REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on October 14, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Carey presiding. Council members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Truitt, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Speed, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
Council staff members present were Chief Horvath, Ms. Russell, Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Ms. Melson, Mrs. Green, and City Solicitor Rodriguez.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Carey declared the Open Forum in session and reminded those present that Council is not in official session and cannot take formal action.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the Open Forum.
The invocation was given by Chaplain Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters requested the addition of item #4D, Bid - Purchase and Installation of Five Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) and Associated Equipment to Add to Existing Equipment.
Mr. Speed moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 23, 2002 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Truitt, seconded by Mr. Speed and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2002
The Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of September 27, 2002 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Speed, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PROCLAMATION - HALLOWEEN OBSERVANCE
The City Clerk read the following Proclamation into the record:
WHEREAS, the children of the City of Dover enjoy the fun and festivities associated with the observance of the Halloween Trick-or-Treat custom of traveling with friends and family going from door to door in their neighborhood, displaying their costumes, and gathering treats; and
WHEREAS, parents are prompted to join in the festivities by accompanying their children throughout their journey in celebrating Halloween Trick-or-Treat; and
WHEREAS, residents are requested to indicate their willingness to welcome children by keeping their porch or exterior lights on and that youngsters call only on homes so lighted; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Dover has deemed it advisable to observe the celebration of Halloween Trick-or-Treat on Thursday, October 31, 2002 between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JAMES L. HUTCHISON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DOVER, do hereby proclaim that Halloween Trick-or-Treat observance be held on the 31st day of October 2002, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in the City of Dover and urge all residents, both young and old, to make this a happy and safe occasion for our children and further request that all reports of strange flying objects, such as goblins and witches be reported to the appropriate authority.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider approval of proposed zoning text amendments relative to Single Family Residence Conversion. Ms. Melson, Interim City Planner, explained that the proposed amendments would have the effect of prohibiting, as a matter of right, the creation of multi-family dwelling buildings, whether by new construction or by conversion of existing residential dwelling and other structures, in the RG-1 (General Residence) Zoning District. These amendments would also prohibit the creation of rooming houses in both the RG-1 and RG-2 Districts. She reminded members that on May 28, 2002, City Council enacted a Moratorium on the conversion of single family dwellings within the RG-1 zoning district limiting the conversion of single family dwellings to apartment houses, multi-family dwellings and/or rooming houses. This action was taken as a result of numerous citizen complaints and documented City enforcement actions that pose a serious threat to the calm, repose, and essential single family residential character of neighborhoods by the conversion of single family dwellings, particularly in the area immediately surrounding Wesley College that is zoned RG-1, located in downtown Dover. These conversions have resulted in over crowded living conditions, parking problems, noise complaints, and violations of the adopted Property Maintenance Code to the detriment of these neighborhoods and their residents.
Ms. Melson stated that in accordance with the Moratorium, the Mayor, Council, and Staff have taken several approaches to address these concerns including meetings held with representatives of Wesley College and Delaware State University in regards to their students who live off campus. As a result, there have been changes made to their student policies and recording activities regarding violations that occur on those properties. In addition, the Department of Planning and Inspections was directed to prepare an amendment to the RG-1 Zoning District that would have the effect of further regulating the conversion of single family dwellings to apartment houses, multi-family dwellings and/or rooming houses in the RG-1 Zoning District. Ms. Melson reminded members that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments.
Members were provided correspondence relative to the proposed RG-1 Zoning District amendments, both for and against (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk).
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Ms. Melson indicated that the proposed amendments establish “Student Homes” as a special criteria within the RG-1 Zoning District which would allow no more than four (4) persons to reside in a student home. In all other cases throughout the Zoning Code, no more than five (5) unrelated persons are permitted to reside in a dwelling unit, which is also in compliance with other provisions such as the building and property maintenance codes. She also noted that Multi-Dwelling units in the RG-1 Zone, other than the proposed “Student Homes”, require only two (2) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The parking requirements suggested for the “Student Homes” provision would be an additional special criteria for this use, which requires four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit.
In response to Mr. Ritter’s concern regarding the license fee of $150 for each Student Home License, Ms. Melson explained that the current rental code includes a license fee which is based on the number of units. It was her understanding that the intent of the proposed ordinance amendment is that the Student Home License is a special type of rental license with a $150 license fee. She indicated that there may be a need to clarify some language within the code in this regard to ensure that this intent is met.
