COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on August 27, 2001, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mr. Speed, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Ruane.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Gorman presiding. Members present were Councilmen Ruane and Salters, Mr. Snaman, and Mrs. Street.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Section 14-8 - Excessive Noise Prohibited
During the Open Forum segment of the Regular Council Meeting of June 11, 2001, Mrs. Rexene Ornauer, 17 Mifflin Road, relayed concerns regarding noise emanating from the Wawa during the middle of the night. It was her feeling that as a property owner, Wawa is responsible for what occurs on their property. Mrs. Ornauer stated that if she were in violation of the noise ordinance, she would be given a summons. It was her feeling that if noise occurs on commercial property, they too should be issued a summons. She suggested that the current noise ordinance (Section 14-8, Excessive Noise Prohibited) be amended to hold property owners and renters responsible for excessive noise generated on or from their property, as well as the noise maker.
Mr. Gorman reminded members that they were provided with a copy of the existing ordinance, as well as the proposed ordinance amendment.
Mr. Salters expressed concern with the ability to enforce the proposed amendment, explaining that the term “excessive noise” is ambiguous and would be difficult to measure. He suggested that a level of 75 decibels at a distance of 50 feet be used for enforcing the noise ordinance. He also felt that the proposed amendment would place the burden on business people who have no control over the situation and questioned if the Police Department had reviewed and commented on the amendment.
Responding, Mr. Gorman stated that paragraph (a) of Section 14-8 currently prohibits “any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others, or creates the risk thereof, within the limits of the city”. He also stated that paragraph (b), subparagraph (2) specifically refers to sound which can be heard “at a distance of 50 feet from the building, structure, or vehicle between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. would be in violation of the section”. Mr. Gorman stated that the manager or owner of the property had the right to ask the offender to cease making noise or leave the premises. If the offender did not respond, the owner or manager could provide a license number or information directing the police to the offender.
Mr. Ruane indicated his feeling that the proposal was redundant; however, he felt that the property owners should have some responsibility in this regard. He suggested an amendment that would provide notification to a landlord after a certain number of violations by a tenant, which would enable the landlord the opportunity to enforce their property rights. If the landlord did not take corrective measures to alleviate the problem, then they could be cited for failure to comply with the noise ordinance.
Mr. Truitt suggested that the matter be referred to the Police Chief for input regarding enforcement of the proposed amendment prior to taking further action.
Concurring, Mr. McGlumphy suggested in addition to the Police Department, that the Chamber of Commerce and local business owners be contacted to obtain their comments.
For clarification, Mr. DePrima advised members that the current noise ordinance does not specify a decibel level for enforcement. He felt that guidelines should be developed for merchants to maintain compliance with the noise ordinance.
Mr. Pitts suggested that the State’s noise ordinance, which supercedes the City’s ordinance, be reviewed and used for enforcement within the City.
Mr. Speed, referring to the Landlord Tenant Code, noted that landlords have very little authority over tenants and, unless they have the authority to evict a tenant, it would not be reasonable to hold them liable.
Mr. Ruane moved to recommend that the proposed amendment be tabled for further consideration at a future date, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Gorman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:33 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Councilmen Truitt and Speed, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Nichols.
Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) Agreement
Mr. DePrima, Interim City Manager, explained that the City of Dover has an existing Disposal Fee Agreement with DSWA for solid waste (including dry waste that is defined as construction and demolition waste, plastic, rubber, lumber, trees, and vegetative matter) that expires on June 30, 2002. Under this agreement, the City of Dover takes its waste to DSWA facilities at a rate of $58.50 per ton, with a $10 per ton rebate paid within 45 days after the end of the fiscal year. In addition, the City gets a proportional pay out from an $8.50 per ton set aside for every ton over 800,000 tons delivered to the DSWA from all parties under contract. Together these two rebates yielded a $10.60 per ton rebate for the 19,032 tons delivered last fiscal year. It should be noted that approximately $5 of the $58.50 per ton fee goes to support the Recycle Delaware Program, the Household Hazardous Waste Program, and the Electronics Recycling Program. The City has used DSWA's services since 1980.
