr. Speed stated that the RM-1 zone, although dissimilar to the current County zoning, is similar to the approved zoning in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Speed noted that it was the City Solicitor’s opinion that the property had been annexed into the City and could not be rescinded without Council’s approval. Mr. Speed stated that, although that is the case legally, if the City were to annex a property at the request of the developer and then not provide the zoning that the developer expected, it would, in essence, end all annexations in the City of Dover. It was his feeling that no developer would trust that the Council, after annexing the property, would then zone it in accordance with what had come through the Planning Commission.
Mr. Speed stated that the decision was to either zone the property RM-1 or release the property from annexation and allow it to go to a similar zoning in the County, in which case the City would inherit all of the same problems mentioned and have no control over correcting them. Mr. Speed estimated that the best course of action was to zone the property RM-1, since the City’s Zoning Code is more restrictive than the County’s and the City’s Planning and Inspections Department is better at enforcement simply because the area of coverage is smaller than the County’s.
The motion for approval of the rezoning request, as recommended by the Planning Commission, was carried by a unanimous roll call vote and Council adopted the following ordinance: (The First Reading of this ordinance was accomplished during the Council Meeting of February 24, 2004.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHESTNUT GROVE ROAD, WEST OF KENTON ROAD
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 RS1 - Single Family Residence (Kent County) and the proposed zoning classification is RM-1 - Medium Density Residence (City of Dover).
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 has been amended by changing the zoning designation from RS-1 (Kent County zoning classification) to RM-1 (City of Dover zoning classification) on that property located on the south side of Chestnut Grove Road, west of Kenton Road, owned by Chestnut Grove Farm, L.P.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 23, 2004
CIVILIAN PENSION BOARD REPORT - FEBRUARY 4, 2004
The Civilian Pension Board met on February 4, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. with Chairman Salters presiding.
Annual Review of Pension Benefits Paid to All Civilian Retirees (Cola)
During the Civilian Pension Board Meeting of February 27, 2000, members directed the City Clerk to maintain a permanent pending agenda item to review pension benefits paid to City of Dover retirees (COLA) prior to the third week in February each year.
Mrs. Mitchell, Finance Director/Treasurer, stated that, due to the continuous poor performance of the Civilian Pension Fund, she felt it would not be fiscally beneficial to grant a COLA increase to the civilian retirees at this time.
The committee recommended forgoing a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increase this year.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Carey, by consent agenda, moved for acceptance of the Civilian Pension Board Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE (PARKS, RECREATION, & COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT) REPORT - FEBRUARY 9, 2004
The Parks, Recreation, and Community Enhancement Open Space Committee met on February 9, 2004, with Chairman Pitts presiding.
Patriot Village - Active Recreation Area
In accordance with Article 5, Section 10, Subsection 10.16 of the Zoning Code, all residential developments shall provide recreational areas in a size equal to 275 square feet per dwelling unit, or one-half acre of land, whichever is greater. However, in no case shall the City require more than 10% of the gross area of the development be so dedicated or reserved when the gross area is greater than five (5) acres.
Patriot Village consists of 43.60 acres of land and is situated between White Oak Road and North Little Creek Road. Mr. Matthew T. Spong, Landscape Architectural Services, LLC, presented the Active Recreation Plan for Patriot Village (as on file in the City Clerk’s Office) which requires .86 acres of open space. The plan proposes two (2) separate areas of open space, which totals 1.24 acres of open space, to include one (1) sand volleyball court, two (2) benches, two (2) horseshoe pits, one (1) Little Tykes Play System, one (1) pavilion, two (2) picnic tables, and a concrete walking path. The total investment for the above-mentioned items is $81,409.20.
Mr. Spong informed members that the developer may increase the number of buildable lots by one (1); however, he assured members that the additional lot would not affect the amount of open space since the developer is providing 20% more open space than required. Ms. Melson noted that the additional lot may be a result of a reconfiguration of lots. She stated that while reviewing the proposed plan, it was noted that the path to access the volleyball court appears to go between two (2) lots.
Mrs. Malone requested that if there is a passage (to access the volleyball court) located between private lots, it be noted on the deeds of the involved lots.