Mr. Truitt relayed concern with limiting the number of students allowed per dwelling unit. He explained that there may be dwellings that could accommodate more than four (4) students and others that may not; however, regardless of the accommodations, the proposed amendments would allow only four (4) students in a six (6) bedroom home. It was his feeling that the proposed amendments should include provisions allowing the determination of the number of students permitted to be based on the number of bedrooms in a home.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Ms. Melson stated that the proposed amendments address how the grandfathering issue is approached for those existing facilities in the area that would potentially meet the “Student Home” provision. The separation distance or location are not requirements that these facilities would be required to meet; however, there are other provisions that they would be required to comply with, such as parking.
Mr. Salters felt there were several issues and concerns involving the proposed amendments. He suggested that these concerns be relayed and documented to be referred back to staff for further review and development of an equitable solution to these concerns.
Mr. Ruane explained that his comments regarding the density requirement were to clarify some of the remarks contained in the letters of complaint received that allude to the problems being more of an enforcement problem rather than based on the number of occupants. He felt that regardless of the number of occupants permitted, the problems being experienced are an enforcement issue and will not be eliminated by adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments. He further explained that these dwellings currently are not allowed more than five (5) individuals - there should not be 12 or 8 or 6 no matter what the size of the dwelling. Mr. Ruane indicated that a letter was received regarding concerns of a basement being converted to a dorm, which is an enforcement issue.
Mr. McGlumphy advised members of conversations he has had with area residents and that these have been ongoing problems. It is his hope that Wesley College will consider these concerns and understand that when admitting students, they must be able to provide adequate housing and not permit anymore students than can be accommodated.
Responding to Mrs. Williams, Chief Horvath stated that he, along with the Mayor and City Manager, met with the representatives of Wesley College and Delaware State University regarding concerns of loud parties. As a result, each student was sent a letter from him welcoming them to Dover and explaining that they will be expected to follow the laws of the City of Dover and State of Delaware. The Police Department also agreed with the Colleges that they would provide stronger enforcement with the underage consumption and loud parties and to notify them of the subjects arrested upon a summons being issued for any crime that occurred for any student of the college that resides off-campus. In turn, the colleges agreed to take administrative action when an arrest has been made. Chief Horvath stated that this action was already being taken by Delaware State University; however, Wesley College was not. They have changed that policy and now students are made aware of the regulations, which are included in the student handbook. He noted that earlier in the school year, there were 23 tickets issued for under-age consumption and that the problems have slowed down considerably since then. He will be contacting Wesley College to determine what type of administrative action was taken with these students.
Council President Carey declared the hearing open.
IN FAVOR:
Mr. Joe Caputo - 237 North Governors Avenue, representing a group of long-term citizens and residents of the neighborhood of Governors Avenue and Bradford Street, provided photographs of litter found in the neighborhood and letters delivered to him by residents of the area that speak in favor of the proposed amendments. He also brought bags of litter that was picked up from the area last Sunday which contain many beer bottles. He reminded members that the primary issue behind this proposed ordinance is the degradation of the quality of life in the area surrounding Wesley College Campus. There are loud, profane parties lasting into the early morning hours, where conspicuous underage drinking occurs. The erosion of civility is exhibited by crowds of drunken and obscene students. There is a total lack of respect for the residents and neighborhood by the litter found in the streets, on sidewalks, and in the yards of residents. The streets are used as drag strips, there is public urination, theft, vandalism, and loud fighting. It is his feeling that these problems are the direct result of the concentration of properties that are rented to groups of Wesley College students. The proposed ordinance amendments are not directed towards the students but are designed to prevent the further concentration of residences that are leased to groups of students and to establish regulations for those residences that are already doing so. Mr. Caputo also noted the problems with available parking since most students have a vehicle, which is most evident on street cleaning nights. He requested that members move forward with approving the proposed ordinance amendments, which would be a positive step towards rejuvenating the neighborhood.
Gary Knox - 303 North Governors Avenue, stated that he purchased his home in this area because of his appreciation of its character and the architecture of the homes. It is also in close proximity to his employment, which enables him to walk or bike to work. Unfortunately, on most evenings and especially weekends, he and his family are subject to drunken students. His windows must remain shut to prevent his children from being subjected to the foul language used by these students. It is also difficult to sleep at night due to the noise generated from students walking to and from homes. He has often witnessed students urinating along his fence in the back alleyway. There is a substantial amount of litter in the area, not only on the streets, but in the yards as well. Mr. Knox has had property stolen and damaged by these students. Although the police are called, the subjects are usually gone by the time they arrive, which is why he feels there is a need for adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments. If there is less student housing over-run with tenants and parties, there will be fewer occasions to call the police. The landlords of these homes may indicate they are being deprived; however, he noted that many do not live in the downtown area and are not subjected to the living conditions these homes create. He suggested that these homes be rented to other tenants such as military personnel and families. These landlords are running businesses and should be subject to certain zoning controls and regulations. Mr. Knox stated that student housing and their attendant problems will continue to spread and frustrated tax paying homeowners and constituents will flee to the subdivisions. He stated that the issue is about preserving the quality of life in Dover and urged members to approve the proposed amendments.
