COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on April 28, 2003, at 4:53 p.m., with Council President Carey presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Pitts, Mr. Ritter, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Truitt, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Speed, Mr. Salters, Mr. Ruane, and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried.
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Safety Advisory Committee met with Mr. Truitt presiding. Members present were Mr. Ritter, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Wolfe, and Mr. Tolbert.
SECURITY SYSTEMS
City Hall Building (Mayor)
Mayor Hutchison relayed concerns regarding the safety of City employees. He requested that members direct staff to assess the security needs for City Hall and report back to the committee with recommendations. Responding to Mr. Speed, Mayor Hutchison clarified that City Hall would not be the only building assessed.
Mr. Ruane asked whether or not this was a budgetary item and, if so, if it should be considered within the constraints of the budget. Mr. DePrima indicated that the assessment could be conducted in-house utilizing Facilities Management and Police Department staff in order to reduce costs. He noted that when the City recently considered installing security cameras, those expenses were going to be paid from the contingency fund.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. DePrima stated that a space-needs study had been included in the CIP; however, he did not know if it had been eliminated. Mr. Ruane suggested that the study could be expanded to include the safety issues. Mr. Ritter asked if “Homeland Security” funds were available for security measures. Mayor Hutchison noted that Chief Horvath recently testified before the U.S. Senate regarding the flexibility necessary when expending those funds. Mr. DePrima indicated that the installation of cameras at the City’s water facilities was postponed pending the possibility of obtaining Homeland Security funds.
Mrs. Williams noted that if only perimeter security was being considered, the costs would be minimized. Mayor Hutchison confirmed that he was proposing perimeter security only. Mr. DePrima suggested using either cameras or a slide card system to track when the buildings are occupied after hours. He also noted that entrances should be restricted during working hours by limiting public access points.
Mr. Ritter suggested that this item be discussed during the budget hearings. It was Mr. DePrima’s feeling that it would not be possible to obtain the cost estimates in such a short period of time. He noted that contingency funds could be used for emergency matters.
The committee took no action.
Public Works (Council President Carey)
Council President Carey relayed concerns regarding safety issues involving our utility systems. He requested that members direct staff to revisit the water and electric systems and provide recommendations for ensuring that those areas are secure.
Mr. Ritter recommended tying into the new SCADA system to provide increased security.
The committee took no action.
Mr. Tolbert moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:18 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Mr. Ruane presiding. Members present were Mr. Speed, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Snaman.
REQUEST FOR DEDICATION - CORPORAL. DAVID B. PULLING WALKWAY
Members considered the request of Mr. Richard C. Pulling, Sr. for the City to dedicate the walkway connecting Woodcrest Drive with the Dover High School property to his son, Corporal David B. Pulling. Corporal Pulling was a Delaware State Trooper who was killed in the line of duty on November 18, 1987 and the dedication would be to honor his memory as a Trooper and graduate of Dover High School. It was noted that Corporal Pulling was the first Trooper who graduated from Dover High School to be killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Jorgenson, City Planner, informed members that the request was favorably reviewed by the applicable Development Advisory Committee members and staff strongly recommended support for Mr. Pulling’s request.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Jorgenson stated that, due to the nature of the dedication, it was his feeling that the cost of the necessary signage should be incurred by the community. Mr. Ritter agreed that this would be an honorable thing to do for a State Trooper who was a citizen of Dover all of his life.
Mr. Ritter moved to recommend approval of the request of Mr. Richard C. Pulling to dedicate the walkway connecting Woodcrest Drive with the Dover High School property as the David B. Pulling Memorial Walkway, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously carried.
STREET WIDTH WAIVER REQUESTS
Prior to discussing the street width waivers individually, Mr. Ruane asked if the Planning staff had considered modifying the requirements in order to reduce the requests for waivers. Mr. Jorgenson responded that, approximately one year ago, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) conducted a study which established recommendations for new road width standards. He noted that there are varying opinions on what the minimum requirements should be. The industry standard is 12 feet for a minimum lane width, along with 8 feet providing parking along the road. Mr. Jorgenson reminded members of the benefits of narrowing roadway widths, such as slowing vehicular traffic. Each of the three (3) proposed developments want to reduce their width from 38 feet to 32 feet to 24 feet with the vast majority of the road segments within the developments being 32 feet. Mr. Jorgenson suggested that the section of the Code requiring Council approval for street width waivers could be amended to allow for administrative approval. Mr. Ruane stated that, as Chairman of the Utility Committee, he would entertain an opportunity for such a change to be brought forward. Mr. Ritter concurred that staff should present Code amendments for consideration.
