LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

The Legislative and Finance Committee met on February 26, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Weyandt presiding. Members present were Councilmen Lynn, Hall and Mr. Leary. Other members of Council preseiit were Mr. Weyaiidt, Mr. Salters. Mr. Daisey, Mr. Pitts, Council President Christiansen, and Mayor Richter.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Weyandt requested that iteni #5, Proposed budget Revisions - Police Department, be deleted and that consideration of the Downtown Business District Tax be added in its place.

Mr. Lynn moved to accept the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Leary and unanimously carried.

SINGLE AUDIT REPORT

The Single Atidit Act of 1984 requires an annual audit of the internal controls and compliance in relation to the Federal grants received by the City. Members of the committee were provided with the Single Audit Report for the fiscal year 1990, as prepared by the auditors - Faw Casson & Company. Although the Act requires such a report for Federal Grants only, State Grants were included to make the report more comprehensive.

The Auditors have concluded that the City has adequate internal controls Although there were no material weaknesses, the auditors made the following recommendations:

1)Bil-ling entries should be checked more carefully

2)Bank reconciliation should be done on a more titrtely basis

3) Subsidiary controls need to be maintaiiied more effectively

Mr. Karia assured otembers that he will be discussing these items with the appropriate departments to implement corrective actions and will make a report to City Council. He recommetided that the Single Audit Report for the fiscal year 1990 be accepted.

Mr. Lyiin moved to recommend acceptance of the Single Audit Report for the fiscal year 1990, seconded by Mr. Hall and unanimously carried.

REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS - FY91 CDBG FUNDS

Since 1981 the City of Dover has chosen to focus its community development efforts on the revitalization of existing sub-standard housing. To date, more than 136 such units have received rehabilitation assistance to concur with the local housing code. The ftincis have also assist(i in the removal of vacant dilapidated dwellings that once plagued various areas of the City with slum and blight conditions. These past neighborhood improvements have made decent, safe. and sanitary living conditions to Dover residents.

As authorized by Council , community Development staff conducted all administrative public hearing on February 14, 1991. The hearing was held in order to provide any interested citizen the opportunity to offer their comments and concerns regarding the City of Dover's use of the FY 91/92 Community Development Block Grant Funds.

2

Mrs. Audrey Daniels, Community Development Director, advised members that Councilman Pitts attended the hearing relaying his concern for the two vacant houses on South Queen Street which is heir property. He suggested that City continue to put pressure on the owners to board or rehabilitate the houses. Mrs. Daniels also reported that a letter was received from the Ruth N. Dorsey Shelter requesting funding through the Emergency Shelter Grant Program.

Given the proven benefits of the Community Development Program atid continued need for rehabilitation of sub--standard dwellings, staff recommended that a request of S165.690 in Community Development Block Grant Funds and $16,000 in Emergency Shelter Grant Funds be made to the S'k-late of Delaware Division of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of providing contititied housing rehabilitation, demolition assistance, and public shelter- facility rehabilitation as requested by Ritth N. Dorsey Shelter staff.

Mrs. Daniels advised members that within tlit- Community Development Block Grant, $115.500 will be earflanked to provide rehabilitation assistance to approximately eleven (11) households located in the Capitol Green area, Kirkwood Street, New Street, Mitsclier Road, State College Road, Washington Street, and Cherry Street areas. She stated that $6,259 will be tised to assist it) the demolition of one eligible property and that the retaining $43,931 will be used for administrative exposes.

Mr. Worley advised members that the City has been notified that the State has changed the requirements whereby a minimum of two public hearings are required. A second public hearing has been schedule(I for March 14, 1991. Noting that March 29, 1991 is the deadline for submission of the grant, Mr. Worley explained that it will be necessary to report the results of the second public hearing directly to City Council at their March 25, 1991 meeting.

The committee took no further action.