Mr. Fred Franze - 637 North Bradford Street, asked members to consider the taxpaying homeowners that have a right to a clean, peaceful, and safe neighborhood. These rights are not being met when there are underage students drinking alcohol, partying through the night, littering the area, etc. He has a nine (9) year old daughter that should not be required to be exposed to these types of actions. Mr. Franz stated that it is obvious that the increasing number of student homes and irresponsible students are a problem and requested, as members consider the proposed ordinance, that they keep in mind that smaller problems are easier to handle than larger ones. Wesley College is working to increase their full-time enrollment which equates to more students. If reasonable restrictions are not placed on the number of students in the neighborhood, the conditions will continue to worsen and they then may not be solvable.
Mrs. Fran Savin - 226 North Governors Avenue, stated that she has resided in her home for 36 years and was one of the many residents who came before Council in April regarding issues involving Wesley College students. Considering that this matter has been discussed for several months, she indicated her objection to having this matter delayed any further. She reiterated concerns regarding the number of students that sleep in the homes and the lack of parking. Mrs. Savin noted that Wesley College has a parking lot available for parking “by permit only” and suggested that the residents be provided permits for parking on the street.
Ms. Diane Towns - 333 North Bradford Street, agreed with the comments that have already been shared. She must also shut windows to avoid listening to profanity or observing a student urinating in a neighbors yard. It is her feeling that with Wesley College having a desire to increase student enrollment, it is their responsibility to make the problems being encountered their problem and not the residents.
Mr. Dave Moses - 46 Delaware Avenue, stated that his neighborhood has experienced the same problems that have been spoken of this evening. It is his feeling that, although focus has been given to the Governors Avenue and Bradford Street area, the problems have spread to Delaware and American Avenues. He felt that these problems were probably not indicative of the majority of the students; however, it is a problem that needs to be addressed and he hoped members realize that the problems are spreading.
Mrs. Jean Sheppard - 311 North Governors Avenue, indicated that every weekend litter must be cleaned up from her yard and that her yard is used by students who are going to and from the store, The Grocery Basket. She has experienced vandalism and theft caused by students and has talked to the administration of Wesley College. She indicated her frustration that there is no action taken by the administration and that these students are visitors in this town and should treat it respectfully. She noted that many homeowners have moved away from the area. Mrs. Sheppard felt that the proposed amendments would help the situation and urged their adoption.
OPPOSED:
Mr. Jack Albert Sutton, Jr. - 212 North Governors Avenue, requested that members consider delaying action on the proposed amendments. He explained that if the amendments are adopted, they will take effect in six (6) months, which is prior to finals which will place an additional burden on those students that may be required to find housing. He requested that members consider the amount of revenue that is brought to the area by these students and the effect it could have on the community if students were forced to obtain their college education elsewhere because they could not find affordable housing near the school. To help the situation, Mr. Sutton suggested the use of the college students as volunteers for the good of the community. There are many students that are required to perform a minimum of 100 hours of volunteer service. He felt that reducing the number of students permitted in a single home would only force the problems to spread, making it more difficult for the police. In response to the parking concerns, he suggested the possibility of the City providing land to allow students an area of parking and that a shuttle be provided to and from the parking lot.
Mr. G.R. Myers - 301 William Street, recognized that there is a problem that needs to be addressed; however, he agreed that it appears to be more of an enforcement issue which the proposed ordinance amendments will not solve. His concern is mostly with the discriminatory nature of the concept “Student Home” - by making laws that single out particular groups of people. Regardless of who one is, inappropriate behaviors should not be tolerated and action should be taken against those that conduct themselves inappropriately. There were other suggestions made earlier to address the problems, such as the concept of residential parking permits. His greatest concern is that the proposed amendments will not solve the problems. He felt that other solutions need to be discussed and the problems could be solved by enforcing the laws that currently exist.
