REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The Regular Council Meeting was held on June 13, 1994 with Council President Christiansen presiding. Council members present were Mr. Lambert, Mr. Tudor, Mr. Leary, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Malone, Mr. Weyandt, Mr. Salters and Mr. Hare.
Council staff members present were Chief Smith, Mr. Lucas, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. DePrima, Chief Osika, Mrs. Boaman 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.
Eric O'Brien - 30 N. New Street
Mr. Eric O'Brien of 30 N. New Street addressed problems on New Street. He stated that the residents of North New Street are forced to tolerate excessive noise, loitering, trespassing and various acts of crime on a continual basis. He stated that residents get little or no support from the City Police Department. Mr. O'Brien stated that the people that live on this street are afraid to come out of their own homes and are being forced to barricade themselves in their homes. It was Mr. O'Brien's opinion that much of the problem stems from the fact that the majority of the homes are rental units. He has even taken it upon himself to write to the property owners to explain the problems and to request their help in solving them. He strongly suggested that the City implement a curfew law, stating that very young people are on the streets until the early morning hours, creating noise and breaking laws.
Council President Christiansen assured Mr. O'Brien that the Mayor and Council, along with the Police Department, will work diligently to eradicate the crime related problems being experienced on N. New Street. He urged Mr. O'Brien to work with the Police Chief on problems being encountered by his family.
Mr. Robert Smith - 702 Forest Street (Business)
Mr. Robert Smith, who owns a business at 702 Forest Street, addressed members of Council on a problem he recently experienced. He explained that he encountered an incident with a customer who was dissatisfied with the service he received. Mr. Smith stated that additional repairs were made at no cost but because of the incident, Mr. Smith asked the customer to not utilize his business in the future. Apparently, the customer contacted a member of Council to complain that he was asked not to use this business again based upon racial discrimination. In researching the matter, Mr. Smith discovered that a letter had been written to various City officials as well as a letter to the NAACP. In addition, Councilman Pitts, accompanied by a City Inspector, visited his business to request verification of a proper business license.
Mr. Smith complained that Councilman Pitts utilized his position as a City Council member to place pressure on his business because of the aforementioned incident. He met with Mr. Pitts and requested a copy of the letter written to the NAACP, but was told that he no longer had possession of the letter. Mr. Smith has met with City officials and was given a copy of the letter written to the City. Since he has not yet seen the letter written to the NAACP he feels that he has been deprived of the opportunity to defend his actions. Mr. Smith stated that if he has done something wrong, he is more than willing to take responsibility and to take actions to correct the problem. However, he has been unable to respond in any manner since he has only heard rumors and innuendos to this point. He fears that if he does not respond to a claim of racial discrimination, it will have an extremely negative effect on his business.
Mr. Pitts stated that he received a letter but determined that there was no reason to respond to it. He destroyed the letter and therefore cannot give Mr. Smith a copy. Mr. Pitts stated that he did not request the Inspections Department to investigate Mr. Smith's business. He was in the vicinity of the business when the Inspector visited, but the visit was not instigated by him.
After much discussion, Mr. Salters offered to assist in resolving this matter.
The Open Forum adjourned at 7:42 p.m. and the Council Meeting convened at 7:45 p.m.
The invocation was given by Council President Christiansen, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
Mr. Christiansen requested the addition of an item to consider appointment of a subcommittee to review the City's open space requirements. Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 23, 1994
The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 23, 1994 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Salters, seconded by Mr. Leary and bore the written approval of Mayor Hutchison.
PROCLAMATION - TALL SHIPS FESTIVAL
The City Clerk read into the record the following Proclamation:
WHEREAS, the Kalmar Nyckel Foundation has organized the Tall Ships Festival, a three-day event to be held on June 24, 25, and 26, 1994 in the City of New Castle and the Port of Wilmington, Delaware; and
WHEREAS, the Tall Ships will highlight the rich maritime heritage of Delaware; and
WHEREAS, the CITY OF DOVER, Capital City of the First State, is delighted to take part in this historical and cultural event and is proud to have our DOVER DAYS MAYPOLE DANCERS participate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that Mayor James L. Hutchison, Mayor of the City of Dover, extends best wishes for a successful Tall Ships Festival and encourages our citizens to participate in this enlightening and educational celebration of the colonial and historical heritage of Delaware.
PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL READING - MISCELLANEOUS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
A public hearing was duly advertised to consider approval of miscellaneous zoning text amendments. The first reading of the proposed ordinances was accomplished during the Council Meeting of May 9, 1994. Mr. Leary moved to acknowledge the proposed ordinances by title only, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.
Mr. DePrima, City Planner, explained that amendment #1 is simply a partial reopening of the RG-0 zone which would allow its use in the Central Dover area. Amendment #2 would treat open decks as accessory structures allowed to be constructed in required rear yards to within ten feet of the rear property line. Amendment #3 would retain the 5' setback from rear yards and 10' from adjoining principle structures, but would eliminate the existing practice of requiring a 10' setback from the principle building on the same lot. Amendment #4 would allow stairs, ramps, fences, and small docks with the setbacks from bodies of water that are now protected. Amendment #5 has the affect of establishing code specifications for pedestrian amenities that have been loosely referenced in the Code with little guidance or specificity. The amendment states when sidewalks are required, where they are to be installed, and how they shall be constructed.
Questioned by Mr. Lambert, Mr. DePrima stated that amendment #4 relates to both Silver Lake and the St. Jones River.
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.
Mr. Hare moved for approval of the proposed zoning text ordinance amendments, as proposed by the City Planner and Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and by a unanimous roll call, Council adopted the following ordinances:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
Amend Article 10 Planning Commission, Section 5 Amendment, of the City of Dover Zoning Ordinance by deleting Sub-section 5.19 Closed Zones (c) in its entirety and replace it with the following:
(c) RG-O except in the Downtown Redevelopment Target Area as described in Appendix C of the City of Dover Code of Ordinances.
Amend Article 5 Supplementary Regulations, Section 1 Supplementary regulations applying to residence zones, Subsection 1.5 Exceptions to Yard Requirements by creating a new Sub-subsection as follows:
1.54 Open Decks. An open deck or patio extending to within ten (10) feet of a rear lot line or within 20 feet of a rear lot for second story decks shall be exempt from rear yard setback requirements and lot coverage requirements so long as the principle structure complies with the regulations. Such open decks or patio shall not be enclosed and used as a part of the principle structure.
Amend Article 5 Supplementary Regulations, Section 1 Supplementary regulations applying to residence zones, Subsection 1.1 Accessory Structures by deleting Sub-subsection 1.12 and replacing it as follows:
1.12 Such buildings shall be set back 5 feet from any lot line and shall not be located less than 10 feet from an adjoining principle structure.
Amend Article 5 Supplementary Regulations, Section 11 Environmental Protection, by deleting Subsection 11.13 and replacing it as follows:
11.13 Water Bodies and Wetlands. Lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams and wetlands shall be left as permanent open space. No development, filling, piping or diverting shall be permitted except for required roads, to be approved by the Delaware Department of Transportation and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
No structures, except stairs and ramps, fences, and docks less than 200 square feet, are permitted to be constructed within seventy five (75) feet of the shore line of any permanent fresh water lake over one fourth (1/4) acres in size or within one hundred feet of the mean high tide line for tidal waters or wetlands. No structures are permitted within fifty (50) feet of the center line of permanent or intermittent streams or within twenty five (25) feet beyond the limits of the flood plain, which ever is greater. Within these same areas the clearing or removal of natural ground cover or vegetation, including the cultivation of soil for agricultural purposes, is prohibited.
Amend Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance by establishing a new Section 18 to read as follows:
"Section 18. Sidewalk Requirements.
18.1Standard City of Dover sidewalk shall be required to be installed along the public street frontage of a property by the property owner or developer whenever such property involves a development proposal which is subject to Planning Commission review and approval.
