COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on January 12, 1998, at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Leary, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Salters, Mr. Weller and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Salters requested that the Parks and Recreation Committee meet prior to the Legislative and Finance Committee. Mr. Leary moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
The Parks and Recreation Committee met with Chairwoman Malone presiding. Members present were Councilmen Truitt and Carey and Mrs. Maxted. Mrs. Northshield was absent.
Recreational Facilities - Schutte Park
As approved by Council during their Regular Meeting of August 25, 1997, Mr. O'Connor informed members that the Parks and Recreation Department requested proposals seeking professional services to provide design services for the construction of a Recreation Center at Schutte Park. Six firms were interviewed by the Dover Recreational Review Committee, with the firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. being selected as the top firm for the Recreation Center Design.
Staff negotiated a price of $55,480 with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. to provide professional architectural and engineering services for the programming and schematic design for the Schutte Park Recreation Center. Mr. O'Connor indicated that the negotiated price will not exceed $60,000, which was appropriated by City Council. The firm has agreed to utilize the City's travel policy since they will be traveling from Virginia to Dover. Mr. O'Connor stated that the firm will give a presentation to City Council on the design and size of the facility, future expansion of the facility, how the facility will be set in Schutte Park and how the facility will fit into the City's existing outdoor facilities. It was noted that the firm will not provide leadership on the project and that the project development will be coordinated by the Recreational Review Committee.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. O'Connor explained that this particular project was a request for professional services, which differs from the process utilized for closed bids. However, the request for professional services was conducted as a committee function with staff s assistance in negotiating a price after the firm was selected. He stated that each firm is ranked according to their written proposal, with interviews conducted with each firm informing them of the scope of work that is expected to be performed. A price can then be negotiated with the highest ranked firm. Mr. O'Connor indicated that if the price that is quoted by the first firm is not reasonable, then other alternatives are considered, such as: interviewing the firm that was ranked #2, requesting new RFP's and beginning the process again.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. O'Connor stated that the firm's initial services will include: Schutte Park recreation facility siting evaluation, facility space programming, concept design and schematic design. Mr. O'Connor indicated that the City has no obligation to hire this firm for the design and construction of the facility, but it would be to their advantage to do this job well in the event they have an interest in Phase III. He stated that the contract was structured so that either party could give a 30-day written notice to terminate the contract if they are not performing quality work. He indicated that the scope of work is very detailed in that it promotes business to the City, provides a presentation to City Council, and provides enough time and opportunity for recommendations from the Recreational Review Committee.
Mr. O'Connor informed members that once the study is complete, the City will have an idea of the costs incurred to construct this type of facility, the size of the facility, the architectural renderings, and a general location as to where the facility will be located at Schutte Park.
Mrs. Maxted advised members that she was very impressed with the details outlined in the firm's specifications.
Responding to Mr. Weller, Mr. O'Connor stated that if a traffic study is needed, the studio would be conducted in-house or provided by the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Weller stated that in the firm's proposal, it was indicated that an environmental site assessment was prepared for this project site and is therefore not required. Mr. Weller questioned who prepared the environmental site assessment for this project site and if there are any environmental conditions that exist on the Schutte Park property. Mr. O'Connor indicated that an environmental assessment was prepared on the property when the overall plan was initiated for Schutte Park. He stated that a storm water plan was prepared for the Schutte Park property which included the assessment of the facility. Mr. O'Connor indicated that the storm water management assessment was approved by the Kent Conservation District.
Mr. Leary stated that he found the proposal to be very elaborate and wanted to relay his compliments to staff and the Recreational Review Committee.
General Fred Vetter addressed the committee to assure members that the firm (Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc.), that the City has selected to provide design services for the construction of a Recreation Center at Schutte Park is a very highly qualified firm. He stated that they use a Recreational Facilities Master Plan which they follow explicitly. He indicated that they constructed a similar plan at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia which he believes to be a first class facility. He hoped that his comments would put members’ minds at ease regarding the Schutte Park project.
