CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2000 MEETING #6

PRESENT

Mayor Barrie P. Tilghman
Council President Robert Cannon
Council Vice President Frank Himelright
Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers
Councilman Palmer Gillis
Councilman William Stacey

IN ATTENDANCE

The Mayor and Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Council President Cannon called the meeting to order. The Lord's Prayer was repeated and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Mr. Himelright moved and Mr. Gillis seconded to approve the minutes of March 13, 2000 to bring them on the floor for discussion. Mr. Himelright moved to amend the March 13, 2000 minutes to include that he also accepted the Rotary proclamation as a member of the Sunrise Club. Mr. Gillis seconded the motion and the amendment passed unanimously. The minutes of March 13, 2000, as amended, were unanimously approved.

ORDINANCE NO. 1749 - 2ND READING - AMENDING CHAPTER 1.12, CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE, OF THE CODE TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2000

Mr. Himelright moved and Mr. Stacey seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1749 to bring it on the floor for discussion. City Solicitor Paul Wilber presented Ordinance No. 1749 amending Chapter 1.12 of the City Codes pertaining to Campaign Finance and taking effect July 1, 2000.

Ms. Siggers reiterated her concerns that the proposed changes were too stringent and unreasonable for those candidates who did not have the visibility or name recognition.

After further discussion, including the aggregate amount of outstanding loans and whether surplus funds could be used for a celebration after the election, all voted in favor of Ordinance No. 1749 with the exception of Ms. Siggers who voted nay.

ORDINANCE NO. 1752A - 2ND READING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - AMENDING TEXT OF THE PALEOCHANNEL

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1752A to bring it on the floor for discussion. Planning & Zoning Director Kris Hughes addressed Ordinance No. 1752A amending Chapter 17.100, Paleochannel District, of the City Codes.

Mr. Wilber noted that Section 17.100.50, paragraph D, should be consistent with paragraph C. He suggested replacing the verbiage on line two, may pose a risk, with may pose an unacceptable risk. Mr. Hughes agreed.

A discussion followed on whether to include in the Ordinance the definition of unacceptable risk and the impact of subdivision lots or residential lots over the Paleochannel. Mr. Stacey moved and Ms. Siggers seconded to table Ordinance No. 1752A in order to discuss it further in a work session. Mr. Hughes pointed out that if this Ordinance was enacted tonight on second reading, then the Ordinance Permit public hearing on the agenda would not have to be held. As an alternative on the motion to table, Mr. Hughes suggested approving the Ordinance tonight and Council could consider an amendment later to exclude or exempt certain types of projects.

Mr. Gillis voiced his opposition on the motion to table. In his opinion, the Ordinance was 98% correct. If an applicant felt that the intent of the law did not impact them, then they had the right to ask for clarification or an amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Cannon agreed that the language could be amended later if there was a problem.

Mr. Hughes related that he could document the file with an administrative policy indicating that it was Council's wish not to impact individual homes on existing lots. If a further amendment was needed, his office could offer some language to address. Mr. Stacey withdrew his motion to table.

Mr. Gillis moved and Mr. Himelright seconded to amend Ordinance No. 1752A, paragraph D, line two, to read as follows: ...may pose an unacceptable risk. All voted in favor with the exception of Ms. Siggers who voted nay.

Ms. Siggers questioned the criteria used in determining no unacceptable risk. Mr. Hughes noted that the applicant has the burden of proof to show why their project does not present an unacceptable risk to the Paleochannel. The Planning Commission would not approve if they didn't meet that burden of proof.

Ms. Siggers repeated her concern that Council would be foregoing their responsibility to the citizens of Salisbury. Mr. Hughes clarified that a review process would still take place via the Public Works Department, the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission in which a City Councilperson is a member.

Mr. Robert Taylor conveyed Mr. Steve Smethurst's comment that the City would be prudent in adopting a definition of unacceptable risk. The Ordinance could be passed tonight, but an amendment could be brought back to include a definition. Mr. Hughes acknowledged that he would speak further with Messrs. Taylor and Smethurst even though he disagreed at this point. The Comprehensive Plan included language for unacceptable risk and would be a standard by law for the Planning Commission to follow, so it would be redundant to include a definition in the Ordinance.

After further discussion, all voted in favor of Ordinance No. 1752A, as amended for second reading, with the exception of Ms. Siggers who voted nay.

ORDINANCE NO. 1754 - 2ND READING - EXTENDING MORATORIUM FOR GROUP DOMICILIARY CARE FACILITIES TO APRIL 30, 2000

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1754 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Ordinance No. 1754, as briefed by City Solicitor Paul Wilber, extends the moratorium for group domiciliary care facilities to April 30, 2000.