18.2Whenever a private road within a development is proposed, whether planned for future subdivision or not, the developer shall be required to install standard City of Dover sidewalk on both sides of the cartway of the private road. Such sidewalk shall be setback at least 4 feet therefrom, and generally constructed to run parallel with the edge of the cartway. Such sidewalk shall include barrier free access ramping at points of intersection with street crossing and at other locations so as to afford reasonable barrier free pedestrian movement and access to buildings.
18.3Within all multi-family residential developments that do not involve subdivision of the land, and with all non-residential developments, standard City of Dover sidewalk shall be required to be installed by the developer. Such sidewalk shall be situated so as to provide for pedestrian access from parking areas to building entrances and shall provide sidewalk linkages to the existing sidewalk network in the neighborhood, if present, or to frontage sidewalk as required in Section 18.1 above, and shall provide pedestrian linkages between buildings and community facilities, including but not limited to, park areas and laundry buildings.
18.4When it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that strict adherence to the provisions of this Section would represent an undue burden on a development, then the Planning Commission may modify or waive any of the stated requirements provided that the objective of providing adequate, visible and suitably located walkways as part of the development proposal is secured. When considering a request for modification or waiver, the Planning Commission shall determine whether or not an undue hardship exists based on a finding that one or more of the following criteria have been met: 1) the property is isolated with respect to sidewalks with no existing sidewalk within the immediate vicinity of the property; or, 2) the proposed use would not generate or attract additional pedestrian trips; or, 3) sidewalk construction to serve the property is planned as part of a state or municipal capital improvement project; or 4) physical characteristics of the property are such that sidewalk installation is impractical or impossible.
18.5The Planning Commission may authorize the use of construction materials other than those required of standard City of Dover sidewalk when it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that:
1) Such alternative materials would serve the public as well as standard City of Dover sidewalk; and
2) Such alternative materials would be more environmentally desirable or more in keeping with the overall design of the development.
ADOPTED:June 13, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF QUEEN AND WATER STREETS
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located at the intersection of Queen and Water Streets, owned by Dover Equipment and Maintenance Co., Inc.
Planner's Review
The City Planner stated that the recommendation of the Planning Commission is for approval. In taking this position the Commission considered the following points:
Surrounding Land Uses - To the east and across Queen Street is the location of the Morris Correctional Facility zoned RGO, to the south is R. E. Michel Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Supply zoned C-3, to the west is the Conrail rail line and further west are agricultural areas that are zoned IPM (Industrial Park). North and adjacent to the site, and across Water Street, are several single family homes zoned RGO and the Carter TV Repair Shop zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial).
The existing business is a non-conforming use in the RGO zone which precludes it from expanding its use of the facility. The facility has not had any land use conflicts with surrounding properties. The owner has been informed that the rezoning would require the storage yard to be screened in accordance with existing ordinances.
Other than storage areas that are visible from the public right-of-way, the existing facility has not had any conflicting problems on record with surrounding uses. The rezoning conforms with the Comprehensive Plan and would allow expansion of the existing facility and improvements to screening.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open.
Mr. George Gardner, attorney representing George & Lynch, addressed the proposed rezoning. Mr. Gardner explained that George & Lynch sold a substantial portion of their Route #113 business and they now need additional space at the Water Street site. They plan to demolish one of the existing buildings and will enhance the site by constructing a more modern structure.
Asked by Mr. Lambert about a possible increase in traffic, Mr. Dick Stoops from George & Lynch stated that they anticipate very little change in their current traffic patterns.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Hare moved for approval of the rezoning request as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and by a unanimous roll call vote, Council adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF QUEEN AND WATER STREETS.
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from RG-O (General Residence and Office) to C-3 (Service Commercial).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover has been amended by changing the zoning designation from RG-O to C-3 on that property located at the intersection of Queen and Water Streets, owned by Dover Equipment and Maintenance Company, Inc.
ADOPTED:June 13, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE #8, WEST OF KENTON ROAD
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider rezoning of property located on the north side of Route #8, west of Kenton Road, owned by Mallard Pond Associates and Ernest Keith.
