AGENDA Monthly Council Meeting September 13, 2010

Joseph Ronnie Rogers Council Chambers, Milford City Hall, 201 South Walnut Street, Milford, Delaware COUNCIL MEETING - 7:00 p.m.

Call to Order - Mayor Joseph Ronnie Rogers

Invocation

Pledge of Allegiance

Approval of Previous Minutes

Recognition

Monthly Police Report

City Manager’s Report

Committee Reports

Communications

Unfinished Business - Adoption of Ordinance 2009-10/Lighting Standards Adoption of Ordinance 2009-22/Zoning Code Amendment/Billboards

New Business - Proclamation 2010-15/Family Day Award of Bid/Trash Truck/Street Department Tenth & Church Street Water and Sewer Connections/Water and Sewer Capital Reserves* Tenth Street Road Improvements/Municipal Street Aid* Boys and Girls Club Agreement/Amendment No. 1*

Monthly Finance Report

Executive Session

Pursuant to 29 Del. C. §10004(b)(4) Strategy sessions, including those involving legal advice or opinion from an attorney- at-law, with respect to collective bargaining or pending or potential litigation

Pursuant to 29 Del. C. §10004(b)(2) Preliminary discussions on site acquisitions for any publicly funded capital improvements**

Adjourn This agenda shall be subject to change to include additional items including executive sessions or the deletion of items including executive sessions which arise at the time of the public body's meeting.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT NO LATER THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO MEETING; NO PAPER DOCUMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED OR DISTRIBUTED AFTER PACKET HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE CITY OF MILFORD WEBSITE. 071810 072810 082610 *090810 Requested by City Manager **091310 Added by City Manager

“THE GARDEN CITY OF TWIN COUNTIES”

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Members of City Council

FROM: E. Keith Hudson, Chief of Police

DATE: September 8, 2010

RE: Activity Report/August 2010

======

Monthly Stats:

A total of 347 arrests were made by the Milford Police Department during August 2010. Of these arrests, 119 were for criminal offenses and 228 for traffic violations. Criminal offenses consisted of 37 felonies and 82 misdemeanors. Traffic violations consisted of 23 Regular Duty Radar, 6 Drunk-Driving charges, 58 Special Duty Radar and 141 other.

Police officers investigated 38 accidents during the month (8 personal injury, and 30 property damage) and issued 99 written reprimands. In addition, they responded to 1071 various complaints including city requests and other agency assistance.

A total of $10,593.81 was collected in fines during August.

One False Alarm Violation Invoice was issued during the month of August.

Monthly Activities:

EKH/vrk AUGUST ACTIVITY REPORT

AUG 2009 TOTAL 2009 AUG 2010 TOTAL 2010

Complaints 1466 9721 1071 9150

Criminal Arrests 204 1585 119 1105

Felonies 56 469 37 313 Misdemeanors 148 1116 82 792

Traffic Arrests 463 3450 228 2270

Regular Duty Radar 102 577 23 208 D.W.I. 15 119 6 61 Special Duty Radar 115 575 58 472 Other 231 2179 141 1569

Reprimands 187 1773 99 1022

Accidents 69 408 38 337

Personal Injury 8 43 856 Property Damage 40 344 30 290 Fatal (included in PI) 0 2 12

Parking Summons 8913 58

Crime Prevention Checks 82 376 29 324

Fines Received $15,718.91 $90,978.02 $10,593.81 $75,221.25 450

400

350

300

JAN FEB 250 MARCH APRIL

200 MAY JUNE JULY 150 AUGUST

100

50

0 FELONY MISD TRAFFIC DUI REPRIMAND SPECIAL DUTY PD ACCIDENTS PP ACCIDENTS PI ACCIDENTS PARKING CPC'S City Manager’s Report September 13, 2010

• Road & Utility Work As part of the street paving and sidewalk/curbing work approved by City Council at your last meeting, City utility and streets crews have started preparation for this work by beginning the replacement of water services on the streets to be paved. Work is about to be completed on NE 10th Street and then they will be moving to complete the same work on N. Church Street. An appropriation for funding for the utility work is a part of the agenda for this meeting.

• Demoliton of 125 NW 2nd Street City Code Officials are moving forward with the demolition of the condemned structure located at 125 NW 2nd St. (See attached engineer’s report and photos). Mrs. Thomas has removed personal belongings from the property and utilities are in the process of being disconnected. Code Enforcement will be utilizing funds budgeted for demolition and the property owner will be billed and/or the property liened for the cost of demolition.

• Recycling On August 1, the City Solid Waste Department began the collection of curbside recycling. During the month of August, the Solid Waste Department collected 394.31 tons (355.29 tons of Solid Waste; 39.02 tons of Recycling)

Recycling Recycling Tons Rate Aug-09 31.76 7.00% Aug-10 39.02 9.90%

Earlier this year, SB234 was signed into law and part of the legislation establishes diversion rates of 50% by January 1, 2015 for Municipal Solid Waste being disposed of at the landfill.

Diversion Recycling Solid Waste Total Rate 2009 442.44 4684.38 5126.82 8.63% 2010 YTD 291.15 3175.31 3466.46 8.40%

• Impact Fee Waivers Since the waiver of impact fees was implemented in June, the City has waived $97,356.84 in fees. This waiver has allowed property owners in Milford to retain this money and has helped to support a total investment of $5,626,808 (based on building permit values) during the months of June, July and August. This is an increase of $2,206,006 from the same period in 2008 and an increase of $4,427,380 from the same period in 2009.

• Electric Rate Comparison I have attached the electric rate comparison as of September 12, 2010 as prepared by DEMEC. Milford’s residential electric cost of $155.27 for 1,000 kWh ranks 5th out of the 11 electric utilities in Delaware.

• Bid Openings The City has bid openings scheduled for the following: Substation Power Transformers—September 23, 2010

Gerald G. Friedel, P.E. Michael R. Wigley, AIA, LEED®AP July 20, 2010 Randy B. Duplechain, P.E. Charles R. Woodward, Jr., LS Jo Anne Williams, P.E. W. Zachary Crouch, P.E. Michael E. Wheedleton, AIA

City of Milford P.O. Box 159 Milford, Delaware 19963

Attn: Mr. Don Williams Code Enforcement & Inspections

Re: Building Evaluation 125 N.W. 2nd Street Milford, Delaware DBF #052A075

Dear Mr. Williams:

On July 16, 2010, pursuant to your request, Davis, Bowen & Friedel, Inc. observed the condition of the above referenced building. The purpose of our inspection and this report is to provide a general assessment of the building structure and integrity. Access to the interior was made available, where possible. Based on this cursory visual inspection, we made the following observations:

OBSERVATIONS

1. The building is a brick masonry and wood frame, two-story, residential structure. 2. Much of the structural framing was not accessible and therefore could not be assessed. 3. The brick masonry foundation is in poor condition. There are numerous cracks in the foundation throughout the building. Some cracks appear to be recently formed. The top of some wall footings are exposed at grade and vulnerable to surface water drainage. 4. The front basement foundation has deflected inward approximately 6 inches. Collapse of the front wall appears to be imminent. 5. There are numerous deteriorated floor joists supporting the first floor. 6. Deficient or deteriorated joists have been shored up in the basement. Untreated timber posts have been installed in a wet service condition. 7. There is noticeable settlement of the foundations and excessive deflection of the floor framing at the 1st and 2nd floors. 8. There is significant deterioration of the top of the chimney on the east end of the building.

 ONE PLAZA EAST, SUITE 200, P.O. BOX 93, SALISBURY, MD 21803-0093 • 410.543.9091  23 NORTH WALNUT ST, MILFORD, DE 19963 • 302.424.1441  106 NORTH WASHINGTON ST, EASTON, MD 21601• 410.770.4744  401 ACADEMY ST, CAMBRIDGE, MD 21613 • 410.228.7117  15 OLD SOLOMONS IS RD, STE 104, ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 • 410.897.1004 www.dbfinc.com

Letter: Mr. Don Williams Code Enforcement & Inspections July 20, 2010 Page 2

PUBLIC SAFETY

1. The chimney appears to be unstable. The building represents an immediate threat to public safety, streets, sidewalks and adjacent structures due to the possibility of collapse of the chimney.

STRUCTURAL STABILITY

1. The front basement foundation wall is unstable and may collapse. Collapse of the front wall could lead to the collapse of other portions of the building. The building is unsafe to anyone who occupies the building.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The building foundation and basement walls should be completely reconstructed which will require temporary shoring of the building typical of the shoring installed by house movers. 2. Deficient and deteriorated framing should be replaced or reinforced at that time. 3. The chimney should be demolished or reconstructed.

Please keep in mind that this was a cursory, visual inspection. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, DAVIS, BOWEN & FRIEDEL, INC.

Andrew E. Welch, P.E. Associate

AEW/ N:\00\052A\052A075\125NW2nd\Williams1.aew.doc

Impact Fees Waived June 2010‐August 2010

Electric $28,545.00 Water $45,014.64

Sewer $23,797.20

Total $97,356.84 Building Permit Value June‐August

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2008 2009 2,000,000 2010

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

‐ June July August Value of Building Permit Applications September 2009‐August 2010 3500000

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0 Sept Oct* Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug

*Does not include $15 million permit issued to Milford School District for Mispillion Elementary School Selected Area Utilities Summer (June - Sept.)

RESIDENTIAL RATE COMPARISON @ 1,000 kWh

% Difference % Difference

De Co-op $122.50 0% -21% Dover $147.38 20% -5% New Castle $152.13 24% -2% Delmarva Power $154.48 26% 0% Milford $155.27 27% 1% Lewes $156.44 28% 1% Middletown $156.76 28% 1% Smyrna $158.48 29% 3% Clayton $162.70 33% 5% Newark $163.71 34% 6% Seaford $164.45 34% 6%

* Approximate. DP&L's new transmission capacity charge is based on each individual's Peak Load Contribution (PLC) to the overall transmission load. Each customer has a unique PLC that changes every January.

LocalLocal Utilities Utilities --Summer Summer @ @ 1,00011,000,000 kWh's kWhkWh's's % Difference AsAs of ofSeptember May 1, 2008 1, 2010 De Co-op $117.13 0% $180.00 *Delmarva Power $137.43 17%

$180.00$160.00 Newark $137.53 17% Dover $139.48 19% $160.00$140.00 New Castle $139.98 20% $140.00$120.00 Lewes $144.16 23% $120.00 $100.00 Middletown $145.06 24% $100.00 $80.00 Seaford $145.19 24% $80.00 $60.00 Milford $146.76 25% $60.00 Clayton $152.70 30% $40.00 $40.00 Smyrna $160.08 37% $20.00 $20.00 * $0.00Approximate. DP&L's new transmission capacity charge is based on each individual's Peak Load Contribution (PLC) to the overall transmission load. $0.00 Each customer$122.50 has a unique$147.38 PLC that changes$152.13 every$154.48 January. $155.27 $156.44 $156.76 $158.48 $162.70 $163.71 $164.45 $122.50 $147.38 $152.13 $154.48 $155.27 $156.44 $156.76 $158.48 $162.70 $163.71 $164.45 De Co-op Dover New Castle Delmarva Milford Lewes Middletown Smyrna Clayton Newark Seaford De Co-op Dover New Castle DelmarvaPower Power Milford Lewes Middletown Smyrna Clayton Newark Seaford

The Board of Directors of Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation Cordially invite you to their Sixteenth Annual Dinner Meeting

"The Next Ten Years: National Electric Industry Trends & Future Expectations” W. Terry Boston, President and CEO PJM Interconnection, LLC

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Social Hour 5:30pm Dinner 6:30pm

Dover Downs Hotel 1131 North DuPont Highway Dover, Delaware 19901

R.S.V.P. (302) 653-2733 by September 17, 2010

ORDINANCE 2010-22

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 230 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MILFORD, ZONING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING BILLBOARDS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN A HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (C-3) DISTRICT.

WHEREAS, the City acknowledges the current zoning ordinance does not adequately define and address the placement of billboards within the City limits;

NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF MILFORD HEREBY ORDAINS:

Section 1. Chapter 230, Section 4 of the Code of the City of Milford, entitled Zoning, is hereby amended by adding the following definition:

BILLBOARD – A sign directing attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold or offered elsewhere than upon the premises where the sign is maintained.