LAND SUBDIVISION REGULATION'S AMENDMENTS ---- - -------------

Article IV. Section C, Paragraph 5

The Legislative and Finance Committee considered several land subdivision regulation amendments during their January meeting. The committee recommended approval of all the amendments except Article IV, Section C, Paragraph 5. Council approved the committee's recommendations for all the proposed Subdivision Regulation Amendments, with the exception of Article TV, Section C, Paragraph 9-c, which was referred back to the committee for further review. Since the committee recompounded tio action on Article TV, Section C, Paragraph 5. council took no official action and this Amendment was not included in the ordinances proposed for a First Reading.

Mrs. Boarnan explained that there seems to be some confusion as to whether Council approved the amendment or approved the committee's recommendation to take no action: therefore, staff requested that the committee review this amendment for clarification.

During the previous committee meeting, it was noted that the proposed amendment would require at least 75% of the lots within the subdivision to be developed. Mr, Cregar had explained that some developers choose to sell portions of the s(ibdivision. It was Mr. Lynn's suggestion that "ot, property transfers" be included in the amendment.

Mr. Lyiin moved to recommend approval of the land subdivision regulation amendment to Article IV, Section C, Paragraph 5, with the inclusion of "or property transfers" (Attachment *1). The motion was second(I by Mr. Hall and unanimously carried.

Article IV, Sect@L :qn C, F@@j @ar@A

During their meeting of February 11, 1991, Council considered the laiid subdivision regulation amendments to Article IV, Section C, Paragraph 9.c. Members of Council relayed their concern for expanding the period from 12 months to 24 months within which fitial plat approval would be considered valid alid referred the ameiidmezit back to the committee for further review.

Staff feels that 24 months is tiecessary to provide an adeqLiate time period for the developer to commence with construction which is consistent with the time required of various approval processes involved with subdivision development. Noting that Members of Council feel strotigly in maintaining the 12 litonth time period, Mr. Cregar stated that staff would agree to a 12 month period provided the remainder of the amendment language remains as proposed.

Mr. Lyiiii nioved to recommerid approval of the laiid s(ibdivision regulation ameiidmeiits to Article IV, Section C, Paragraph 9.c, as revised (Attachment *2). The motioti was seconded by Mr. Hall and utianiMOLISly carried.

DOWNTOWN BliSJNESS TAX DISTRICT

During the comjiiititee's January meetiiig, Mayor Richter introduced the coiicept of a busitiess license tax district for ttie dowtitown area. The extra business fee would be utilized to pay for an office that proniotes and takes cai-e of those businesses located downtown.

Mayor Richter advised members that he niet with the Central Dover Btisiness Association, consisting of approxiniately 40 ntembers, and that tiie majority supported the proposal . He stated that the downtown business coirimunity is prepared to work with the Legislative and Finance Committee to relay their feelings of the proposal.

Mr. Lynn moved to recommend that the Central Dover Btisiiiess Assoeiation be requested to i-eview the proposed ordinance and that a meeting be held with meiiibers of Council to work towards setting a ptiblic hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hall and unaniniously carried.

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

Notiiig that the City Manager's report is very resourceful and detailed, it is a standitig item ori ttie committee's agenda foi, thorough review.

Referring to page 1.3, paragraph 3 and 4, the coffimittee recommended that the City Manager be directed to correspotid witli the State to relay the City's concern with the proposal to create a $5 annual charge for each City water custonier, feeling that this could create utidesirable urban growth. Should the State create tile impact fee, it was felt by the comnijttee that collection of the fee should be the State's responsibility.

4

Regarditig H.B. 102, the conimittee expressed oppositioti since developers would pay higher costs aiid would also pay for the development of roads outside the City sitice the Bill has otily one benefit district in Kent Coiiiity atid no City-specific benefit district.

Ttie committee took no further action,

Mr. Leary moved for adjoiirnnient, secoiided by Mr. Hall and unailimolisly carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 8:35 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Fraiicis R. Weyandt

Chairman

FRW/DJB/jg

Attachments