REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on December 8, 2003 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 Major Harding, Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Mitchell, Ms. Melson, Chief Bashista, 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.
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
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Speed and unanimously carried.
Mr. Speed requested that Item #4-B, Request to Support Establishing City of Dover 4th of July Celebration Committee, be extracted from the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 2003
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 24, 2003 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Carey, seconded by Mr. Speed, and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 190 OLD LEIPSIC ROAD, OWNED BY CARL L. MOORE
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 190 Old Leipsic Road, containing approximately 11,537+/- square feet, owned by Carl L. Moore. The property is currently zoned R-10 (One Family Residence) and the proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial).
Planner's Review
Ms. Melson, Interim 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 that the request for rezoning be approved and that the subject area be considered comprehensively for potential rezoning from residential uses to a commercial use. Staff noted that such consideration would involve analysis of the area to propose an amendment to the Land Development plan of the Comprehensive Plan Update 2003 for review and approval, followed by the process for comprehensive rezoning of the area, as outlined in Article 10, Sec. 5.
Correspondence
Members considered correspondence received from Constance C. Holland, AICP, Director of State Planning Coordination (Exhibit #2), indicating that the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of the rezoning was inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and; therefore, would be in violation of Del. C., Title 22, Sections 702 (c) and (d).
Members were also provided the opinion of the City Solicitor, Mr. Rodriguez, regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendation with regard to the recommendation of staff and the concerns of the Director of State Planning Coordination (Exhibit #3).
Members were provided correspondence from Mr. DePrima, City Manager, (Exhibit #4) indicating that he concurred with staff’s recommendation to deny the rezoning requested. He noted that granting an approval contrary to the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan Update would violate State law, as well as set a bad precedence. It was his feeling that the area proposed for rezoning is a residential community for the majority of the year, with commercial activity occurring only around race weekends.
Correspondence was received from Mr. Michael von Reider of the Planning Commission (Exhibit #5) explaining the reasoning behind the Commission’s recommendation for approval of the rezoning request.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Ms. Melson stated that recent changes to the Delaware Code clarified the force of law of the Comprehensive Plan and Mr. Moore’s rezoning application was the first to be considered which was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. With reference to the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval, Ms. Melson noted that the correspondence from Ms. Holland of State Planning Coordination was not received until after the Planning Commission meeting and it may not have been made clear to the Commissioners that a recommendation of approval would violate State law. It was her feeling that it would be beneficial to provide the Commissioners with additional education regarding new State legislation and the changes brought about by the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Melson stated that, according to Mr. Rodriguez, if staff advises an applicant that their request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it may be a major impediment in granting the request, and the applicant still chooses to proceed, it would not be a violation to accept the application.
Mr. Ruane asked whether Council had ever approved a rezoning request that was contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Melson responded that all of the applications considered during 2002 and 2003 were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruane recalled that the request for rezoning of property located at 771 and 777 South Little Creek Road, which was approved on October 22, 2001, was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted at that time that the Comprehensive Plan had the force of law and that no development should be permitted except as consistent with the plan. Mrs. Williams asked if it were likely that the State would have notified the City at that time if a violation had occurred. Mr. DePrima stated that the State probably would not have intervened unless they were asked to provide an opinion.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Melson stated that there may have been some land transactions in the vicinity of the subject property; however, until there is a development application, the Planning Department would not be aware of those transactions.
Mr. Ruane asked if there was any distinction in the Delaware Code between rezoning and down-zoning when it refers to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Melson stated that the only distinction was among different land uses.
Mr. Ritter asked if the rezoning of property along Old Leipsic Road from residential to commercial was considered during the review of the Comprehensive Plan, noting that the residential properties are surrounded by commercial properties. Ms. Melson stated that they saw no major changes in the current or proposed types of activity for the area. She noted that for the majority of the year the area functions as a residential community.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Ms. Melson stated that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Update would follow a process similar to the adoption of the Plan itself. An amendment would involve a proposal study, a review by City and State agencies, including the Office of State Planning Coordination, a public hearing before the Planning Commission in order to make a recommendation to Council, and a public hearing before City Council.
Public Hearing
Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing open
Mr. Steve De Barr of Earl D. Smith, Incorporated, representing Mr. Moore, stated that they had not received a copy of the letter from State Planning Coordination. In light of the contents of that letter, it was his feeling that Council should not consider the application.