Mr. Mathew Lindell - 227 Heather Drive, Clayton, indicated that he is a student of Wesley College and was bothered by the many citizens’ concerns and complaints regarding the students. There is no excuse for deprocating such a wonderful city; however, he felt that there must be a more reasonable solution to the issues. He noted that the proposed amendments are specific to students and if any other group was put in the place of “students”, it would be considered discrimination. He indicated his appreciation for Dover and suggested that all concerned parties pool their resources and work together to solve the problems rather than discriminating against a particular group.
Ms. Amanda Berger - 202 Baytree, Apt. #A203, stated that she lives in an area that would be affected by the proposed ordinance amendments, although it is not in the vicinity of Wesley College, and if adopted, she will not have a place to live. She is a senior at Wesley College and is concerned with being able to prepare for finals and graduate. A part of the charm of Dover is its beauty and friendliness. Rather than labeling all students in a negative manner, she suggested establishing more community or neighborhood watches that would include students to help alleviate the problems. Ms. Burger explained that she is an upstanding student and is concerned with the effect that the proposed ordinance amendments will have on her and other students like her.
Ms. Mandi Clark - 14 Heritage Drive, addressed members as the President of Student Government of Wesley College. In regards to the parking issue, she stated that if students move to locations further outside RG-1 and RG-2 zones, they will still need to commute to Wesley, which will require them to park on the street. As far as the racing of cars and other incidences of unsafe driving, she stated that Wesley College students are not the only people that use the streets. She noted that there is a high school nearby that has students that use the roadway, as well as other people in the community. Ms. Clark stated that she would not defend her peers with regards to the litter, urination, and profanity, and urged that the laws be more strictly enforced in this regard. She explained that the student government has also felt that the College should take more responsibility and that they have addressed them relative to some of the same concerns such as parking problems and an increased number of students. Hopefully, these concerns can be addressed in a joint effort by the students, community, and City Council. Ms. Clark requested that members take into consideration that over 57%, approximately 700, of Wesley College students are commuters due partially to the fact that Wesley only guarantees housing for freshmen and sophmores. Also, with the licensing agreement being from January to December, she stated that the school year runs from fall to spring (August to May). She urged members to consider these points and table the matter for further investigation.
Mr. Bruce Arendall - Newark, is a parent of a sophomore student (daughter) attending Wesley College. It was his feeling that the problems being experienced by the residents is an enforcement issue with the exception of parking. He relayed concern with having a flawed law interfere with his daughter’s current situation. His daughter currently has more room at her residence than was provided in the dorm last year, as well as privacy. He noted that last year, there were drug deals being made directly across from the dorm, which has not been a problem living off campus. Mr. Arendall requested that members take into account that not all of the students and housing are causing these problems before adopting the proposed ordinance amendments.
Mrs. Jackie McCabe - Wyoming, stated that she and her husband are landlords of property located at 335 and 337 North Governors Avenue. She respects the position of the residents; however, it is her feeling that there is an enforcement problem. She stated that although she has not experienced a parking problem when visiting her properties, there may be a parking problem in the area. With regards to disorderly behavior and littering, she stated that there are covenants included in the leases which address these types of problems with eviction. However, she indicated that a student cannot be evicted based on hearsay and that parents are required to sign the leases and are as responsible as the students. She suggested that the real problem may be with the students who actually live on campus and travel to areas off campus. She felt that the proposed ordinance needs further clarification and that enforcement with consequences is the answer. Speaking on behalf of the landlords, Mrs. McCabe indicated that the proposed ordinance amendment places an undue burden on the landlords and offered to serve on a committee to further investigate this matter and develop a working solution to the problems.
Ms. Autumn Thomas - 1137 Woodstock Court, reminded members that students of Wesley College are voting citizens of the City of Dover and have rights that need to be reflected in ordinances and suggested there be further review of the proposal.
Mr. Michael Braun - owner of 327 and 329 North Bradford Street, read in a local newspaper that the City had been working with residents in the area regarding the proposed ordinance amendments; however, as a property owner, he had not been contacted. He referenced his letter previously submitted which explains why he feels the proposed ordinance may be ill conceived and would not solve any problems, but create a host of other problems. He felt that members may be acting too fast on the matter and that he tries to be a good landlord and does not feel that their position is receiving adequate hearing and requested that the matter be tabled for further consideration.
