REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on June 8, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. with Council President Christiansen presiding. Council members present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Leary, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters and Mr. Weller.
Council staff members present were Chief Faulkner, Mr. Lucas, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. DePrima, 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.
Mr. Ornauer of 17 Mifflin Road referred to the recent foot survey conducted by Council President Christiansen, Councilman Leary, Councilman Carey, Mr. O’Connor and himself of the residents of Mifflin Road regarding the “roundabout”. The conclusion is that the residents overwhelmingly believe in the roundabout. He offered to join the City in their pursuit in bringing this issue to DelDOT. On behalf of the Mifflin Road Homeowners Association and the residents of the area, Mr. Ornauer relayed their sincere thanks for the City’s participation.
The invocation was given by Reverend Davis, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Leary requested the addition of an executive session, for personnel and legal matters, at the conclusion of the Regular Council Meeting. Mr. Weller moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 26, 1998
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 26, 1998 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Weller, seconded by Mr. Carey and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 190 OLD LEIPSIC ROAD, OWNED BY- CARL L. MOORE
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at 190 Old Leipsic Road, owned by Carl L. Moore. The current zoning is R-10 (Single Family Residential) and the proposed zoning is C-1A (Limited Commercial).
The present zoning permits agricultural uses, single family detached dwellings on 10,000 square foot lots, and public buildings. Those that would be permitted conditionally would be Planned Senior Housing Developments, Planned Neighborhood Design Developments on 20 or more acres with single family and multiple family dwellings and a gross density of three (3) units per acre, churches, schools, hospitals, funeral homes, philanthropic and charitable organizations, and membership clubs.
The proposed zoning permits retail stores and service establishments, single family and two family residences, banks and offices. The zone excludes excessive traffic generating uses, service stations and drive-in uses.
Planner's Review
Mr. DePrima stated that the Planning Department does not support the rezoning because it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a permanent commercial establishment is not compatible with the remaining residential properties. No consideration should be given to allowing spot rezoning or haphazard commercial conversion of land in this area. Commercial zoning should only be considered if the whole area was being laid out at the same time in conjunction with a plan that considers land use as well as traffic patterns. At this time, staff does not see any reason to consider such a plan, there are no problems associated with the current situation and, as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, there is no need for new commercially zoned land within the Route #13 Corridor.
Mr. DePrima advised members that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was to deny the rezoning request since it is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and would be spot zoning which could not control the type or duration of commercial uses taking place. The Commission noted that a rezoning would not be the proper relief for allowing temporary vendors during race weekends, and that Council may want to evaluate its current policy. In taking this position the Commission considered the following points:
Surrounding Land Uses: To the west of this site and across Old Leipsic Road are the lands of Dover Downs, zoned RC (Recreation Commercial), the principal location of the race track. To the north, east and south of this site are lands zoned R-10 (Single Family Residential) that are either used for residential purposes or are kept vacant. Further north at the end of Old Leipsic Road there is a vacant parcel located in the unincorporated part of the County that is zoned BG (General Business). Most of the vacant land in the area is owned by Dover Downs and is used for race weekend parking.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the lands east of Old Leipsic Road remain residential. When considering the development of the Route #13 commercial corridor, the Comprehensive Plan recognized that while there are very few large vacant parcels remaining along the highway, there are numerous opportunities for the redevelopment of older retail stores and strip shopping centers. Therefore, the expansion of the commercial corridor along adjacent roads was discouraged. Except during race weekends, this area is a quiet residential area, therefore, the Plan did not assign any other uses to the area.
Other Considerations: The current City policy allows residentially zoned property owners to use their property for parking cars and RV’s, while commercially zoned property can have commercial vendors. This is a very equitable policy that allows both types of property some economic benefit from race weekends. The applicant is seeking the rezoning for the sole purpose of allowing commercial vendors to operate from his property during race weekends. However, once a commercial zone is approved, that zone holds no restriction and a permanent commercial establishment can be constructed on the site. The City cannot contractually or conditionally require the land to be used for vendors during race weekends. The City must assume that the site will be used for a permanent establishment for any of the possible uses.
For the record, Mr. DePrima read the Dover Police Department’s recommendation, included in the Development Advisory Committee Report, as follows:
“The Dover Police Department is opposed to the rezoning of the applicant’s property to commercial unless all properties were to consider the same option. Currently, there are multiple residents in the immediate area of the applicants property who would be adversely affected by such a rezoning. The Police Department, DelDOT and Dover Downs controls the current pedestrian traffic in the area by channeling them on the west side of the roadway on Dover Downs property. The rezoning request would greatly increase the pedestrian traffic on and across the roadway greatly increasing the possibilities of an accident resulting in a pedestrian injury or fatality. For these reasons the Police are not in favor of approving the request to rezone the property to commercial.”