Section 2. Chapter 230, Section 14.C of the Code of the City of Milford, entitled Zoning, is hereby amended by adding the following language:

(18) Billboard, subject to the following: (a) Shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the Delaware Code, Title 17-Highways, Chapter 11-Regulations of Outdoor Advertising, Subchapter 1-General Provisions.

Section 3. Chapter 230, Section 26.B, of the Code of the City of Milford, entitled Zoning, is hereby amended as follows:

ZONING City of Milford Sign Types and Allowable Dimensions and Restrictions

SEE ATTACHED SIGN CHART

Section 4. Dates. Introduction to City Council 11/23/09 Planning Commission Public Hearing 12/15/09 City Council Public Hearing 07/26/10 Adoption Date 09/13/10 Effective Date 09/23/10

TYPES OF SIGNS Wall or Mailbox Freestanding Fascia: Commercial Hanging/ Marquee Illuminated EMB Mobile Billboard PROPOSED Zoning (residence/occupant (mounted on (wall, roof edge, etc) Projecting (movable letters) (non flashing) (mounted, (outdoor District ID) posts(s)) (of wall square feet) (extended trailer, etc.) advertisement) Billboard Ht Sq Feet Ht Sq Feet from wall) Ht Sq Ht Sq Sq Ft (square feet) Feet Feet R-1 42” 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited R-2 42” 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited R-3 42” 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited C-1 42” 2 48” 4 10% 15 48” 9 48” 4 Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited C-2 N/A N/A 48” 4 10% 20 48” 9 48” 4 Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited C-3 N/A N/A 28’ 225 10% 20 10’ 48 28’ 225 32 and N/A N/A CONDITIONAL ratio of 4:8 USE- PER DelDOT Standards H-1 N/A N/A 25’ 70 5% N/A N/A N/A 25’ 70 Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited OC-1 N/A N/A 28’ 225 5% N/A 10’ 48 28’ 225 Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited I-1 N/A N/A 28’ 200 5% N/A 10’ 48 28’ 200 Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited I-2 N/A N/A 28’ 200 5% N/A 10’ 48 28’ 200 Prohibited N/A N/A Prohibited

City of Milford Subdivision Code Amendment Ordinance 2009-10 Lighting

ORDINANCE NO. 2009-10

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MILFORD BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED LIGHTING STANDARDS.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF MILFORD HEREBY ORDAINS:

Section 1. Amend the Milford Code by adding a new Chapter entitled Lighting Standards to read as follows:

Lighting Standards

§ -1 Statement of Need and Purpose The City of Milford recognizes the following: 1. Improperly located lighting can cause unsafe and unpleasant condition; 2. Excessive lighting can cause unsafe, unhealthful and unpleasant conditions, waste electricity and threaten the natural environment; 3. Obtrusive lighting and light trespass can cause unsafe and unpleasant conditions; 4. Proper lighting can enhance safety and enjoyment of the built environment; 5. Illumination levels should be appropriate to the visual task.

§ -2 Ordinance Establishment This ordinance is established to promote the public health, safety, and welfare and is intended to accomplish the following purposes: 1. Allow appropriate lighting levels to preserve safety, security, and the nighttime use and enjoyment of property; 2. Reduce light pollution, light trespass, glare, and offensive lighting; 3. Promote energy conservation; 4. Allow people in residential areas to view the stars against a dark sky; 5. Enhance the aesthetics of the built environment; and 6. Protect the character of the natural environment and preserve ecological values.

§ -3 Lighting Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, certain words and phrases shall be interpreted or defined as follows: Glare: Intense and blinding light. Causes visual discomfort or disability.

Landscape lighting: Luminaries mounted in or at grade (but not more than 3 feet above grade) and used solely for landscape rather than any area lighting.

Obtrusive light: Spill light that causes glare, annoyance, discomfort, or loss of visual ability. Light Pollution.

Luminary (light fixture): A complete lighting unit consisting of one or more electric lamps, the lamp holder, any reflector or lens, ballast (if any), and any other components and accessories.

Fully shielded (full cutoff) luminary: A luminary emitting no light above the horizontal plane.

Spill light: Light from a lighting installation that falls outside of the boundaries of the property on which it is located. Usually results in obtrusive light.

Light trespass: Light falling where it is not wanted or needed. Light trespass is intrusive lighting. Spill light (also called stray light) is light falling outside of the intended area, and it can result in light trespass. Light coming into a yard or bedroom window at night from streetlights, the nearby car dealer or mall, or from a neighbor’s security light is light trespass. This type of light pollution usually has glare and always wastes both light and energy.

§ -4 Maximum Lamp Wattage and Required Luminaries or Lamp Shielding All lighting installations shall be designed and installed to be fully shielded (full cutoff), except as in exceptions below, and shall have a maximum lamp wattage of 250 watts for commercial lighting, 100 watts incandescent, and 26 watts compact fluorescent for residential lighting. In residential areas, light should be shielded such that the lamp itself or the lamp image is not directly visible outside the property perimeter.

§ -5 Applicability 1. New construction/uses. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to parking lots, buildings, structures, and land uses established after the effective date of this ordinance. 2. Expansion and redevelopment. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the entire building/structure, parking area, or use, as appropriate, under the following conditions: a. When a building or structure is expanded in size by 25 percent or more; b. When the area of a parking area is expanded by 25 percent or more; c. If existing lighting is shown to be a safety hazard; d. When an outdoor use (e.g., outdoor storage, vehicle sales) is expanded by 25 percent or more; and e. Any other activity subject to site plan or subdivision review, and f. During the course of natural upgrades and maintenance so all lighting in the city will comply by January 2025. 3. Exemptions. The following are exempt: a. Lighting in swimming pools and other water features governed by Article 680 of the National Electrical Code. b. Exit signs and other illumination required by building codes. c. Lighting for stairs and ramps, as required by the building code. d. Signs are regulated by the sign code, but all signs are to be fully shielded. e. Holiday and temporary lighting (less than forty-five days use in any one year). f. Football, baseball, softball and other sport field lighting utilizing sensible curfews (not past 10 p.m. unless in conjunction with an event already started and continuing before that time). g. Low voltage landscape lighting, but such lighting should be shielded in such a way as to eliminate glare and light trespass. 4. Severability and conflicts with other ordinances a. Validity and Severability: Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared by the courts to be invalid, such decision shall not invalidate any other section or provision of this Ordinance. b. Conflict with Other Ordinances: Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be found to be in conflict with any other municipal ordinance or regulation, the more stringent section or provision shall prevail.

§ -6 Additional Requirements: 1. Residential Outdoor lighting. Lighting attached to single-family home structures should not exceed the height of the eave and should be shielded such that the lamp image is not directly visible outside the property perimeter. 2. Pole-mounted luminaries. Luminaries shall not be taller than 15 feet in residential and downtown zoning districts or when placed within 50 feet of a residential zoning district. In all other zoning districts, luminaries shall not be taller than 30 feet; 3. Building-mounted luminaries. In non-residential zoning districts, building-mounted luminaries shall not be attached to a sloped roof and shall not be taller than 30 feet or the height of the principal building, whichever is less. The use of wall-pack luminaries is discouraged; 4. Overhead electrical lines prohibited. For new installations, electrical lines for luminaries mounted on freestanding poles shall be placed underground between poles. 5. Material for light poles. Light poles shall be anodized, painted or otherwise coated so as to minimize glare from the light source; 6. Continued maintenance. Lighting installations shall be maintained in good repair to meet the provisions of this ordinance on an on-going basis; 7. Lighting curfew. For parcels with non-residential uses, lighting in vehicle parking areas containing 20 parking spaces or more shall be reduced to 50 percent one hour after the business closing to one hour before the business opens.; 8. Luminaire types. Full-cutoff luminaries shall be used in parking areas, along internal streets, and along pedestrian ways. The City/town may allow cutoff luminaries or semicutoff luminaries in these locations when the overall uplight would be less than for fullcutoff luminaries. To promote a unified development theme, post top luminaries (also referred to as period lighting) may be used as an alternate if they have built-in reflectors that effectively eliminate uplight. Except as provided in this ordinance, all other luminaries shall be directed downward and the light source shall be shielded so that it is not visible from any adjacent property;

§ -7 Other Guidelines 1. Flag poles, statues and similar monuments. A flag pole bearing a state flag, a flag of the United States or a flag of a foreign nation may be illuminated provided the following standards are met: a. The luminaries shall be fully shielded. b. Upward aiming luminaries shall be placed as close to the base as possible. c. The luminaries shall not collectively exceed 40,000 mean lumens. d. Public statues, memorials or other similar monuments may also be lighted upon approval by the planning board, provided the above standards are met. 2. Building façade lighting. The exterior of a building may be lighted provided the following standards are met: a. The lighting is done to accentuate an architectural or aesthetic element of the building, not the entire building. b. The light shall only be directed onto the building façade and not spillover beyond the plane of the building. c. Upward aimed lighting shall not exceed 4,000 mean lumens per accent feature, shall be fully shielded, and mounted as flush to the wall as possible. d. Lighting exceeding 4,000 mean lumens per accent feature shall be aimed downward, fully shielded, and mounted as flush to the wall as possible.

Section 2. Dates. Introduction to City Council: June 22, 2009 Planning Commission: July 21, 2009, August 18, 2009 City Council Hearing Date: July 26, 2010 Adoption Date: September 13, 2010 Effective Date: September 23, 2010 PROCLAMATION 2010-15

WHEREAS the use of illegal and prescription drugs and the abuse of alcohol and nicotine constitute the greatest threats to the well-being of America's children;

WHEREAS 15 years of surveys conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University have consistently found that the more often children and teenagers eat dinner with their families the less likely they are to smoke, drink and use illegal drugs;

WHEREAS frequent family dining is associated with lower rates of teen smoking, drinking, illegal drug use and prescription drug abuse;

WHEREAS the correlation between frequent family dinners and reduced risk for teen substance abuse is well documented;

WHEREAS parents who are engaged in their children’s lives – through such activities as frequent family dinners – are less likely to have children who abuse substances;

WHEREAS family dinners have long constituted a substantial pillar of family life in America.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, I, Joseph Ronnie Rogers, Mayor of the City of Milford, do hereby proclaim Monday, September 27, 2010 as

Family Day – A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children and urge all citizens to recognize and participate in its observance.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Milford to be affixed this 13th day of September in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Ten.

Mayor Joseph Ronnie Rogers

Attest:

Bid Opening: August 24, 2010….Closing Time: 2:00 p.m.

Description: 2010 or Later International Trash Truck and Chassis w/ 25yd packer

Bidder Name Address Phone Number Bid Amount Barr Truck Group Salisbury, Md 410-546-1122 $149,330.00

GranTurk Equipment Co. Bridgeport, Pa 610-239-9800 $137,757.00

Low Bidder Name Address Phone Number Bid Amount GranTurk Equipment Co. Bridgeport, Pa 610-239-9800 $137,757.00

AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Agreement dated September 18, 2008

Amendment No. 1 dated this ______day of ______, ______, by and between The City of Milford, a municipal corporation of the State of Delaware, hereinafter referred to as “CITY”. -AND- Boys and Girls Club of Delaware, a Delaware non profit organization, hereinafter referred to as “Boys and Girls Club”.

WHEREAS, the City intends to provide an additional $175,000 to the Boys and Girls Club; and, WHEREAS, the City and Boys and Girls Club desired to modify the remaining payment schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

Section 1 of the agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following language: 1. CITY will provide a total of $703,000.00 to the Boys and Girls Club payable in five installments of $105,400 per year for years one and two, $163,734 in year three and $163,733 in years four and five. The annual distribution by the CITY will be made on or before October 1 of each year.

All other terms of the agreement dated September 18, 2008 remain unchanged. The parties have incorporated in this Agreement their entire understanding. No modification or waiver of any terms of this Agreement shall be valid during the term of this agreement unless mutually modified by both parties in writing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed this day of , ______.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of:

Boys and Girls Club of Delaware

______BY: ______Witness George Krupanski

CITY OF MILFORD

______BY: ______Witness Joseph R. Rogers, Mayor

MILFORD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING August 9, 2010

The Monthly Meeting of Milford City Council was held in the Joseph Ronnie Rogers Council Chambers of Milford City Hall, 201 South Walnut Street, Milford, Delaware on Monday, August 9, 2010.

