COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on March 24, 1997 at 6:00 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Leary, Mr. Truitt, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Fenimore, Mr. Salters, Mr. Hare (arrived at 6:50 p.m.) and Mayor Hutchison.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Fenimore moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Malone and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Councilman Leary and Mr. Merritt. Councilman Hare and Mr. Schaefer were absent. Councilmen Pitts and Lambert were deputized to serve as members.
Proposed Amendment - Appendix C, Article II, Section 3 - Target Area - Downtown Redevelopment Ordinance
The Downtown Dover Development Corporation recommended to City Council that they expand the Downtown Redevelopment target area westerly across the railroad tracks between North Street and Division Street. This area includes several older industrial buildings that are under utilized and in need of investment. This older industrial area, which was associated with the Train Station and developed at the same time as the rest of Downtown, should be included in its redevelopment. The DDDC would like to begin promoting the area around the Train Station for redevelopment and it is felt that it would be advantageous if these areas could qualify for the various development incentives.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend approval of the proposal, as outlined in the proposed amendment to Appendix C, Article II, Section 3 (Attachment #1), seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
Status Report - Community Development Block Grant Priority & Proposal Funding
An Ad-Hoc Committee was created to work on the Community Development Block Grant application process and to assist with establishing the City’s priorities. Mr. DePrima distributed information on the 1997 Consolidated Plan Amendment Priority Ranking Results and a summary of the Grant CDBG Funding Applications. The priorities were built upon data received by the CDBG Committee from comments received during the Comprehensive Plan Update, surveys and other studies, and from comments received during the public hearing process. Ranking results from both the CDBG Committee and the public hearing are as follows:
Job Counseling 12 Homeless Shelters, Transit. Housing 8
Community Policing 12 Public Facilities 6
Drug/Alcohol Counseling 11 Recreational Facilities 6
Home ownership 10 Transpiration 1
Economic Development 9 Elderly Housing
Improve Housing Stock 8 Accessible Housing
Mr. DePrima explained that the City will receive approximately $306,242 for community development. Seven applications have been received for programs totaling $85,450, but of the total grant money, only 15% ($36,360) is available for services, with the remaining 85% ($206,040) to be used for hard costs. Only three applications were received for Rehabilitation & Acquisition (hard costs), totaling $190,900.
Page three of a report submitted by staff outlines the recommendation of staff for the Community Development Block Grant. Mr. DePrima reminded the committee that this is only a status report and that we are still within a 30 day public hearing period which ends in mid-April. The status report shows staff’s recommendation at this point in the process. In terms of funding for rehabilitation, it will be recommended that the City create three pools of money for the City to control and lend out. In accordance with the recommendations, $36,360 is recommended for funding services and $206,040 is recommended for funding rehabilitation. A pool of money is recommended for a target block Down Payment and Closing Costs Assistance Program. Mr. Fenimore stated that it appears that the difference in total grant and total funding ($63,842) is for overhead. Noting that this equals approximately 20% of the grant, Mr. Fenimore suggested that staff review this to see if it can be lowered.
At the conclusion of the 30 day public hearing period, City staff will make a final recommendation to the Legislative and Finance Committee.
Mr. Fenimore commended the Ad-Hoc Committee for their efforts, stating his belief that this type of approach by the City for CDBG monies is the best approach.
Mr. Salters moved to recommend acceptance of the status report, seconded by Mr. Lambert and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:20 P.M.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
The Parks and Recreation Committee met with Chairwoman Malone presiding. Members present were Councilmen Fenimore and Truitt, Mrs. Maxted and Mrs. Northshield.
Dover Recreational Facilities Committee - Phase I Report
In August 1996, the Mayor and Council formulated the Dover Recreational Facilities Committee (DRFC) and appointed members to review the recreational facilities in the City of Dover in order to determine if its programs and facilities are meeting the needs of the residents. The committee was charged with the following:
✻ Study the existing facilities and define the problems and needs of recreational activity in the City of Dover.
✻ Identify possible solutions to those problems and address those needs to include possible construction of new facilities, but not to exclude increased cooperative agreements, including the leasing of additional space and facilities from public and private entities.
✻ Identify revenue sources required to fund any and all projects or alternatives. Further, to present final recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Committee for its review and recommendation to City Council.
Mrs. Malone, Chairwoman of the Parks and Recreation Committee, introduced Mrs. GiGi Windley, Chairwoman of the DRFC. Mrs. Windley stated that she was very pleased with the professionalism of the volunteers that served on the committee. The committee members have been meeting bi-weekly since September and Mrs. Windley stated that all of the members have attended the meetings and participated in every aspect of the report. The members are: GiGi Windley (Chairperson), Fred Vetter (Vice-Chairperson), Robert Coleman, Bruce Gorman, C.C. Wagner, William McGlumphy, Charles Reed, John Fisher, Michael Chapman and James Platt. Zach Carter and Jim O’Connor are Staff Members, and Mrs. Windley expressed the sincere appreciation from the Committee for the staff assistance they offered.