Correspondence
A letter was distributed by Mr. Terry, attorney representing Mr. Moore, responding to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the request for rezoning. He explained that the subject property is located in a small enclave of properties located on Old Leipsic Road, which is approximately ¼ mile in length, with dead-ends to the north and south. The area is not a typical residential neighborhood, especially during race week and other times that events are taking place at Dover Downs, which is becoming more frequently. During race weekends this “residential” neighborhood is flooded with pedestrian and vehicular traffic, making the area anything but a quiet residential neighborhood. Many residents have sold their properties to Dover Downs to relocate to a more appropriate residential neighborhood. The residents and property owners who have remained in the neighborhood have, in part, done so because they have been able to derive some supplemental income by using their properties during race week.
Although the Comprehensive Plan calls for Old Leipsic Road to remain residential, Mr. Terry indicated that the character of the neighborhood has drastically changed by the ever increasing expansion of Dover Downs and suggested that the Plan for this area is unreasonable.
Mr. Moore has owned the property since 1970, prior to the races commencing at Dover Downs. At that time, this was a quiet, residential neighborhood. Since Dover Downs has expanded its race track and infra-structure, and continues to host car races (which will increase to three this year), the area has become less and less desirable as residential property. For years, the City had allowed commercial vendors and camper parking on residential properties until recently when the City took the position that the R-10 zoning did not permit commercial vendors; however, the City would continue to allow the leasing of parking spaces. When Mr. Moore approached the City regarding the possibility of being granted a temporary permit to allow commercial vendors during race weeks, which, at that time, would have been two (2) weeks each year, he was advised that the only solution would be to apply for a commercial zoning classification for his property. Although Mr. Moore did not wish to pursue this option, he had no other alternative but to file the rezoning application.
According to the Development Advisory Committee’s report, Mr. Terry stated that the City has a “policy” which allows residentially zoned property owners to use their property for parking cars and RV’s, but not commercial vendors. He referenced the Dover Code of Ordinances, Article 3, Section 1.14(c), regarding “recreational buildings not conducted as a business enterprise” and Section 1.15(b), regarding residential use of garden houses, etc. “not operated for gain”, stating that they imply that the tenor of R-10 zoning is that the premises not be used for any commercial purposes unless specifically set forth in the regulations. The City’s “policy” allows a certain type of commercial purpose which is not permitted under the Zoning Code, i.e. parking of cars and RV’s for a fee, but does not allow the parking of trailers for use by commercial vendors for a fee. It was Mr. Terry’s opinion that this is clearly a double standard and unfair to the applicant. Either the City allows commercial activities during race weekends in the R-10 zoning area or it does not. Distinguishing between these commercial activities, both of which are not permitted under the R-10 zoning classification, by permitting one and disallowing the other, is not sustainable.
Mr. Terry indicated that his client is willing to withdraw his application for the C-1A zoning if the City would re-institute its policy of allowing property owners to use their properties on race weekends for commercial vendors as well as vehicle and RV parking. It was his feeling that the City should be uniform in its policy.
Responding to Mr. Lambert, Mr. DePrima stated that although parking of RV’s and cars is not listed as a permitted use, parking of vehicles on residential property is not unusual and parking of RV’s, in a sense, is somewhat of a residential use. He stated that, although the parking issue is not clearly defined, according to the Zoning Code, commercial vendors are clearly prohibited in residential areas.
It was Mr. Rodriguez’ opinion that the City’s practice of allowing residents to provide parking of vehicles and not allowing vendors on their property is legal since the City has continued to provide all residents uniform treatment.
Mr. Weller questioned if the City has ever issued a conditional use permit for any other special event, such as Old Dover Days. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that the City does not issue any type of conditional permit that would allow commercial vendors in a residential area.
In response to Mr. Weller, Mr. DePrima indicated that the City has not conducted a survey of the residents of this area regarding the rezoning of property or other concerns.
Public Hearing
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open.