Planner's Review
The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. In taking this position, the Planning Commission considered the following points:
Surrounding Land Uses - To the east are the Brandywine Court Apartments and Condominiums zoned RG-2. Immediately south and adjacent are four single family homes zoned R-20, further to the south and across Route 8 are six single family homes in the County that are zone RS-1. To the west are two single family homes zoned R-20, and further to the west and immediately north are single family detached and duplex homes within the Heatherfield East development that are zoned R-8 and RG-2.
The Comprehensive Plan, as recently amended by the Route 8 Corridor Study, recommends medium density housing for this area. The project would require the construction of Maple Dale Avenue which was platted and accepted into the city, but never constructed. The construction of the street would give proper access to a home that is adjacent to the northwest portion of the property that currently does not have standard public access to Route 8. It would also provide access to the Mallard Pond open space that the city is considering for public open space.
Parcel #1 is a down zoning from a more intensive zone that allows apartments and condominiums.
Parcel #2 is currently platted for six non-conforming single family detached homes. Each home would be located on lots that are approximately 50 x 180 feet.
The Developer held a preliminary meeting with surrounding property owners. The neighbors who attended were not generally opposed, but expressed concern for buffering and drainage. One resident spoke at the meeting and expressed concerns that the buffer area was not large enough and that the existing trees do not provide enough buffer.
The proposed zoning conforms with the recommendations of the recently approved Route #8 Corridor Study which was adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. With proper buffering, the uses would be compatible with the surrounding single family home and duplexes. The construction of Maple Dale Avenue would open access and make utilities available to a home that is not currently served. However, the traffic impact was of some concern.
It should be noted that the rezoning of parcel #1 is a down zoning to a zone with less density requirements. Under the current zone all 24 units currently proposed on both parcels could be constructed on parcel #1 because units/acres, building height, lot coverage are all less restrictive.
In response to a question by Mr. Weyandt on the open space requirements for this development, Mr. DePrima stated that open space requirements are determined at a later date. The only question before Council at this time is the one of rezoning. Mr. DePrima noted, however, that just north of and adjacent to this property there is a large area of open space that is a part of the Mallard Pond Project. There have been some discussions about the City taking over this space. Mr. Weyandt voiced concern with such a heavy concentration of homes and people without ample open space for recreation for the neighborhood children. Mr. O'Connor stated that he and Zach Carter have looked at the Mallard Pond open space, which consists of approximately 6.5 acres, and that they recommend acceptance of the open space. This area will also tie into the Heatherfield, Heatherfield East and Mallard Pond subdivision.
Mr. Lambert expressed that he shares Mr. Weyandt's concern with the density of population in the West Dover area, especially in the area of needed infrastructure and increased traffic. Mr. DePrima relayed that since this is a relatively small project, DelDOT stated no objections and did not even recommend a traffic study for the project. Responding to questions on the required buffer, Mr. DePrima stated that this matter will be more fully discussed during Subdivision review, but the current plan is to narrow Maple Dale Road in the rear and shift a road closer to the houses and away from homes in Heatherfield East. There are some existing trees in this area and there may be a requirement for enhanced plantings. This should provide ample buffer between duplex homes and townhouses.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing open.
Mr. Doug VanSant of Gerald Donovan Associates spoke on behalf of the owners. Mr. VanSant explained that the developers have met with neighbors to allay their concerns. The developer will continue to work with the City and the surrounding property owners to ensure that everyone's needs are being met. Mr. VanSant explained that City Code requires, on a 60' street, a 38' wide pavement which would give 11' from the curb to the property line. What the developer is proposing is to narrow the roadway to 28' and shift it slightly to the south and dedicate an additional 10' off of their property to the south to make it a 60' right-of-way. This would allow the roadway to be moved even further from the Heatherfield East property line. They will provide access to the 6.5 acres of open space.