PRESIDING: Mayor Joseph Ronnie Rogers

IN ATTENDANCE: Councilpersons Steve Johnson, Garrett Grier, S. Allen Pikus, Jason Adkins, Owen Brooks, Jr., Douglas Morrow and Katrina Wilson

ALSO: City Manager David Baird, Police Chief Keith Hudson and City Clerk/Recorder Terri Hudson

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Rogers called the Monthly Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

The Pledge of Allegiance followed the invocation given by Councilwoman Wilson.

APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

Motion made by Ms. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Pikus to approve the minutes of the July 12, 19 and 26, 2010 meetings as presented by the city clerk. Motion carried.

RECOGNITION

No guests were present to be recognized.

Mayor Rogers advised that he will be honoring an Eagles Scout this Sunday.

POLICE REPORT

Mr. Morrow moved to accept Chief Hudson’s report, seconded by Mr. Brooks. Motion carried.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

City Manager Baird read the following report into record:

Community Transportation Funding The City will be receiving $425,000 in Community Transportation Funds from Senator Simpson, Senator Bonini, Representative Walls and Representative Carey. The funding will be used for Street Paving ($275,000) that are now out to bid and for the next phase of the Riverwalk project (150,000) that will be discussed later this evening. On behalf of the City, I would like to thank each of these gentlemen for their continued support of projects within the City.

Neal Moore Lease Upon request of Mr. Moore, the City and Mr. Moore have exercised the option in the current lease that will keep the lease in place through December 31, 2010.

Can Do Playground We have met with representatives of the area Rotary Clubs sponsoring the Can Do Playground about the possibility of further collaboration by incorporating the City’s existing and proposed playground facilities at the Tony Silicato Memorial Park. The Can Do Consultant provided by Rotary will be working with Gary Emory and our playground facility Monthly Council Meeting Page 2 August 9, 2010 representative to explore the four options being considered. With this in mind, the City will be delaying moving forward on the $35,000 capital expenditure for a second playground until a decision has been reached on the partnership.

205/207 N.W. Front Street Condemnation Appeal The Board of Appeals met on three separate occasions (2 hearings and 1 site visit) to consider the appeal of the condemnation order by the property owners. The last hearing was held on Wednesday, August 4, 2010 and the board completed presentations by all parties involved. The Board will be reconvening in the next two weeks to render a final decision on the matter.

Water Facilities Plan The City has requested DBF prepare a water facility plan that incorporates a review of all of the City’s water facilities. The plan will include an evaluation of current and proposed wells, treatment plants, and towers and examine the operational efficiency of each. The purpose behind this is to gain a clear understanding of what improvements should be made to our system to gain efficiencies and develop a schedule for capital investment to the water system.

Impact Fee Waiver Report Since the start of the incentive in June, four projects have qualified for the impact fee waiver and the amount of the waived fees is $17,415 (Water-$7,664; Sewer-$4,051; Electric-$5,700). The projects included a commercial fit out for Nemours Healthcare Dental Office, Avenue United Methodist Church expansion and renovations, a new single family home in Lighthouse Estates and Interior and Exterior Renovations to a Duplex on Carlisle Ln.

NE Front/SE Front Street Projects Councilman Pikus and I recently met with members of Downtown Milford, Incorporated regarding the possibility of funding approximately $3,000,000 for improvements to NE Front Street and SE Front Street. In order for the City to take on this type of project, it should be expected a referendum may be necessary. I will continue to work on this issue and recommend the Finance Committee work with DMI on possible funding options.

North Front Street Sewer Project DBF continues to coordinate corrective action with JJID on this project. JJID will be submitting options to the City on Friday, Aug. 6, 2010 for review by DBF. We are stressing the impact this delay has on local business and traffic in the construction area and that work needs to progress on the project.

Bid Openings The City has bid openings scheduled for the following Street Paving/Curbing—August 19, 2010 Garbage Truck—August 24, 2010

Mr. Pikus asked if the clock has started on the time frame to finish the North Front Street project; Mr. Baird advised it is on hold until there is an amiable solution. However, the city manager expects that work to resume within the next ten days.

Mr. Pikus moved to accept the city manager report, seconded by Mr. Brooks. Motion carried.

COMMITTEE REPORT

Annexation Committee

Annexation Committee Chair Wilson presented the following report on behalf of the Walter N. Thomas II petition:

A public meeting was held in Council Chambers on July 19, 2010 to consider the annexation request for lands described as:

Property Owner:Phillip Tolliver of Morris and Ritchie Associates on behalf of Walter N. Thomas II Location:The south side of Milford Harrington Highway near the intersection of Canterbury Road/Holly Hill Road and Milford Harrington Highway. Monthly Council Meeting Page 3 August 9, 2010

Size:72 +/- Acres Existing Zoning:AC: Agricultural Conservation Proposed Zoning:R-3, with a maximum of 768 units Tax Map and Parcel Number:MD-00-173.00-01-62.00, MD-00-173.00-01-62.02

APPLICANT An application by Phillip Tolliver of Morris and Ritchie Associates on behalf of Walter N. Thomas II for the annexation of 71.92 acres into the corporate limits of the City of Milford.

LOCATION The property is identified as Kent County tax parcels MD-00-173.00-01-62.00 and MD-00-173.00-01-62.02 and would be located in the Fourth Ward of the City of Milford.

STREETS The property fronts the Milford-Harrington Highway which is maintained by the State of Delaware. Access approval will be required from DelDOT. There is one single family detached dwelling located on the property.

DRAINAGE Storm water management on the parcel will be controlled by the Kent County Soil Conservation District at the developer’s expense.

ZONING The area proposed to be annexed is currently zoned AC in Kent County under the Kent County Zoning Ordinance. The application requests the property to be zoned R-3 Moderate Density Residential under the City of Milford’s Zoning Ordinance. Proposed development is a residential community with 768 residential units.

SEWER The area proposed to be annexed would be connected to the City of Milford’s sewer system and then be treated at the Kent County Regional Sewer Authority. All costs for utility extensions to this property shall be completed at the expense of the developer and upon completion, the utility lines transferred to the City for incorporation into the City’s wastewater system. Wastewater capacity cannot be guaranteed until a final site plan has been approved by City Council, building permits issued, and the scheduled impact fees are remitted to the City.

WATER The area proposed to be annexed would be connected to the City of Milford’s water system. All costs for utility extensions to this property shall be completed at the expense of the developer and upon completion, the utility lines transferred to the City for incorporation into the City’s water system. Water capacity cannot be guaranteed until a final site plan/subdivision has been approved by City Council, building permits issued, and the scheduled impact fees are remitted to the City.

ELECTRIC The Electric Department has 3 phase electric currently running down RT 14. It would make it easier to get to the development beside the BAC plant on Holly Hill Road if we could get an easement.

TRAFFIC The Department of Transportation may require a traffic impact study and entrance permits for project. The developer will pay the related costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers will control provisions under Section 404 of wetlands on the parcel. The applicant has not determined if wetlands are on the property at this time, however according to maps in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan there are wetlands shown on this site. This parcel is located in an excellent and good recharge area. The southern third Monthly Council Meeting Page 4 August 9, 2010 of property is located in an excellent recharge area and the northern part of the parcel is in a good recharge area. The developer will have to comply with the Excellent Recharge Area Ordinance of the City of Milford and conform to the provisions of this ordinance. According to Map 3A Natural Features, of the 2008 City of Milford Comprehensive Plan, this property is not located in a Well Head Protection Area.

AREA LAND USES The area proposed to be annexed is located on the south side of the Milford-Harrington Highway or Route 14. Lands to the north are located in the City of Milford, undeveloped, and zoned R-3 with a PUD designation. Lands to the west and east are out of the City’s limits with scattered single family home sites on parcels of land and are zoned AC under the Kent County Zoning Ordinance.

FIRE AND POLICE The Carlisle Fire Company, Inc. currently provides and would continue to provide fire protection. Police protection is primarily provided by the Delaware State Police with assistance from the Milford Police Department. Upon annexation, primary police service would be provided by the City of Milford Police Department. The Carlisle Fire Company would provide ambulance service. The State Fire Marshall’s Office would regulate construction issues relating to fire protection

COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN The City of Milford’s Comprehensive Plan identifies this section as the Neighborhood North. The property is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan as Moderate Density Residential or R-3.

PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS According to John Darsney, Land Management Data Manager for the City of Milford, there are no farmland assessments or preservation districts on the parcels under consideration. The site as surveyed, 72 acres at the requested R-3 zoning district, with no subdivision approval, would have an assessment estimate of $600,000, with an annual tax liability of $2,760. It is anticipated that the property taxes, after development, will increase on this property and the City would benefit from the revenues received from building permits and real estate transfer taxes. Construction costs as well as user service fees cannot be determined at this time, as the applicant has not proposed a project to assess.

ADVANTAGES TO THE CITY

1. The property would be within the planning area of the City of Milford. 2. The City would receive revenues (property tax, real estate transfer tax, building permits, etc.) for activity on the property. 3. Potential for additional water, sewer, and electric customers. 4. Identified within the Urban Growth Boundary Area of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. 5. Increases the amount of development opportunities within the City limits, which have the potential to spur other economic benefits to the City.

DISADVANTAGES TO THE CITY None.

RECOMMENDATION Based on the issues and comments discussed in this report, the Annexation Committee of the City of Milford recommends approval of the application, following a 3-1 vote, with the following comments:

1. Annexation is consistent with the “Comprehensive Land Use Plan”. 2. Property is contiguous to existing City Limits. 3. Any changes to the property are subject to review by the City of Milford Planning Commission and/or City Council. 4. Property will be served by City Electric, Sewer, and Water. At present, these utilities are not available to the site. 5. An executed Annexation Agreement is required prior to final City Council approval. 6. Upon Council approval, a Municipal Annexation Plan of Services will be submitted to the Office of State Monthly Council Meeting Page 5 August 9, 2010

Planning for their approval.

The property should be annexed with the following zoning classification: R-3 with a maximum of 768 units.

Signed: Council Representative/Committee Chairman Katrina Wilson Council Representatives Douglas Morrow and S. Allen Pikus Planning Commission Chairman Charles Rini

Mayor Rogers advised that public hearings are scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council in July and August 2010 respectfully.

Ms. Wilson then moved to proceed with the annexation with an R-3 zone, seconded by Mr. Morrow. Motion carried with Mr. Pikus in opposition.

Mr. Pikus explained that he is a member of the annexation committee and recalled the meeting being extremely informational. Though he is in favor of the annexation, he is unable to support the R-3 zone at this location. He advised there are R-3 zoned parcels behind and across the roadway and neither has had any activity. Considering the feedback from the neighbors surrounding this parcel, including one of the potential owners, Mr. Pikus prefers a lower zone and favors R-1 or R-2.

COMMUNICATIONS

Nothing new to report.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Planning Commission Vacancy & Reappointments

Mayor Rogers hopes to fill the vacancy on the planning commission at the August 23rd council meeting and directed the city clerk to place the item on the agenda.

Planning Commissioner Term Reviews

Mayor Rogers presented the following names for reappointment to the City of Milford Planning Commission:

Dirk Gleysteen 426 S. Walnut Street Term thru 08-31-2013 Karen McColley 416 N.E. Tenth Street Term thru 08-31-2013 Arthur Campbell 6 Little Pond Drive Term thru 08-31-2013

Mr. Pikus moved to reappoint the above three planning commissioners for a three-year term, seconded by Mr. Grier. Motion carried with no one opposed.

The mayor thanked the commissioners for their continued interest and for their time and effort.

Ward Redistricting

Mr. Baird presented two options for ward redistricting. This is the result of the Charter Review Committee discovering an area in the southeast portion of the city that was not contiguous with its assigned ward. Those areas affected include the Moose Lodge, Meadows at Shawnee, McColley, Dugan, Thawley, Isaacs, Mills and any other properties southeast of Route 1.

He presented a map of the current wards adding that he recommends they be changed because of the issue that has been identified and needs to be addressed. Currently there are approximately 819 registered voters in ward 1, 561 in ward 2, Monthly Council Meeting Page 6 August 9, 2010

554 in ward 3 and 447 in ward 4.

Option 1 incorporates all the properties noncontiguous with the third ward, into the first ward. All other areas remain the same at this time. According to Mr. Baird, the registered voters in ward 3 drops to 378 voters while ward 1 increases to 995 voters.