Mr. De Barr stated that Mr. Moore’s property is surrounded by undeveloped properties owned by Dover Downs which are used for race parking. He noted that they are not prime residential parcels. Mr. De Barr advised members that Mr. Moore was seeking a zoning classification which would permit vendors during the races while still maintaining a residence.
Mr. Carl Moore, 144 Old Leipsic Road, stated that he did not understand why he would not be permitted to use his property commercially when adjacent properties were granted permission. Mr. Moore provided correspondence from his neighbor, Mr. Roger Murray, 126 Old Leipsic Road, indicating his support of a commercial zone for his property.
Responding to Mr. Truitt, Mr. Moore stated that the property would be used commercially twice a year, two (2) days a week for a total of eight (8) days per year.
Mr. Ruane asked Mr. Moore if he would be willing to withdraw his application with the understanding that staff would follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and reconsider the zoning of the entire subject area. Mr. Moore stated that he would be willing to withdraw his application in order to provide staff the opportunity to review the area. Mr. DePrima stated that if Mr. Moore chose to withdraw his application at this time, he would qualify for a refund of his application fee. He also noted that a withdrawal would avoid the one-year restriction on reconsideration of the application.
Council President McGlumphy suggested that the Planning Commission be provided all of the correspondence received, along with the minutes of previous meetings at which this matter was considered, in order for the Commissioner’s to reconsider the request for rezoning.
Mr. Jim Ware stated that he is part owner of approximately eight (8) acres on Old Leipsic Road, some residential and some commercial. Noting the changes and growth that have taken place at Dover Downs, Mr. Ware agreed that the zoning in the area should be reconsidered as a whole. He also stated that he supported Mr. Moore’s rezoning request.
Mr. Richard Ware, 831 Westview Terrace, stated that was also part owner of an eight (8) acre parcel on Old Leipsic Road. He noted that two residential properties owned by Dover Downs are used as a command center for the police department, storage of golf carts utilized by Dover Downs, and use by the Fire Company and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT’s). He also referred to a parcel which has been blacktopped for use as a bus stop. Mr. Ware asked if those uses conformed to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Melson stated that public type uses, such as a command center related to public events, were generally permitted within residential zones. She also noted that Appendix B, Article 6, Section 5, Subsection 5.5 of the Dover Code provides for “Race Weekend” commercial parking of vehicles and self contained recreational vehicles on residential property during a specific time frame.
Mr. Michael von Reider, 740 E. Division Street, stated that he has served on the City of Dover Planning Commission for approximately four (4) years. He noted that the Planning Commission was not privy to the information provided by Ms. Holland, Mr. DePrima, and Mr. Rodriguez when it made its recommendation. Mr. von Reider indicated that the “rule of law” question has always been perceived as a guidance factor, not an absolute law. Noting that recent State legislation has made the “rule of law” concrete, he stated that he understood why Council could not approve the rezoning.
Mr. von Reider encouraged council members to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation that staff review all of the properties in the subject area for a possible amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Melson indicated that the entire amendment process would take approximately three (3) to four (4) months to complete.
Mr. John Friedman, 729 N. Bradford Street, Chairman of the Planning Commission, reiterated that they were not aware of the “teeth” that the Comprehensive Plan had. He discouraged considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan based on each application for rezoning, feeling that it would then become an ineffective tool. Mr. Friedman suggested that the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed either annually or every two (2) years.
Council President McGlumphy noted that this particular request for rezoning has been an issue since 1998 and this area should have been looked at more closely during the Comprehensive Plan Update review process.
With no one else wishing to speak, Council President McGlumphy declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Moore stated that he would like to withdraw his application for rezoning.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of Mr. Moore’s request to withdraw his application for rezoning, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to refer the entire area around Dover Downs to staff for review and recommendation to Planning Commission and Council in order that they may determine to what extent and how the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ritter and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Truitt).
TRANSPORTATION REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT - NOVEMBER 12, 2003
The Transportation Review Committee met on November 12, 2003 with Chairman Ruane presiding.
Update - Eden Hill Farm
Mr. DePrima advised members that there had been no further discussions regarding the extension of the roadway through Eden Hill Farm. A meeting was held with the prospective developer for the purpose of relaying the City’s policy, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Update. DelDOT was not represented at this meeting. Both the developer and the City have indicated to the realtor of their interest in being included in the planning and development of this property.