Ms. Michele Giglio - 118 Thames Drive, stated that she recently made an offer to purchase property located one block from the College. Her main concern is that the proposed amendment is an illegal action. She has done research to determine if other municipalities have encountered similar incidences and how they were handled. Although she could not locate any specific legislation or Superior or Supreme Court cases in Delaware, in New Jersey, they have dealt with a similar situation that she feels makes sense. It was her feeling that the proposed amendments create a sub-class of citizens, the students, and treats them differently than the rest of the citizenry. Ms. Giglio stated that the New Jersey Superior Court indicated that “neither the constitution or statutory provision is a blanket authorization to pursue a governing bodies particular notion of public good or to legislate beyond their bestowed powers expressed or complied. That any potential or actual conflict in the definition of public interest is best left to the state.” Recently, the City of Bloomington, Indiana dealt with the issue as well and, under the equal protection clause of the Supreme Court of the Constitution, their similar ordinance was struck down because, by prohibiting households consisting of more adults living in a certain neighborhood that were made up of primarily students, they were violating their constitutional rights. The ordinance was merely an attempt to define some neighborhoods as “off limits” to students. Ms. Giglio relayed concern that the City is attempting to violate constitutional rights and suggested that whatever action is taken, it be done citywide rather than in just some areas. She suggested that there be more done in the way of community activities that prevent the problems being experienced and create more activism rather than reactionism in a way that she feels may be illegal.
Ms. Courtney Brazier - stated that she was previously a student resident who attended Wesley College for four (4) years, graduating in May 2001. She stated that the proposed ordinance would have prohibited the living arrangements she had while attending Wesley College, and would make it impossible to require parking on properties that could not accommodate such a requirement. She also relayed concern that there currently is not enough housing for Wesley College students and if the proposed ordinance is enacted, this problem would only escalate and may prohibit students from attending the College. It was her feeling that the proposed ordinance will not resolve any of the problems with parking, noise, etc.
Mr. Floyd Dickey - 323 North Bradford Street, stated that there are college students living next door and he has had no problems; however, living next door on the other side, there is a family which he has had problems with. It is his feeling that it is a matter of communication and that it would be unfair to the landlords and college students to enact the proposed ordinance amendments. He suggested that the residents be considerate of the students who have chosen to attend our colleges and that it is unfair to treat them any differently.
Mr. Rocky Myers - student of Wesley College, stated he is in involved with rental properties that house students. He stated that the purpose of passing an ordinance is to remedy a problem, unfortunately, his feeling is that the proposed ordinance amendments will not resolve the problems being experienced. The problems of underage drinking, parking, loud car music, noise, students walking through the neighborhood traveling to and from the dorms and college, theft, vandalism, etc. will not be resolved by adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments. He noted that there is a parking problem only between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., which is due to those college students who commute. He questioned how it is known that all of these problems are caused by college students, feeling that the proposed ordinance amendments do not address and will not solve any of the problems.
Ms. Lisa Coverdale - 14 Heritage Drive, stated that she agrees with the concerns and suggested that the problems are not only with students. With reference to the litter, theft, vandalism, etc. that the students are being accused of, she questioned if there is proof that these are the result of student actions. Ms. Coverdale stated that her concern is that when she came to Wesley as a freshman, students were advised not to go over to New and Queen Streets because that was a “bad” part of town. Just riding through this area in the evening, she stated that drug deals and other illegal activities can be observed. She felt that Wesley College is a very small problem compared to other problems just a few blocks away from the College. She suggested more consideration be given to students and that members consider tabling the matter for further review.
Mr. Frank Rendon - 1432 South Farmview Drive, stated that he does not represent any interest; however, he relayed concern with the proposed ordinance amendment. He questioned the difference between those students that live off campus and those that live amongst many students in a dormitory on campus. Mr. Renden noted the current construction of a very large building to house several college students and questioned the rights for this to occur and, at the same time, restricting landlords. He cautioned members that when election time comes, he will consider the votes taken regarding this matter.
Mr. Golden Myers - North Bowers Beach Road, indicated his opposition to the proposed ordinance amendments. He noted that no one who has spoken against the proposal has done so with anger; however, the residents seem to be very angry, which clouds reasoning. As a landlord and previous Wesley College student, he knows that the problems in the area are legitimate. Unfortunately, he felt that the amendments would not resolve the problems. Not only are they discriminatory, they are very unclear, and simply punish students and landlords. He stated his concurrence that the problem is with enforcement of current regulations. The proposed amendments will not resolve any issue regarding parking or noise and that Wesley College should be required to participate in developing a resolution. He also advised members that, as a landlord, he was not contacted regarding this issue to obtain input and suggested that the City contact landlords for input on the matter.