Mr. Terry and Mr. Moore were present to address members of Council. Mr. Terry reviewed the letter he submitted on behalf of Mr. Moore. He referred to the map, noting that the majority of the properties in the area are owned by Dover Downs, are vacant and are used for commercial purposes. Mr. Terry disagreed with the City Solicitor’s opinion, feeling that the selling of parking spaces for money is a commercial use and that the Zoning Code does not permit it in the residential zoning classification. Although the selling of parking spaces may be considered less commercialized than that of vendors, it is a sale of parking spaces for money. Since the City’s policy allows for the sale of parking spaces on properties zoned residential in this area, it is his feeling that the City should be consistent with commercial use and allow vendors.
Mr. Terry also advised members that there are approximately eight (8) to 12 individuals that actually live in the neighborhood. Although there are additional homes, many are owned by Dover Downs and remain vacant, except during the races. It was his feeling that characterizing the area as a residential neighborhood does not accurately describe the area. If the area was a quiet residential neighborhood with no commercial zoning around, the reasons for recommending denial of the rezoning request would be more acceptable. Mr. Terry referred to the recommendation that, prior to considering a rezoning classification, other residents be surveyed for their desires. He noted that there are many mixed zoning classifications on Loockerman Street, Governors Avenue and State Street (near the hospital). It was his feeling that the rezoning of Mr. Moore’s property should not be contingent on the surrounding property owners wanting the same zoning classification. To his knowledge, there have been no objections received from neighbors or officials of Dover Downs regarding the rezoning request of Mr. Moore.
Mr. Terry reiterated that Mr. Moore would prefer that the City re-institute its policy to allow property owners use of their properties for commercial vendors on race weekends rather than having the property rezoned to a commercial zoning classification. However, he reminded members that it was City staff who indicated that the only way vendors would be permitted would be if the property was zoned for commercial use.
Mr. Weller relayed concern with “bootleg” vendors, stating that if the City were to permit vendors on residential properties, there would be no control over vendors that were not approved by Nascar officials utilizing the sites.
Council President Christiansen questioned the City’s regulations that govern any or all vendors in close proximity to Dover Downs with respect to authentication of the vendors. Responding, Mr. DePrima advised members that staff is only responsible for assuring that the vendors have proper licenses and are located properly.
Chief Faulkner stated that illegal vendors are identified through a complaint received from a citizen or another business person, at which time an officer will respond by calling the appropriate agencies to assist in resolving the matter. To his knowledge, he is not aware of any complaints regarding vendors at Dover Downs during the races.
Mr. DePrima advised members that the issue of sanctioned vendors is irrelevant to the concerns of the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Police Department with respect to allowing vendors on the property.
Mr. Mike Chapman, 863 Schoolhouse Lane, voiced his support of Mr. Moore’s request to allow vendors on his property. As a Nascar race fan, he chooses to purchase memorabilia items from the vendor that displays the Nascar logo rather than paying much less for an item from a vendor on property just outside Dover Downs. It was his feeling that any concerns regarding the sale of authentic merchandise would be addressed by Nascar officials.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Lambert moved for denial of the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Commission, seconded by Mrs. Malone.
Mr. Lambert explained that, during race weekends, the area around Dover Downs is very intense. He relayed his concern for safety and felt that any action by the City that would increase the intensity in the area would be a bad idea; therefore, he stated that he would not support commercial zoning of the property or the concept of a policy to allow vendors.
In response to Mr. Truitt, Mr. DePrima indicated that several years ago the City allowed vendors, which was eventually prohibited on residential property; however, there was an agreement that would permit parking of vehicles on residential property.
Council President Christiansen recalled that Council’s original intention of allowing vendors and parking was to accommodate those residents living in close proximity of Dover Downs by allowing them to generate additional income as a means to recoup their inconvenience during race weekends.
On a call for the motion by Mr. Leary, Council denied the request for rezoning of property located at 190 Old Leipsic Road, owned by Carl L. Moore, from R-10 to C-1A, by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Weller, under protest, and Council President Christiansen).
In explanation of voting no “under protest”, Mr. Weller stated that denying the request for rezoning is not resolving the issue and feels that the City should allow vendors, during race weekends, on residential properties near Dover Downs as suggested by Mr. Moore.
Council President Christiansen feels that the City is not being consistent, that the issue is a maintenance of standards, and that the City should devise a policy that would accommodate requests for vendors from those residents that are located less than 50 feet away from property owned by Dover Downs.