For record purposes, Mr. Ruane cited pages 136, 137, and Chapter 14 on page 163 of the Comprehensive Plan Update as it relates to the Eden Hill Farm and the creation of a mixed use traditional development zone that would allow for the specific development intended for this property.
Traffic Impact Studies - Review of Section 15 of “Rules and Regulations for Subdivision Streets”
During their meeting of October 21, 2003, members were requested to review DelDOT’s current regulations with regard to proposed revisions to traffic impact studies and the TIS requirements of the Dover Code. Mr. Ruane introduced Mr. Bill Brockenbrough, County Coordinator, Division of Planning for DelDOT, to explain the current regulations and proposed revisions to DelDOT traffic impact studies.
Mr. Brockenbrough reviewed Section 15, DelDOT’s Rules and Regulations for Subdivision Streets, which includes the requirement for traffic impact studies. As indicated in Table 1 of Section 15, he explained that there are specific circumstances that mandate a traffic impact study (TIS); however, there may be additional reasons for such requirement. Although the study does not require the area to be included to go much beyond the access of the property, he stated that there may be circumstances that would require a larger area to be included.
Mr. Brockenbrough also explained the process that occurs in the development of property and the reasons for requiring a TIS and its purpose. Once it is determined that a TIS is necessary, the developer’s engineer will contact DelDOT for guidance. He stated that DelDOT is interested in determining the impact of a development; therefore, although Section 15 requires the TIS to be conducted from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, DelDOT has the flexibility of requiring the TIS to be conducted at other times, such as “store peak” or “street peak” times depending on the proposed use of the property and its surrounding area.
In response to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that if a TIS determines that the development of a proposed project would cause failure at a particular intersection, then the developer has three (3) choices: 1) not to do the project; 2) modify the project; or 3) build whatever improvements are necessary to correct the failure. Examples of such improvements are for costs of a traffic signal, a turning lane, the addition of a third lane, or paving of a shoulder. These are cost factors that a developer would have to consider in order to determine if a project was worth the required improvements. Mr. DePrima assured members that all approvals issued by the Planning Commission include a stipulation to include the recommendations of the DAC.
Mr. Ruane requested that members review the material provided by Mr. Brockenbrough to determine if there were any suggestions for improvements and, if so, that they provide them for the next meeting.
MPO/PAC/TAC Report
There was no report given on the MPO/PAC/TAC Report.
TEA-21 Re-Authorization
Mr. DePrima advised members that the MPO is drafting a letter to take a position on the TEA-21 Re-authorization. Ms. Wieczoreck stated that although it has been indicated that a re-authorization would not occur until after the next election, the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee has issued a draft bill and e-mail has been received from the MPO parent organization in Washington that the House of Representatives anticipated a bill to be brought forth last week. She explained that this matter is moving more quickly than anticipated.
Mr. Ruane had been advised that action was anticipated in the Spring. He suggested that at the next meeting, Ms. Wieczoreck provide information on the TEA-21 Re-authorization to assist the committee in taking a position on the matter.
DELDOT’S Capital Transportation Program (FY 2005-2010) - Dover Projects
Ms. Wieczoreck advised members that the MPO had submitted a list of projects for the 2005 Capital Transportation Program and that only one (1) project, the proposed interchange for Route 1 and Delaware 9, south of the Dover Air Force Base, was funded. This project is on a “fast track” to be designed.
Mr. Ruane suggested that at the next meeting, members be provided a list of priorities for the City of Dover in order for them to develop the three (3) most important projects that should be promoted by the City when the legislators go into session in January.
UPDATES
Members were provided the following updates:
Traffic Studies
SR1/Route 8
Members were advised that a meeting is scheduled to be held by DelDOT regarding the SR1/Route 8 Traffic Study at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon at the DelDOT Administration Building.
East Dover Housing Development Projects
There was no update provided regarding the Traffic Study for East Dover Housing Development Projects.
Status of Road Projects
Clarence Street
Mr. DePrima stated that no further action had been taken on the Clarence Street Project.
College Road
Mr. Ruane referenced an e-mail received from Ms. Wieczoreck which explained that the College Road Project was on the FY 2005 Proposed Project List. If funded, it would not be constructed for another three (3) to five (5) years, or more, depending on environmental and right-of-way issues.
Division Streets
Mr. Ornauer advised members that both Loockerman and Division Streets were closed this past weekend and questioned the logistics of closing two (2) main arteries at the same time.