On June 7, 2001, the DSWA adopted a new fee program for dry waste which has prompted a proposal for a new agreement. The proposed agreement would end on June 30, 2005, (effectively a three-year extension), would lock in the $58.50 per ton rate, and offer a new rate of $40 per ton for dry waste. The $8.50 per ton over 800,000 tons proportional rebate would be eliminated. Based on the latest rebate, that would be a reduction from $10.60 per ton to $10 per ton. The DSWA reserves the ability to adjust this rate, and dry waste tonnage is not included in the rebate calculation. The DSWA would not restrict the City from using other means to dispose of separated recycling material such as vegetative matter converted to mulch or asphalt ground for reuse.
In Fiscal Year 1999/2000, the City took 6,800 tons of dry waste and other bulk material to the DSWA. The Public Works Department estimates that with some adjustments in procedures, 4,000 tons of dry waste could be separated. If the estimated 4,000 tons of dry waste is taken to the landfill at $40 per ton, it would save $31,600 over the current fee of $47.90 per ton ($58.50 per ton - $10.60 per ton rebate) for this coming fiscal year. It is important to note that while the Sanitation Division does separate a certain amount of dry waste, operational changes will be necessary to insure that purely dry waste is taken to the landfill.
Mr. DePrima stated that the City of Dover has had a long relationship with the DSWA, which was the only venue for accepting municipal solid waste. Because of this, the DSWA contract was traditionally negotiated by the City Manager without City Council approval. In June 2000, the City was approached by Eastern Shore Environmental (ESE) to consider a contract to dispose of the City’s solid waste at its transfer station located east of Dover Air Force Base. The rate proposed was $47 per ton fixed for two years without any inflation cost escalators or pass through cost escalators. However, after learning that ESE was seeking conditional use approval for accepting municipal waste at their transfer station and that they were in legal conflict with the DSWA, the former City Manager advised ESE that he would not consider a contract until all legal matters with the DSWA were resolved.
Although ESE has requested that their application be withdrawn and are therefore unlikely able to accept municipal solid waste any time in the near future, for the sake of comparison the following assumes that their service may be available:
ESE Rate Comparison - The Interim City Manager evaluated the original proposal offered to the Public Works Director in June of 2000. The proposed rate of $47 per ton using last year's tonnage of 19,032 cost $894,504 while the new DSWA agreement (with the dry waste rate and without the proportional rebate) would cost $889,032. To equalize the comparison, an additional $8,000-$10,000 should be added to the DSWA rate to make up the lost interest due to the DSWA's rebate being received at the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, the ESE agreement would have cost between $1,500 and $4,500 less if it were available.
ESE vs. DSWA Rate Stability - The DSWA contract locks in the $58.50 per ton and the rebate programs until June 30, 2005. Mr. DePrima spoke with an ESE official who indicated that the City was offered a two-year guarantee on the $47 per ton rate.
ESE vs. DSWA Service Stability - DSWA operates its own landfills and has been accepting the City’s waste for 20 years without an interruption in service. As a state government authority, its business is handling Delaware's solid waste. ESE is a private for-profit company that operates a transfer station and depends on landfills outside of Delaware. Like any private company, ESE can go out of business, go bankrupt, or simply choose to leave the area.
Transfer Stations - Originally, one of the most attractive features of the ESE proposal was a nearby transfer station. Taking waste to this facility, assuming it is approved by Kent County, would save travel time and wear on vehicles when compared with the trip to DSWA's Sandtown facility. Even if Kent County approves the request by ESE, there is an issue as to whether the City should patronize the facility in light of the opposition expressed by Dover Air Force Base.
The DSWA is in the planning stages of siting a transfer station in central Kent County.
Legal Issues - The legal issues that caused the City Manager to decline an agreement with ESE in 2000 have not been resolved. The DSWA feels that it has flow control over municipal solid waste.
Mr. DePrima advised members that the Fiscal Year 2001/2002 Sanitation budget is $1,158,600 and $1,158,535 (un-audited) was expended in Fiscal Year 2000/2001. Entering into the DSWA contract should bring this expense under budget. The effective rate of the DSWA contract is September 1, 2001; however, DSWA has provided a verbal extension to October 1, 2001, to sign the contract.
