REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on January 22, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Christiansen presiding. Council members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters, and Mr. Weller.
Council staff members present were Chief Faulkner, Mr. Cooper, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. DePrima, Mrs. Mitchell, Deputy Fire Chief Bashista, Mrs. Green, and Mr. Rodriguez.
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum was held at 7:15 p.m., prior to commencement of the Official Council Meeting. Council President Christiansen 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 Wallace Dixon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2001
Mrs. Malone requested that the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 8, 2001 be amended to indicate that Deputy Fire Chief Bashista was present. The amended minutes were unanimously approved by motion of Mrs. Malone, seconded by Mr. Salters and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PRESENTATION BY MT. ZION AME CHURCH (REVEREND COLEMAN) - DONATION FOR THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL CENTER AT SCHUTTE PARK
Reverend Coleman along with the Trustees and members of the Mt. Zion AME Church presented a check in the amount of $1,000 to the City of Dover for their efforts to build a Recreational Facility at Schutte Park. Reverend Coleman indicated their pleasure with the City taking this initiative and that progress is being made concerning our youth.
Mr. Hicks, President of the Board of Trustees of Mt. Zion AME Church of Dover, read the following Resolution into the record:
Whereas: Mt. Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church for over 200 years continues to fight and support activities and causes favoring human rights and dignity for all humankind.
Whereas: The citizens of Dover and its environs has been socially deprived and our children not having a facility to address the growing and social needs of out community for the disadvantaged.
Whereas: This is the millennium year when dynamic changes are being made all over the world indicating progress and change and whereas Dover, the Capitol of the First State should be a pace setter for the State and Nation and
Whereas: The center at Schutte Park has met with great endorsement for the greater Dover community.
Whereas: Mt. Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church was a part of the original planning and endorse the Schutte Park project and
Whereas: The Trustee Board of Mt. Zion embraced the need and is donating $1000 as its expression for support and encourage all the churches and synagogues to follow out humble beginning.
Be it resolved that this counsel extend its interest to the entire religious community in support of the Schutte Park Project.
Mr. C. Wallace Hicks, President
Reverend R.W. Coleman, Pastor
On behalf of members of City Council, the Parks and Recreation Committee, and the Dover Recreational Facilities Committee, Council President Christiansen relayed appreciation for the support of the Mt. Zion AME Church.
PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 87 CARVER ROAD - METROPOLITAN PROPERTY GROUP
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 87 Carver Road, owned by Metropolitan Property Group. Mr. DePrima stated that the property was declared dangerous on August 21, 2000. The property has been vacant and unattended and was subject to a fire early last year. The weather and lack of maintenance are accelerating the deterioration of the building. Mr. DePrima showed slides depicting the condition of the structure, which is a two-story, wood framed house.
Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by February 5, 2001 by the owner or equitable owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner or equitable owner within ten (10) days of the date set by Council; 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax against the land upon which the building stands, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. The estimated demolition cost is $10,000.
Mr. DePrima noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Norbet L. Shreckengast, J & J Custom Builders, certifying that based on his inspection, the strength and integrity of the structure has not been affected, including the foundation.
Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Eugene Slacum, State Street Realty, advised members that the property is currently listed for sale and that there are two (2) clients interested in purchasing and developing this property. The clients have indicated that they would have a final decision regarding the purchase of the property within 60 days. Mr. Slacum stated that since the structure is sound, he requested that the demolition be delayed 60 days when a decision will be known as to the potential sale of the property. He advised members that both clients have indicated the desire to use the present structure if the property were purchased.
Mr. Truitt referred to staff’s recommendation which includes ordering the property repaired or demolished. Responding to Mr. Truitt, Mr. DePrima assured members that if Council approves staff’s recommendation and work on the property begins prior to February 5, 2001 and progress continues, staff would not order a demolition. He stated that generally, staff’s long-term tolerance for buildings under construction is six (6) months.
Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing closed.
Mrs. Malone moved that the property located at 87 Carver Road be declared a dangerous building to be subject to demolition, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weller and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes and one (1) abstention (Council President Christiansen).
PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 548 BUCKSON DRIVE - SHERIDAN AND MARSHA TAYLOR
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 548 Buckson Drive, owned by Sheridan and Marsha Taylor. Mr. DePrima stated that the property was declared dangerous on November 29, 2000; however, notices were sent regarding code violations beginning in March 1998. He stated that although the property is occupied, it is in serious disrepair.