Loockerman Street
Mr. Ruane noted that the Loockerman Street project appears to be near completion. Mr. Laing stated that he had been working with the City’s Inspections and Planning Department on obtaining permission to close the street on Sundays to allow work to be completed.
North Street and State Street Intersection Study
Members were provided a letter from Mr. Laing, Municipal Liaison for DelDOT, dated November 10, 2003 indicating that DelDOT would have to conduct a full traffic study before agreeing to any restriction. This action will take both time and fiscal resources to accomplish. Mr. Laing requested that if the City makes a formal request of DelDOT to conduct such a study, that the City prioritize this against other projects that have been requested of DelDOT.
Due to the absence of Mr. Ritter, members deferred discussion regarding the North Street and State Street Intersection Study.
Miscellaneous
Ms. Wieczoreck referred to a concern relayed by Mr. Asay regarding pedestrian striping on North Street at Saulsbury Road being white paint on white concrete. She contacted DelDOT and requested that action be done to make the lines more visible. DelDOT indicated that they could use the white tape with black edge; however, this could not be accomplished until Spring because 50o weather would be necessary.
Mr. Ruane requested that Ms. Wieczoreck provide members with an e-mail explaining these details.
Mr. Ornauer expressed concerns with the new EPA regulations and the effect they will have on transportation issues. Ms. Wieczoreck felt that no further discussions, outside of the MPO, should occur regarding this matter since there are still too many “unknowns” regarding this issue.
Mr. Ruane announced and distributed information regarding workshop sessions which have been scheduled by the Parking Authority for November 17th and 18th.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Transportation Review Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT - NOVEMBER 24, 2003
The Legislative, Finance and Administration Committee met on November 24, 2003 with Chairman Speed presiding.
Dissolution of MCCK Limited Partnership Deed Restriction - Village of Northgate Subdivision
During their Regular Meeting of October 13, 2003, City Council approved the rezoning request for property located on the southeast corner of Kenton Road and Denny’s Road, known as Northgate Village, containing approximately 263.13 +/- acres, owned by MCCK, LLC. The zoning is currently RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) for 224.8682 acres, and RM-2 (Medium Density Residence) for 38,2617 acres.
Dr. James B. McClements, 50 S. Prestwick Court, requested City Council to dissolve deed restrictions that were placed on the above-mentioned property in 1996. Total acreage of the property has been increased to approximately 300 acres, of that, 240 acres is proposed to be deeded to the State of Delaware as a permanent nature preserve, and 60 acres owned by MCCK (Dr. McClements and his family) is proposed to be developed into 150 to 200 housing units for senior citizens, which is significantly less than the original 530 units that would be permitted within the current deed restriction.
Dr. McClements stated that the transfer of land for a permanent nature preserve will, in effect, accomplish the goal of having a gross density of less than two (2) dwelling units per acre. The deed restriction specifically states that it could not be altered or modified without the “approval of both the City of Dover and the Declarant, its successors and assigns”. The deed restriction was put in place as part of an agreement with the City of Dover to comply with the low density residential land use designation of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, while maintaining the RM-1 zone.
Responding to Mr. Truitt, Mr. DePrima stated that by deeding the property to the Sate of Delaware for nature preservation, the deed restriction placed on the property during the Comprehensive Plan will have been satisfied.
The committee recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign the necessary legal documents to dissolve the two (2) dwelling units per gross acre deed restriction on the 264.6141+/- gross acres, known as the Village of Northgate subdivision.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Request to Support Establishing City of Dover 4th of July Celebration Committee
During the November 10, 2003 Council Meeting, Mayor Hutchison advised members that the Chamber of Commerce announced that they would no longer be hosting the July 4th celebration.
On behalf of the Mayor, Mr. DePrima requested Council’s support in establishing a City of Dover 4th of July Celebration Committee; a City formed corporation that would operate independently in terms of raising and expending funds. In order to form the Dover 4th of July Celebration Committee, the City Solicitor must file the necessary documents to incorporate the Committee for the purpose of raising and expending funds for the operation of the 4th of July celebration. In addition, the Finance Director would be required to file the necessary documentation to obtain IRS 501(c) 3 status and to establish the necessary accounts for the Committee to receive and expend funds.