Creekside Subdivision
The applicant of Creekside Subdivision has formally requested a waiver from the City of Dover Subdivision Street Design Requirements set forth in the Land Subdivision Regulations (Dover Code, Appendix A, Article VI, Section A). Specifically, the applicant has requested a waiver from the minimum street pavement width requirement of 38 feet to permit a pavement width of 32 feet for certain streets in the subdivision. The Plan proposes to maintain the minimum right of way width of 60 feet throughout the subdivision. The main entrance road will remain at the 38 feet paved width.
Mr. Jorgenson informed members that the subject property consists of two parcels of land totaling 34.0886 acres +/- situated on the east side of Wyoming Mill Road approximately 3,600 feet south of Hazeletteville Road. The property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). The owner of record is Eileen Lockwood. The equitable owner is Seaview Development.
The Conceptual Subdivision Plan for Creekside proposes to subdivide this tract into 69 single family dwelling lots. One lot fronting on Wyoming Mill Road includes an existing single family dwelling. For lots within the R-10 zoning classification, the minimum required lot area is 10,000 S.F. with a 30% lot coverage limit.
The Plan proposes an entrance road from Wyoming Mill Road leading to a street pattern within the subdivision. The main entrance road (Riverside Road) travels east into the property and provides for future interconnection with the adjoining parcel to the east. A second road (Crickle Creek Lane) leads south from the main entrance road. Near the entrance from Wyoming Mill Road a third street (Creek Bend Road) loops south from the main entrance road and includes a small cul-de-sac. A fourth street (Canal Street) connects the loop street to the north/south street. The streets are lined with single family residences. The northern boundary of the property is existing woodland. A stormwater management area is proposed at the northwest corner of the property. All Street names are subject to the approval of Kent County 911 Addressing Section.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 17, 2003, reviewed the proposed street width waiver request as part of its review of the Conceptual Subdivision Plan for Creekside Subdivision and unanimously recommended approval of the waiver as requested.
In formulating this recommendation, the Commission considered the following points:
Reducing the pavement width of streets as proposed provides several benefits, including reduced impervious cover, less stormwater runoff, reduction in design speed and resultant travel speeds, increased pedestrian safety and reduced construction costs. Reducing the design speed on low volume local residential streets is usually seen as desirable for the community. Reduced pavement width also equates to reduced maintenance costs. Maintenance costs are a concern as the proposed streets are to be dedicated as public streets with the City of Dover ultimately responsible for long term maintenance.
The proposed waiver is consistent with similar waivers that have been approved in the recent past for the residential developments of Emerald Pointe, Maple Glen, The Cedars, and Four Seasons.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. Jorgenson stated that it was possible to retain a width of 38 feet for a length of 50 feet or so before narrowing to 32 feet. Mr. Jorgenson stated that they could craft language to reflect whatever results Council desires to achieve.
Mr. Lambert moved to recommend approval of the requested street waivers for the Creekside Subdivision, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.
Patriot Village
The applicant of Patriot Village Subdivision has formally requested a waiver from the City of Dover Subdivision Street Design Requirements set forth in the Land Subdivision Regulations (Dover Code, Appendix A, Article VI, Section A). Specifically, the applicant has requested a waiver from the minimum street pavement width requirement of 38 feet to permit a pavement width of 32 feet for certain streets in the subdivision. The Plan proposes to maintain the minimum right of way width of 60 feet throughout the subdivision.
Mr. Jorgenson advised members that the subject property consists of one parcel of land totaling 43.60 acres +/- situated on the east side of Acorn Lane north of South Hancock Avenue. The property is zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residence Zone) and R-8 (One Family Residence Zone). A southeastern portion of the property falls within the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The owner of record is Bangalore T. Lakshman.