Option 2 creates the most parity between the four wards. Mr. Baird explained that ward 3 would stop at Marshall Commons. Everything to the south would be incorporated into ward 1 for a total of 566 voters. Ward 2 would have 575 registered voters with areas lost in the Northwest Front Street vicinity and west of Route 113. The boundary would follow the lake/county line and Route 113. The boundary that used to follow south Walnut Street will now be the railroad tracks.

The fourth ward would take in the west side of Route 113 and more of the downtown areas south to the railroad tracks/Causey Avenue.

The biggest change is in the third ward which incorporates the entire east side, most of which is considered the old part of Milford.

He advised the red dots depicted on the map represent the number of registered voters at each address.

Mr. Baird recommends moving forward with something similar to option 2. However, some minor work is still needed to reduce some of the ward 3 numbers by moving them to other wards. This is required to meet the 10% requirement also outlined in our charter.

The fourth map is the same breakdown as option 2, making all lands appropriately situated. It, therefore, corrects the problem that initiated this discussion but is based on a parcel count. He advised there are 816 parcels in ward 1, 1,176 in ward 2, 1,964 in ward 3 and 1,591 in ward 4. Mr. Baird explained there are many variables when considering parcel counts that it starts to skew the data. For example, there are several condominium lands in ward 1 on one parcel though there are many different units. In ward 4, there are several apartment complexes sitting on one parcel. Those are two reasons he feels that parcel counts cannot be used and why he prefers using registered voters as are shown in option 2.

He feels that if council prefers option 2, with the exception of some minor line readjustments, he will present that at the August 23rd meeting.

The charter requires a 30-day advertising period before council can take action. In addition, action must be taken six months before the next general election.

Mr. Adkins referenced the one-person, one-vote principle established years ago and asked if this should be based on the number of people or registered voters. Mr. Baird responded the language in the charter references ‘qualified voters’ which he interprets as a person of eligible voting age who is registered.

Mr. Adkins asked what would happen if we were challenged because the wards were not contiguous and conforming; he then asked what would happen if the population of each ward was determined with one ward having a 40% higher population even though the number of registered voters was much less.

Mr. Baird explained that cannot be done because we do not have the detailed census data though it is expected in the next year. Responding to Mr. Adkins, Mr. Baird believes that if council prefers to wait until we have more information from the census before drawing lines in other wards, that is still an option.

Mr. Pikus pointed out that if there were suddenly a mass push for registration, that could change the entire picture. Mr. Baird agreed adding that is why it is required to be done every ten years. It is needed to recognize an influx of new registrations or mass development in one ward and not in the others.

Mr. Pikus asked if a public hearing was required that would need to be advertised at least thirty days in advance; Mr. Baird believes that is needed. Monthly Council Meeting Page 7 August 9, 2010

Mr. Baird asked which option council prefers and whether all four wards should be realigned or a simple correction of the contiguous item at this time only. Mr. Morrow believes it will be easier to correct the first problem at this point.

Mr. Brooks pointed out there are two issues; one is the contiguous issue and the other the balancing of the four wards. Mr. Baird added it should be within 10% of one another.

Mr. Brooks recalled the Charter Review Committee having many discussions on this once the problem was discovered. Both former Mayor Marabello and Councilman Spillane agreed it should be corrected and brought before council. He does not feel there is any other choice but to correct it at this time.

Mr. Baird said his recommendation is to adopt option 2. He said there is no question the boundary problem needs correcting and this would place the number of registered voters close to the 10% requirement.

Mayor Rogers agreed it would be close to the percentage requirement and each council representative would be representing a similar number of constituents. Mr. Morrow agreed that once the census numbers are available, the wards could be tweaked appropriately. By addressing this now, we are half way there.

The mayor agrees it should be within 10% though the contiguous problem needs to be solved and should have been done a year ago.

Mr. Brooks is unsure if it will need to be tweaked noting the large number of voters who are registered and no longer live at their registered address as was confirmed by present and previous elected officials.

It was reconfirmed that option 2 and 3 had the same alignment but option 2 showed registered voters and option 3 showed parcels.

It was suggested that options 2 and 3 will be considered on August 23rd; Mr. Baird said that in the meantime, he will move some of the boundaries around in an attempt to change some of the numbers.

Mike Kerrigan of 114 East Street asked how long it has been since this discrepancy was discovered and how many elections have taken place since. He said it is a rush to judgment and we need to take our time and do it as the charter lays it out. He advised council the charter requires them to become the redistricting committee, adding he is surprised there is not an independent commission to handle it.

Mr. Kerrigan asked if this is an emergency and how long this has existed; Mayor Rogers stated two elections have taken place since its discovery.

Mr. Kerrigan then asked why there are one or three options, where did they come from and why this is limited to these options and why others cannot be considered. The mayor said that could be discussed during a public hearing. He further explained the charter requires the wards be within 10% of the smallest ward. The land in each ward must be contiguous which we know we are in violation of.

Mr. Kerrigan said we are not talking about that because we are not talking about population numbers that are needed. He said even if we go by registered voters, this does not address the 10% requirement. He said ward 3 is very heavy and well over 100% and would need to be at 617 instead of 679.

Mayor Rogers said that is why it will continue to be looked at. Mr. Kerrigan expects it to be a lengthier and more considered process. He agrees that we should comply with the city charter, but we must also comply with state and federal laws. He feels that one consideration needed should be communities of interest and this will break up communities of common interest that need to be represented within one district. He has not heard any considerations other than the number of registered voters.

Mr. Kerrigan asked why population numbers are not being considered versus registered voters. A much larger populated district is at a disadvantage in terms of representation on council. Monthly Council Meeting Page 8 August 9, 2010

Mayor Rogers agrees that will also be considered when redistricting.

Bob Connelly of 107 Barksdale Court, Hearthstone Manor, said he spoke with Bill Patterson at the State Election Office. He recalled the city manager referencing registered voter numbers which seem odd. He always thought voting was based on population and not registered voters. Mr. Patterson informed Mr. Connelly that elections fall under the city charter which allows each town to do what they want. However, he added that using registered voters is not a good idea because they are not representing everyone in the district. He suggests someone from the city confer with the state election office.

Mr. Brooks pointed out that he is the Third Ward Councilman, but has citizens call him from throughout the city. In his opinion, he feels he represents everyone in the city, in addition to his constituents. The mayor agrees that is what the other council members try to do as well.

Jim Higgins of 20 Meadow Lark Drive, Meadows at Shawnee, said that his development will be moved to ward I if this is done. He asked if this will put all the council members up for reelection because Meadows at Shawnee did not get a chance to vote for the ward I council members and will not have another opportunity for two more years. It was pointed out that the realignment would be effective with the April 2011 election. At that time, the Meadows at Shawnee residents would have the opportunity to vote for their next representative. They would then vote for the other council representative in 2012.

Hearthstone II Phase I/Major Subdivision/Final Plan

Mayor Rogers then announced this is not a public hearing and public comments were taken before the Planning Commission on November 17, 2008 and City Council on November 24, 2008. Tonight, council will be updated on the status of the development and will determine whether or not to rescind the November 24, 2008 vote. If the vote is rescinded, a second vote will be taken on the plan.

Since Mr. Johnson, Mr. Adkins, Mr. Grier and Mr. Pikus were not members of council on November 28, 2008, he would like to ask the applicant or the city manager to bring council up to date and explain what is being requested.

City Manager Baird said this project has been in the works for a number of years and first received preliminary major subdivision approval by the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) in April 2006. The planning commission initially denied the project on May 16, 2006. When the preliminary plan came before council, that denial was overruled and preliminary approval granted on July 10, 2006 (preliminary major subdivision-Hearthstone II). As the project moved forward, a number of extensions were granted on the project. Extensions were granted by the planning commission and city council in October 2008 for one year.

During that time, the applicant brought forth their final major subdivision plans for Phase I. They then obtained favorable comments from the DAC on September 24, 2008. Following the planning commission held a public hearing on November 17, 2008 and by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of the application with the following conditions:

*$400 per unit will paid to the Parks & Recreation fund at time of building permit issuance. *A note will be added to the plat specifying a 1:4 maximum ratio on all swales. *Parking will be provided at no less than 2.3 spaces per unit. *Sidewalks will be installed to city specifications, as presented on the plan shown on ______.

The project was forwarded to council. On November 28, 2008, a motion was made to approve the Final Major Subdivision, Phase I of Hearthstone II. That motion failed by a vote of 3-4.

Since that time, an extension for Hearthstone II’s preliminary plan was granted by city council on October 26, 2009 and on March 10, 2010, an additional extension was granted for a period of seven months. That extension remains valid today.

Mr. Baird added that over the last couple of weeks and months, members of the applicant’s team have put together a revised application that addressed the comments that were raised by the planning commission and city council during the public hearings in 2008. Many of those items included issues such as the ratio on the swales. A note will be added to the plat Monthly Council Meeting Page 9 August 9, 2010 specifying a 1:4 maximum ratio on all swales.

He said that during the preliminary plan approval that council granted on the Hearthstone II project, council approved that project at 2.2 parking spaces per unit. Based on the new plans that are included in the council packet, the applicant is providing 2.3 parking spaces per unit.

In areas where sidewalks can be installed, as were requested by city council, the applicant has included a number of sidewalks throughout the residential subdivision and particularly in the areas of the multi-family units where they were easier to fit into the design. There are areas in the single family areas where they are not included. Had they been included in those specific areas, it would have an adverse impact on the drainage proposal system as it had been designed and laid out as part of the project.

There were also discussions on walking trails and tot lot recreation areas which have been enhanced and/or added to the project. In addition, the applicant has also met the open space requirements under the city code.

Both the city engineer and city planner had revisited the plans to confirm their findings and positions on the project. Those statements are included in the packets. The city manager emphasized that both reports concluded the plans sufficiently met the city’s requirements from both an engineering and technical side, and land use and zoning side. Because of their recommendations, Mr. Baird also recommends approval of the project.

City Engineer Mark Mallamo and City Planner Gary Norris were both were present should council have questions or comments.

Mr. Baird explained there are two issues before council. If council agrees to proceed, two actions will need to be taken. First, the November 2008 vote will need to be acknowledged with the option that council rescind that action. Should that be approved, council would then decide how to proceed with the amended application.

Mayor Rogers noted the applicant was in attendance and asked if any additional information needed to be provided. Jim Griffin of Griffin & Hackett, P.A. was present on behalf of the application; Mr. Griffin acknowledged that Mr. Baird had provided a very complete recitation of the sequence of events.

Mr. Pikus asked for confirmation that all demands of the previous council had been met; Mr. Baird stated that is correct and any items in question had either been incorporated into the plan entirely or as best as possible from a design standpoint. He added that is the reason he requested the city engineer and planner review the documents to ensure the changes were sufficient.

When asked if one of the council members who had previously cast a dissenting vote was required to rescind the motion, Mr. Baird said only if the motion was for reconsideration.

Mayor Rogers verified this has been reviewed by the city solicitor to ensure the proper procedure would be followed. Mr. Baird further explained that City Solicitor Willard is currently away on vacation, but that Mr. Willard, Mayor Rogers, the city clerk and he have numerous conversations regarding procedure. He said Mr. Willard was very comfortable with this and quickly came to the conclusion this is not a new application and that the previous application was in good standing. All requirements in our subdivision code have been met. Additionally, conversations have taken place with Attorney Daniel Griffith who represents the city in this matter. Mr. Griffith is comfortable where the city is with this process and is comfortable with council taking action this evening.

Rescind Previous Action/Hearthstone II Phase I/Major Subdivision/Final Plan

Mr. Johnson moved to rescind the November 28, 2008 vote taken by city council, seconded by Ms. Wilson. Motion carried by a unanimous roll call vote.

Mr. Pikus votes yes based on the fact the developer has complied with all code requirements and conditions set forth by city council. Monthly Council Meeting Page 10 August 9, 2010

Mr. Brooks votes yes adding that he asked for sidewalks and they have been added.

Adoption of Resolution 2010-12/Approval of Hearthstone II Phase I/Major Subdivision/Final Plan

Mr. Baird explained this resolution includes the conditions of the planning commission that were part of their original proposal. The $400 per unit requirement is no longer needed, because the plan now meets our open space requirements. Therefore, that item should be removed.

Ms. Wilson moved to adopt Resolution 2010-12 as amended with the removal of the $400 per unit requirement, seconded by Mr. Pikus.