Note by the City Clerk’s Office: A legal opinion was requested in response to concerns regarding the requirement of an explanation by individual members of Council when their vote is against that of the Planning Commission, provided the vote by the majority of Council is to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission. City Solicitor Rodriguez submitted the following opinion: “In some cases where it is obvious that the majority of Council is going to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission but where one or two votes are against Planning Commission recommendation, then I do not believe it is necessary for each Council person to state his reasons for voting against the recommendation of the Planning Commission. This is so because the majority is following the recommendation of the Commission. Obviously this should not prevent any Council person stating the reason for his vote under this circumstance. I merely state this as such because I do not think it is necessary.”
Noting that a vote has been taken, Mr. Leary requested to suspend the rules to allow further discussion. Mr. Salters moved to suspend the rules, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Mr. Leary stated that the matter being brought before Council at this time is for consideration of a rezoning request. He suggested that, if it is the consensus of Council, a proposal for a policy that would permit vendors on residential property during race weekends could be referred to and considered by the Legislative and Finance Committee.
Mr. Leary moved to convene into regular session, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Mr. Carey moved to refer consideration of alternatives that would allow for vendors on residential property located near Dover Downs during race weekends to the Legislative and Finance Committee for further review and recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weller and unanimously carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - ELECTRIC FUND BUDGET
A public hearing on the Electric Revenue Fund Budget is required for compliance with the 1985 Electric Revenue (Refunding) Bonds Resolution - Annual Budget Section (as amended by the 1990 Bond Resolution) prior to adoption of the budget. Notice of the public hearing was properly advertised.
Mr. O’Connor stated that the total revenue and expenditures for the Electric Revenue Fund is $47,555,651.
Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing open.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearing.
Council President Christiansen declared the public hearing closed.
Council action on the Electric Fund Budget will take place as a first reading during the latter part of the meeting.
COUNCIL BUDGET HEARINGS
Members of City Council and civilian members of the Legislative and Finance Committee met in budget hearings on May 19, 1998. Mr. Salters, Chairman of the Legislative and Finance Committee, explained that the proposed budgets were prepared by the City Manager, Finance Director and Administrative Services Director, with the assistance of City staff. The total budget for the City’s major funds for 1998/99 is approximately $71.9 Million, with $15.6 Million in the General Fund budget. The committee recommended acceptance of the proposed 1998/99 budget as presented by staff.
Mr. Salters moved for acceptance of the Council Budget Hearings Report, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the budget ordinances will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS REPORT
The Assessment Appeals Committee met on May 21, 1998 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Members present were Councilmen Salters (Chairman), Weller and Truitt. Formal property assessment appeals were reviewed, as follows:
Friends of the Capitol Theater Value Appealed
Appraised Assessed
226 S. State Street $215,400 $129,200
The committee recommended that the property be exempt for two (2) years (FY 1998/99 and 1999/00).
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Dover Lodge No. 1903 Value Appealed
AppraisedAssessed
200 Saulsbury Road $304,500 $182,700
(Exempt Farmland until 2/98)
The committee recommended that the property be exempt.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes, one (1) abstention (Council President Christiansen).
James & Joanne Moore Value Appealed
AppraisedAssessed
146 S. New Street $14,600 $8,800
The committee recommended denial of the assessment appeal.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Capitol Cleaners & Launderers Value Appealed
AppraisedAssessed
411 S. Governors Avenue $105,400 $63,200
At the request of Mr. Salters, City Assessor Lucas explained that the property has recently been identified as a contaminated site by DNREC. The owner requested that the committee grant $0 assessment. Mr. Lucas stated that it was the owner’s feeling that the property is valuable and would like to make improvements on the property; however, due to this contamination, he has not been able to obtain the necessary financing. For these reasons, it was the owner’s opinion that there should be some detriment of value as a result of this contamination. Mr. Lucas stated that, unfortunately, the committee cannot grant a request for $0 assessment and since the owner did not submit the committee with any documentation to substantiate a decrease in the value of the property, the committee recommended denial of the assessment appeal.
Mr. Lucas has advised the owner of the committee’s recommendation and has suggested that an appraisal of the property be performed, using comparable sales of other contaminated sites, to substantiate the value of the property to be presented to the Appeals Committee for consideration next year.
Responding to Mr. Carey, Mr. Lucas stated that an appraisal of property such as this could take two (2) to three (3) months. He assured members that the owner did not indicate a desire for action to be delayed and that if he decides to move forward with obtaining an appraisal, he would submit an assessment appeal for the following year.
Mr. Salters moved to deny the request for tax abatement as recommended by the committee. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a roll call vote of six (6) yes, three (3) no (Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, and Mr. Carey).