The committee recommended approval of the Active Recreation Area for Patriot Village, with the appropriate deed notations.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Fountainview Senior Apartments: Planned Neighborhood Design - Active Recreation Area
Fountainview Senior Apartments consists of 9.424 acres of land and is situated north of the Dover Elk’s Lodge on Forrest Avenue. Mr. Matthew T. Spong, Landscape Architectural Services, LLC, presented the Planned Neighborhood Design Active Recreation Plan for the Fountainview Senior Apartments (as on file in the City Clerk’s Office) which requires 1.21 acres of open space. The total amount of open space being proposed is 1.53 acres. The plan includes one (1) pavilion, four (4) picnic tables, eight (8) benches, two (2) grills, and one (1) trash receptacle. He explained that the storm water pond will be incorporated into the landscaping by having a two (2) horse power floating aerator pump (with light) and various water plants; a walking path will also be constructed around the pond. The investment for the above mentioned items is $51,889.00. Mr. Spong indicated that one (1) shuffle board court was later added to the proposed plan, which brings the total investment to $55,000.
The committee recommended approval of the Planned Neighborhood Design - Active Recreation Area, as presented.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Carey, by consent agenda, moved for acceptance of the Open Space Committee (Parks, Recreation, & Community Enhancement) Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 9, 2004
The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting was held on February 9, 2004, with Chairman Speed presiding.
Discussion - Charter and Code Review
The committee has had on-going discussions regarding possible Charter and Code amendments. In August of 2003, Council President McGlumphy requested that members of City Council and the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee review the City Charter and Code for possible changes and that any proposed changes be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office. The review was requested as a result of several comments and concerns relayed by members of Council, as well as the recent PAS Study.
Members were provided copies of several sections of the Charter and Code with suggestions for their review and recommendation for possible amendments.
Members completed their review of Section 4 and a portion of Section 5. Mr. Speed indicated that, due to time constraints, discussions on the third and fourth paragraphs of Section 5 would be continued at the next committee meeting.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments (Police Department)
During their Regular Meeting of September 22, 2003, members of Council adopted ordinance amendments submitted by the Police Department that would allow fines to double if not paid within 14 days. When the Police Department proceeded to amend their summons, it was discovered that there were areas of the Code that should have been included in those amendments. As a result, the Police Department requested approval of proposed ordinance amendments to Section 13-6.1 - Obedience to State Law, Section 13-16 - Violations, and Section 14-3.5 - False Alarms to Police, since they are included on the summons. It was noted that additional amendments may be forthcoming.
The committee recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments as presented.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote (The First Reading of the Proposed Ordinances will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
Mr. Carey, by consent agenda, moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
TRANSPORTATION REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT - FEBRUARY 10, 2004
The Transportation Review Committee met on February 10, 2004 at 12:00 noon, with Chairman Ruane presiding.
Dart Services
Mr. Ray Miller, Director of Delaware Transit Administration, reviewed the results of coordinating Fixed Routes and Paratransit Services in Kent County. He introduced Mr. Wayne Henderson who was the architect in terms of putting the service together based on the August and September 2003 discussions. Mr. Miller reminded members that a few years back, members of City Council met with Secretary Hayward and representatives of DelDOT, at which time the notion of night service was introduced.
Mr. Miller advised members that a unique approach was taken to determine the community’s transportation needs. DelDOT considered the existing resources, such as the paratransit system and fixed route system; the tools and technology already available, such as AVL (A Vehicle Locator)/GPS System, as well as the mobile data terminals which allow for communications with the vehicles; and other features such as safety, video, etc. that are a part of the system.
Mr. Miller stated that the major change was to allow the general public use of the paratransit service. The result of these efforts is an increase in the average number of passengers from 1.6 to 3.4 per hour. One of the most frequent complaints received is the accuracy of times for pickup. He reviewed the paratransit transfer results, explaining that improvement has been made with the on-time performance. Transferees have a more direct trip and are on the bus for a shorter period of time. Mr. Miller also reviewed productivity improvements. He explained DelDOT’s future plans to improve access to the fixed route, which are scheduled to begin in May 2004.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Miller suggested that a presentation be made to City Council once the project is complete, which should be this summer. Mr. Ruane requested that Mr. Miller contact the City Clerk’s Office to schedule the presentation.