The city manager then recommended the parking requirement of ‘no less than 2.3 spaces per unit’ be reduced to ‘2.2 spaces’ which complies with the preliminary approval even though the application meets the 2.3 spaces. He explained this would make the action consistent with the previous action. Sidewalks will be installed to city specifications as is presented on the plans presented on this date. It should also be referenced the applicant has provided tot lot and additional walking trails as was requested by city council. He asked it also be noted the plan meets the open space requirements.

Mr. Baird recommends these items be included as part of any action.

Mr. Grier then moved that an amendment to the resolution be made and referenced the additional points outlined by the city manager in regard to the tot lots, walking trails, reduction from 2.3 parking spaces per unit to 2.2 parking spaces, removal of the $400 per unit fee and a note added that the open space requirement has been met. Motion seconded by Mr. Pikus. Motion on the amendment to the original motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.

A vote was then taken on the original motion, as amended, with the following resolution being adopted by a unanimous roll call vote:

RESOLUTION 2010-12 Approval of Hearthstone Manor II, Phase I, Major Subdivision Final Plan Tax Map 3-30-15.00-022.00

WHEREAS, the owner and applicant has made application with the City of Milford; and,

WHEREAS, the proposed application complies with the standards and regulations of the Code of the City of Milford; and,

WHEREAS, the project was reviewed for Preliminary Major Subdivision approval by DAC on April 26, 2006, received a recommendation to deny by the Planning Commission on May 16, 2006, and received approval from City Council on July 10, 2006; and,

WHEREAS, the project was reviewed for Preliminary Major Subdivision Extension approval and received a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2008, and approval from City Council on October 27, 2008; and,

WHEREAS, the project was reviewed for Final Major Subdivision, Phase I approval by DAC on September 24, 2008; and,

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met and heard said application during a public hearing on November 17, 2008 and by a vote of 6 to 1, recommended approval of the application with conditions; and

WHEREAS, following a public hearing before City Council, a motion was made to approve the final plan for Phase I of Hearthstone Manor II but failed to receive a favorable vote by a 3 to 4 roll call vote; and

WHEREAS, an extension on the Hearthstone II Preliminary Plan was granted by City Council on October 26, 2009 with an expiration date of March 27, 2010; and Monthly Council Meeting Page 11 August 9, 2010

WHEREAS, a seven-month extension was granted on March 10, 2010 by City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that by a vote of 8-0, Milford City Council is approving the Final Plan for Hearthstone Manor II, Phase I, Tax Map 3-30-15.00-022.00 with the following conditions:

*A note will be added to the plat specifying a 1:4 maximum ratio on all swales. *Parking will be provided at no less than 2.2 spaces per unit. *Sidewalks will be installed to city specifications, as presented on the plan shown on August 9, 2010. *Tot lots and additional walking trails have been added. *Open space requirements meet those of the City Code.

Mr. Johnson then recalled the city considering performance bonds on all subdivisions and asked if this would apply. Mr. Baird stated that would depend on when the application was submitted in 2006 and whether or not the code required bonds. He added that if this was the case, a bond would be required. Mr. Johnson asked what that amount would be; Mr. Baird answered the value of the construction.

Mayor Rogers thanked council for correcting what has been a very costly mistake. He feels the Hearthstone community has been very beneficial to the city noting the property is well maintained and kept extremely neat and clean. He said the residents that have moved there have brought a great deal to the city with many volunteering throughout our community. He is proud of the fact that so many of these people liked Milford enough to want to move here and make Milford their home.

He concluded by saying he is pleased they remain interested in developing in Milford and continuing to work with the city. At the same time, he apologizes for the time, effort and money that has been put into this.

NEW BUSINESS

Adoption of Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Tax Warrant

Mr. Pikus moved to adopt the 2010-2011 Tax Warrant, seconded by Mr. Morrow:

GREETINGS:

The Charter of the City of Milford provides the following:

"Article X, Section 10.11: Attached to said tax list shall be a warrant, under the Seal of the City of Milford, Signed by the Mayor and Attested to by the Secretary, commanding the City Manager to make collection of Taxes as stated in the Tax Lists."

THEREFORE, YOU, THE CITY MANAGER, DULY APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILFORD, ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO COLLECT THE TAXES AS LEVIED IN THE FOUR WARDS AS FOLLOWS:

Assessed Per Billing Register $774,617,267.00 Exemptions [123,380,100.00]

TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE $651,237,167.00 x .0046 ESTIMATED TAX PER PROPERTY VALUES $2,995,690.98

Senior Citizen Discount [11,592.00]

TOTAL TAXABLE (Fiscal Year 2010-2011) $2,984,098.98 Monthly Council Meeting Page 12 August 9, 2010

Given this 9th day of August in the Year of Our Lord 2010

Motion carried.

Mr. Brooks recalled discussing if it was possible to change the due date for the payment of property taxes noting that both the county and city taxes are due the same date. He feels this is a hardship on a number of homeowners, particularly those on a fixed income.

Council members and Mayor Rogers agreed with Mr. Brooks and asked the city manager to follow up with Finance Director Jeff Portmann to see if this could be changed. Mr. Baird said it can be done but would return with a more definitive answer at August 23rd meeting.

Mr. Johnson asked when the penalty was assessed; Mr. Baird said October 1st. Mr. Morrow suggested the penalty be waived until November 1st.

Mr. Brooks stated he appreciates councils’ support.

Local Service Function Concept

Mr. Pikus recalled that back in March, N. C. Vasuki, on behalf of the City of Dover, asked for Milford’s support to petition local legislators and Kent County for a reduction in county taxes for residents in incorporated areas of Kent County to prevent the payment for services that are duplicated by the county and not used by municipal residents.

When asked the status, Mr. Baird advised it will require state legislation and New Castle County is the only eligible county at this time. He explained that this year is being used for education, fact-finding and gaining support from the communities, with a heavier push in next year’s general assembly for both Kent and Sussex County.

Mr. Pikus emphasized the need for the same courtesy to be given to property owners in Sussex County.

Mayor Rogers agreed reiterating the financial difficulty many people are experiencing in today’s economy and feels this would be another way to help our residents.

Landscape Architectural Services LLC Agreement & Preliminary Plan/Chaney-Wilmont Greenway/Parks and Recreation

Parks and Recreation Director Gary Emory asked for approval of this agreement which will allow the next phase of the greenway project. He explained the $40,675 agreement for professional services is part of a $280,000 project. Of that, the city is receiving $150,000 in CTF funding matched with $140,000 in Land and Water Conservation Trust fund money. As a result, no city money is needed.

He then reported that Goat Island is the next project. That will allow a continuous greenway from the anchor at Silver Lake to Goat Island which is a one mile trail.

Mr. Pikus commended Parks and Recreation on the number of grants they receive. Mr. Brooks added he received a number of positive comments about the park and riverwalk at National Night Out last Tuesday.

Mr. Brooks moved for approval of the Landscape Architectural Services LLC Agreement in the amount of $40,675, seconded by Mr. Morrow. Motion carried with no one opposed.

Downtown Milford

Mayor Rogers commented on how beautiful the downtown looks with the addition of the new flags and flowers and plants. He acknowledged the efforts of Dan Marabello, Irv Ambrose and others who are seen on a regular basis volunteering their time in that area. Monthly Council Meeting Page 13 August 9, 2010

Adoption of Resolution 2010-13/Halloween Events

Because October 31st falls on a Sunday, Mayor Rogers recommends that Trick or Treat be moved to Saturday. Mr. Brooks recalled the last time that trick or treat was permitted on a Sunday, a large group of people showed up at the next council meeting to protest.

Mr. Pikus moved that Resolution 2010-13 be adopted and amended to reflect that Saturday, October 30th be designated the official date for youngsters to observe Halloween Trick or Treat Night between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. and that residents wishing to participate have their front door light on, seconded by Ms. Wilson:

WHEREAS, it has been a custom for many years for children and adults to celebrate the Eve of All Saints Day by costuming, masquerading and fun-making; and

WHEREAS, we would like to continue the celebration in an orderly manner.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, I, Joseph R. Rogers, Mayor of the City of Milford, do hereby request and urge the observance of this annual period as follows:

WEDNESDAY, October 20, 2010 starting at 6:30 p.m. and ending at 9:00 p.m. shall be the time for the Annual Community Parade.

SATURDAY, October 23, 2010 shall be the official date for youngsters to make their annual UNICEF collections to be completed by dark.

SATURDAY, October 30, 2010 shall be the official date for youngsters to observe Halloween Trick or Treat Night.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

*only celebrants of 12 years and under will be permitted to engage in Trick or Treat between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

*all celebrants are requested to refrain from committing acts of vandalism or destruction.

*residents are requested to indicate their willingness to welcome children by keeping their porch or exterior lights on and that youngsters call only on homes so lighted.

Motion carried.

Introduction of Ordinance 2010-14/Zoning Code Amendment/Parking Spaces

Ordinance 2010-14 was officially introduced this date.

City Planner Norris advised this is a proposed change to the zoning in relation to off-street parking. This is being introduced and a public hearing scheduled before the planning commission and city council in September.

He reported that in the past, but there have been some concerns expressed about the required number of off-street parking spaces in certain instances. For example, a commercial development wanted to share off-street parking with another use. In another case, a proposed commercial development was required to go before the Board of Adjustment to reduce the number of spaces required and most recently, a site plan being reviewed for a dentist office with one dentist and possibly six dental technicians, required 54 off street parking spaces. The code requires one space per 100 square feet of floor area and the proposed dentist office had approximately 5,400 square feet.

The planner stated he is not a proponent of unnecessary impervious surfaces. This ordinance would address a site where more than fifty off street parking spaces are required. The developer of a commercial facility would have to set Monthly Council Meeting Page 14 August 9, 2010 aside 100% of that space, but provide only 80% of the required off street parking spaces. The other 20% would remain green or grassy areas. If it is later determined that those additional parking spaces are needed, a six-month notice would be provided requiring the other 20%.

Mr. Norris advised the advantages of this proposal are 1) a reduction in development costs 2) reduction in the amount of stormwater generated 3) assists the Mispillion Tributary Action Committee by reducing run off into the Mispillion River.

The ordinance will be sent to the planning commission for their review and a public hearing. A second public hearing would then be held before council prior to formal action taking place.

Repairs to Commercial Parking Lots

Mr. Pikus asked if the city has anything in place that would require the owner of a parking lot in Milford to make repairs. Mr. Norris believes this falls under the Property Maintenance Code though he would need to clarify that. In the meantime, he is willing to contact the owner of any shopping center if there is a situation that he feels needs to be addressed. Mr. Pikus said there are a number of parking areas in despair and though he understands that is private property, some are dangerous to both vehicles and pedestrians.

Members of council indicated the city has made contact with shopping center owners in the past for similar issues and typically the response was positive.

FY2009-10 Budget Adjustment

Mr. Baird submitted a budget request for a transfer of $200,000 from the sewer reserves into the Kent County I&I account.

The city manager explained this is the result of the I&I expenses paid to Kent County in last year’s budget (FY2009- 10). He referenced the sewer budget whose ending balance shows the line item in the hole by $175,000.

Mr. Pikus moved for approval of the transfer of $200,000 from Sewer Capital Reserves Account 203-0000-390-10-10 into the Kent County I&I Expense Account 203-3030-432-40-20. Mr. Morrow seconded motion. Motion carried.

MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT

Mr. Pikus reported that through the twelfth month of Fiscal Year 2009-2010 with 100% of the fiscal year having passed, 96.42% of revenues have been received and 94.58% of the operating budget expended.

He advised this is the last finance report for this fiscal year. He noted those areas above the 100% mark in personnel are the result of some retirement pay outs and the severance packages of some administrative employees in June.

Mr. Baird reminded council this is the unaudited report and there are still a few invoices coming in from June. Therefore, some minor adjustments will apply to these numbers and will be picked up in the final audit.

Mr. Pikus moved to accept the June 2010 Finance Report, seconded by Mr. Grier. Motion carried.

ADJOURN

Mr. Pikus moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Grier. Motion carried.

The Monthly Meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Monthly Council Meeting Page 15 August 9, 2010

Teresa K. Hudson, CMC City Clerk/Recorder MILFORD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING August 23, 2010

A Meeting of Milford City Council was held in the Joseph Ronnie Rogers Council Chambers at Milford City Hall on Monday, August 23, 2010.

