COUNCIL COMMITTEES
The Council Committees Meeting was held on January 13, 1997, at 6:15 p.m., with Council President Christiansen presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Leary, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Fenimore, Mr. Salters, Mr. Hare and Mayor Hutchison (arrived at 6:40 p.m.).
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Fenimore moved for approval of the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Salters presiding. Members present were Councilmen Leary and Hare, Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Merritt.
John Hunn Brown Property - Planned Neighborhood Design
Members reviewed a proposed residential development on the John Hunn Brown property which is bounded by Route #13, South Little Creek Road and North Little Creek Road, consisting of 125.2 acres. The City Planner, Mr. DePrima, advised members that this is the first development to be considered by City Council in accordance with Section 24.2 of the Zoning Code, Planned Neighborhood Design Option, adopted in June 1996.
The Planned Neighborhood Design Option involves a three-step review and approval process. The first step requires the developer to meet with City Council and present a general sketch plan. It is at this time that City Council will determine whether the proposed project is of such a design and type that it 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. Bob Burns, developer of the proposed residential development, and Mr. Rick Straford, Vice-President of Tevebaugh Associates (land planner/designer for the project), provided diagrams depicting details and explained the features of the proposed development, as follows:
►Open Space - The project meets the 25% open space requirement and meets the objectives of having common open space designed as a contiguous area interspersed with residential areas so as to provide pedestrian access and visual amenities. In addition, there is a large active recreation area centrally located in the development.
►Density - The project currently proposes 487 dwelling units which will be 3.9 units per acre and is well below the amount that the current zoning classifications will permit. The property currently has combination zoning classifications of R-10, R-8, RM-1 and RM-2.
►Housing Mix - The development proposes a mix of two types of single family detached homes (41 units on 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lots, and 107 units on 5,000 sq. ft. minimum lots), 114 duplex units and 225 townhouses. Although the units are dispersed throughout the development, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the north portion of the tract (near the existing Edgehill Development) is dominated by single family homes while the southern portion has more townhouses. Although the southern portion of the development is zoned to allow apartment buildings, no apartments are proposed for this project.
►The Street Layout - The development avoids the use of cul-de-sacs and instead emphasizes interconnecting streets. It offers parking off alleyways, and multiple entrance points. Street width reductions are proposed; however, they have been carefully planned not to interfere with fire access and off street parking. The street reductions will require further review by Council after it has been reviewed by the Development Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission.
►Privacy/Buffers - Through the use of stormwater ponds, trailways, and berms, the project is well planned to protect the privacy of the proposed units as well as neighboring properties. The project does propose to have the single family homes share the existing alley with the homes on East Loockerman Street.
A video was shown of the proposed development. Mr. Straford noted that the video is an accurate representation of the development as proposed, explaining that the lots, housing units, trees, etc. are located as they will appear once the project is completed.
Mr. DePrima indicated that staff has been working with the developer of this project for more than six months. The developer has gone through at least three (3) informal design reviews and has been cooperative in making changes relative to density, street layout, open space design and buffering. The original plan had 591 dwelling units proposed; however, through the design reviews, more than 100 dwelling units were removed from the plan. Staff recommended that the project be referred to the Planning Commission for further review and hearings.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation to refer the project to the Planning Commission for further review and hearings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Sexual Harassment Policy
Staff presented members with a proposed Sexual Harassment Policy to be incorporated into the City’s Personnel Policy. Mr. O’Connor advised members that the City currently has a Sexual Harassment Policy, along with the Affirmative Action Program; however, the proposed policy will enhance and supersede the City’s current policy. He also stated that the policy will establish procedures for reporting incidents of unwanted behavior, and assures that employees and supervisors are trained to deal with inappropriate behavior promptly.
Briefing members on the proposed policy, Mr. O’Connor stated that the policy deals with all forms of harassment and is specific in its definition of sexual harassment. It addresses the topic of retaliation and establishes an “open” reporting system in order to enhance the ability of a party who is the recipient of harassment or retaliation to seek help through a reporting system. The Human Resources Department is made responsible for conducting both the initial and periodic follow-up training of all employees and supervisors.
Mr. Leary emphasized that although it is titled Sexual Harassment Policy, the policy addresses all forms of harassment.
Responding to Mr. Schaefer, Mr. O’Connor stated that the City has begun sensitivity training for some supervisors and employees and assured members that, in accordance with the proposed policy, sensitivity training sessions will be given to all employees of the City.
In establishing the proposed policy, Mr. Christiansen suggested that: 1) all current employees are advised of and required to indicate their knowledge of the new policy; 2) that all new employees also are advised of and required to indicate their knowledge of the new policy; and 3) that a synopsis of the policy is put in poster form and permanently placed in a conspicuous location at each City facility. Mr. Christiansen also questioned the possibility of including some type of consequence for anyone making a false complaint.
Responding, Mr. O’Connor relayed concern with including any type of consequence for false complaints in the policy. He stated that consideration was given to this matter and that staff was concerned that any type of penalty clause of this nature would relay a negative message to potential, legitimate complainants. Mr. O’Connor indicated that according to the City’s Employment Policy, disciplinary action can be taken on an employee that was found to be untruthful regarding any matter during their course of employment with the City.
Although members agreed with Mr. Christiansen’s suggestions (with the exception of including a penalty clause for anyone making a false complaint), it was felt that they should be incorporated in the administration of the policy through the City Manager’s Office rather than being included in the policy itself.