The Conceptual Subdivision Plan proposes to subdivide this tract into 80 townhouse lots and 61 single family dwelling lots for a total of 141 dwelling units. The majority of the development would be accessed from Acorn Lane. A section containing twenty-one (21) single family homes takes access from Hopkins Avenue and South Hancock Avenue.
The Plan proposes an entrance road (Patriot Boulevard) from Acorn Lane leading to a street pattern within the subdivision. Single family residential dwellings are located along this main entrance street and along a second street (Dickinson Lane) that terminates in a cul-de-sac. The townhouse lots are located on the northern portion of the site along a loop road (Freedom Trail). One cul-de-sac street (Laks Court) is located off this road in the northeast corner of the property. A stormwater management area is proposed on the east side of the property. All Street names are subject to the approval of Kent County 911 Addressing Section.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 17, 2003, reviewed the proposed street width waiver request as part of its review of the Conceptual Subdivision Plan for Patriot Village Subdivision and unanimously recommended approval of the waiver as requested.
In formulating this recommendation, the Commission considered the following points:
Reducing the pavement width of streets as proposed provides several benefits including reduced impervious cover, less stormwater runoff, reduction in design speed and resultant travel speeds, increased pedestrian safety and reduced construction costs. Reducing the design speed on low volume local residential streets is usually seen as desirable for the community. Reduced pavement width also equates to reduced maintenance costs. Maintenance costs are a concern as the proposed streets are to be dedicated as public streets with the City of Dover ultimately responsible for long term maintenance.
The proposed waiver is consistent with similar waivers that have been approved in the recent past for the residential developments of Emerald Pointe, Maple Glen, The Cedars, and Four Seasons.
Mr. Speed moved to recommend approval of the requested street waivers for the Patriot Village Subdivision, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.
Rojan Meadows Planned Neighborhood Design
The applicant of Rojan Meadows has formally requested a waiver from the City of Dover Subdivision Street Design Requirements set forth in the Land Subdivision Regulations (Dover Code, Appendix A, Article VI, Section A). Specifically, the applicant has requested a waiver from the minimum street pavement width requirement of 38 feet to permit a pavement width of 32 feet for certain streets in the subdivision and a pavement width of 24 feet for a portion of one street. The portion of Rojan Way from North Little Creek Road to Fairfax Lane is proposed to have a paved width of 24 feet. The Plan proposes to maintain the minimum right of way width of 60 feet throughout the subdivision.
Mr. Jorgenson advised members that the plan proposes to establish a Planned Neighborhood Development on 38.75 acres +/- of land. The subject property is located on the south side of North Little Creek Road across from the end of the SR-1 off ramp. The property is zoned RM-1 (Medium Density Residential) and subject to the AEOZ (Airport Environs Overlay Zone). The owner of record is Aerlaw, Inc.
The applicant proposes the construction of a development consisting of the following: 22 duplexes, 91 townhouses, 4 three-story apartment buildings (48 units), and 18 single family dwellings (to replace a previously proposed commercial building). Access to the site would be provided by two connections to North Little Creek Road. The project also includes the associated road system, parking, open space, and stormwater management areas.
The Plan proposes two entrances roads (Chestnut Boulevard and Rojan Way) connecting to North Little Creek Road. The eastern entrance road (Rojan Way) curves west to link to Chestnut Boulevard. The western entrance road (Chestnut Boulevard) continues south and terminates at an intersection with Fairfax Lane. This third street (Fairfax Lane) begins at Rojan Way and continues south to provide access to the apartment buildings. A fourth street (Polly Street) connects Chestnut Boulevard and Fairfax Lane. One cul-de-sac street takes access from Chestnut Boulevard in the northwest portion of the site. All Street names are subject to the approval of Kent County 911 Addressing Section.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 21, 2003, reviewed the proposed street width waiver request as part of its review of the Conceptual Subdivision Plan for Rojan Meadows Planned Neighborhood Development and unanimously recommended approval of the waiver as requested.
In formulating this recommendation, the Commission considered the following points:
Reducing the pavement width of streets as proposed provides several benefits including reduced impervious cover, less stormwater runoff, reduction in design speed and resultant travel speeds, increased pedestrian safety and reduced construction costs. Reducing the design speed on low volume local residential streets is usually seen as desirable for the community. Reduced pavement width also equates to reduced maintenance costs. Maintenance costs are a concern as the proposed streets are to be dedicated as public streets with the City of Dover ultimately responsible for long term maintenance.
