COUNCIL COMMITTEES

The Council Committees Meeting was held on November 26, 2001, at 3:00 p.m., with Council President McGlumphy presiding. Members of Council present were Mr. Ritter (departed at 4:25 p.m.), Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Speed, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Carey, Mr. Salters, Mr. Ruane, and Mayor Hutchison.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Gorman requested that item #2A - Report - Budget Task Force and item #2B - Proposed Charter Amendments (which were tabled during the Committee Meeting of November 19, 2001) remain tabled until the first meeting in January 2002 and that the Utility Committee items be considered prior to the Legislative and Finance Committee items.

Mr. Ruane moved for approval of the agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.

UTILITY COMMITTEE

The Utility Committee met with Chairman Ruane presiding. Members present were Councilmen Speed and Truitt, and Mr. Nichols. Mr. Lambert was absent.

Middle West Engineering Consultants Report

The City’s Electric Bond Resolutions require that the City retain an independent engineering consultant to inspect the City’s electric system and to review the electric budget and insurance program. The City’s current engineering consultant is Middle West Service Company. The Annual Report contains a summary of the operation results for fiscal year 2000 - 2001. It also includes the consultants conclusions and recommendations, as well as commentary on active and future projects planned for the electric system and plant operations. Mrs. Donna Mitchell, Finance Director/Treasurer, provided a summarized report as follows:

            →     Growth this past year has been approximately .5%

            →     The City set a peak of 158MW in the summer of 2001.

            →     The revenue and expense budgets for the above mentioned years provide for the operation and maintenance of the electric system according to sound utility practices.

            →     The budget revenues reflect retail rates as of March 1, 1998.

            →     The expense budgets include allowances for expected cost increases.

            →     Transfers of $1,300,000 and $44,078,750 from reserves to the Improvement and Extension Fund are recommended.

            →     The transfers, beginning balance, and interest earnings in the Improvement and Extension Fund are adequate to cover the estimated capital expenditures of $6,301,841 in fiscal year 2002.

            →     Revenue tests, according to Section 502 of the 1985 Bond Resolution show sufficient margins above requirements indicating that retail rates are adequate for fiscal year 2001-2002 (see pages 3-6).

The fee for this report is $18,300, including expenses.

Responding to Mr. Ruane (referring to the third paragraph in the Middle West Report, page 2-5), Mr. DePrima stated that the City has been working with Duke Energy to assure that when the Dover Downs Substation is energized this fall, the 69kV system will handle and distribute the load appropriately. He indicated that new substations are brought on line in phases.

Regarding the “Revenue Less Purchase Power Cost” (page 2-6), Mr. DePrima stated that the recent increase in the fuel adjustment was not taken into consideration when the report was finalized.

Mr. Salters stated that in the past commercial electric users were given special rates compared to the average homeowner and questioned if that would be a source of revenue. Responding, Mr. DePrima stated that several years ago, when electric retailing was a concern, Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate rates for individual industrial users. Although he believes that it would be beneficial to continue this practice, he suggested that a rate study be considered. He stated that a rate study has not been performed in ten years and that it should include comparisons between rates and other utilities, cost of service analyses, and debt service.

Mr. Nichols moved to recommend that the City Manager be authorized to begin budgeting for a rate study for the next fiscal year and to begin preparing a RFQ (Request For Qualifications) for contracting a rate study consultant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Speed and unanimously carried.

Mr. Ruane moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Speed and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 3:26 P.M.

LEGISLATIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

The Legislative and Finance Committee met with Chairman Gorman presiding. Members present were Councilmen Ruane and Salters, Mr. Snaman, and Mrs. Street.

Election Board Report - Proposed Redistricting Plan for the City of Dover and Miscellaneous Recommendations

On behalf of the Board of Elections, Mr. Thomas Leary, Chairman, presented their recommendation for a Redistricting Plan for the City Council Districts. He recognized the assistance provided by the State of Delaware, Department of Elections for Kent County, with a special thank you to Ms. Joyce Wright, Director, and Mr. Randy Goodlett, System Administrator, for their time and dedication given to this project. A map depicting a comparison chart of the 1990 and 2000 Census population figures for the City of Dover, as well as the current Council District Map and Proposed District Map (Dover Plan), were presented, as recommended by the Election Board.