Mr. DePrima advised members that over the years there have been numerous code violations including failing or deteriorating roofing, siding, soffit, fascia, peeling paint, debris, and high weeds. After several summonses were issued with no response, the Deputy City Solicitor began prosecution. Unfortunately, these efforts have not caused the property to be repaired (letter from Deputy City Solicitor was provided to members for their review). Mr. DePrima showed slides depicting the condition of the structure, which is a two-story frame house.
Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by February 5, 2001 by the owner or equitable owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner or equitable owner within ten (10) days of the date set by Council; 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax against the land upon which the building stands, or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. The estimated demolition cost is $12,000.
Mr. DePrima noted receipt of information from the City Clerk’s Office regarding a telephone call received from Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor indicated that he would not be able to attend the public hearing and requested that members be advised that he has hired a contractor to repair the vinyl siding and that the repairs are scheduled to begin March 15, 2001. He also indicated plans to install a new front storm door, install new windows, and repair the roof in June or July of this year. Mr. DePrima stated that although several attempts have been made by staff, with the exception of the telephone call from Mr. Taylor and a response as a result of taking this matter to court, there has been no contact or assistance provided by the homeowners.
Mr. Truitt advised members that, on several occasions, he has contacted the Inspections Department on behalf of the neighbors that have contacted him with complaints regarding this property. He felt that staff has made every attempt to work with the property owners and that it was time to move forward in having this property repaired.
Responding to Mr. Weller, Mr. DePrima indicated that although staff has not been given the opportunity to inspect the interior of the property, it was his feeling that the property could be repaired. The declaration of this property being dangerous is the result of multiple code violations that staff has been unable to successfully require the property owners to repair. He stated that according to the dangerous building code, property maintenance and code violations are recognized to meet the definition of a dangerous building.
Council President Christiansen noted that once again the courts have not provided assistance to the City in this regard and suggested further consideration in reestablishing and reactivating the Alderman’s Court. It was his feeling that an Alderman’s Court would allow the City to address code violations and handle situations of this nature so that they do not reach this point.
Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Roy Bogus, 229 Frear Drive, advised members that he was President of the Edgehill Civic Association seven (7) to eight (8) years ago and that the property was in disrepair at that time. Although he would not necessarily want the property demolished, the City should use whatever means necessary to cause repairs or it will simply continue to worsen.
In response to Mr. Bogus, Mr. DePrima indicated that there is a mortgage lien on the property. Conversations with the mortgage company’s attorney indicated that they were in the process of foreclosing on the property. He stated that the mortgage company has indicated willingness to make the necessary repairs and reminded members that a part of the order requires the owner or equitable owner to begin repairs or demolition within 10 days. Mr. DePrima stated that the City also has the right to make the necessary repairs rather than cause the property to be demolished; however, it is difficult to recoup these funds. In this particular situation, he relayed concern that making the repairs would not be a solution to ending future maintenance problems.
Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Carey moved that the property located at 548 Buckson Drive be declared a dangerous building to be subject to demolition, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS BUILDING ORDINANCE - 200 N. NEW STREET - FRANK AND LINDA CHICK
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider a violation of the Dangerous Building Ordinance at 200 N. New Street, owned by Frank and Linda Chick. Mr. DePrima stated that the property was declared dangerous on June 9, 2000 and that it has been left vacant and unattended since a fire which occurred in May 2000. The weather and lack of maintenance are accelerating the deterioration of the building. Mr. DePrima showed slides depicting the condition of the structure, which is a two-story frame structure.
Staff recommended that City Council: 1) declare the property dangerous; 2) order the property repaired or demolished by February 5, 2000 by the owner or equitable owner at their own risk; 3) order the Building Inspector to cause the repair or demolition of the structure if not completed by the owner or equitable owner within ten (10) days of the date set by Council; 4) order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, to cause the cost of repairs or demolition to be charged against the land on which the building exists as a municipal lien or cause such cost to be added to the tax duplicate as an assessment, or to be levied as a special tax against the land upon which the building stands or to be recovered in a suit at law against the owner. The estimated demolition cost of $12,000.
Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing open.
Mrs. Linda Chick, property owner of 200 N. New Street, advised members that demolition may be the solution and that an estimate has been obtained to have that accomplished; however, they have recently been contacted by a contractor that is interested in repairing the property. Although she is not sure if the contractor is serious about pursuing the repairs, she requested an extension until March 15, 2001. Mrs. Chick assured members that if the contractor is not interested in making the repairs, they are willing to have the property demolished.