Mr. Truitt moved to recommend approval of the selection of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. at a price of $55,480 to complete the design services for a Recreation Center at Schutte Park. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:30 P.M.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Councilman Leary, Councilwoman Malone and Mr. Merritt. Mr. Salters deputized Mr. Pitts to serve as a temporary member.
Proposed Planned Neighborhood (Senior Housing Option) - Capitol Place - Assisted. Living Community
The Harbor Management Services Company has proposed an Assisted Living Facility for senior citizens on a 13.37 + /- acre property located on the north side of Walker Road, east of Capitol Nursing Home. The property is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family Detached Residential).
Mr. DePrima stated that the developers are seeking approval under the new "Planned Neighborhood Design Senior Housing Option" ordinance which was recently adopted by City Council. He stated that this is the first proposal under the new "Senior Housing Option” of the Planned Neighborhood Design section of the zoning ordinance. He explained that the Planned Neighborhood Design Option involves a three-step review and approval process. In the first step, the developer will meet with City Council and present a general sketch plan. Council would then determine whether the proposed project is of such a design and type that is warrants further review by the Planning Commission. The second and third steps are more detailed conditional use and subdivision hearings before the Planning Commission.
Mr. DePrima explained that the "Senior Housing Option" was intended to encourage homing for senior citizens by allowing senior housing in nearly all zones through the "conditional use" process. The features of this proposal are as follows:
1. Open Space - The project far exceeds the 25% open space requirement by offering 80% open space. Recreation details have not been provided, but the project will be required to meet the age oriented recreation activity’s standards with the ordinance.
2. Density - The project currently proposes 67 dwelling units for approximately 81 residents within a single 55,539 sq. ft. building.
3. Unit Mix - The facility will hold a combination of 10 semi-private units, 28 studio units, 24 single bedroom units, and 4 two-bedroom units. Some units are being set aside for residents with early stages of Alzheimer Disease.
4. Privacy/Buffers - The project is set back over 300' from Walker Road, and is buffered from the Hamlet Subdivision by over 200' of open space along the eastern boundary. Because the proposed developers are the owners and operators of the neighboring Capitol Nursing Home, it will have less buffering on the eastern boundary, and in fact, will be linked by a shared access way.
Mr. DePrima advised members that an assisted living facility is not a nursing home, but is similar to a nursing home/apartment complex. He stated that it is utilized by senior citizens and that there is some nursing administered on the premises.
Mr. Salters noted the close proximity of the proposed facility and the existing facility and asked if there will be some type of distinction between the two buildings. Responding, Mr. DePrima indicated that each facility will have their own separate entrance off of Walker Road; however, a few driveways will be linked together for delivery purposes only.
Mr. Scott Morris, Project Developer for Harbor Management Services Company, addressed members indicating that if someone were to fall and hurt themselves, then they can be transported from one facility to the other. He indicated that an assisted living facility is actually closer to a typical apartment complex and the only nursing care generally provided is emergency care and assistance to senior citizens in their early stages of Alzheimer Disease.
Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. Morris indicated that the adjacent radio station is planning to remove two of the three existing towers, with the tower closest to the radio station remaining. He indicated that the 300 ft. setback fits into the layout of the property.
In response to Mr. Pitts, Mr. Morris stated that they developed the Capitol Nursing Home in Dover, own and manage four nursing homes throughout the State of Delaware, as well as one in Florida, and developed a hotel in Rehoboth Beach.
Responding to Mr. Lambert, Mr. Morris indicated that Alzheimer units are secured from the rest of the facility and would operate as an independent unit, separate from the assisted living units. He stated that assisted living senior citizens will be more active, in that they can come and go as they please; however, those in the Alzheimer unit would be restricted to their unit.