Mr. Gil Myers relayed his appreciation to the Mayor and those members of Council that took the time to discuss this matter with him. He stated that he has spent 34 years teaching and coaching young people. It has been his experience that for every student that is a problem, there will be 95 good students. To resolve an issue, the problem must be addressed. He noted, as previously mentioned, that several citations were issued for underage drinking and questioned if there were any citations issued for supplying the alcohol. He stated that there are laws that prohibit supplying minors with alcohol and felt there is a need to address this wrongfulness. Mr. Myers reminded members that they represent the City of Dover and have the responsibility of making democracy work and urged them to consider the many young people that will consider, when the vote is taken, if they were represented.
Ms. Norma Collins - 202 American Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. As a resident since 1977, the neighborhood has been “Wesley student free” for the past two (2) years. She cited several incidences involving destruction of property caused by Wesley College students. She expressed her understanding of the residents and felt it would be beneficial to relay the way the residents in her area attacked the problem. Ms. Collins stated that her neighborhood is now referred to by the students as DMZ, which is like a de-militarized zone. There must be due diligence on the part of the residents, who should contact the Police, administration of Wesley College, City Council, etc. whenever there is a problem caused by a student.
Mayor Hutchison stated that most students are good and relayed his appreciation to those investing in our City by rebuilding homes and the residents who have spent many years in the City. As a retired law enforcement officer, he is familiar with the problems associated with the issue being considered. The proposed ordinance amendment offers an opportunity and responsibility to provide a resource base to deal with the concerns that have been relayed. The police and inspectors of the City have a great responsibility and need to have resources, tools, and laws to deal with concerns and problems being encountered. Although it may not be the ideal ordinance, the proposed amendments are a beginning. Mayor Hutchison advised members that he has met with the presidents of Delaware State University, Dr. DeLauder, and Wesley College, Dr. Miller. The City has entered into a relationship/partnership that will assist in addressing some of the problems and concerns being experienced in our City. He reminded members that, as elected officials, we have an absolute responsibility to assist our good students, property owners, and those who are making financial investments in the City to do what is best and that this is a matter that cannot be ignored.
Council President Carey declared the hearing closed.
Mr. McGlumphy moved that the final reading of the proposed zoning text amendment be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Ritter and unanimously carried.
To address some of the comments made regarding the process for consideration of the proposed amendment, Mr. Speed explained that this process has been ongoing for several months. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, there was a Legislative and Finance Committee meeting held when this matter was discussed, and the proposed ordinance amendments were considered during the last Regular Council Meeting. However, it was his feeling that the proposed ordinance amendments were drafted in a one-sided manner, since there was only one (1) group of constituents that participated in the development of the proposal in a significant manner. He assured those present that all correspondence was received by members of Council. Since there currently is a Moratorium in effect which eliminates an urgency for the passage of the proposed ordinance amendments, Mr. Speed suggested that this matter be further reviewed.
Mr. Speed moved to table the matter, seconded by Mr. Truitt.
Mr. Pitts suggested that, if the motion to table passes, a date certain be set for the matter to be brought back to Council for consideration. He also suggested that the different interest groups should meet with City staff to assist in “fine tuning” the proposed ordinance amendments.
Concurring, Mr. Salters explained that although additional regulations are needed, Council must be sure that the City is adopting a solid ordinance that will not require substantial changes and one that will withstand any court test. He requested that all parties be patient in assuring that Council is doing their job properly.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Ms. Melson stated that in drafting the proposed ordinance amendments, the primary reference resource was from Lower Merion Township in Pennsylvania. Although the City of Newark may have been referenced for developing policies for off-campus students, to her knowledge, there were no specific notes mentioning them in drafting the proposed ordinance amendments.
Mr. Ruane indicated it was his understanding that Lower Merion Township was used as the model in developing the proposed ordinance amendments. After researching this information, he discovered that the ordinance for Lower Merion Township has passed judicial review at the state level. It was his feeling that the proposed ordinance amendments, with some minor changes, could pass judicial review and indicated that he was prepared to make such adjustments at this time. He relayed concern that there are aspects of the amendments that could make the City vulnerable. Mr. Ruane also felt that many of the issues and concerns relayed this evening would not be addressed, explaining that redefining “family” will not alter behaviors. He relayed concern that the proposed amendments may give false hope to the community and suggested that some of the suggestions made this evening should be considered to resolve many of the problems encountered in the area. He also suggested considering the inclusion of a sunset clause to determine its success. Mr. Ruane indicated that his reasoning for the adoption of the proposed amendments would be for the preservation of the neighborhood and to avoid a change over in the community from owner/occupancy to rental units, explaining that the rationale for the proposed amendments is not to resolve the problems in the area. He suggested that if Council is requesting that staff revise the proposed amendments, they should be given direction. He suggested considering an increase in the number of persons permitted from four (4) to five (5) persons per dwelling unit, which is a universal definition, and a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces required to be consistent with other zoning ordinances.