Mr. Salters advised members that the property owners have been good neighbors for many years and felt that the City should grant the extension as requested.
Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Salters moved that an extension be granted until March 15, 2001 to allow the property owner to sell the property or have it demolished, seconded by Mr. Carey.
Mrs. Malone suggested that the motion include staff’s recommendation, which will allow the City to move forward if the property owner does not comply with the order by March 15, 2001.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Council President Christiansen clarified that the recommendation of staff to declare the property dangerous includes an order for its repair or demolition by the owner or equitable owner. At the suggestion of Council President Christiansen, Mr. Salters withdrew his motion as did Mr. Carey his second.
Mr. Salters moved to table consideration of the violation of the dangerous building ordinance for property located at 200 N. New Street to allow the property owner the opportunity to finalize the sale of the property and that the matter be reconsidered by Council during their Regular Meeting on March 12, 2001. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on January 8, 2001 with Chairman Salters presiding.
Proposed Ordinance - Demolition Assessment - 212 W. Division Street (Isaac and Mary Carter)
During their Regular Meeting of July 10, 2000, City Council authorized the demolition of property located at 212 W. Division Street, owned by Isaac and Mary Carter. Since the owners did not take the necessary action, the City ordered the demolition. As a result, the demolition costs, in the amount of $8,675.00, were assessed and a lien was placed on the property. Upon receipt of the assessment bill, the owners contacted the City requesting the opportunity to make payments. According to our demolition procedure, Council must adopt an ordinance to assess the property with an extended payment schedule and set an interest rate.
Mrs. Green, City Clerk, advised members that during previous consideration of special assessment liens, Council felt that a three (3) year payback period was appropriate for demolitions. It was also recommended that the property owners be required to pay interest at the legal rate established by 6 Del. C. §2301, which will be provided by the City’s Finance Director/Treasurer. Based on this information, monthly payments in the amount of $275.86 would be required for the assessment in the amount of $8,675.00, at an interest rate of 9%. The property owners, when advised of this information, relayed concern with the amount of the monthly payment. They indicated that monthly payments in the amount of $100 could be possible and requested further consideration of the payment amount. Responding, Mrs. Green provided members with several different payback period scenarios for consideration as follows:
Payback Amount of Monthly
Period Loan Payment
3 $275.86
5 $180.08
7 $139.57
10 $109.89
The committee recommended adoption of an ordinance to assess the property owner of 212 W. Division Street an amount of $8,675.00 for demolition costs, to be paid within a 10 year period, at an interest rate of 9%.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation by consent agenda, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
Final Sign Ordinance Amendments
Since December 1999, staff has worked with a 25 member Sign Code Amendment Advisory Committee to develop unified sign regulations within the Zoning Code. The City Planner, Mr. DePrima, reminded members that in June 2000, City Council adopted Interim Sign Regulations which placed most of the existing sign regulations into one section, changed the regulations from being “zone” based to “road corridor” based, placed the bulk of the requirements in a unified sign table, and retained existing regulations that were not ready for revision.
Mr. DePrima presented members with a final draft of the Sign Regulations and explained that they add to or revise the Interim Regulations, as follows:
► Places all sign regulations into Article 5, Section 4 - Sign Regulations.
► In the Purpose Statement, adds sections on Legibility, and Relationship of Signs to Buildings and Sites.
► In the General Provisions, adds regulations for Administration and Unsafe, Dilapidated, and Illegal Signs.
► Adds a Definitions section.
► Adds to Section 4.4 - Design Requirements, subsections for Free Standing Signs, Material and Craftsmanship, Wall Signs, Illumination (revised), Changeable Copy Signs, and Minimum Lettering Sizes.
► Adds Historical Signs, Public Signs, Internal Location Signs, and Window Signs to the list in Section 4.5 - Signs Permitted in All Districts and Not Requiring Permits.
► Completely replaces Section 4.6 - Signs Prohibited in All Districts.
► Completely replaces the Sign Table in Section 4.7 - Permitted Signs.
► Adds regulations for Window Signs, Race Weekend Signs, Inflatable Signs, Motor Vehicles Sales Lots, and Shared Signs in Section 4.9 - Supplementary Sign Regulations.
► Window Signs and Mountable Wall Area bonuses were added to Subsection 4.9F - Signs Located 100 Feet or More from Roadway.