Mr. Leary stated that the most recent Decennial Census data was used when developing the proposed Redistricting Plan for the City of Dover. Members utilized certain criteria in considering the redistricting, as follows:

            1)    Develop districts that attain the ideal population number of 8,048;

            2)    Maintain the legal obligation of a 65% black district;

            3)    Attempt to keep neighborhoods together;

            4)    Utilize natural and man made, understandable boundaries in the development of new boundary lines.

As a result of consultations with the City Solicitor’s Office, members were advised of the following information, as follows:

            1)    Redistricting must be accomplished prior to May 2002 (to be used in the April 2003 Municipal Election);

            2)    Federal Decennial Census figures must be used in the redistricting process;

            3)    The Four (4) Councilmanic Districts are mandated in the City Charter, not the City Code, which would require legislative action to change;

            4)    Actual district boundary changes will require a Code amendment; and

            5)    The City is obligated to abide by certain legal conditions as they relate to maintaining a 65% black district that is within the current legal precedence regarding one man, one vote.

Mr. Leary stated that a great deal of time was spent trying to get the Fourth District to reach the 65% black requirement; however, this was accomplished by moving a percentage of people from the Third District and placing them in the Fourth District. He continued by stating that, due to a very active neighborhood association, the traditional Edgehill Neighborhoods remained together.

Referring to the 2000 Census Report, Mr. Ritter questioned the reported population growth in the Third District when there has not been any major construction. He also questioned the reported 3,000 population relating to the Garrison Tract and Persimmon Tree Park areas. Responding, Mr. Leary reiterated that the City Charter specifies that the Federal Decennial Census is to be used in the redistricting process.

Mr. Ruane stated that the Council should be alerted to the serious discrepancies in the data that the Election Board was made to use. He noted that the Second District realized a significant decrease in population. He suggested that the City Planning Department review and compare the 1990 Census Report with the 2000 Census Report.

Mr. Leary suggested that consideration be given to the possibility that the 1990 Census was incorrect and that the 2000 Census may be more accurate. He reminded members that ten years ago, there were highly populated developments with children at home and now the children are grown and have left home.

Mr. Petit de Mange indicated that the Planning Department could assist by looking for “glaring” errors. He stated that in 1990, the Census Bureau gave local governments an opportunity to review the data and file an appeal; however, this time local governments were not given the same opportunity.

During the redistricting review process, members of the Election Board realized that the City is no longer a segregated community, causing difficulty in maintaining a 65% black district while maintaining the population within 10% of all other districts and recommended submission of the following resolution for consideration:

“We have come to the point where the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Acts are in conflict.

Because of the success of Fair Housing policies, minority families are, happily, able to live well beyond the bounds of their traditional neighborhoods. As the concentration of minority population rapidly dilutes, the concept of a minority voting district at 65% and roughly equal size to other voting districts will become, going forward, impossible.

Therefore, we respectfully recommend that the City Council and Mayor enter into negotiations with the interested parties to re-qualify and modify the terms of the consent decree.

The City of Dover Board of Elections stands ready to assist in this effort either as the lead negotiating team for the City or as a part of a “blue ribbon panel” to satisfy this goal.”

A map depicting white and black populations showed that minorities were moving away from the center of town. Mr. Leary stated that it is not the recommendation of the Election Board to eliminate the minority district, only that consideration be given to amending the minority district requirements.

After much discussion, Mr. Ruane moved to recommend approval of the redistricting plan as presented by the Election Board, contingent upon the following: 1) that the Planning Department verify the authenticity of the population numbers; 2) that a legal opinion be obtained regarding the possibility of an appeal process; and (3) request that the Mayor and City Manager meet with the NAACP to reevaluate the terms of the consent order. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snaman and unanimously carried.

Mr. Gorman moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Salters and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 4:31 P.M.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    William P. McGlumphy

                                                                                    Council President

WPM/lcg