COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on September 23, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Carey presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Truitt, Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Speed, Mr. Salters, Mr. Ruane, and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters requested the addition of Legislative and Finance Committee Item #3, Adoption of Budget Timeline.
Mr. Speed moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Mrs. Williams, Mr. McGlumphy, Mrs. Street, and Mr. Shelton.
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.
Responding to Mr. Ritter, Mr. DePrima noted that proceeds from the sale of land would be deposited into the Parkland Reserve Fund, as dictated by City Policy. Mr. Ritter suggested that the proceeds be applied to the land acquisition cost for the 230 KV tie-in project.
Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to authorize the City Manager 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 motion was seconded by Mrs. Williams and unanimously carried.
Bid - Purchase of AS/400 Computer to Replace Existing Unit
The City is currently running all utility billing, parcel-management, tax billing, licenses and permits, etc. on the existing AS/400 Model 620. The current system has become increasingly degraded in performance and capacity due to increasing workload and data retention requirements. The existing system is more than 6 years old and has reached the limits of its upgrade path. In order to accommodate the current workload and prevent technological obsolescence, a larger, faster and more advanced system is required. Bids were solicited for an AS/400 Model 820 with required associated hardware and system software, with the low bid being received from HTEVAR, LLC in the amount of $136,582.
Total funds of $142,645 have been allocated in the FY 2003 budget, page 55, for this purchase (G/L account # 613-2200-516-40-28 Computer Hardware/Capital). This purchase is also budgeted in the CIP on page 22.
Installation will be completed approximately 90 calendar days from the approved date of order. A delay of the purchase beyond the date whereby installation may be completed by December 13, 2002 will increase costs by at least $80,000. Therefore, it is requested that this item be placed on the City Council agenda later this evening.
Staff recommended awarding a purchase order to the low bidder, HTEVAR, LLC, in the amount of $136,582 for the purchase of the AS/400 model 820 with all required associated hardware and system software.
Mrs. Williams moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Adoption of Budget Timeline
At the request of members of Council, the Council President has 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.
Mr. Salters moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:35 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Speed, Mr. Snaman, and Mr. Lambert.
Kent County Sewer By-Pass
The City of Dover’s wastewater conveyance is served by two (2) County pump stations and two (2) City pump stations which are directly connected to the County transmission mains between Denny’s Road and Rising Sun. These mains are reaching 80% of capacity and should be upgraded in accordance with the Contract User Agreement between the County and the City. The Long Range Wastewater Master Plan identified this upgrade need and suggested a westerly route roughly following Salisbury Road, railroad rights-of-way and Rt. #113 alternate. The Kent County Department of Public Works presented an alternate routing of the wastewater transmission bypass to the Public Works Committee of Levy Court on August 20, 2002. The bypass, which was developed in close cooperation with the City Engineer, roughly follows Rt. 1, Fox Road, and Lafferty Lane. The Committee reviewed the merits of the alternate routing and is prepared to recommend commencement of the right-of-way acquisition, pending a favorable endorsement by City Council.
Members were provided Scope and Benefits Summaries with separate map attachment for their consideration. The wastewater transmission bypass provides an alternative solution to two (2) City force main capacity problems. City pump station #7 (Route 13 east) and #5 (White Oak Farms) are limited in their capacity by the force main size, which would require upgrades within the planning horizon. The proposed alternate routing would furthermore enhance the usage of City pump station #35 (McKee Road) and free up capacity in the County transmission main, which would allow City growth to be funneled through County pump station #3 (Legislative Mall) and City pump station #33 (Puncheon Run). The City Engineering Department is currently developing the City costs associated with the alternate routing. The County has already estimated their cost and determined that the alternate routing can be implemented at more than 50% cost savings over the original route. This would benefit all system users. A joint construction and/or financing approach could yield additional cost savings.
Mr. Hans Medlarz, P.E., Kent County Public Works Director, presented the Scope and Benefits Summary. He noted that the same presentation would be made before Kent County Levy Court the following evening and requested City Council’s favorable endorsement of the concept.
Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mr. Koenig, City of Dover Public Works Director, stated that once the concept is approved, they would perform cost engineering and lay the project out in the C.I.P. He noted that this is a substantial partnership between the City of Dover and Kent County to provide sewer service and to affect how the uniform rate is applied in the future. Mr. Koenig stated that the bypass will maximize the impact that it has on the City’s Capital Plan.
Mr. Ruane noted that endorsement of the final project would be subject to final review of project-specific cost by Capital Improvement year and that there would be continued dialogue to negotiate specific costs.
Mr. Speed moved to recommend endorsing the East Dover Transmission Bypass Concept, as presented, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.
Mr. Speed moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:21 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Carleton E. Carey, Sr.
Council President
CEC/tm
S:\ClerksOffice\Agendas&Minutes\Committee-Minutes\2002\09-23-2002.min.wpd