PRESIDING: Mayor Joseph Ronnie Rogers

IN ATTENDANCE: Councilpersons Steve Johnson, Garrett Grier, S. Allen Pikus, Jason Adkins, Owen Brooks, Jr., Douglas Morrow, James Starling, Sr. and Katrina Wilson

ALSO: City Manager David Baird, Police Chief Keith Hudson and City Clerk/Recorder Terri Hudson

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Rogers called the Council Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

PLEDGE AND INVOCATION

Following the Pledge of Allegiance, the invocation was given by Councilman Starling.

COMMUNICATIONS

None to report.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Planning Commission Vacancy

Mayor Rogers submitted the name of William J. Lane of 7 Hickory Branch Lane, Hearthstone Manor, for appointment to the planning commission.

Mr. Grier moved for appointment of Mr. Lane to the City of Milford Planning Commission for a three-year term beginning August 31, 2010, seconded by Mr. Pikus. Motion carried with no one opposed.

NEW BUSINESS

St. John’s Oktoberfest/Road Closings/Beer Sales

Mr. Morrow moved to approve the request of St. John the Apostle Church to close a portion of School Place and allow the sale of beer at the 20th Annual Oktoberfest on October 1, 2010 and October 2, 2010. Mr. Pikus seconded motion. Motion passed by the following 5-1 roll call vote:

Yes-Grier, Pikus, Adkins, Brooks, Morrow No-Starling

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Wilson arrived at this time.

Award/2010 Road Improvements Bid

Sealed bids were received, publicly opened and read on August 19, 2010 for the City of Milford Road Improvements Project. The following bids ranged from $147,244.24 to $178,623.51. Council Meeting Page 2 August 23, 2010

George & Lynch $174,126.72 Jerry’s Paving $157,595.70 Harmony Construction $178,623.51 Delmarva Paving $149,880.50 David A. Bramble, Incorporated $176,990.00 C&J Paving $147,244.24

Consulting with City Engineer Mark Mallamo following a thorough review of the bids, Mr. Baird reported the recommendation is to accept the proposal offered by C&J Paving in the amount of $147,244.24.

Mr. Brooks moved to award the Road Improvements Project bid to C&J Paving as presented, seconded by Mr. Morrow. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.

Award/2010 Curb and Sidewalk ADA Ramp Bid

Sealed bids were received, publicly opened and read on August 19, 2010 for the Curb and Sidewalk ADA Ramp Project. Bids ranged from $38,632 to $50,380 as follows:

Grassbusters Landscaping $48,540 Shea Concrete $38,632 Aztech Contracting $50,380

Mr. Pikus moved to award the curb and sidewalk bid to Shea Concrete as presented, seconded by Mr. Grier. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.

The city manager noted that in addition to city money being used, local legislators also contributed financially toward the projects.

Award/Progressive Engineering Consultants, Inc./Cost Revision/Design & Installation Delivery #2 Proposal

Mr. Baird reported this is for the second delivery point for the interconnection with Delmarva Power just south of the transfer station. He said the transmission lines, new substation and distribution coming out of the substation are all part of the new project the city is preparing to move forward on. The total estimated project is $6.18 million and the scope of their work is defined in the proposal.

The city manager recommends moving forward with the contract for the design and installation supervision.

Mr. Pikus moved for approval of the Progressive Engineering Consultants proposal in the amount of $300,000, seconded by Mr. Starling. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.

Award/Water Facilities Plan Update Proposal

The city manager explained the last time the city completed a water facility plan was in 2006. Since that time, a number of improvements have been completed. In addition, a number of regulatory changes have been implemented and are now being proposed. Many of the changes were not part of the 2006 plan though they are critical components. They include the Washington Street Water Plant, the Kenton Treatment Plant on the east side of town as well as some additional wells that have been installed.

Mr. Baird advised the total cost of the proposal is $20,000. Of that, we are applying for a $10,000 grant from the Delaware Office of Drinking Water. The $10,000 balance would be paid from water expenses.

This will identify the future needs for Milford and improve maintenance and operations as new technologies are considered as the facilities are built. Council Meeting Page 3 August 23, 2010

During this process, our older infrastructure will be reviewed and a determination made whether to reinvest and rehabilitate or consider new wells and new treatment facilities.

This will be the catalyst to developing a five to ten-year capital improvement project for the water system. This is also being reviewed on the sewer side though we plan to immediately proceed with the water facilities plan first.

Mr. Adkins asked if there is a chance we may not receive the $10,000 grant; Mr. Baird said there is always a chance, but through conversations with the Office of Drinking Water, there is money in the account that is awarded on a first-come first-serve basis. In this case, Milford is first in line; therefore, it is anticipated the application will be funded upon receipt.

Mr. Brooks moved for approval of the DBF engineering proposal for the Water Facilities Plan in the amount of $20,000, seconded by Mr. Morrow. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.

Adoption of Resolution 2010-14/Water Facility Planning Grant Application

Mr. Adkins moved for adoption of Resolution 2010-14, approving the submission of the grant application, seconded by Ms. Wilson:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Milford have approved a project to update the City’s General Water Facility Plan; and

WHEREAS, the State Office of Drinking Water has funding available for such projects in their Water Facility Planning Grant Fund.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Milford, that approval was granted to submit an application to the State Office of Drinking Water for a Water Facility Planning Grant to assist in funding the cost of updating the City of Milford’s General Water Facility Plan.

Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.

Introduction of Ordinance 2010-13/Zoning Designation of Annexed Lands of Walter N. Thomas II

The following ordinance was officially introduced this evening:

Ordinance 2010-13

An Ordinance to Amend the Zoning designation of the parcel of land under the legal ownership of Walter N. Thomas II, Tax Parcels 5-00-173.00-01-62.00-00001 and 5-00-173.00-01-62.02-00001, situated south of State Route 14 and north of County Road 447, Kent County, to be annexed into the City of Milford by resolution, hereafter adopted by the City Council of Milford, Delaware.

WHEREAS, the land hereinafter described is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Milford and the owner, thereof, has petitioned City Council to annex the same into the City of Milford, and

WHEREAS, it appears to the Mayor and City Council of the City of Milford, Delaware, that the hereinafter described property will be annexed to and become part of the City of Milford and that a zoning classification is required, and

WHEREAS, the land owned by Walter N. Thomas II is presently zoned by Kent County as “AC” (Agricultural Conservation), and

WHEREAS, the City Council referred the zoning of the affected territory for report and recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and after a due hearing as provided by law, the Zoning Commission made its recommendation to City Council, and Council Meeting Page 4 August 23, 2010

WHEREAS, after a Public Hearing held on September 27, 2010 and after considering the recommendation of the City Council Annexation Committee, the City Council has determined the proper classification under the zoning ordinance of the City of Milford for the property to be annexed.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF MILFORD HEREBY ORDAINS:

That the following described land situated in Kent County, Delaware:

Tax Parcel 5-00-173.00-01-62.00-00001 64.362 Acres Parcel of Land State Route 14, North of Delaware County Road 447, Kent County, Delaware

BEGINNING for the same at a rebar and cap set at the intersection of the division line between the land conveyed by and described in a deed from Myra H. McIlvaine to Howard F. Morton and Phyllis Ann Morton dated July 31, 1959 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Kent County, Delaware in Deed Book C, Volume 22, Page 447 and the land conveyed by and described in a deed from Walter N. Thomas to Walter N. Thomas and Walter N. Thomas II dated November 4, 2005 and recorded in the aforesaid Office of the Recorder of Deeds in Deed Book 2521, Page 141 with the southern right of way of Delaware Route 14, eighty foot wide, thence binding on southern right of way of Delaware Route 14, as now surveyed, with bearings referred to the Delaware Coordinate System (NAD’83/86)

CONTAINING 64.362 acres of land, more or less, BEING part of the land conveyed by and described in a deed from Walter N. Thomas to Walter N. Thomas and Walter N. Thomas II dated November 4, 2005 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Kent County, Delaware in Deed Book 2521, Page 141. BEING currently known as Tax Map Parcel 500-17300-01-6200-00001.

Tax Parcel 5-00-173.00-01-62.02-00001 7.556 Acre Parcel of Land, Land of Walter N. Thomas, II State Route 14, North of Delaware County Road 447, Kent County, Delaware

BEGINNING for the same at rebar and cap heretofore set on the southern right of way of Delaware Route 14, eighty foot wide, said rebar and cap being the northeast corner of Lot 1 as shown on a plat entitled “Minor Subdivision Plan, prepared for Walter N. Thomas II dated October 27, 2009 and recorded in the aforesaid Office of the Recorder of Deeds in Plot Book 101, Page 96, thence binding on the outline of Lot 1, as now surveyed with bearings referred to the Delaware Coordinate System (NAD’83/86)

Dates: Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 17, 2010 Introduction to City Council: August 23, 2010 Projected Date of Adoption by City Council: September 27, 2010 Projected Effective Date: October 7, 2010

City Planner Norris advised a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on August 17, 2010. Though the request was for an R-3 zone, the planning commission recommended R-8. He explained that the R-3 allows a maximum of 16 dwellings units to the acre, single family detached dwellings, duplexes, townhomes and garden apartments.

The R-8 only permits 8 dwelling units to the acre and also allows single family detached dwellings, duplexes, townhomes and garden apartments.

Mr. Pikus recalled that at the planning commission meeting, the applicant indicated that if R-3 was not accepted, it was a no-go project. He asked if they are proceeding with the application; Mr. Norris said he was unaware of that and has not heard from the engineer or applicant.

Mayor Rogers advised a public hearing is scheduled for September 27th at which time council can take the appropriate action if the plan of services has been received back from state planning. Council Meeting Page 5 August 23, 2010

Mr. Morrow pointed out the comp plan designates this area as R-3 and asked if there are any repercussions by changing the zone to R-8. Mr. Norris stated the planning commission based their recommendation on the public comment and overall agreed that R-3 was too high a density because it allowed 16 dwelling units to the acre. He recalled the proposal submitted is for 768 units on 72 acres which is a density of slightly more than ten units to the acre.

Council agreed to bring the ordinance back before council at which time, public comment will be taken.

Introduction of Ordinance 2010-15/Realignment of Ward Boundaries/Ward I & Ward III

Mayor Rogers advised that this ordinance is being introduced this evening and addresses the fact that portions of the third ward that were not contiguous with the remainder of that ward. It provides the noncontiguous portions of the third ward be moved to the first ward where they are contiguous. This adjustment is being proposed so the city is in compliance with the city charter.

He said that during the meeting on August 9th, members of city council and the public expressed concern over using registered voters or number of parcels to determine the boundaries of the wards. Once available, the city will revisit this issue and utilize the 2010 census information to reapportion the city’s election wards.

Ordinance 2010-15 was officially introduced; voting is scheduled at the September 27th meeting:

CITY OF MILFORD ORDINANCE Realignment of Boundary Lines of Ward I and Ward III

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the following ordinance is currently under review by Milford City Council:

ORDINANCE 2010-15

Section 1.

WHEREAS, an error was discovered by the Charter Review Committee in which it was determined that lands in Ward 3 were not contiguous with other lands in that ward but did share a common boundary with Ward I; and WHEREAS, this resulted in a failure to comply with the contiguous and compactness requirements of Article II, Section 2.07 of the City of Milford Charter; and WHEREAS, this matter was presented to the City Council who recognized the need to protect communities of interest; and WHEREAS, adjustments to the City Council Districts ensures fair representation for all citizens and conforms with the requirements of the United States Constitution and federal statutes; and WHEREAS, upon completion and distribution of data from the 2010 Census, additional examination by the Districting Commission may result in an overall Redistricting Plan for the City of Milford.

Section 2.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Milford hereby ordains as follows:

1. Portions of Ward I and Ward III, southeast of Milford, are hereby realigned by excluding therefrom Ward III, those lands not contiguous and including therein and therewith subject lands into Ward I.

2. Attached maps display current Wards (#1) and revised Wards (#2) comprised of four contiguous Council districts.

3. This Ordinance has been properly advertised and copies of the Ordinance and related materials made available to the public on August 23, 2010.