Mr. Weller moved for acceptance of the Property Assessment Appeals Report, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
SETTING OF PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998/99
The tax rate for the 1998/99 property tax billing was sixty-eight and one half cents ($0.685) per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation. The proposed budget maintains the same rate for the upcoming tax billing.
Mr. Lambert moved that the property tax rate remain at sixty-eight and one half cents ($0.685) per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation for the upcoming 1998/99 property tax billing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Parks and Recreation Committee met on June 8, 1998 with Chairwoman Malone presiding.
Recommendation of the Silver Lake Commission - DNREC Report on Silver Lake
During the committee meeting of October 28, 1996, representatives of DNREC provided a report and made a presentation with regard to the Options for the Protection and Improvement of Silver Lake. It was recommended (and approved by Council during their meeting of November12, 1996) to accept the technical (non-financial) aspects of the report; that it be referred to the Silver Lake Commission; and that the report and the financial aspects of the report be referred to the City/County Committee for review, stipulating that all parties report back to the committee by the first of the year.
During the committee meeting, Mr. Michael Malkiewicz, Chairman of the Silver Lake Commission, reviewed the report of the Commission’s recommendations relating to DNREC’s “Executive Summary Relating to Silver Lake Watershed” and its “Technical Background Report on Silver Lake Watershed” (as on file in the Office of the City Clerk). He stated that the first and most important step is to recognize that there is a problem with Silver Lake. It was noted that the principle purpose for purchasing the lake was for the creation of recreational opportunities, including boating, fishing, swimming and picnicking. During the 1950's through the 1960's, Silver Lake was a popular recreational area. Mr. Malkiewicz stated that there are many residents that are unable to afford membership to country clubs, swimming pools, traveling to the beach, etc. so that they can obtain some type of relief from the heat during the summer months. He stated that Silver Lake is their only relief and, unfortunately, it only takes a small amount of rainfall for the lake to be closed for health reasons.
Mr. Malkiewicz noted that Silver Lake acts as a catch basin for the western part of the City of Dover and the watershed that extends west of Dover to Pearson’s Corner. The activities that take place in the watershed and west of Dover impact or cause the conditions that exist in Silver Lake. If the water quality is to improve, then there must be corresponding environmental improvements in the activities that impact the water quality, including activities in west Dover and in Kent County, west of Dover. The relevant or key activities that need to be improved include: agriculture use, residential land use, commercial development, and storm water management related to these activities.
Mr. Malkiewicz stated that one of the major discrepancies that the Commission found in the Executive Summary Report of the DNREC was the omission of a clear statement that there must be equal financial commitment made by both the City of Dover and the Kent County Government. For the most part, the expansive watershed that feeds Silver Lake and the St. Jones River is located in Kent County. The City of Dover does not have jurisdiction or authority to control the people, agricultural operations, or commercial and residential developments located in Kent County. Kent County Government has the authority to control these types of activities or could promulgate ordinances that would permit control of these activities from a water quality and storm water management practice perspective. The Commission does not feel that the majority of the financial burden and responsibility should be placed on the residents of the City of Dover for cleanup of Silver Lake when a large portion of the problems are caused by activities outside the City of Dover. Every relevant government agency and political entity must agree that the water quality in Silver Lake, the watershed, and the St. Jones River, is directly related to the activities that take place in the watershed located in Kent County. Therefore, it is the Silver Lake Commission’s feeling that the City of Dover and Kent County have a joint responsibility to work together and share the financial burden of improving water quality in Silver Lake, the watershed and in the St. Jones River. If a joint venture is not agreed upon, then improvement in the water quality will not occur and the political leaders will be required to take responsibility for allowing one of our communities most valuable resources to continue to deteriorate.
Silver Lake is probably the most studied body of water in the State of Delaware. The Silver Lake Commission acknowledges that the only way the water quality in Silver Lake will improve for future generations is for all three (3) governmental agencies: the State of Delaware, Kent County, and City of Dover, to make a joint commitment to implement the recommendations that have been made by the numerous water quality experts. Mr. Malkiewicz reminded members that the technical studies have been completed and that the recommendations to improve water quality in Silver Lake have been made. The Silver Lake Commission recommended that the political and governmental powers implement the recommendations within a reasonable time frame in order to maintain and improve the lake’s water quality, which will, in turn, improve the quality of life for the citizens of Dover, Kent County, and the State of Delaware.