The proposed waiver is consistent with similar waivers that have been approved in the recent past for the residential developments of Emerald Pointe, Maple Glen, The Cedars, and Four Seasons.
Mr. Jorgenson noted that the 24-foot paved width on the portion of Rojan Way from North Little Creek Road to Fairfax Lane was being requested in response to the adjacent property owners in order to ensure off-street parking.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. Jorgenson stated that the reduced width would also be beneficial for the developer since it would be less expensive to install. Mr. Salters thought it would be unfair to the future property owners if the street were narrower than the other streets in the development. It was Mr. Speed’s feeling that on-street parking would create a visibility problem for anyone shorter than the height of a vehicle.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. DePrima stated that the developer would be responsible for installing the initial “no parking” signs in the subdivision. Replacement of any signage would thereafter be the responsibility of the City.
Mr. Ritter indicated that he would prefer a 38-foot paved width for the first 150 feet, then narrowing to 32 feet, at the western-most entrance from North Little Creek Road. He also suggested that the other entrances should also be wider initially then more narrow some distance in. Mr. Jorgenson noted that if the waivers were not provided for those segments of the roadway, the developer would be required to maintain the standard 38-foot width.
Responding to Mr. Lambert, Mr. Jorgenson stated that it is a common practice to create such “bottle necks”. Mrs. Williams stated that a bottle neck entrance may cause traffic to backup on North Little Creek Road.
Mr. Lambert moved to recommend approval of the requested street waivers for the Rojan Meadows Subdivision, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Speed and unanimously carried.
Mr. Speed moved to adjourn the Utility Committee Meeting, seconded by Mr. Ritter and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:58 P.M.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Mr. Salters presiding. Members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Williams, and Mr. Shelton (left at 6:53). Mrs. Street was absent.
PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION - POST RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND PENSION LIABILITY (MR. AL PIKE)
The City’s Actuary, Mr. Al Pike of Pike Associates, presented members with information regarding Post Retirement Benefits and Pension Liability (Attachment #1) for the City of Dover.
Mr. Pike stated that most public and private sector pension plans have been adversely impacted by the stock market. For the Employees Pension Plan, he expects that there will be significant investment losses and a need to revise retirement assumptions, resulting in increased costs. Mr. Pike stated that costs decreased in the Police Pension Plan and the State’s contributions significantly offset the loss from investments; however, he anticipates significant investment losses.
Mr. Pike noted that all retirees are granted full medical coverage from the City and that the City pays 100% of the medical coverage for employees and 75% for dependents. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is of the opinion that the City should recognize those cost as pre-funded over the length of employment.
Mr. Pike suggested that the only way to reduce costs would be to make the benefit package less attractive in order to reduce participation.
Mr. Salters moved to accept the Post Retirement Benefits and Pension Liability Report, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried.
AUDIT CONTRACT
The City awards independent audit services through the Request for Proposals (RFP) process. The current audit service contract ended with the June 30, 2002 audit. Due to the implementation of GASB 34 – Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysis for State and Local Governments, the GASB consultant has recommended that we retain our current auditor until we have completed the implementation. Faw Casson & Company, LLP has performed the City’s audit since July 1, 1985 and has a thorough understanding of our current accounting records and procedures.
Staff requested Faw Casson & Co., LLP to provide a quote for a one-year contract extension. This past year's fee was $29,150. Faw Casson & Company, LLP has proposed to extend the contract for one-year for a fee of $37,650. Their quote reflects the increase in auditing procedures now required by the Auditing Standards Board and the Sarbanes Oxley Act. If the City wishes to extend the contract for two years, the fee would be $35,200 for each year.
Staff recommended extending the audit services contract with Faw Casson & Company, LLP for one-year at a cost of $37,650. Requests for proposals will be solicited for subsequent years.
Mr. Speed asked what the potential effect of hiring another firm would be. Mrs. Mitchell stated that it would cost more for another firm to familiarize themselves with the City’s accounting system, records, and internal controls. She felt that since Faw Casson & Company is so familiar with the City, it would be more cost-effective to extend their contract for one year. Mr. Speed thought it would be beneficial to have other quotes for comparison purposes. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the last Request for Proposals resulted in three (3) bids. One was Faw Casson, one was out-of-state, and the third was Barbacane Thornton of Wilmington. She noted that Barbacane Thornton was lower, however, they are the auditors for Kent County and the City and County would be sharing their staff to conduct audits simultaneously. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the County selected Barbacane in order to avoid that conflict.