4. By a vote of ______, Milford City Council approves the realignment of Council District Council Meeting Page 6 August 23, 2010

Boundaries, specifically Ward I and Ward III, and whose legal descriptions, in their entirety, as shown below:

CITY OF MILFORD-DESCRIPTION OF WARD BOUNDARIES

The First Ward shall consist of all the territory within the City limits as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of the intersection of Deep Branch and Business Route 1; thence along the centerline of Business Route 1 in a northerly direction to the point of intersection of Southeast Second Street; thence westerly by the centerline of Southeast Second Street to the point of its intersection with McColley Street; thence by the centerline of McColley Street in a northerly direction to the point of its intersection with Southeast Front Street; thence by the centerline of Southeast Front Street, in a westerly direction to its point of intersection with South Walnut street; thence by the centerline of South Walnut Street in a southerly direction to the corporate limits of the City; thence along the corporate limits in a northeasterly direction to the intersection of the corporate limits to the western most point of Shawnee Country Club; thence along the corporate limits in a generally southeasternly direction to the point of intersection of Johnson Road; thence continuing with the corporate limits in a northeasterly direction to the intersection with DE Route 1; thence continuing with the corporate limits in a northwesterly direction to the point of intersection on the easterly R.O.W. of Route 1 and Business Route 1; thence continuing with the corporate limits in a northeasterly direction 2,150 feet to the intersection of Beaver Dam Road; thence along the corporate limits in a southeasterly direction to the point of intersection with Sharps Road; thence with the corporate limits and Sharps Road in a Northeasterly direction 2,700 feet; thence leaving Sharps Road and continuing with the corporate limits in a generally northwesterly direction to the intersection with the centerline of Deep Branch; thence with the corporate limits and along the center of the meanderings of Deep Branch in a northeasterly direction through the run of Marshall Mill Pond to its intersection with Business Route 1.

The Second Ward shall consist of all territory within the City limits as follows: Beginning at a point in the intersection of North Walnut Street and Northwest Front Street; thence along the centerline of Northwest Front Street in a westerly direction to the point of its intersection with U. S. Route 113; thence along the centerline of U. S. Route 113 in a southerly direction to the point of its intersection with North Shore Drive; thence westerly by the centerline of North Shore Drive to its point of intersection with the western limits of the City (a distance of Five Hundred Feet west of the western boundary of U. S. Route 113); thence southerly (in a line parallel to and Five Hundred Feet from the westerly boundary of U. S. Route 113) along the westerly boundary of the City to the shore of Haven Lake; thence westerly following along the shoreline of said Lake to the north side of Evergreen Lane; (thence along the north side of Evergreen Lane to the intersection of Evergreen Lane and a line parallel with and Five Hundred Feet west of the western boundary of U. S. Route 113); thence continuing in a southerly direction along the western boundary line of the City to the southern point of what is known as the Susan & Bruce Geyer property; thence in a northeasterly direction along the corporate limits of the City and Herring Branch to the intersection of the corporate limits and the centerline of South Walnut Street; thence north by the centerline of South Walnut Street to the intersection of Northwest Front Street.

The Third Ward shall consist of all territory within the City limits as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of the intersection of Deep Branch and Business Route 1; thence along the centerline of Business Route 1 in a northerly direction to the point of intersection of Southeast Second Street; thence westerly by the centerline of Southeast Second Street to the point of its intersection with McColley Street; thence by the centerline of McColley Street in a northerly direction to the point of its intersection with Southeast Front Street; thence by centerline of Southeast Front Street in a westerly direction to its point of intersection with South Walnut Street; thence by the centerline of Walnut Street in a northerly direction to the point where it intersects the centerline of U. S. Route 113; thence along the centerline of U.S. Route 113 and U.S. Route 1 in a northerly direction to the intersection of the City limits; thence along the corporate limits in a northerly direction to the northern most point of the City limits; thence along the eastern boundary of the City in a southeasterly direction to a point on the southeast corner of U.S. Route 1 and State Route 36; thence along the corporate limits in a southwesterly direction to the point of its intersection with U.S.Business Route 1; thence with the corporate limits in a northwesterly direction to the center of the intersection of Deep Branch and Business Route 1.

The Fourth Ward shall consist of all territory within the City limits as follows: Beginning at a point in the intersection of North Walnut Street and Northwest Front Street; thence along the centerline of Northwest Front Street in a westerly direction to the point of its intersection with U. S. Route 113; thence along the centerline of U. S. Route 113 in a southerly direction to the point of its intersection with North Shore Drive; thence westerly by the centerline of North Shore Drive to its point of intersection with the western limits of the City (a distance of Five Hundred Feet west of the western Council Meeting Page 7 August 23, 2010 boundary of U. S. Route 113); thence in a generally northerly direction along the western boundary of the City to a point where said line would intersect the northerly boundary of the Third Ward; thence southerly along the aforesaid line of the Third Ward, to the point of intersection of the centerlines of North Walnut Street and U. S. Route 113; thence by the centerline of North Walnut Street to its intersection with Northwest Front Street. The City Council may provide for a fifth ward and re-arrange the boundaries of the four wards provided for herein, in the event of annexation or re-apportionment as hereinafter set forth.

Section 3. The new Council districts and boundaries shall supersede previous districts and boundaries and whose legal description, contained herein, and official map shall be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

Section 4. Official Maps (see attached). #1 Current Wards #2 Proposed Wards (Ward I and Ward III realigned)

Section 5. Dates. Ordinance & Map Publication Dates: Milford Chronicle 08/25/10 The Beacon 08/26/10 Introduction - City Council: 08/23/10 Adoption - City Council: 09/27/10 Effective - 10/07/10

It was confirmed that the only issue being addressed is the area not contiguous with the balance of the ward.

Bob Connelly of 107 Barksdale Court, Hearthstone Manor, said that residents from Meadows at Shawnee are being moved from ward 3 into ward 1. He said only part of the charter is being honored. He argued this is a change and the second part of the charter that says one district cannot be 10% larger than the smallest district is not being honored.

City Manager Baird then explained the matter was raised by the Charter Review Committee that portions of the third ward are not currently contiguous with the third ward. Therefore, they are out of compliance with the charter. This ordinance brings them into compliance by making them part of I.

He added that we do not have sufficient data to make a judgment on whether or not one ward is 10% larger or smaller than another. That decision will be made once the census data is available. This corrects the area not in compliance with the charter that we have the ability to correct.

Mr. Connelly asked if there is any way to obtain that data. Mr. Baird reiterated that information is not available at the level needed to make this decision. Once that information becomes available, city council can establish a Redistricting Committee and review that information in relation to the charter requirements.

Mr. Connelly said the city does a hundred things a month based on estimates of population. Water, sewer and electric needs are all based on population. But there are no estimates that can be used to put people in compliance with the code. Mr. Baird answered not that are accurate at this point when the census data is more than ten years old and new data will be available within the next year.

Mr. Connelly said the city is willing to comply with part of the code and ignore the other part. He thinks this is setting the city up for the next election to be challenged.

The city manager pointed out there are also people that feel by not addressing a known error that was raised through the charter review process that is able to be corrected, is also setting the city up to be challenged as well. Mr. Connelly said that they may be subject to past elections being challenged but now the city is stepping into an area where they are willfully ignoring part of the charter. The one before was an accident but this is a willful decision. Council Meeting Page 8 August 23, 2010

Mr. Pikus then explained to Mr. Connelly that we have an illegal ward area and all the city is doing is correcting a problem the charter requires, which charter was recently passed by the general assembly in the State of Delaware. We are correcting the part that can be corrected.

Mr. Pikus said that Mr. Connelly pointed out that the city deals with figures all day long, but those figures relate to the entire town in relation to the water, sewer and electric needs which he believes is a little more than 8,000 residents.

Mr. Connelly pointed out that council just budgeted money for streets in certain areas based on assumptions of the traffic needs in those areas.

Mr. Adkins then added that over a ten-year period, whether it involves general assembly seats or senatorial seats, there will be disparagement among the percentage of voters. He said that gradually happens which is why the charter requires council to look at that every ten years. Technically, he believes we are in the eighth or ninth year. The way the city has grown, it appears that ward 1 will have the largest percentage of population. But this is fixing what should have occurred originally; until the census data is received, that cannot be fixed because the information is unavailable.

Mr. Connelly said he will agree to disagree reiterating the city is setting itself up for someone to challenge the next election—pointing out it will not be him and this is not a threat by him. But if that person ends up not liking that outcome, he feels this will give them grounds to challenge the election.

Dan Marabello of 1 Windy Drive, Meadows at Shawnee, then stated this has not been in compliance with charter for years. He said if we use a percentage of the registered voters and put approximately 25% of the registered voters, even though it should be done by population, but using that as an example, into the first ward, that will give the first ward almost 60% of the voters but only 25% of the population. He suggests going to the state legislator or governor and request a waiver until the census is done and leave the wards as they are. He feels this one election will be so disproportionate it is not right. He said there will be two choices--the 10% factor or the one-vote one-person rule.

Jim Higgins of 20 Meadow Lake Drive, Meadows at Shawnee, said he will say again what he said two weeks ago noting that people did not understand what he was saying. He said if they move him from ward 3 to ward 1, he did not vote for his representative. Therefore, his representative should not be able to tax him. If this is done, a special election should be held and a re-vote held for the mayor and the councilmen in the wards affected. He said taxation without representation is what this country was built on.

Mayor Rogers explained that one of their representatives would be voted on at the upcoming election; Mr. Higgins argued by stating he was not afforded the chance to vote for him. He then pointed out the term of the other representative expires in eighteen months and did not have the opportunity to vote for him.

Mayor Rogers said this was discovered in 2009 at which time it should have been addressed. Mr. Higgins said that is not his problem and the councilman he voted for is in ward 3. Now he is being moved from ward 3 to ward 1 and he did not have the opportunity to vote for either of those people. Therefore, he should not be taxed because he was not represented in that voting booth when they were elected. If this move is done, he calls for a special election in both ward 1 and ward 3, but especially in ward 1 because there are 183 houses that did not get a chance to vote for their representative. They are being asked to trust what is going to happen when the census comes in. He does not trust that.

Mike Kerrigan of 114 East Street asked if there are degrees of lawlessness adding that council is very concerned and rightfully so about this infraction of the city charter in relation to contiguity. He feels council is willing to be in violation of two subsequent sections of the charter that spell out the 10% variance rule and the procedures that should be followed when redistricting. He said it is redistricting no matter how it is characterized.

Mr. Kerrigan continued by saying if the city is in violation of the city charter, does the city have say over the degree of enforcement and punishment so it could be a misdemeanor offense where the U.S. Constitution one-man one-vote rule and the 14th Amendment in terms of the changes being proposed. This is taking a situation where approximately 265 voters in the first ward are disenfranchised because of the variance in numbers between the districts and will bump up the number to 617 voters who will be disenfranchised. The concern seems unbalanced because this is the city charter versus Council Meeting Page 9 August 23, 2010

the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Carmean of 101 McCoy Street then stated that everyone in here knows that at one time he was in law enforcement and he never arrested anyone without evidence. Currently, there is no evidence that these wards are out of balance in relation to voter numbers. However, there is obvious evidence there is a violation of the charter geographically.

Mr. Carmean also pointed out that if argument is going to be made that he cannot be taxed by someone he did not vote for, then he is not paying another tax in the City of Milford because he was unable to vote for six of the eight members of city council. He could come in here any given night and the six he did not vote for could support a tax increase though he had no right to vote for those six. The only ones he had a right to vote for are the candidate running for mayor and his two ward representatives. Therefore, he cannot understand that argument.

Mr. Carmean agrees that the numbers need to be considered, but between now and April, people in any ward have the ability to go out and through a voter drive get people in their wards registered which could result in the numbers being totally skewed by April again. He emphasized the numbers that need to be considered are the number of eligible people in a ward and the city simply does not have those numbers right now.

Mayor Rogers reiterated this ordinance is only being introduced this evening and will be back before council in September. In the meantime, they will check with the attorney general’s office to assure this was done properly.

Mr. Brooks then pointed out that for years, Gary Simpson was his senator. When the state did their redistricting, all of a sudden, Senator Bonini became his senator as was the case in a large part of northern Milford.

Mayor Rogers again stated that this should have been addressed when it was discovered in 2009. Mr. Brooks said it should have been corrected prior to that.

Mayor Rogers noted that this will not be voted on until September 27th; by that time, we should have a legal opinion.

Introduction of Ordinance 2010-16/Property Tax Due Dates & Penalty

The following ordinance was introduced:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 204 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MILFORD, TAXATION, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING A DUE DATE FOR PROPERTY TAXES AND PENALTIES FOR NON-PAYMENT.