Mrs. Malone referred to other similar recreational areas located within a city’s limit that are not the responsibility of the municipality in which the recreational area is located and that the City of Dover is one of the very few municipalities that oversee a recreational area such as Silver Lake. She advised members that, although the City of Dover owns the recreational land area around the lake, the State of Delaware actually owns the lake and questions why the City would be requested to bear the burden in the cleanup of the lake.
During the committee meeting, Mr. Leary noted that the constituents that have contacted members of City Council regarding their concern of the lake are also constituents of Levy Court Commissioners, State Representatives and State Senators. He requested that constituents not only contact members of City Council but also contact their County and State Representatives so that they are also made aware of their concerns.
After much discussion, the committee recommended acceptance of the Silver Lake Commission’s Recommendations Report and that this matter be referred to the City/County Committee, with a representative of the Silver Lake Commission, St. Jones Greenway Commission and the Kent Conservation District (Mr. Robert Baldwin) being invited to attend the next meeting, for a recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Committee.
Utilizing the consent agenda format, Mrs. Malone moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Mrs. Malone moved for approval of the Parks and Recreation Committee Report, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on May 26, 1998, with Chairman Salters presiding.
Downtown Dover Business Improvement Assessment (Tax) Rate for FY 1998/99
In accordance with the Business Improvement District (BID) Ordinance, a BID budget and assessment must be adopted each year. Staff recommended approval of the proposed budget ordinance for the Downtown Dover BID for FY 1998-99 and the Assessment (Tax) Rate for FY 1998-99 as follows:
|
|
ZONE 1 |
ZONE 2 |
ZONE 3 |
TOTAL |
|
ASSESSMENT TAX RATE PER $100 ASSESSMENT |
0.145 |
0.1025 |
0.035 |
--- |
|
REVENUE RAISED |
$20,265 |
$15,920 |
$3,983 |
$40,168 |
|
% REVENUE RAISED |
50% |
40% |
10% |
|
|
NUMBER OF PARCELS |
136 |
129 |
58 |
323 |
|
AVERAGE ASSESSMENT |
$151 |
$115 |
$135 |
$134 |
Staff also provided members with the total revenues and expenses of Main Street Dover, Inc. for 1997-98 Revised and for 1998-99 Proposed for informational purposes. It was noted that there is no proposed change in the Assessment (Tax) Rate for FY 1998-99.
The committee recommended approval of the Assessment (Tax) Rate for FY 1998/99 and the proposed budget ordinance for the Downtown Dover BID.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the budget ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting).
Proposed Resolution - Banking Services Arrangements
The City of Dover solicits proposals for banking services every three (3) years. The current banking services agreement, which has been in effect since 1992 with Wilmington Trust Company, will end on June 30, 1998. Requests for proposals were mailed to all of the banks with offices in Dover; however, only three (3) banks submitted proposals, which were analyzed as follows:
Item CoreStates Bank. Mellon Bank Wilmington Trust Co.
Annual Income to the City
on Balances $211,428.00 $232,068.00 $225,936.00
Annual Cost for Banking
Services Needed 28,296.00 18,108.00 22,452.00
Net $183,132.00 $213,960.00 $203,484.00
In addition to the financial analysis, staff also evaluated non-financial factors such as time, service, proximity, responsiveness and banking products. All three (3) banks have an excellent record of service, good banking products, and are in close proximity to City Hall and Weyandt Hall.
The committee recommended that a Resolution be adopted that would designate Mellon Bank Delaware, N.A., as the City’s main banking institution for a one (1) year period beginning July 1, 1998; that the City will have the option to renew this arrangement one year at a time for two (2) additional years, for a total of three (3) years, at the fees proposed by Mellon Bank in their proposal dated March 9, 1998; and that CoreStates Bank, N.A., and Wilmington Trust Company be accepted as additional depositories for the City on an “as needed” basis.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee’s recommendation, seconded by Mrs. Malone and, by unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has sent out requests for proposals for its banking service needs; and
WHEREAS, the City has received proposals from three banks; and
WHEREAS, these proposals were analyzed by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City now wishes to formalize the selection of the bank.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Dover, in Council met:
1. Mellon Bank, Delaware, N.A. be approved as the main banking institution for all normal banking needs for the period of one year beginning July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 with an option for the City to extend this approval one year at a time for two additional years.
2. Any one of the Treasurer’s or Assistant Treasurer’s signature will be required to transact the banking business, as follows:
Treasurer - Mike C. Ka