Mr. Jeff Lord of 27 Heatherfield Way spoke on behalf of the Heatherfield East Homeowners Associates. Mr. Lord stated that his home backs up directly behind the proposed townhouses. The Homeowners Association has concern with increased traffic on Route #8 and have particular concern with the proposed access routes. One of the proposed access routes will be less than 1,000' from the intersection of Mifflin Road/Dover Kenton Road/Route #8. This intersection is already heavily used and is quite dangerous. He relayed the difficulties encountered in trying to exit his development in the morning due to the heavy traffic on Route #8. The Homeowners feel that a 20' buffer is needed, stating that his rear yard is dangerously close to the proposed road. Referring to a proposal to combine open space for use by children from Heatherfield, Heatherfield East, Mallard Pond and the new townhouses, Mr. Lord reminded Council that there are many other developments in the immediate vicinity that have small children that will want to use this parcel. He cited in particular the existing Dover Country Club Apartments, Mifflin Run and Fox Hall West.
Council President Christiansen declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Hare stated that when developers proposed development of Heatherfield East, the residents of Heatherfield protested. Now the residents of Heatherfield East are protesting the development of property adjacent to them. Although he agreed with their concern for traffic, he felt that the City has no choice but to permit reasonable use of private property. Since Route #8 is a State of Delaware roadway, he felt that DelDOT has an obligation to address the traffic problems. He suggested the need for a traffic light out of Heatherfield/Heatherfield East onto Route #8, concurring that it is very difficult to access Route #8 in the early morning hours. Mr. DePrima stated that this area is currently under study for placement of a light from the various developments.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Leary and by a roll call vote of seven (7) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Weyandt and Mr. Christiansen), the following ordinance was adopted:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DOVER BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE #8, WEST OF KENTON ROAD (PRESENTLY CALLED MAPLE DALE AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the City of Dover has enacted a zoning ordinance regulating the use of property within the limits of the City of Dover; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of zoning and planning to change the permitted use of property described below from RG-2 (General Residence) and R-20 (Single Family Residence) to RG-3 (Group Housing).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. That from and after the passage and approval of this ordinance the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dover has been amended by changing the zoning designation from RG-2 and R-20 to RG-3 on that property located on the north side of Route #8, west of Kenton Road, owned by Mallard Pond Associates and Ernest V. Keith.
ADOPTED:June 13, 1994
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEALS REPORT
The Property Assessment Appeals Committee met on May 31, 1994 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. with Chairman Hare presiding. Members present were Mr. Salters and Mr. Weyandt. Formal property assessment appeals were reviewed and the Committee made the following recommendations:
Value Appealed
Property Owner/Address Appealed Appraised Assessed
SOHO Mgmnt Corp. $4,821,800 $2,893,100
Bay Court Plaza
The Committee recommended a reduction to an appraised value of $4,312,000 and an assessed value of $2,587,200.
Value Appealed
Property Owner/Address Appealed Appraised Assessed
Aid in Dover, Inc. $ 56,000 $ 33,600
838 Walker Rd - Suite 2B-2
The committee recommended that the property be granted tax exempt status as requested.
Value Appealed
Property Owner/Address Appealed Appraised Assessed
Bayard Assoc./ Bayard Hotel $299,600 $179,800
200-216 W. Loockerman St.
The committee recommended a reduction to an appraised value of $210,000 and an assessed value of $126,000.
Value Appealed
Property Owner/Address Appealed Appraised Assessed
Central Delaware Habitat for Humanity
27 S. Kirkwood St $ 4,900 $ 2,900
23 S. Kirkwood St 6,100 3,700
The committee recommended that the properties at 27 and 23 S. Kirkwood Street be granted tax exempt status, with the quarterly bill for 23 S. Kirkwood Street to be forgiven. Both properties will be taxable when occupied.
Value Appealed
Property Owner/Address Appealed Appraised Assessed
Kent General Hospital, Inc. $323,000 $193,800
725 Horsepond Road (35.88 acres)
The committee recommended that the property be granted tax exempt status.
Value Appealed
Property Owner/Address Appealed Appraised Assessed
Elks Lodge BPOE 1903 $586,000 $351,600
1035 Forrest Avenue
The committee noted that the Elks received an annual exemption in the past. The committee recommended a continuous exemption for the Lodge and 2.75 acres of land. The vacant lot (approximately 6.43 acres) will continue to be taxed.