Mr. Speed noted that there was a 29% increase in the fee over the previous year. Mrs. Mitchell responded that the increase was due in part to the new standards put in place by the AICPA. She also noted that the necessary funds have been budgeted.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Mitchell noted that there is a deadline for applying for the GFOA Award; however, there would be no financial impact if the audit was not completed by the end of the year.
Mrs. Williams moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to extend the audit services contract with Faw Casson & Company, LLP for one-year at a cost of $37,650, with proposals solicited for subsequent years. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
REVENUE REVIEW
During the Regular Council Meeting of February 10, 2003, members were provided with a list of potential revenue sources for their consideration, categorized as follows: A) Potential Lower Yield Revenue Sources; B) Potential High Yield Revenue Sources; and C) Potential High Yield Revenue Sources that Require State or County Cooperation. Members were requested to review the list and rank the suggestions in order of priority for submission to the City Clerk, who would then compile the results. The department heads were also requested to review their current fees for possible adjustment.
Mr. DePrima stated that a number of departments reviewed their revenues and presented the following recommendations:
Police Department
The Police Department conducted a survey of communities in Delaware to determine if the City’s fine structure is comparable. They concluded that our fine structure is in alignment with other communities; however, one aspect that is not in alignment is the practice of increasing the fine if it is not paid by the due date. This is not done in Dover except for parking violations. The following communities uniformly increase fees if they are not paid on time: Bethany Beach, Dewey Beach, Fenwick Island, and Newark.
Mr. DePrima stated that, like Bethany Beach and Newark, he and Chief Horvath recommend that the ordinance be amended to allow fines to double if they are not paid within 10 days. He noted that they believe it will not only serve as a deterrent, but should lower the delinquency rate.
It was Mr. Salter’s feeling that 10 days was a short period of time for doubling the fee. He suggested extending the time to 14 days.
Mr. DePrima informed members that Chief Horvath is also recommending that the fines for false burglar alarms be changed to a “service charge” that would show up on utility bills. He believes that this will be a more effective and efficient collection method. It was Mrs. Williams feeling that if the “service charge” were attached to the utility bill, there should be a 30-day payment period. Mr. DePrima stated that they do not want to increase the charge, only change the method of charging the fine.
Mr. DePrima noted that the recommendations pertaining to ordinance amendments within the Police Department are for discussion purposes only. Should the Legislative and Finance Committee and City Council feel that these suggestions have merit, they will be resubmitted to the Committee and Council along with ordinance amendments.
It was Mr. Speed’s feeling that it would be a mistake to couple normal City services with law enforcement charges. Although the collection rate would probably increase; he was concerned with how the public would perceive fines being placed on the utility bill.
Mrs. Williams moved to table the matter until the Police Chief would be available, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.
Administrative Services
The Administrative Services Department reviewed revenue from late payment fees, sale of flags and site maps, and returned check fees. After reviewing costs and comparable communities, staff recommended that the returned check fee be increased $5 to $25. This recommendation is based on the following comparisons: Citizens Bank $35, PNC Bank $30, Wilmington Trust $30, City of Milford $35, Town of Smyrna $30, Delaware Electric Co-op $25, Chesapeake Utilities $17, Conectiv $15, Newark no charge.
Mr. Shelton moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried.
Planning and Inspections Department
The Planning and Inspections Department developed a comparison of the City’s Business License rates with the rates of other Delaware communities (Attachment #2). The comparison indicated that our rates are comparable; however, each community’s business license ordinance has evolved differently and those comparisons are not particularly useful. Mr. Jorgenson noted that a 10% fee increase would enable the business license fees to continue carrying 5.2% of the general fund budget, which is similar to last year. Without the increase, the share would drop to 4.8%, which is historically low for the funding source. Staff recommended a 10% increase in all business license fees.