Due to the large scope of the project, the committee agreed to divide the project into three phases, with the following objectives: Phase I - to determine the existing recreational facilities, both indoor and outdoor, within the Dover Community at large and to assess their adequacy in meeting the perceived needs of the community through the year 2010. Phase II - to develop recommendations for type(s) of management facilities and locations(s) that would best optimize our recreational structure and meet the needs of the community as identified in Phase I. Phase III - to identify implementation strategy and address implementation issues such as conceptual design of new facilities, financing, and program initiation/development.
Mrs. Windley stated that Phase I was basically a needs assessment. Because Phase I entailed collection of a considerable amount of background information, it is felt that it will probably be the most time consuming phase.
Mrs. Windley presented a slide display which outlined details of the Dover Recreational Facilities Committee - Phase I Report (as on file with the Office of the City Clerk).
Mrs. Windley presented the Phase I Report with the following executive summary: “The Phase I report of a Council appointed select committee has undertaken an examination of the greater Dover recreational infrastructure, including a detailed inventory and evaluation of existing facilities and staff. Capacities were examined in relation to community needs, both routine and unique, as well as their condition, location, suitability and potential.”
The findings and conclusions were not unexpected. Dover, as is true for most progressive cities in the country during the past ten years, has seen a period of remarkable growth, the effects of which have seriously out paced the local government's activities to provide for the community's recreational needs. Such needs are very real and have a profound effect on community health, safety and quality of life.
The Dover recreational staff was found to be well qualified, exceedingly well informed and coping as well as could be expected given the circumstances under which they must function. For example, we have seen almost exponential growth in such activities as soccer and basketball with increased participation by adults and females. For the most part, this load is imposed upon a structure that is largely fragmented, difficult to supervise and rapidly becoming outdated. There is substantial and growing public concern over what is perceived as a lack of civic leadership interest in addressing the issue. The changes and growth we are seeing are indeed unprecedented.
A case in point -- a mere five years ago, female participation, especially in the more physical forms of recreation, was minimal. Had there been no growth in total population, the recent addition of females to recreation's customer population would have alone almost doubled its workload. Our ability to cope has "topped out", and too little is being done.
The participants of this select committee urge the City Council to begin an accelerated effort to revitalize the indoor/outdoor capacities of Dover's recreational structure. This recommendation is fully supported by the data developed during Phase I. It further recommends that Phase II of this effort be directed by the Council in order to develop specific types and locations of facilities together with the management structure necessary to its future success. We need to know how best to meet the growing deficit, then to provide the Council with a prioritized list of options to guide its decisions in the matter. The resources of the City Staff, especially its planning and financial activities, are needed to assist in such an effort.
Mrs. Windley stated that after careful review and study, the Committee concludes that the current recreational facilities of the greater Dover City area are seriously inadequate to serve the growing population and the recreational needs of its residents. Further, when viewed in terms of its future adequacy (both qualitative and quantitative), the deficit is even more worrisome. She stated we are clearly long overdue in addressing these needs, and it is urgent that such a comprehensive effort be undertaken at the earliest date.
General Fred Vetter, Vice-Chairman of the DRFC, expressed appreciation to City Council for taking an interest in this matter and for taking action to ensure the recreational needs of our community are met. He reminded the public that this is also an issue of the health, quality of life and the individual longevity of every citizen. General Vetter stated that the number of people in the community who avail themselves of recreational activities has doubled, not only due to growth, but due to the fact that women have now entered the “sweaty sports”. General Vetter stated that women now work out with weights, treadmills, in fitness centers, play volleyball, softball, etc. At his fitness center, there are 600 members with ten women for every six men. Women are now as interested as men in keeping themselves fit and well. With the heavy workload of both men and women, with many now working 50 to 60 hours per week, families have started making recreational activities a part of their life for better mental and physical health.
Referring to the concerns of some citizens of the costs associated with meeting our recreational needs, General Vetter stated that there are many ways to fund such programs. User fees pay for a substantial amount of recreational programs. Currently, user fees have plateaued mainly due to crowded facilities with sub-par equipment. With better programs, it is felt that better income will follow. There are many other financial wells that could be tapped such as state and federal monies and fund-raising, if necessary. General Vetter thanked Councilwoman Malone for initiating the project and urged Council to authorize the DRFC to continue with their study in an attempt to resolve this matter.