► Adds Regulations for Non-Conforming Signs that include a change of use as a criterion for bringing signs into compliance.
During the committee meeting, Mr. DePrima gave a slide presentation depicting the various types of signs and explained the changes as a result of the proposed sign regulations. He explained that the regulations are more design based rather than performance based or prescriptive. There are several guidelines included that provide details for aesthetically pleasing signs. Mr. DePrima also advised members that the proposed regulations codifies several policies.
In response to Mr. McGlumphy during the committee meeting, Mr. DePrima stated that any signs that are non-compliant will be “grandfathered” until such time as the sign is destroyed, a building permit is obtained for major renovations of a building, or any other event triggers the ordinance to become effective.
The committee recommended adoption of the proposed sign ordinance amendments and that a public hearing be set for February 12, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
Responding to Mr. Weller, Mr. DePrima reiterated that there will be existing signs that will be “grandfathered”. He also explained that there will be certain public signs, such as DelDOT signs, will not be subject to the sign regulations.
Mr. DePrima submitted an amendment to the definition for “Adjacent to Residential” as listed in the proposed ordinance. He explained that the revised definition provides better reading and adds the exclusion for residential uses and districts on principal arterial roads.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, with the amendment to the definition for “Adjacent to Residential” as presented by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
Internet Service Provider Analysis
In response to a request for the City to provide Internet Service as an additional service to our utility customers, staff conducted significant research on providers. The focus of the research was based on providing Internet Service to our residential customers and integrating the billing of the service with our HTE utility bills. Providing Internet Service to businesses, hosting their Web sites, and facilitating their e-commerce activities would be a project of much broader scope and expense. At this time, staff felt that such a project should only be considered after the City experiences an extended period of success at the residential level.
Members were provided details of the proposals submitted by potential ISP’s. The proposal submitted by Fast Net, Inc. does not require the installation or purchase of equipment by the City, includes a one-time start-up fee of $8,995 and a monthly minimum charge for 50 users at $9.99 per month or $499 per month. Based on this information and the analysis conducted by the City’s Finance Director/Treasurer, staff recommended that the City enter into an agreement with Fast
Net, Inc. Staff felt that the City should avoid options involving the cost of installing, maintaining, and upgrading communications equipment.
Mr. O’Connor stated that since subscriber fees paid to Fast Net would be $10.00 per month, the City would charge customers a $15.00 per month user fee. The proposed contract with Fast Net, Inc. would be for a period of one year and would be renewable beyond that time at the discretion of both parties. He explained that this option provides the City a minimal financial risk and maximum financial return. The overwhelming advantage Fast Net, Inc. has as a vendor for this project is its existing presence in the State and current excess communications capacity in the Dover area.
It was noted that this service should be available within 30 to 60 days.
The committee recommended approval of the Internet Service Provider Contract with Fast Net, Inc. to include a one-time start-up fee in the amount of $8,995 and a monthly minimum charge for 50 users at $9.99 per month or $499 per month, for a period of one year with the option to renew beyond that time at the discretion of both parties, as recommended by staff.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Comprehensive Review of City Code of Ordinances - Chapter 1 - General Provisions
In conjunction with the Comprehensive Review of the City Code, staff submitted proposed amendments to Section 1-2 - Rules of Construction and Definitions, and Section 1-6 - Sponsoring, Consideration, Passage and Effective Date of Ordinances and Charter Amendments. The proposed amendments will allow Council appointed staff and City committees to submit ordinance amendments for review by the Legislative and Finance Committee without the requirement of sponsors.
Mrs. Green, City Clerk, explained that staff often has requests for minor amendments to ordinances that require very little preparation time and are typically of a noncontroversial nature. Elimination of this requirement would speed up the processing time for such amendments. In addition, it was felt that amendments proposed by a City committee (such as the Planning Commission, Election Board, etc.) should be given consideration without requiring sponsors. Current exceptions to the requirement already include: 1) emergency ordinances; 2) rezoning ordinances; and 3) ordinances passed in consideration of a comprehensive review of the Code.
Staff recommended that Section 1-2 be amended by adding a definition for “Council Appointed Staff” and that the second paragraph of Section 1-6, subsection (2), be amended to include the words “ordinance amendments proposed by Council appointed staff or a City committee”. It was noted that there are other amendments to clarify the requirements as well as some typographical corrections included in the proposed amendment.