Mr. Speed stated that the original intent was to have each business license fee considered individually rather than a general comparison with an across the board increase or decrease. Mr. Jorgenson stated more extensive comparisons were made and that the City of Dover would generate an increase greater than 10% if the same fee structure used by Rehoboth, Wilmington, or Newark was established.
Responding to Mr. Speed, Mr. DePrima stated that he and the City Clerk made phone calls to local municipalities to inquire about their fees. He found that the smaller municipalities generally do not have business license fees or have fees tailored to their communities, making it difficult to compare. Mr. Jorgenson noted that information could be gathered on the percentage change over of period of years for different communities if it would be useful for comparison purposes. It was Mr. Speed’s feeling that the information would be useful.
Members were also provided a comparison of Building Permit Fees, Fire Prevention Permits, and Planning and Zoning Fees (Attachment #3).
Mr. Speed noted that the proposed increase for building permit charges would place the City’s fee higher than Kent County’s fee. Mr. Jorgenson stated that it was his understanding that Kent County is currently reviewing their fee structure in order to consider increases. It was Mr. Speed’s feeling that Kent County and the City of Dover are direct competitors when it comes to property development. He noted that a higher fee would be a dis-incentive for developers who may be considering an area for annexation. Mr. Jorgenson stated that those costs, which are routinely incurred, are generally passed on to the consumer by the developer.
Mr. Speed, noting that the proposed Site Plan fee of $500 was higher than the minimums for other jurisdictions, asked Mr. Jorgenson if he had information that other jurisdictions would be raising their Site Plan fees. Mr. Jorgenson stated that the average fees of other jurisdictions would probably exceed the proposed fees.
It was Mr. Speed’s feeling that, since the City is trying to encourage annexation, they should not institute an annexation fee. Mr. Jorgenson responded that annexation of lands in excess of 5 acres is generally being requested by a developer. He noted that annexations are extremely time consuming and the costs to the City are significant. Mr. Speed stated that since annexation is beneficial to the City, in the long run those costs would be recouped in multiples.
Mr. Salters deferred to Council President Carey in order to hold the Open Forum.
Meeting recessed at 7:15 P.M. and reconvened at 7:23 P.M.
Mr. McGlumphy stated that the next year is a very critical year for the City of Dover with respect to income and revenue. He felt that the burden should be placed on Council to evaluate programs and projects to determine if they are essential for the public good and whether or not private enterprise could do them more efficiently. Mr. McGlumphy encouraged Council not to increase any fees or any other revenue sources until after considering reducing costs and not to consider any broad-based measures until the budget has been thoroughly analyzed.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend denial of staff’s recommendation to increase Business License fees, Building Permit fees, Fire Prevention Permits, and Planning and Zoning fees or any broad-based increase unless it is necessary after analyzing the budget. The motion failed for the lack of a second.
Mrs. Williams moved to table all items for the Legislative and Finance Committee, with the exception of Item #5, Evaluation of Bids - Playground Equipment/Structures and Installation at Silver Lake Park, until a later, more convenient date. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried (Mr. Shelton absent).
EVALUATION OF BIDS - PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT/STRUCTURES AND INSTALLATION AT SILVER LAKE PARK
As detailed in the FY-2003 Operating Budget and the 2003-2007 Capital Investments Plan, the Parks and Recreation Department solicited bids for the purchase of new playground equipment and structures, including the installation, for Silver Lake Park.
Mr. Carter informed members that the proposed playground area is the result of input obtained from approximately 25 families who attended a public workshop to discuss the playground.
Funding for the purchase of the Silver Lake playground equipment and structures is identified on page 33 of the 2003-2007 Capital Investments Plan and on page 148 of the FY-2003 Operating Budget in the amount of $60,000.
Staff recommended the issuance of a purchase order to the low bidder, Liberty Parks & Playgrounds, Inc. of Smyrna, Delaware, in the amount of $54,992 for the purchase and installation of playground equipment and structures, as specified.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried (Mr. Shelton absent).
Mr. McGlumphy moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Ritter and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:38 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Carleton E. Carey, Sr.
Council President
CEC/tm
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20034-28-2003.min.wpd
Attachments on File at the City Clerk’s Office
Attachment #1 - Post Retirement Benefits and Pension Liability
Attachment #2 - Business License Revenue Increase Comparisons
Attachment #3 - Revenue Increase Comparisons