It was proposed that the Board of Directors shall be not less than five members and not more than nine members who shall be appointed annually upon the recommendation of the Mayor and approval of the City Council. The membership shall include the Mayor of Dover, who shall serve in an ex-officio capacity as Chairman of the Board. Other officers shall include a President/Vice Chairman to oversee overall operations, a Vice President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer. The initial Board of Directors shall serve until the City of Dover’s 2005 Annual Meeting and then be appointed at the Annual Meeting each year thereafter.
The committee recommended supporting the establishment of a City of Dover 4th of July Celebration Committee.
Referring to concerns expressed by Mr. Speed during the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting of November 24, 2003, Mr. DePrima stated that fireworks companies generally include in their fee a $10M insurance policy which protects them, as well as the event sponsors. He noted that for the past several years, First Night Dover has not obtained additional insurance.
Mr. Speed moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Speed and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT - NOVEMBER 25, 2003
The Utility Committee met on November 25, 2003 with Chairman Ruane presiding.
Annexation Request - 1196, 1198, 1210, and 1234 South Governors Avenue, Owned by Creekstone Development
Ms. Melson informed members that, as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update, all annexations will be reviewed from a cost benefit stand point. The annexation area consists of four (4) parcels of land totaling 9.282+/- acres, owned by Creekstone Development, and is located on the west side of South Governors Avenue near the intersection with Southbee Drive.
Members reviewed the “Cost/Revenue Analysis Prototype” for Residential Costs and the “Cost/Revenue Analysis Prototype” for Commercial Costs for properties located at 1196, 1198, 1210, and 1234 South Governors Avenue. Ms. Melson stated that these properties are identified in the Annexation Plan as a Category 1, which includes lands that are most desirable for annexation into the City of Dover due to the proximity of City services and/or existing utilization of City services.
The Planning Staff recommended that the properties be annexed into the City of Dover and that the properties (totaling 9.282+/- acres) be zoned C-2A (Limited Central Commercial) and RM-1 (Medium Density Residence) upon annexation. Ms. Melson advised members that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for annexation, as recommended by staff.
While reviewing the “Cost/Revenue Analysis Prototype”, Mr. Farling questioned the method used in the cost/revenue analysis when the future use of the property was unknown. Mr. DePrima explained that when annexing commercial property, estimating was the only way to develop the cost/revenue analysis.
The committee recommended approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for annexation of properties located at 1196, 1198, 1210, and 1234 South Governors Avenue.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Update - Electric Rate Study Implementation Plan
Mr. DePrima briefly updated members on the progress of the Electric Study Implementation Plan and indicated that the team was in the last quarter of the analysis phase. He displayed a chart showing several different scenarios and the affects the proposed energy rates would have on City of Dover electric customers (energy bills). The scenarios consisted of shifting rate classes, ratcheting, and power factor. Mr. DePrima reminded members that the implementation of the electric rate study was not intended to be used as a tool to increase revenue, only to reapportion existing rates.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the update on the Electric Rate Study Implementation Plan, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Update - Project Schedule 230 KV Tie - 69 KV Feeders 1 & 2
As a result of the Council Meeting of November 24, 2003, Mr. DePrima provided members a project schedule for the 230 KV Tie - 69 KV Feeders 1 & 2. Mr. DePrima stated that the transformers have been ordered and that, to date, the project is still under budget.
No further action was taken.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the update on the Project Schedule for the 230 KV Tie - 69 KV Feeders 1 & 2, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
BID - TREE TRIMMING CONTRACT (additional information since Regular Council Meeting of November 24, 2003)
During their Regular Meeting of November 24, 2003, members considered and approved staff’s recommendation to award a three-year contract to Asplundh Tree Experts. Execution of the contract by the City Manager was to occur after the contract was reviewed and consented to by the Finance Director, pending Council approval.
Council President McGlumphy advised members that the original Council Action Form did not include the list of all personnel and equipment considered, only the most common charges, such as tree trimmer, ground worker, and lift truck. The four (4) items not listed were foreman, drum chipper, small saw, and large saw. The bids for those items are as follows:
Delaware Tree Experts Asplundh Tree Company
Vendor (Cost Per Hour) (Cost Per Hour)
Foreman $53.53 $30.52
Trimmer $45.69 $26.64
Ground Person $39.64 $18.76
55' Lift Truck $38.66 $14.00
Drum Chipper $36.09 $3.20
Small Saw $5.90 $.86
Large Saw $6.32 $1.15
Council President McGlumphy noted that the new information did not conflict with the recommendation initially made by staff.