The committee recommended adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter 1 of the Dover Code as recommended by staff.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation by consent agenda, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinances will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Legislative and Finance Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT
The Utility Committee met on January 8, 2001 with Chairman Weller presiding.
New Burton Road - Schutte Park Pedestrian and Bike Path Rail Crossing Study
Committee members were presented with the Executive Summary from the New Burton Road - Schutte Park Pedestrian and Bike Path Rail Crossing Study. The Schutte Park-New Burton Road Railroad Crossing was one of the top recommendations of the Dover Pedestrian and Bicycle Study. The purpose of this pathway would be to make Schutte Park more accessible to neighborhoods south of Dover, while at the same time creating an important link in the proposed Capital Bikeway Belt. This Bikeway Belt would be a series of bike paths, bike lanes, and markings that would eventually surround Dover, linking Schutte Park to Brecknock Park and the St. Jones Greenway.
Mr. DePrima stated that the feasibility study investigated whether a rail crossing was possible, and if so, where the best location and what the best “type of crossing” would be. The study found that such a crossing was possible, and after evaluating three (3) alternatives, an underpass in the vicinity of Blue Beach Drive was recommended.
Mr. Tom Carroll of Landmark Engineering presented members with a detailed report of the Executive Summary, including slides that provided details regarding the three (3) alternatives for the Schutte Park Pedestrian and Bike Path Rail Crossing, as follows: 1) an underpass opposite Blue Beach Drive; 2) an underpass north of Puncheon Run; and 3) an overpass south of Blue Beach Drive. He advised members that an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks was dismissed from further consideration due to legal and safety concerns. Mr. Carroll stated that based upon the priorities, alternatives, and limitations identified through the preliminary project scoping, concept plans were developed for each crossing scenario together with pre-design construction cost estimates. The alternatives were evaluated and scored considering the relative complexity of construction, regulatory limitations, permit requirements, and estimated construction costs compared to the overall benefit to the community. Input was solicited from contractors and manufacturers of overhead bridges and subgrade structures. Mr. Carroll advised members that the Soil Conservation Service favored an underpass north of Blue Beach Drive since it likely represented the least impact on any wetlands.
Mr. Carroll advised members that an underpass opposite Blue Beach Drive is the recommended alternative, at an estimated cost of $1,045,900. Although slightly more expensive than an underpass north of Puncheon Run, this alternative is recommended on the basis of cost effectiveness, safety, and overall utility value. The alternative is, however, not without technical difficulties. Tunneling under an active railroad is an expensive and difficult procedure. The proximity to the Puncheon Run dictates a tunnel with minimal cover to the railroad tracks above. The final design must include provisions to prevent flooding during major storm events.
It was recommended that the City’s next step in the project be preliminary engineering, which would clearly identify the design requirements and a more defined cost estimate to complete the project before permitting the preparation of bid documents.
No further action was taken by the committee.
Mr. McGlumphy reiterated safety concerns for children attempting to cross New Burton Road and urged the installation of markings and/or traffic lights to assist in safely crossing the street.
Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that a grant has been received that will allow Phase II of the Engineering Study to be performed, which will include specifications and type of markings, signage, etc.
In response to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima stated that the City has received a grant for $105,000; however, the final engineering costs are not known at this time. He emphasized that consideration of this study is not to authorize approval of the project. This project is in the study stages and Phase II will provide engineering details for the alternative selected for the project.
Mr. O’Connor advised members that authorization for the expenditure of funds is required at this time since the grant received is an 80/20 matching grant, with the City responsible for 20% of the total grant amount of $105,000. He also indicated that Phase II of the Engineering Study will provide drawings, more specific details, and costs.
Responding to Mr. Truitt, Mr. O’Connor stated that the exact amount of the City’s responsibility will not be known until the engineering estimate is received. Although the grant received is $105,000, if the engineering estimate is $100,000, the City’s portion will only be $20,000.
Mr. Weller moved to accept the Executive Summary from the New Burton Road - Schutte Park Pedestrian and Bike Path Rail Crossing Study and authorize an amount up to 20% of an 80/20 matching grant received in the amount of $105,000 for Phase II of the Engineering Study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Mr. Weller moved for acceptance of the Utility Committee Report, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
MONTHLY REPORTS - DECEMBER 2000
By motion of Mrs. Malone, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy, the following monthly reports were unanimously accepted:
Chief of Police Report
Planning and Inspections Report
City Assessor Report
City Clerk/Alderman Report (Fines)
Mayor's Report
Responding to Mr. Weller, Mr. O’Connor stated that the bacteria problems with the City’s water have been resolved and that the City has been given clearance from the State.