To accept Mr. Miller’s offer for members to visit the facility to observe the system operations, Mr. Ornauer suggested that the next meeting be held at the Administration Building of the Delaware Transit Corporation and that a tour of the facility be on the agenda.
The committee recommended that the next committee meeting, scheduled for March 9, 2004, be held at the Administration Building of the Delaware Transit Corporation.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Proposed Resolution - Support for the Re-authorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
As directed during their meeting of January 13, 2004, Mr. DePrima presented a proposed resolution for the support of the re-authorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). He advised members that the proposed resolution is similar to the one passed by the MPO; however, it includes funding to sub-allocate Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to MPO’s in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas.
The committee recommended adoption of the proposed Resolution.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and, by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) continued programs established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and established new initiatives to meet the challenges of improving safety, protecting and enhancing communities and the natural environment, and advancing the region's economic growth and competitiveness; and
WHEREAS, TEA-21 strengthened valuable state, federal, regional, and local partnerships working cooperatively to address the region's transportation needs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dover supports the fundamental structure of TEA-21 as the basis for responsible transportation plans and programs to meet the region's needs; and
WHEREAS, minor improvements need to be made to TEA-21; and
WHEREAS, TEA-21 expired on September 30, 2003; and
WHEREAS, it is imperative that TEA-21 be reauthorized as soon as possible to ensure smooth continuation of the federal transportation program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dover supports the expedited reauthorization of TEA-21 with provisions to ensure adequate funding to meet the region's future transportation needs and further strengthen a successful metropolitan planning process, including:
FUNDING
1. Preserve the minimum apportionment of one half of one percent of the total apportionment to each state;
2. Preserve the minimum guarantee at 90.5%;
3. Increase Highway Trust Fund Revenue;
4. Preserve the firewall provisions established in TEA-21;
5. Retain Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) with minor changes to refine the revenue estimate process;
6. Increase metropolitan planning takedown funds to 2%; and
7. Suballocate Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to MPOs in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas.
PROGRAMS
1. Retain existing programs;
2. Allow greater flexibility between programs and eligibility within programs, particularly for projects that manage and operate the system more efficiently;
3. Improve freight movement by expanding eligibility of freight project funding;
4. Include measures that allow states and local governments to provide incentives to land developers and travelers to encourage and promote multi-modalism;
5. Strengthen safety programs without additional mandatory federal safety standards developed without state or local involvement;
6. Expand the federal tax credit for ethanol to include other bio-based fuels;
7. Retain the current planning and public outreach requirements and modify the update requirements for the metropolitan and statewide Transportation Improvement Programs, Metropolitan (Regional) Transportation Plan and Statewide Long-range Transportation Plan to synchronize their update cycles; and
8. Create a program to support intermodal passenger facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PROJECT DELIVERY
1. Integrate environmental protection in the transportation planning process for early resolution of environmental and natural resource issues and to reduce the amount of redesign;
2. Allow concurrent review processes;
3. Provide incentives for demonstrating innovative streamlining techniques; and
4. Modify the transportation air quality conformity process to:
a)reduce the gap between State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and transportation plans and focus the conformity process on the regional transportation plan;
b)require that transportation plans and SIPs be updated on a staggered schedule and that both plans use the same mobile source emissions factors and other modeling assumptions;
c)allow USDOT to approve Transportation Control Measure substitutions as part of any conformity finding on a transportation plan or program; and
d)implement the 8-hour conformity requirements in new non-attainment areas six months after EPA finds the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget adequate in the 8-hour SIPs due in 2007. Continue the 1-hour conformity requirements for current non-attainment areas until the new 8-hour conformity requirements take effect.
ADOPTED: FEBRUARY 23, 2004
Truck Brake Noise
During their December 9, 2003 meeting, members discussed concerns regarding truck brake noise. As directed, Mr. DePrima invest