In response to Mr. Truitt, Mr. Morris indicated that once a resident gets beyond a certain stage of the Alzheimer Disease, the resident is moved to a nursing facility.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend that the proposed Assisted Living Facility - Capitol PI ace, be referred to the Planning Commission for further review. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Fire Prevention and Protection Code - Proposed Amendments
Mr. DePrima explained that the proposed amendments to Chapter 7, Fire Prevention and Protection of the City of Dover ordinances were developed by the Fire Marshal in conjunction with the Fire Safety Standards Committee. He explained that the proposed amendments deal with a broad array of issues including: further defining the responsibilities of the Fire Marshal, regulating the display of merchandise in discharge areas, making violations of State Fire Regulations a City offense, establishing responsibilities for repairing impaired fire protection equipment, and requiring secured key systems in large commercial buildings.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima indicated that a code official is a term that is generally used in the BOCA, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, which is also referred to as building inspector.
Mr. DePrima stated that the proposed amendment, Requirements for a Secured Key System, will establish that all buildings with smoke or sprinkler alarms be required to have a secured key box system that the Fire Department will have a master key for access. He indicated that within the secured key box are keys which will enable the Fire Department to access the building. This amendment would relieve the need to force entry or to wait for the owner or tenant to arrive and open the building.
In response to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima indicated that several years ago, a Memorandum of Understanding was drafted between the Fire Marshal's Office and the Police Department which outlined each of their responsibilities in a fire investigation and at what point it is handled by the Police Department for criminal investigation. Mr. DePrima indicated that these amendments would further outline the role and responsibilities of the City of Dover Fire Marshal with respect to the investigation of fires and explosions, as well as the role and responsibilities of the Police Department in working with the Fire Marshal.
Responding to Mr. Lambert's concern of vandalism, Mr. Christiansen stated that the key boxes are fairly sturdy and almost impossible to break into. He stated that very rarely are these key boxes even noticed and that the Fire Marshal and the individuals that operate the building are the only ones that would have knowledge as to where the key box is located.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments (Attachment #1), seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Amendments to Chapter 13, Motor Vehicles and Traffic - Proposal to add new Section 13-42 that sets standards for handicapped parking areas
Mr. DePrima stated that the proposed amendment to Section 13-42 of the Dover Code was requested and developed in conjunction with the Dover Police Department to set forth standards for handicapped persons' parking areas. He stated that the new section would bring the City Code into conformance with State laws regulating handicapped parking by clearly setting forth the required height, size, and text of handicap parking zone signs, and by establishing the meaning of a "vehicle of the handicapped".
Mr. DePrima indicated that the proposed amendment would also set forth the enforcement powers and required fines. In addition, the amendment would make it a requirement that owners/lease holders of parking lots with handicap parking spaces must make those spaces conform with the City Code so that enforcement can take place. He stated that the City of Dover Police Department has experienced difficulty with enforcing handicap parking because the signs do not conform to State law.
Responding to Mr. Salters, Mr. DePrima indicated that the City of Dover was not in violation of the ordinance; however, there was some concision as to who could issue the ticket and if the ticket would be issued as a State code violation or a City code violation. He indicated that the one thing this amendment would require, that the State does not, is that owners of existing buildings re-mark their handicap sections properly. Mr. DePrima also indicated that it would be the responsibility of the property owner to replace a sign that is removed or taken down; however, any handicap signs that are located on the street would be the responsibility of the City.
Mrs. Malone stated that she would like to see someone from the City monitor businesses to ensure that these areas are clearly and properly marked. She stated that several tickets have been issued; however, some individuals were not required to pay the fine because the area was improperly marked. Mr. DePrima stated that he would offer to assist the Police Department in finding those areas that are improperly marked.
Mr. Lambert stated that the City has the authority to issue citations to individuals that park in fire lanes, but questioned who has the authority to issue citations on private property for handicap parking. Mr. DePrima indicated that this State law enables enforcement on private property. He also stated that language was added to the proposed ordinance indicating that owners/lease holders of private property designated as a handicapped parking zone, be required to conspicuously mark such zones.
Responding to Mr. Leary, Mr. DePrima stated that if an individual violates this section, the individual shall be fined not less than $50 or more than $100. Mr. DePrima stated that this would give latitude to the judge in imposing a fine.
