COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on January 8, 2001, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Malone (arrived at 6:38 p.m.), Mr. Salters, Mr. Weller and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Weller 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 Salters presiding. Members present were Councilmen Carey and Gorman, and Mr. Merritt. Mr. McGlumphy was deputized to serve in the absence of Mrs. Street.
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 would be 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
Mr. Carey moved to recommend 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% (Attachment #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
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 includes a change of use as a criterion for bringing signs into compliance.
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.
Responding to Mr. McGlumphy, 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 that triggers the ordinance to become effective.
In response to Mr. Weller, Mr. DePrima stated that the proposed sign regulations would prohibit “chasing” signs. He also assured members that there were several representatives of the community, including the Chamber of Commerce, involved in the development of the sign regulations who support the final draft as presented.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend adoption of the proposed sign ordinance amendments (Attachment #2), seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. (It is noted that a public hearing is required and it is recommended that the public hearing be scheduled for February 12, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.).
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. The focus of the research was based on providing Internet Service to our residential customers and integrating the billing of the service onto 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 possible 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 presents the City with a minimal financial risk and maximum financial return. Much of the overwhelming advantage Fast Net, Inc. has as a vendor in this project is due to its existing presence in the State and current excess communications capacity in the Dover area.
In response to Council President Christiansen, Mr. Mark Callan, Information Services Director, stated that the Office of Information Services of the State of Delaware highly recommended Fast Net, which has been their provider for three (3) years. He also indicated that additional references were contacted and all offered complimentary remarks regarding the service and reliability of Fast Net.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. O’Connor indicated that the City should be able to provide this service within 30 to 60 days.
Mr. Gorman moved to recommend 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGlumphy and unanimously carried.
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.
Mr. Carey moved to recommend adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter 1 of the Dover Code as recommended by staff (Attachments #3 and #4). The motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:39 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Weller presiding. Members present were Councilmen Pitts and Truitt, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Nichols.
New Burton Road - Schutte Park Pedestrian and Bike Path Rail Crossing Study
The City Planner, Mr. DePrima, presented members 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 the neighborhood 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 any 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 allow the clear identification of the design requirements and a more defined cost to complete the project before permitting the preparation of bid documents.
Responding to Mr. Lambert, Mr. Carroll indicated that based on discussions with Conrail, there should be no problems in acquiring easements or rights-of-way agreements. He also indicated that the placement of the crossing at Blue Beach Drive could enable traffic lights to assist in the safety of street crossing.
Mr. Weller stated that the report was provided to members for informational purposes only and that no action was required by the committee.
Mr. Weller moved to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters, seconded by Mr. Truitt and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:18 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/lcg
S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20011-08-2001.min