The revised contract with the dry waste fee offers significant savings over the existing contract. The DSWA has provided the City with good, uninterrupted service for 20 years and there is no advantage to delaying a decision for an additional 10 months. It is unlikely that better rates will be offered or that the legal issues will be resolved within that time period. Even if ESE services were available, using ESE would result in minimal savings over DSWA rates, and the fixed-rate period would be shorter. There would also be possible legal expenses and a risk of interrupted service.
Staff recommended signing the new agreement with the DSWA, taking advantage of the $40 per ton dry waste fee and locking in the $58.50 per ton rate with rebates until June 30, 2005.
Mr. Lambert moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Nichols.
Responding to Mr. Speed, Mr. DePrima explained that there was a cost savings benefit to signing the contract, which would be equal to approximately $30,000 over the next year due to the dry waste fee included in the new contract.
Mr. Speed informed members that ESE has filed a lawsuit and has a September hearing date with the Court of Chancery. He felt that they should consider the position of ESE and pending legislation which would permit municipalities to contract with other vendors. Mr. Speed suggested that the City would be in a better negotiating position after a decision has been made regarding the ESE lawsuit.
Mr. DePrima indicated that it will be several years before other vendors locate a transfer station in Dover and that the only other option would be for the City to transport trash to Wilmington or Pennsylvania.
Mr. Ritter suggested signing a two-year contract with DSWA, with an option for a third year.
Mr. Pitts stated that there have been landfill issues for years and suggested that the City move forward with the new DSWA agreement.
Feeling that additional information should be obtained before formulating a recommendation on this matter, Mr. Truitt moved to table the matter until the next meeting. The motion failed for lack of a second.
On a call for the question by Mr. Truitt, the motion to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to sign the agreement with DSWA at a rate of $40 per ton for dry waste and $58.50 per ton with rebates until June 30, 2005 was carried by a vote of three (3) yes and two (2) no (Mr. Truitt and Mr. Speed).
Evaluation of Bids - Stormwater Pipe for Dover High School Ditch (Accounting Project # ST0232)
At the request of the Capital School District and Representative Nancy Wagner, the City of Dover Department of Public Works has agreed to enclose approximately 500 linear feet of open ditch along the Dover High School property. This project will alleviate a serious erosion problem along the ditch bank, and the proposed pipe will also allow better transmission of storm water through this drainage basin. In addition, this project will eliminate the safety concerns of area residents associated with a large open ditch. Bid specifications were prepared by the Department of Public Works which included two (2) different piping options. The first option evaluates the construction of twin 60" diameter pipes, and the second option evaluates the construction of twin 72" diameter pipes. Other sections of this drainage ditch in the vicinity of the Del Vets Club were enclosed approximately ten years ago. The City Engineer will choose the final pipe diameter prior to preparing the purchase order. Bids were solicited and received as follows:
Option #1 Option #2
Vendors (60" Diameter) (72" Diameter)
Contech Construction Products, Inc. $33,266.60 $53,343.80
Utility Piping Systems, Inc. $35,170.10 $56,417.08
Lane Enterprises, Inc. $44,265.20 $60,018.00
Funding for the project is available through Suburban Street Aid Agreements provided by area legislators and will have no impact on the City's operating or capital budget.
Staff recommended awarding the bid to Contech Construction Products, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $53,343.80 for the purchase of the appropriate size storm water piping to complete the Dover High School Ditch Project.
In response to questions of Mr. Speed, Mr. DePrima stated that DelDOT specifically set funds aside for this project and are separate from funds allocated for street repairs.
Responding to Mr. Lambert, Mr. DePrima stated that the engineering design services were funded by the Capital School District and the City is providing in-house labor to complete the work. If the labor were contracted, the cost would be approximately $150,000. He indicated that the City was providing the labor as part of an agreement between the former City Manager, Mr. O’Connor, and Representative Wagner. Mr. DePrima added that Representative Wagner has been extremely cooperative concerning various street projects requested by the City.