Mrs. Malone moved for acceptance of the City Manager’s Report, seconded by Mr. Weller and unanimously carried.
CONFIRMATION OF POLICE PENSION ELECTION - RET. LT. ROBERT ROSWELL (TERM TO EXPIRE JANUARY 31, 2004)
The term of office on the Police Pension Board of Major J. Robert Mays will expire on January 31, 2001. Pursuant to Section 18-47(2)(b) of the Pension Plan, notice of an election was given to all plan members. Only one nomination was received, therefore, no election was held. Chief Faulkner nominated Ret. Lt. Robert Roswell to serve a three (3) year term, to expire on January 31, 2004.
Mr. Carey moved for approval of the nomination of Ret. Lt. Roswell to serve on the Police Pension Board, with a three (3) year term to expire on January 31, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weller and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
FIRST READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCES
Mr. Weller moved to waive the reading of the proposed ordinances before Council, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried. Council President Christiansen reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office. Final action by Council on the proposed ordinances will take place during the Council Meeting of February 12, 2001.
Mr. Weller moved for acknowledgment of the first reading of the following proposed ordinances, by title only, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried:
➣COLLECTION OF DEMOLITION ASSESSMENT - 212 W. DIVISION STREET (ISAAC AND MARY CARTER)
➣SECTION 1-2 - RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEFINITIONS
➣SECTION 1-6 - SPONSORING, CONSIDERATION, PASSAGE AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCES AND CHARTER AMENDMENTS, SUBSECTION (2)
FIRST READING - PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Mr. Weller moved to waive the reading of the proposed ordinances before Council, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried. Council President Christiansen reminded the public that copies of the proposed ordinances are available at the entrance of the Council Chambers or can be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office. Since the ordinances are amendments to the Zoning Code, a public hearing is required. A public hearing and final action by Council on the proposed ordinances will take place during the Council Meeting of February 12, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Weller moved for acknowledgment of the First Reading of the following proposed ordinances, by title only, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried:
➣APPENDIX B, ARTICLE 3 - DISTRICT REGULATIONS (SECTIONS 1.19, 2.5, 3.4, 4.5,5.4, 6.5, 7.5, 8.17, 9.15, 10.14, 11.14, 12.15, 13.16, 14.16, 15.18, 16.2, 17.12, 18.2, 19.16, 20.15, 21.5, 22.5, 23.6, 24.11, 26.15, and 27.55)
➣APPENDIX B, ARTICLE 7 - NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, SECTION 1.6
➣APPENDIX B, ARTICLE 12 - DEFINITIONS
➣APPENDIX B, ARTICLE 5 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SECTION 4 - SIGN REGULATIONS
FINAL READING - PROPOSED ORDINANCES
The First Reading of the following proposed ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of January 8, 2001.
Section 2-70 - Compensation and Expenses for Mayor, Council, Employees and Other Elected or Appointed Officials, Paragraphs (4) and (5)
Mrs. Malone moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Mr. Salters moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
That Paragraphs (4) and (5) of Section 2-70 of the Dover Code be amended by deleting them in their entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
(4)For each person not a city employee appointed to serve as an election judge for any municipal election for per diem reimbursement for expenses for each election attended - Two hundred dollars ($200.00). For each person chosen to serve as a clerical assistant for any municipal election for per diem reimbursement for each election attended - One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00).
(5)For employees of the city appointed to serve as election judges or officials for any municipal election for per diem reimbursement for expenses for each municipal election attended in addition to their regular salary - One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00).
ADOPTED: January 22, 2001
Section 47 - General Assessment and Levy on Utility Property (Request to General Assembly for Charter Amendment)
Mrs. Malone moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Mr. Weller moved for adoption of the following ordinance, seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
That the General Assembly of the State of Delaware is hereby requested to amend the Charter of the City of Dover by modifying Section 47, which section is entitled “General assessment and levy on utility property,” to provide that a true, just and impartial revaluation and reassessment of all real property within the City be done every third year instead of every year, with supplemental assessments made annually.
ADOPTED: January 22, 2001
Section 19.5 - General Assessment and Valuation of Real Property, Reassessment by City Assessor, Reassessment by Independent Outside Appraiser
Mrs. Malone moved that the final reading of the proposed ordinance be acknowledged by title only, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.