Value Appealed
Property Owner/Address Appealed Appraised Assessed
Blue Realty Corp. $9,416,400 $5,649,800
Blue Hen Mall
The committee recommended a reduction in the appraised value to $6,460,400 and a reduction in the assessed value to $3,876,200.
Mr. Hare explained that the proposed reductions for Bay Court Plaza and the Blue Hen Mall are contingent upon their current situation and will be increased if their situation improves.
Referring to the two above properties, Mr. Christiansen questioned the wisdom of a tax reduction, stating that there are many other commercial properties in the City that are experiencing difficult times. Mr. Lucas explained that both entities experienced a major loss of large tenants in a very short period of time. He felt that there are no other complexes in Dover that have suffered the magnitude of losses, in a very short period of time, that has been experienced by the owners of the Blue Hen Mall and Bay Court Plaza.
Although he agrees that the proposed action is correct and just, Mr. Tudor felt that a dangerous precedent will be set if property valuations are based upon tenants or revenues. Mr. Lucas stated that practically all commercial properties are valued based upon the income stream that they produce. In the case of Blue Hen Mall and Bay Court Plaza, they have experienced extenuating circumstances and a deterioration over a period of time that led the committee to its recommendation. This is an extreme situation that very few other properties could experience.
Mr. Hare reminded Council that a proposed purchaser would not pay full value for either of these properties under their current situations and that purchase prices affect appraised values. He stated that if the value of the properties increase, their appraised and assessed values will be increased.
Council President Christiansen declared the property assessment appeal hearings open.
There was no one present wishing to speak during the public hearings.
Council President Christiansen declared the property assessment appeal hearings closed.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the above recommendations of the Appeals Committee and for approval of the Appeals Committee Report. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Malone and carried by a roll call vote of eight (8) yes, one (1) no (Mr. Christiansen).
SETTING OF PROPERTY TAX RATE - 1994/95
The tax rate for the 1993/94 property tax billing was sixty eight and one half cents ($ .685) per one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation. The proposed budget maintains the same rate for the upcoming tax billing.
Mr. Hare moved that the property tax rate remain at sixty eight and one half cents ($ .685) per one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation for the upcoming 1994/95 property tax billing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
The Legislative and Finance Committee met on May 24, 1994 with Chairman Salters presiding.
Proposed Charter Changes
During the past several months, members of Council have discussed proposed Charter changes which relate to the City Manager reporting to the Mayor and other increased responsibilities of the Mayor. Council deferred action on the proposed Charter changes until after the 1994 Municipal Election.
Rather than amending the Charter as previously considered, Mr. Salters suggested that the Office of the Mayor be strengthened by amending the Code.
Council President Christiansen felt that since the Mayor's Office is listed in the City Charter as the Chief Executive of our City, the Mayor should share more in the responsibility of the daily operations of the City. He stressed, however, that the Mayor should not interfere with the professionalism of the City Manager. The Mayor should assist the City Manager and serve as ombudsman.
Mr. Hare advised members that the City currently does not have a true City Manager form of government since we have a Mayor and Council President. He suggested that the City return to a City Manager form of government whereby Council is led by the Mayor and the Mayor presides over Council meetings as the Chief Executive Officer for the City.
Although Mr. Lambert felt that the current form of government should be maintained, he felt that the Mayor should be more visible and have a more active role in the policy making of the City.
Mayor Hutchison stated that the Mayor is elected by the people just like members of Council. Feeling that it is extremely important that the Mayor and Council work as a team, he felt that the Mayor should be in the flow of the day to day operations of the City. Mayor Hutchison stated that the Mayor has just as much responsibility to the citizens of the City as each member of Council. He noted that the current table of organization indicates the citizens of Dover and then Members of Council with the Mayor's Office off to the right. Mayor Hutchison requested that the table of organization be modified with the citizens of Dover at the top, then the Mayor, the Council President, Members of City Council and the others remain as are currently shown. This would provide the City Manager with the responsibility of reporting to the Mayor as well as City Council.