Responding to concerns previously expressed by Mr. Ritter, Mr. DePrima advised members that Asplundh was paid $199,047.66 for 2002 - 2003, which was a transition year to a complete contract tree trimming operation. An amount of $295,000 has been budgeted for the 2003-2004 tree trimming contract, and of that, $107,513.69 has been spent during the budget year.
Mr. Carey moved to reaffirm approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
RECOMMENDATION - DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS
During the Executive Session held on December 1, 2003, members interviewed two (2) candidates for the position of Director of Planning and Inspections.
Council President McGlumphy recommended Mr. James Galvin, II for the position of Director of Planning and Inspections. By a roll call vote of six (6) yes, three (3) no (Mr. Carey, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Truitt), Council appointed Mr. James Galvin, II as the Director of Planning and Inspections.
CONSIDERATION FOR PLACEMENT OF BALLOT QUESTION FOR CITY OF DOVER MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON APRIL 20, 2004 - PART-TIME MAYOR
Council President McGlumphy advised members that the discussion on the consideration for placement of a ballot question should focus on the question to be placed on the ballot; not the issue of whether the Mayor should be full-time or part-time.
Relaying concern, Mrs. Williams stated that the Charter only allows for referendums related to monetary issues. She also expressed concern that such a question may violate the spirit of the maintenance standards for City elections. Mrs. Williams stated that the same or similar conditions should be maintained for a referendum or an election because the same people who may vote in a referendum may not vote in an election.
Mr. Salters asked how the item was placed on the agenda and with what support. Council President McGlumphy stated that he placed the item on the agenda. Mr. Salters requested that the item be abandoned until the City Solicitor provides a legal opinion as to the Council President’s authority to place an item on the agenda without the support of other Council members. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he would look into the question. He also reminded members that they unanimously adopted the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
Mrs. Williams asked Council President McGlumphy if he would be willing to hold a public hearing on the issue to provide the citizens with the whole range of information related to the question. Council President McGlumphy stated that he would not since there have been debates and public hearings and at this time, the question is whether or not members wish to place the question on the ballot. Mrs. Williams asked if he would be willing to pose the question of whether the City needs a Council President. Council President McGlumphy responded that the issue of a Council President was discussed in relationship to the consent decree resulting from the NAACP lawsuit.
Mr. Ruane stated that there would be ample time for the electorate to come forward and have their questions answered regarding the issue of a full-time or part-time Mayor.
Mr. Ruane’s call for the question failed by a roll call vote of eight (8) no, one (1) yes (Mr. Ritter).
Mr. Salters suggested that the question be worded so that the voters would make a choice between a full-time or a part-time Mayor; not just “are you in favor of a part-time Mayor”. He noted that he had received many calls from constituents wondering what this Council’s intentions are.
Mrs. Williams stated that if members truly want to hear the answer to this question, it should be put forth honestly and not hurriedly.
Mr. Speed agreed that it was important to word the question in a way that would not lead the voters. He suggested that wording such as “Are you in favor of a full-time or a part-time Mayor” would result in a more accurate response.
Mayor Hutchison, noting that this was a very important issue, urged members to allow public hearings on the issue to obtain public input prior to voting on the issue.
Mrs. Williams moved that the whole issue of the question on the ballot go into public hearings prior to a decision being made on the exact wording for the ballot and that the City Solicitor be given plenty of time to evaluate the legality of the question. The motion was seconded by Mr. Truitt.
Mr. Speed noted that the Council President presented the question for a vote without a motion being necessary. He asked which motion had priority, the President’s or Mrs. Williams’. Council President McGlumphy stated that Mr. Rodriguez advised him that his motion took precedence and requested the Clerk to call the roll.
By a roll call vote of five (5) yes, four (4) no (Mr. Carey, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Truitt, and Mr. Salters), Council approved the placement of a ballot question pertaining to a part-time Mayor on the ballot for the City of Dover Municipal Election being held on April 20, 2004.
APPOINTMENTS - ST. JONES GREENWAY COMMISSION - THREE YEAR TERMS TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2006
Mayor Hutchison recommended the re-appointment of Robert Gorkin and Michael P. Mercer to the St. Jones Greenway Commission for three (3) year terms to expire December 31, 2006.
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved for approval of the re-appointments as recommended by Mayor Hutchison. The motion was seconded by Mr. Speed and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
APPOINTMENT - COUNCIL EMPLOYEES
City Assessor
By consent agenda, Mr. Carey moved to app