In response to Mr. Ruane, and noting that he communicated his thoughts regarding possible revisions, Mr. Salters suggested that everyone who may have suggestions should provide them in written form to the Interim City Planner, Ms. Melson, for consideration.
Mr. Truitt questioned if a time limit could be included in the motion. Mr. Speed moved to amend the motion by adding that the proposed ordinance amendments will be brought back to Council for reconsideration no later than the first meeting in December. The seconder, Mr. Truitt, agreed to the amendment.
Council President Carey explained that when there are major ordinance amendments, it must be handled in the same manner as a new proposal. This would include submission to the Legislative and Finance Committee, a first reading held by Council, and another public hearing/final reading. It should also be noted that the Planning Commission should reconsider the matter since these are amendments to the zoning text.
The motion, made by Mr. Speed and seconded by Mr. Truitt, that the matter be tabled, that a date certain be set for the first reading on December 9, 2002, and that a public hearing/final reading be held on January 13, 2003, was carried by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Ritter and Mrs. Williams).
Mr. Salters reiterated that anyone interested in this matter will have the opportunity to address members during the Legislative and Finance Committee Meeting, which would be scheduled for November 25, 2002, and urged their attendance.
Council President Carey requested anyone having additional input they wish to have considered, to please put it in writing and submit to the City Clerk’s Office within seven (7) days for submission to the group for consideration.
Council President Carey called for a 5-minute recess at 9:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:59 p.m.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on September 23, 2002 with Chairman Salters presiding.
Disposal of Surplus Land - White Oak Road near SR 1 (Tax Parcel ED-05-68.11-01-05.00-000)
In 1985, the City of Dover acquired a vacant parcel of land on White Oak Road near SR1 (Tax Parcel ED-05-68.11-01-05.00-000) for $6,000. The purpose of the purchase appears to be related to the construction of the 69KV line that was occurring at the time. However, a search of City records could not determine the exact reason for the purchase. In 1989, a portion of the parcel was sold for $2,000 to the State of Delaware for the State Route 1 project.
In 1999, Mr. John Paradee, on behalf of adjoining property owners David and Bill Harmon, offered to purchase the parcel from the City for $16,000. An appraisal done by Dover Consulting Services dated August 12, 1999 valued the property at $16,000. Mr. O’Connor, then City Manager, began price negotiations and, in a letter dated November 8, 2001, made a final counter offer in the amount of $17,500. Apparently the transaction was not finalized and, in a letter to the present City Manager, Mr. DePrima, dated August 14, 2001, Mr. Paradee asked that the deal be consummated for $16,000. He indicated that prior to leaving, Mr. O’Connor verbally expressed a willingness to sell the property for $16,000. Mr. Paradee was informed that a verbal agreement could not be accepted, and that the $17,500 selling price would be forwarded to City Council in accordance with the Land Disposal Policy. Mr. Paradee has agreed to accept the selling price of $17,500.
In accordance with the Land Disposal Policy, the City Manager evaluated the property and determined that no City departments were in need of the parcel. In 1996, the parcel was rezoned to SC-1 (Neighborhood Shopping Center) as part of the Comprehensive Plan update; however, this parcel is not large enough to meet the zoning minimum lot size and is unbuildable as a “stand-alone lot.” Changing the zoning would not enhance the resale value of the property.
The Land Disposal Policy encourages the sale of surplus land through auctions or sealed bid. However, there are several exceptions, including Exception “A” - Sale to an abutting owner. This exception allows the City to convey surplus property to neighboring property owners when a public sale would be detrimental to the lands of an abutter, or when the combination of land would be substantially greater in value than that of the sum of the parcel considered individually. This matter appears to meet both conditions. The City property alone is unbuildable, however, it would be of value to the abutting property because it would be the best access point to the abutter’s property. Together these properties can be developed for a neighborhood shopping center. Without the City’s parcel, the abutting property owner may have difficulty establishing a safe entrance and exit. The policy requires that a current appraisal be done. While the existing appraisal was done in 1999, the agreed upon price of $17,500 is higher than the 1999 appraised value and can be viewed as a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Selling this property would put the land back into the City’s tax base and relieve the City of any responsibility for maintenance.
Staff requested that the City Manager be authorized to convey the property to the neighboring property owners, David and Bill Harmon, for the amount of $17,500, with closing costs to be paid by the buyers.