There was general discussion about modification to the table of organization to indicate that the City Manager also reports to the Mayor. After discussing the matter at length, the committee recommended that the current form of government be maintained, authorizing the Mayor to confer with the City Manager, with no more power than any member of Council.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, incorporating approval of a Table of Organization as submitted by Mr. Lambert (as on file with the City Clerk's Office). The motion was seconded by Mr. Hare and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Section 2-70 of City Code - Reimbursement of Expenses - Mayor
During their Regular Meeting of March 28, 1994, Council considered the recommendation of the Citizens Committee that the salary level for the Mayor be set at $5,000 annually and the Mayor be allocated an expense account of up to $5,000 to be used for payment of expenses, with receipts or proper documentation, stipulating that expenses in excess of the $5,000 cap be permitted only by Council approval. This matter was tabled by Council on March 28, 1994.
Mr. Hare moved that the matter be removed from the table, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.
After further discussion on the matter, the committee recommended that Section 2-70 of the City Code be amended to comply with the recommendation of the Citizens Committee.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Weyandt and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting.)
Planning Commission - Term Expiration
In considering Planning Commission appointments during their meeting of March 14, 1994, members relayed concern with the appointments taking place just prior to the Mayoral elections. Noting that at one time, the election was held in January and the Planning Commission appointments were made in February, it was felt that when the election date was changed to April, the Council at that time failed to move the appointment date of Planning Commission members. As directed by Council, City Solicitor Rodriguez researched the nature of the Planning Commission appointments being in February and the concept of an appointee serving beyond his term expiration date in the event that a new appointment has not been confirmed.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated that the composition of the Planning Commission is controlled by 22 Del. C. §701 which provides that Planning Commissions may be created by municipalities, the members to be appointed by the Mayor subject to confirmation by Council. He also indicated that an incumbent would continue to serve on the Planning Commission until his successor is appointed. Mr. Rodriguez advised members that an ordinance could not be located which establishes the expiration date for terms of members of the Planning Commission. In changing the term expiration date, he suggested that Section 17-1 of the Dover Code be amended.
The committee recommended that Section 17-1 of the Dover Code be amended to provide that Planning Commission appointments be made in June and that incumbent members continue to serve until a successor is appointed.
Mr. Salters moved for approval of the committee's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Weyandt and unanimously carried. (The First Reading of the ordinance will take place during the latter part of the meeting.)
Council Voting - Roll Call Votes
During their meeting of April 26, 1994, members considered requiring a 2/3 vote of Council on roll call votes for the approval of all ordinances, bids, contracts, rezonings, and annexations and that a 3/4 vote be required on motions to purchase or sell City property above $50,000 in value.
It was noted that with the present system, one vote could change a momentous event. Some members agreed that there are certain items of utmost importance that come before City Council that should require an absolute vote rather than just a majority.
Mr. Salters reiterated his concern that any change to the present voting system would be circumventing the entire democratic process, whereby the majority rules. He felt that a change would be unconstitutional and suggested that a legal opinion be obtained regarding this matter.
Mr. Richard L. Ornauer addressed the committee, stating that the super majority is, in effect, allowing a minority of Council to rule. Noting that members indicated that the sale of the City Hall Parking Lot and Power Plant are majority issues, he questioned if the budget for the United States of America is a major issue. Mr. Ornauer reminded members that the budget for the United States of America was approved by a tie breaker vote of the Vice-President and that the budget for the State of Delaware was approved by a tie breaker vote of the Lt. Governor. Agreeing that the sale of the Parking Lot and Power Plant are major issues for the City of Dover, Mr. Ornauer requested that Council place these issues in context with the budgets of the United States and the State of Delaware. He requested that members of City Council not allow the minority to rule since it is very easy to obtain three negative votes.
After much discussion, the committee recommended that consideration of this matter be deferred until a legal opinion is obtained from the City Solicitor. Mr. Salters stated that a legal opinion has been received from the Solicitor, and that Mr. Rodriguez