Mr. O’Connor stated that the suggestions can easily be administered since: 1) all current employees were given an Employee Handbook upon their employment and that an amendment, to include the proposed policy, will be distributed; 2) the Human Resources Department reviews all City policies with new employees, who are also provided an Employee Handbook which will include the new policy; and 3) a bulletin board is located at each City facility, flyers and posters can be placed giving employees a synopsis of the new policy.
Mr. Fenimore relayed concern with the policy as it relates to maintaining confidentiality for victims reporting incidents. It was his feeling that in order to maintain and encourage an environment whereby victims would feel free to report incidents, the policy should address the issue of confidentiality. Mr. Fenimore referred to the last paragraph of the proposed policy, as described under Disciplinary Action, and requested that it be amended by replacing the word “may” with “will”.
Concerning the recommended amendment suggested by Mr. Fenimore, Mr. O’Connor clarified that there are several different disciplinary actions that could occur to an individual found to have violated the policy. There is a spectrum of disciplinary action that could be taken, as follows: 1) verbal consultation with the employee; 2) written notice to the employee; 3) suspension of the employee; and 4) termination of the employee. Mr. O’Connor stated that the disciplinary action taken will be determined based on the severity of harassment that occurred.
Mr. Fenimore also questioned which City employees would be affected by the proposed policy. Responding, Mr. O’Connor assured members that the policy will affect all City employees, including union members and part-time and temporary employees.
Mr. Christiansen felt that the reporting of any harassment incident should be reported in a timely manner and suggested that a two-year statute of limitations be included in the policy. Mr. O’Connor indicated his concurrence with the concept of including a statute of limitations; however, members relayed concern with indicating a specific amount of time for the statute of limitations since there may be Federal guidelines regarding this issue.
Mr. Fenimore noted that the proposal is an enhancement to an already existing policy and that approval of this policy is not a reaction to the recent law suit settled against some members of the Police Department.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend adoption of the Harassment Policy (Attachment #1), amending the word “may” to “will” in the last paragraph. It was also stipulated that any standards of the Department of Labor with regards to time constraints should also be included in the policy once this information is obtained. The motion was seconded by Mr. Schaefer and unanimously carried.
Proposed Amendment to Fire Prevention Code - Section 7-1, Means of Egress
Members reviewed an amendment to Chapter 7, Fire Prevention and Protection, Section 7-1, Means of Egress, of the Dover Code. Mr. DePrima explained that the proposed amendment clarifies the responsibility of property owners in keeping required exit ways unobstructed and unlocked when open to the public. He stated that this section is intended to include outdoor events that are fenced.
Mr. Fenimore noted a typographical error in the third paragraph of the proposed amendment, stating that the word “principle” should be “principal”.
Mr. Lambert questioned the rational for the amount of the fine for any required exit door found to be in violation of this section being $100. Responding, Mr. DePrima assured members that this matter will be researched.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment (Attachment #2) to Section 7-1 of the Dover Code, with the correction of “principal” in the third paragraph and noting the possibility of an amendment to the $100 fine for any required exit door found to be in violation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Adoption of 1996 BOCA Codes
Mr. DePrima advised members that the City has been using the 1993 BOCA Codes and submitted amendments to various sections of the Dover Code that will update the City’s existing construction codes to the most recently published editions of the various codes that the City utilizes, as follows:
►Chapter 7, Fire Protection and Prevention - Article III, Fire Prevention Code - Section 5-16, Adopted
►Chapter 5, Building and Building Regulations - Article II, Building Code - Section 5-16, Adopted
►Chapter 5, Building and Building Regulations - Article IV, Mechanical Code - Section 5-56, Adopted
►Chapter 5, Building and Building Regulations - Article V, Plumbing Code - Section 5-71, Adopted
►Chapter 10, Housing Code - Article I, General - Section 10-1, Adopted
Mr. DePrima stated that the amendments will adopt the 1996 BOCA Building and Property Maintenance Codes, the 1996 International Mechanical Code and the 1995 International Plumbing Code.
Mr. Leary moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments (Attachment #3A - #3E), as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. Leary moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Hare and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:07 P.M.
UTILITY COMMITTEE
The Utility Committee met with Chairman Lambert presiding. Members present were Councilmen Pitts and Tudor, Mr. Carey and Mr. Kramedas.
Bid - Miscellaneous Bituminous Coated Concrete Manholes
Bids were solicited for miscellaneous concrete manholes to be used on a variety of sanitary sewer extension projects throughout the City. Mr. O’Connor stated that these manholes will be used to expand and rehabilitate various sections of the City’s wastewater collection system. The low bid was received from Atlantic Concrete Products, Inc., in the amount of $37,418.
Staff recommended awarding the bid to Atlantic Concrete Products, Inc., in the amount of $37,418, for miscellaneous bituminous coated concrete manholes.
Mr. Fenimore moved to recommend approval of staff’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Pitts and unanimously carried.
Bid - Medium Duty Truck with Dump Body
Staff solicited bids for a medium duty truck with a 16-foot flat bed dump body for use in the Construction and Water/Wastewater Divisions of the Public Works Department. The low bid was received from Barr International from Salisbury, Maryland, in the amount of $40,725.86. Staff recommended awarding the bid to the low bidder.
Mr. O’Connor noted that a budget revision was necessary in the Water/Wastewater Improvement and Extension Fund to provide funding this purchase.
Mr. Pitts moved to recommend awarding the bid in the amount of $40,725.86 to Barr International for the purchase of one medium duty truck with a 16-foot flat bed dump body. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fenimore and unanimously carried.
Mr. Pitts moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin R. Christiansen
Council President
RRC/jg