The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Truitt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Adoption of Budget Timeline
At the request of members of Council, the Council President scheduled a Special Council Meeting (October 7, 2002) to allow for discussion of the budget visions for fiscal year 2003/2004. That request included the opportunity for members to discuss amending the budget timeline. Since budget packages will soon be distributed to departments, Council President Carey suggested that the budget timeline be discussed to provide ample time for staff to be prepared for any changes in this regard.
It was Mr. Ritter’s feeling that the draft budget should be adopted by the second meeting in April to afford outgoing council members who have participated in the budget process the opportunity to participate in its adoption. He requested that the budget be distributed in final form before July 1st. Mr. Ritter did not feel that it was fair to new council members to have to adopt the budget as soon as they take office.
Responding, Mrs. Williams explained her understanding that the budget was adopted in June so new council members could vote on the budget they would be working with for the following fiscal year.
Mr. DePrima expressed concern with implementing any changes to the budget process this year since they are already a month ahead of last year’s timeline and the budget presentation kickoff is scheduled for October 1, 2002. Currently, department heads have one and a half months to work on their actual budget and a month to work on their salaries for a total of two and one half months. In order to comply with the schedule proposed by Mr. Ritter, that process would be limited to one month.
Mr. DePrima informed members that the Government Accounting Standards Boards Statement No. 34 (GASB 34) has precipitated major structural changes in the City’s accounting and budgeting processes. He suggested implementing the new timeline with next years’ budget process.
Mr. Carey reminded members that the purpose of the discussion was to provide Mr. DePrima and Mrs. Tieman, Administrative Services Director, with direction in bringing the budget timeline forward to Council. Mr. Salters, noting that they have indicated the ability to meet the suggested timeline next year, recommended deferring discussion until the Special Council Meeting of October 7, 2002.
No further action was taken by the committee or Council.
Bid - Water/Sewer Stock Materials
During the committee meeting held earlier this evening, members reviewed a bid for the purchase of water/sewer stock materials.
The Public Works Department uses many items for system maintenance and upgrade. The City purchases these water/sewer stock materials through a blanket bid process, which has proven to be a very cost-effective method of purchasing. Although some items are subject to escalations in price based on market prices for raw materials such as oil and copper, vendors guarantee their bid prices for the entire year for most of the items. Central Services prepared the bid list identifying frequently used items based on the prior year’s consumption.
Although bids were requested from seven (7) vendors, only two (2) bids were received: 1) US Filter Distribution Group, Smyrna, Delaware; and 2) Dover Plumbing Supply Co., Dover, Delaware. The prices for these items were evaluated and the lowest prices responsive to the needs of the Public Works Department were selected.
Material quantities, based on last year’s consumption, were reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The amounts suggest the estimated maximum amounts to be purchased from the vendor indicated. Dover Plumbing Supply Co. was the low bidder on only two items. The difference in the bid price of these two items was only $1,364.45 over the term of the contract. They also did not offer a firm one-year price. Dover Plumbing Supply Co. attached an escalation factor to their entire bid stating that escalations given to them from each manufacturer will be added to the bid price at the time of delivery. If any escalation factor were to be applied, this small saving could be reversed into an additional cost. US Filter Distribution Group did not apply any escalation factors on any items bid. Upon further analysis, it was found that US Filter’s total (compared to last year’s when applied to the quantity) is $2,098 less than last year’s total.
Staff recommended awarding the blanket bid for water/sewer stock materials to US Filter Distribution Group, Smyrna, Delaware, in the amount of $91,730.16. Pending approval, specific materials will be ordered and delivered to the warehouse to replenish stock throughout the year. The bids are for a period starting with the award of the bid through August 31, 2003. Staff requested that this item be considered by Council during their meeting later in the evening.
The committee recommended approval of staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Truitt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Bid - Purchase and Installation of Five Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) and Associated Equipment to Add to Existing Equipment.
During the committee meeting held earlier this evening, members considered the purchase and installation of five (5) mobile data terminals (MDTs) and associated equipment to add to existing equipment for the Police Department.
The Police Department is installing mobile data terminals (MDT’s) in the Patrol Unit vehicle fleet. MDTs are rugged laptop computers the Police officers use to process police reports and access local, State and Federal law enforcement systems required to complete their daily duties. Bids were solicited, with the low bid being received from Pelican Mobile, Glen Burnie, Maryland, in the amount of $35,280.
Major purchase items are normally included in the annual Capital Investments Plan (CIP) for both grant and budget-funded items. However, the timing of the grant application processes for the following two grants precluded this item from being included in the Police Department’s CIP submission. This purchase will be funded using currently availab