If the Committee moves to Phase II, Mr. Fenimore requested that they consider an integrated transportation plan to support the infrastructure that is addressed in the programs and the scheduling of the programs. He felt that the committee should consider a system that will ensure that every person, young and old, has some reasonable means of getting to and from the recreational program. Referring to the aging population and to the issue of active and passive recreation, Mr. Fenimore suggested that passive recreation be strongly reviewed, such as a satellite library and study areas for our youth to utilize if they have no other quiet area in which to study. In the Phase I Report it is stated that the Committee intends to maintain the existing physical plant at the other parks. Mr. Fenimore urged them to go beyond that and to reclaim, improve and upgrade our existing physical plant. He suggested additional law enforcement to force out what is not wanted in our parks and to encourage what we would like in our parks and upgrades to Whiteoak Park and Silver Lake.
Mr. Salters noted that the Whiteoak Park is located on the east side of Dover and Schutte Park is located on the west side of Dover. He stated that although the committee is reviewing the recreational needs of the entire community, he requested that they give consideration to the recreational needs of the 30% of the population that live in the central downtown area.
All members of the Parks and Recreation Committee and of City Council relayed their appreciation for the enormous amount of work that the DRFC members put into this project and expressed their feeling that the report was prepared in an excellent manner.
Mr. Lambert asked if the committee has a timetable for completion of Phase II. Mrs. Windley stated that it is difficult to say how long it will take, but it is felt that it will take less time than was needed for Phase I. They hope to have Phase II completed within eight weeks.
Mr. Truitt moved to accept the Phase I Report of the Dover Recreational Facilities Committee and to authorize the DRFC to begin Phase II of the process in order to develop specific type and locations of facilities, together with the management structure necessary for its future success. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fenimore and unanimously carried.
Council President Christiansen requested that all current members be maintained for completion of all phases of the project.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:05 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Lambert presiding. Members present were Councilmen Pitts and Fenimore and Mr. Carey. Mr. Hare was deputized to serve as a member in Mr. Kramedas’ absence.
Annexation/Rezoning Request - 1546 S. DuPont Highway - Jeffrey S. Townsend
A request was received to annex and rezone property located at 1546 S. DuPont Highway, consisting of approximately .22 acres, owned by Jeffrey S. Townsend. The City recently annexed the adjacent lands of the Calvary Church of the Nazarene for the construction of a retail store. This property will be joined with the former Church owned land and will be the location of the entrance drive into the retail store. Mr. DePrima stated that the Comprehensive Plan supports the use of the land for commercial entrances and encourages the combining of entrances on Route #13 which this annexed land will provide. Since it is a single property, Mr. DePrima stated that it will not be reviewed by the Planning Commission, but is recommended for a zoning classification of C2-A (Limited Commercial).
Mr. Fenimore moved to recommend approval and acceptance of the annexation/rezoning request, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Water Pump and Water Pump 2 Service Classifications
The current rate tariffs do not have provisions for fire pump installations. The proposed rates would give options to our customers for remote fire pump facilities. Mr. O’Connor stated that the rates would give the customer the alternative of a contractual agreement or a straight rate tariff. Either rate would allow for the City to recover its investment in providing the stand-by service. Mr. O’Connor stated that we are attempting to capture our investment, but at the same time, make it reasonable to have fire pump facilities.
Mr. Lambert stated that the proposal passes on the cost of the operation to the user in a way that is reasonable to the customer.
There was general discussion on the possibility of hardships to businesses, but Mr. Fenimore stated that the proposal actually offers business persons a reasonable alternative.
Mr. Fenimore moved to recommend adoption of the proposed rates (Attachment #2), seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Section 22-226 - Section 22-231 - Water Meters
In an effort to standardize Public Works procedures and infrastructure improvements, the Department of Public Works requested changes to Sections 22-226 through 22-231 (Water Meters) of the City Code. As part of the City’s efforts to standardize water meter locations, several sections of the ordinances are proposed for revisions to meet the changing needs of the Public Works Department and the metering section of our utility. The proposed ordinance changes are minor in nature and reflect the current metering technology in use by the City of Dover.
With the exception of the proposed change to Section 22-227, all changes are minor word changes. The proposal for Section 22-227 deletes the current language and inserts entirely new language which will require all residential water meters to be placed outside in a pit at a prescribed location.
Referring to the placement of a pit, Mr. Lambert asked where the City would locate the pits. Mr. O’Connor stated that the location may vary which is why they used the language “at a prescribed location”. However, it would typically be placed on the property owners’ side of the sidewalk. This would make the water meters easily accessible for maintenance and meter reading.
Noting that members of the committee had not had the opportunity to see what the pits look like, the committee tabled the matter for further review.
Mr. Fenimore moved to remove the matter from the table, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Mr. Lambert stated that since the last committee meeting, he had an opportunity to look at the proposed pit and is much more comfortable with the proposal. Mr. Fenimore stated that he also looked at a meter pit and feels that his concerns have been allayed. He suggested, however, that the City encourage the placement of the pit as close as possible to the property line. This would ensure easier reading of the meters by the City and would be more practical for the homeowner.
Mr. Fenimore moved for approval of the proposed ordinance amendments as recommended (Attachment #3), seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:26 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/DJB