Mr. Truitt asked if a summons can be issued, even if a vehicle is attended by another party and the vehicle is not clearly marked "handicap". Mayor Hutchison stated that the individual would be in violation whether the vehicle is attended or unattended if the vehicle is not clearly marked "handicap". Mr. DePrima stated that if the vehicle is attended, the officer may simply band the summons to that individual. Mr. Salters asked Mr. DePrima to consider modifying this section if needed.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments (Attachment #2), seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Purchase of Security Cameras & Monitoring Equipment - Police Department
When the Police Department facility was expanded, it was designed without surveillance cameras for individual cells, cell entrance areas, and some common areas in the new cell block. In order for this deficiency to be corrected, the addition of 14 cameras must be purchased for the sake of public safety, and to meet insurance requirements. The costs involved were not budgeted; however, funding was sought and successfully obtained from the Federal Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program in the amount of $54,163 for the purchase of 14 security cameras
The Police Department received a proposal from Artron Products that will provide 14 security cameras, installation of modified software to integrate into their current security system in, and installation of a dual chassis multiplex monitoring system, which will allow for continuous monitoring and recording of 16 cameras simultaneously. The total bid price was for $27,485. In order to maintain the integrity of our current security system that was designed, installed, and put into operation by Artron Products, no other bids were solicited.
Staff indicated that the purchase will be made under the exceptions granted for sole vendors and for continuity of service as listed in the City's Purchasing Policy. Equipment expenditures for the remaining funds in the federal grant ($26,678) have not yet been identified.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of the purchase of 14 security cameras and required equipment from Artron Products in an amount not to exceed $27,485, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:49 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Lambert presiding. Members present were Councilmen Pitts and Weller, Mr. Farling and Mr. Kramedas.
Municipal Utility Line Clearance & Tree Removal Contract
In previous years, the City Electric Department has contracted back yard tree trimming work to private contractors in order to keep the trees away from the power lines. Back yard climbing work is very time consuming, and a private tree trimming crew can be assigned to specific problem areas. City crews have to address problems throughout the entire electric system.
Bids were advertised to furnish all necessary equipment, machinery, supplies, tools, apparatus, means of transportation, and labor necessary to perform utility tree clearance work in full and in complete accordance with the satisfaction of the Electric Department. The bids were let as follows: (1) on the basis of time and materials and the qualifications of the bidder to perform the work; (2) the quantity of work is dependent upon the needs of the City and the funds allocated for this purpose; and (3) the terms of the contract are 36 months with each 12-month period bid separately.
Bid packets were mailed to Asplundh Tree Expert Company, The Davey Tree Expert Company, Pardoe Tree Company, Bustleton Services, Inc., Leager Construction, Tree Man, Willow Oak, Inc., and Power Plus.
Sealed bids were received with Asplundh Tree Expert Company being the only company to submit a bid. A letter was received from the Davey Tree Expert Company declining to submit a bid.
The bid packet requested hourly rates for a three-person climbing crew and a three-person aerial lift crew. The aerial lift crew would be a climbing crew with the flexibility of operating an aerial lift truck when needed. The rates are as follows:
CREW CURRENT 1998 1999 2000
Three Person Climbing Crew/hr. $48.38 $51.17 $52.12 $53.17
Three Person Aerial Lift Crew/hr. $52.88 $55.67 $56.67 $57.80
The bid packet also requested hourly rates for emergency work if severe winds, ice storms, or other conditions require emergency assistance. The rates are as follows:
CREW CURRENT 1998 1999 2000
Three Person Climbing Crew/hr. $65.35 $68.53 $69.82 $71.24
Three Person Aerial Lift Crew/hr. $69.85 $73.03 $74.37 $75.97
Mr. Lambert indicated that the rates reflect a 5% increase in the first year and a 2% increase for subsequent years.
Mr. O'Connor informed members that the contract could be terminated at the end of any twelve-month period.
Mr. Lambert indicated that the City has been utilizing Asplundh Tree Expert Company for several years and that they assisted the City during the severe ice storm in 1995.
Mr. Weller moved to recommend awarding the contract to Asplundh Tree Expert Company at the prices as quoted above, seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously carried.
Mr. Leary moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/nh