WHEREAS, the City recognizes many of its citizens are experiencing financial challenges; and,

WHEREAS, both the County and City property tax bills are due and can be paid without penalty by September 30, 2010; and,

NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF MILFORD HEREBY ORDAINS:

Section 1. Chapter 204 of the Code of the City of Milford, entitled Taxation, is hereby amended to include a new Article to read as follows:

ARTICLE III—Property Taxes

§204-10 Due Date for Payment of Property Taxes. Property taxes shall be payable on or before September 30 of each year.

§204-11 Penalties. To every tax not paid after the said date established in §204-10, there shall be added and collected a penalty, for each month that the said tax remains unpaid. A penalty of one percent per month or fraction thereof shall be Council Meeting Page 10 August 23, 2010

charged on all unpaid property taxes. City Council, by resolution, may impose a date later than that established in §204-10 for the addition and collection of penalties.

Section 2. Dates Introduction to City Council—August 23, 2010 Projected Adoption by City Council—September 13, 2010 Projected Effective Date—September 23, 2010

Mayor Rogers recalled Mr. Brooks asking council to consider a different due date for property taxes, because of the hardship created with county taxes being due on the same date.

Mr. Baird explained the charter requires council to establish a due date and a penalty rate for property taxes through an ordinance. The ordinance clarifies both issues by giving council the authority to change the due date and allow some additional time for tax payments. Any dates other than September 30th would need to be addressed through a resolution of council. Following final action on this ordinance, council will take action waiving the September 30th due date through the adoption of a resolution.

Mayor Rogers then asked for a recess of the council meeting to go into the workshop session. Mr. Pikus moved to temporarily recess the council meeting, seconded by Ms. Wilson. Motion carried.

A recess was taken at 7:45 p.m.

Council reconvened at 8:09 p.m.

Executive Session

Mr. Morrow moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to pursuant to 29 Del. C. §10004(b)(4) strategy sessions, including those involving legal advice or opinion from an attorney-at-law, with respect to collective bargaining or pending or potential litigation, seconded by Mr. Pikus. Motion carried.

Mayor Rogers recessed the Council Meeting at 8:09 p.m. to go into a closed session.

Return to Open Session

Council returned to open session at 8:52 p.m.

No action required.

ADJOURN

Mr. Pikus moved to adjourn the Council Meeting, seconded by Mr. Adkins. Motion carried.

Mayor Rogers adjourned the Monthly Council Meeting at 8:53 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Terri K. Hudson, CMC City Clerk/Recorder MILFORD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING August 23, 2010

The City Council of Milford met in Workshop Session on Monday, August 23, 2010 in the Joseph Ronnie Rogers Council Chambers of Milford City Hall, 201 South Walnut Street, Milford, Delaware.

PRESIDING: Mayor Joseph Ronnie Rogers

IN ATTENDANCE: Councilpersons Steve Johnson, Garrett Grier, S. Allen Pikus, Jason Adkins, Owen Brooks, Jr., Douglas Morrow, James Starling, Sr. and Katrina Wilson

ALSO: City Manager David Baird, Police Chief Keith Hudson and City Clerk/Recorder Terri Hudson

The Workshop Session convened at 7:45 p.m.

Ordinance 2009-10/Lighting Code/Update

City Planner Gary Norris advised the proposed ordinance has been worked on extensively by the planning commission and reviewed by Electric Superintendent Rick Carmean. Some of the high points are energy conservation and the reduction of unnecessary lighting and reflections into a residential area. The intent is for light to be directed downward and the promotion of efficient and cost effective lighting. The planning emphasized that sufficient light will continue to be provided where needed to promote safety and security.

It was confirmed this will not impact any current facilities and will only apply to new construction or an expansion and/or redevelopment when a building, structure or parking lot is expanded by 25% or more.

Mr. Pikus said it is obvious there was a lot of work done on the ordinance and though it appears this may be the case of over-regulation, obviously there is a need for light pollution and the objective is to promote quality of life, though he remains cautious.

City Manager Baird recalled an issue about whether this should be added to the zoning or subdivision code. However, the city solicitor’s intent is to make this a stand-alone ordinance in the city code. He agrees with Mr. Pikus there is a great deal of regulation in relation to what is necessary to review these plans. He said we will be at the mercy of the applicant to be sure what they are submitting is within the regulation. It is technical and he does not believe we have that type of staff available to review these plans, though he does not expect a lot of plans on a large commercial scale. At that point, we will need some assistance until such time our staff is capable of those reviews. He also agrees this will add another step in the plan review process.

Mr. Pikus pointed out enforcement will also be necessary to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Brooks agreed and recalled asking who would be responsible for enforcing the ordinance.

It was the consensus of council to add Ordinance 2009-10 to the September 13th council agenda.

Revised Ordinance 2009-22/Zoning Code/Billboards

City Planner Norris recalled that this newly proposed ordinance was introduced as a three-page document which council requested be reduced. The new ordinance provides a definition and previous requirements have been removed. Also added was that billboards must be in accordance with Delaware Code Title 17, Highway Chapter 11 Regulations of Outdoor Advertising.

He reiterated the billboard would be by conditional use in a C-3 zone and prohibited in other zoning districts.

The general consensus of council was they were pleased with the amendments feeling this was a more workable document. Workshop Session Page 2 August 23, 2010

Mr. Baird reminded council this ordinance was originally proposed in 2009 and has been amended several times. A public hearing was held and the proposal presented tonight is a result of previous discussions. He then asked if this language is what council is prepared to vote on. It was agreed the ordinance would be added to the next agenda.

Ordinance 2010-14/Zoning Code Amendment/Parking Spaces

City Planner Norris advised that Ordinance 2010-14 reduced the number of required parking spaces for developments such as shopping centers and commercial developments requiring fifty off street parking spaces or greater. He recalled a few instances where the number of parking spaces required was excessive in comparison to the number of employees and potential clients. This would allow additional green space to be used for future parking should it later be determined that more parking was needed.

The developer would have to provide 80% of the required off street parking spaces with 20% kept in green space.

The ordinance was introduced at the August 9th meeting with final action anticipated following a public hearing on September 27th.

Parking Lots

Mr. Pikus again asked if action can be taken on parking lots that are in a state of disrepair. He noted that many are safety hazards with the public impacted because of their daily use. Mr. Norris said it is his impression they fall under the city’s property maintenance code and can be addressed by the city.

Ms. Wilson recalled that in the past, the code officials have contacted the parking center owners and in most cases, responded and reacted accordingly. Mr. Brooks said that in the past, he would simply contact the city manager who always took care of the problem.

Mr. Pikus asked the city manager to do whatever is necessary to facilitate the problem.

With no further business, the Workshop Session concluded at 8:09 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Terri K. Hudson, CMC City Clerk/Recorder MILFORD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING September 1, 2010

A Meeting of the Police Committee of Milford City Council was held in the Joseph Ronnie Rogers Council Chambers of Milford City Hall, 201 South Walnut Street, Milford, Delaware on Wednesday, September 1, 2010.

PRESIDING: Committee Member Councilwoman Katrina Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE: Committee Members Councilman S. Allen Pikus

ALSO: Chief E. Keith Hudson and City Clerk Terri Hudson

In the absence of Chairman Doug Morrow, Committee Member Wilson called the Police Committee meeting to order at 5:07 p.m.

As has been the case for several years, Chief Hudson advised the current police department is showing signs of age and dysfunction and has police personnel crammed into disorganized spaces. In addition, there are concerns about water and flooding because of its location on the banks of the Mispillion River.

As a result, Chief Hudson has visited several architect and engineering firms that specialize in police facility construction during the past several IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) Conferences.

Attending various informational and training sessions through the IACP, he has learned there are a number of advantages of hiring a firm who specializes in law enforcement and public safety designs. The process for planning, funding and constructing a police department today is very complex. There are a number of issues that must be addressed including security, survivability, community acceptance and technology. He said the building must also be able to respond to growth and changes over a long period of time.

It was through IACP that Chief Hudson became associated with Daniel Redstone of the Redstone Architectural firm; Mr. Redstone has more than thirty years of experience in the field of law enforcement and public safety architecture. He has served as the principal-in-charge on a variety of law enforcement, justice, public safety and government buildings. During one of their initial conversations, Mr. Redstone informed Chief Hudson he is associated with a local firm, French and Ryan of Georgetown.

Chief Hudson recalled attending a training session in Utah for planning and designing police facilities sponsored by IACP noting one of the main objectives today is building and parking security. He said this can go as far as placing some sort of objects in front of the building to prevent such things as the potential for a vehicle to drive into the department, the placement of employee parking in relation to public parking, etc. Many of those things did not have to be considered when the current police department was built thirty plus years ago.

Delaware Architects of Milford has also been in contact with Chief Hudson after they were informed the department had budgeted for a feasibility study to be done this fiscal year. During their initial conversation, Chief Hudson informed them that he had been working with Redstone for the past several years noting their expertise and experience in police facilities. However, he has met with both firms to Police Committee Page 2 September 1, 2010 discuss their ideas and proposals.

Chief Hudson then provided copies of the packets submitted from both French and Ryan and Delaware Architects, Incorporated.

It is the chief’s recommendation that French and Ryan be hired due to their experience in public safety as well as their affiliation with Redstone Architects. He noted that Redstone’s portfolio included a number of architectural firms with experience in law enforcement or justice projects throughout the United States and French and Ryan in Georgetown was first on their list.

He explained their initial plan is to provide the front-end services which include the feasibility study, needs assessments and preliminary design services. Also, included would be a site selection analysis.

Chief Hudson advised that once that phase is completed, they would present their findings and proposal to city council.

He reiterated that not only will they provide an estimate of how big the new facility should be to accommodate existing staff, but a projection will be made based on population growth of the Milford area. Overall, a comprehensive analysis will be performed which will include the planning, funding, design and construction of the new department.

When asked if any grants are available, the chief advised that French and Ryan is familiar with government funding sources and will work with the department to obtain any applicable grants that may be available.

Locally, French and Ryan have recently designed and oversaw the construction of the Delaware State Police Troop 5 Facility in Bridgeville and the South Bethany City Hall/Police Department.

Chief Hudson reminded the committee that $50,000 has been allotted for a needs and feasibility study; however, this proposal goes above and beyond the study. As part of the process, Mr. Redstone will come in for several days to observe the community, review potential sites and interview employees to determine their needs as well. Sometime next year, they will come back before council and present their plan which will include the proposed costs and funding possibilities.

The chief said he appreciates the effort and time of Delaware Architects, but is unsure they have the experience and background needed for this project and is very comfortable with the specific items that French and Ryan addressed both in conversations and in their proposal.

Potential sites were then discussed by the committee. Mr. Pikus favors the land across from the police department that runs to Pierce Street noting it is extremely high ground so there would not be any problems with flooding. His preference is the police department remain in the downtown area, if at all possible, though he understands a large tract of land is needed. He is unsure how many acres are there though it does cover the entire block.

When asked if Chief Hudson has found any potential sites, he indicated he has looked for a couple of years though has not found any one particular area that would meet all of their needs. A number of people, Police Committee Page 3 September 1, 2010 including some council members, had recommended the city’s business park. Chief Hudson explained the downfall is its location on the northwestern part of town and he prefers a more centralized area because of response time. He questions the amount of time and traffic an officer would encounter when responding to a complaint on the southeast side of Milford, for example. Mr. Pikus agreed the department should be accessible to all aspects of the town. Right now, the focus on growth is in the southeastern area of Milford with minimal growth west of Milford. He believes the center or heart of Milford is where the department should be located.

Chief Hudson advised that after the site evaluations are performed, three sites would be proposed for councils’ consideration. French and Ryan would gather all the information needed to provide council with the cost estimate falling within the budgeted amount.

Mr. Pikus recommended Chief Hudson continue to informally look for potential sites. He added that typically, when the city becomes interested in any land, the price doubles. However, an appraisal would be required with the city paying no more than that appraisal. He does suggest we seriously pursue a site at this time with land prices being historically low because of the current economy.

When asked for Chairman Morrow’s opinion, Chief Hudson advised he has reviewed the proposals with him and after a careful review, also agreed that French and Ryan was the appropriate choice based on their expertise.

Mr. Pikus moved to recommend that French and Ryan be hired to do the comprehensive analysis for the new Milford Police Department, in association with Redstone Architects, because of their expertise in the police facility design and needs area. Motion seconded by Ms. Wilson. Motion carried.

With no further business, Ms. Wilson adjourned the Police Committee Meeting at 5:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Terri K. Hudson, CMC City Clerk