Mr. Koenig stated that the original project estimate, employing private contractors, was approximately $250,000-$300,000. He stated that Representative Wagner has allocated $105,000 in Suburban Street Aid money for materials and services for this project. Mr. Koenig estimated that the City’s in-kind services would be approximately $30,000, or two (2) months of labor.
Responding to Mr. Ritter’s safety concerns, Mr. Koenig stated that both ends of the drainage pipe would be fitted with large channel boxes to prevent access into the pipes.
Mr. Speed moved to recommend the issuance of a purchase order to Contech Construction Products, Inc., New Castle, Delaware, in an amount not to exceed $53,343.80 for the purchase of the appropriate size storm water piping to complete the Dover High School Ditch Project, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nichols and unanimously carried.
Evaluation of Bids - Playtex Transformers - Conversion of System from 22KV to 12KV
Presently, the Playtex facility located on Walker Road receives power at the 22KV level provided by an older underground delta system. The system, which appears to be poorly designed, presents safety and operational problems and has led to equipment failures and outages on several occasions. After discussions with Playtex, it has been determined that the 22KV to 12KV conversion is the best solution. This also has the added benefit of contributing to the City’s Long Range Plan of eliminating the 22KV system.
Staff proposed to purchase five (5) three-phase 12KV to 480 volt transformers which are required to make this conversion. City crews will coordinate with Playtex to exchange the existing transformers with the new transformers and relocate the service tap from the 22KV to a 12KV circuit which will be constructed from Walker Road south along the railroad tracks. This will be a dedicated feeder for Playtex. Specifications for the project were developed by the Electric Department and bids were received as follows:
United Electric Supply $92,799.00
Tecot Electric No Response
Wesco $93,900.20
Mr. DePrima stated that the project is unbudgeted and will be funded through cost savings on other budgeted projects. Based on bid requirements and delivery time, staff recommended awarding the bid for the five (5) transformers to Wesco in the amount of $93,900.20.
Mr. Ritter questioned why the project was not budgeted, given its critical nature. Mr. DePrima stated that the situation became an issue after the preliminary budgets were submitted and a resolution to the situation was recently determined. He stated that, traditionally, projects of this nature would be handled with a budget amendment.
Mr. DePrima explained that, due to the necessity of the project, the length of the delivery time (8-14 weeks), and the ability to work within the current budget, staff preferred completing the project at this time rather than waiting for the 2003 budget. He also advised members that Playtex has indicated that they would begin charging the City for downtime if outages caused by the faulty system continue.
Responding to Mr. Truitt, Mr. DePrima stated that negotiations are still underway to determine future ownership and maintenance of the transformers once installation is complete. Playtex understands that the City will not replace transformers in the future and the transformers will not be purchased until an agreement has been reached regarding ownership and maintenance issues.
Mr. Gorman informed members that during the Special Legislative and Finance Committee Meeting held on August 20, 2001, members recommended approval of the recommendation to purchase and install the transformers inside Playtex and to draft an agreement which stipulates that the City owns the equipment and that, once the problem is corrected, future repairs would be the responsibility of Playtex.
Mr. Salters expressed concern that future replacement of the transformers may become an issue.
Mr. Blakeman, Generation Manager, indicated that the City currently owns the transformers at Playtex and that it is the City’s responsibility to replace the transformers at this time.
Mr. Speed moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to award the bid for the purchase of five (5) transformers to Wesco in the amount of $93,900.20, authorizing the Interim City Manager to negotiate an agreement with Playtex that stipulates that the City will own the equipment and, once the problem is corrected, future repairs and replacements will be the responsibility of Playtex. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nichols and carried with four (4) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Lambert).
Discussion on Street Program Overview and 2001/2002 Capital Program (Presentation - August 13, 2001 Committee Meeting)
Due to time constraints, Mr. Ruane requested, and members concurred, that Discussion on the Street Program Overview and 2001/2002 Capital Program be deferred until the next meeting.
Mr. Lambert moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Nichols and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:28 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
William P. McGlumphy
Council President
WPM/jg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20018-27-2001.min.wpd