Planning & Zoning Director Kris Hughes reported that the Planning Commission discussed this at their last meeting and felt they had forwarded their best opinion to the Council for action. If the City Solicitor felt there were any serious legal flaws because of their interpretation of case law, they would welcome any suggestions to correct the flaws. Mr. Wilber reported that his office was preparing a draft ordinance so Council could discuss it at their next work session.

With no further discussion, all voted in favor of Ordinance No. 1754 for second reading with the exception of Ms. Siggers who voted nay.

ORDINANCE NO. 1755 - 2ND READING - PROVIDING QUESTION ON GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1755 to bring it on the floor for discussion. City Solicitor highlighted Ordinance No. 1755 providing for the following non- binding question to be placed on the General Election ballot for District I and District II: "Should the City of Salisbury consider merging with Wicomico County?"

Mr. Gillis moved and Mr. Himelright seconded to amend Ordinance No. 1755 to add the following language to the question: "...to reduce the duplication of local governmental services and/or improve the efficiency of governmental services." Mr. Gillis felt the "why" needed to be included in the question.

In Mayor Tilghman's opinion, the ballot question should not be an attempt to slant the public's perception in one direction or another. The "why" could be addressed publicly between now and the General Election. Mr. Cannon suggested ending the question after the first governmental services (delete and/or improve the efficiency of governmental services). Ms. Siggers expressed her concern that the question would bias the public and suggested placing the question on the 2002 ballot. This would allow time to aggressively develop dialogue with the public and allow an informed choice on the matter.

After further discussion, the amendment passed on a 3-2 vote (Ms. Siggers and Mr. Cannon voting against). Ordinance No. 1755, as amended, passed on a 4-1 vote with Ms. Siggers being the lone dissenter.

RESOLUTION NO. 698 - GRANTING A STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS CITY OWNED LAND LOCATED ON PEMBERTON DRIVE

Mr. Himelright moved and Mr. Gillis seconded to add Resolution No. 698 to the agenda as an emergency item. Mr. Himelright moved and Mr. Gillis seconded to approve Resolution No. 698 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Mr. Beau Insley, representing the developers, presented Resolution No. 698 requesting that the City grant to Wicomico County a 20' wide easement to construct a storm drainage system across city-owned land located on Pemberton Drive. The storm drainage system will serve the proposed Turtle Creek subdivision. Mr. Insley pointed out that there would be no expense to the City.

A discussion ensued concerning Mr. Stacey's suggestion to charge for use of the land. After further discussion, Mr. Stacey moved to approve Resolution No. 698 contingent upon Administration looking into charging a fee for the land use. After further explanation from Acting Director Chip Messick that easements are granted all the time for other projects, and Mr. Cannon pointing out that it would not be fair to change policy in midstream, Mr. Stacey withdrew his motion.

All voted in favor of Resolution No. 698 with the exception of Ms. Siggers who did not vote.

(At 8:50 p.m., Mr. Cannon disclosed that he would not be participating in the discussion of Ordinance No. 1756 because his parents were involved. Council took a short break and reconvened at 8:56 p.m. Council Vice President Himelright presided over the balance of the meeting.)

ORDINANCE NO. 1756 - 1ST READING - RELOCATING A PORTION OF NORTH POINTE DRIVE

Mr. Gillis moved and Mr. Stacey seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1756 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Mr. Robert Taylor, attorney representing Wal-Mart, briefed Council on Ordinance No. 1756 pertaining to the relocation of a portion of North Pointe Drive. The proposed relocation would result in the enlargement of North Pointe Drive to include longer stacking lanes at its intersection of Rt. 13 on the eastbound side of North Pointe Drive. In addition, there would be a shift of the access onto the Sam's Club site and a new access on Hampshire Road. Mr. Taylor reported that the purpose for Wal-Mart's expansion was for an extra storage area and to add space for additional product lines (full grocery and enlarged garden center).

Mr. Taylor stressed that this was not a street closing and was not serving a private purpose. The relocation would improve the capacity and safety of the street, as well as accessibility to the Cannon property (pictures were provided as part of the record). An appraisal, performed by W. R. McCain & Associates, was presented for the record reflecting an estimated value of $772,000 for the Cannon property. The appraisal firm also indicated that the relocation of North Pointe Drive and Wal-Mart's expansion would not devalue the Cannon property.

According to the Assistant Manager, Wal-Mart's expansion would add about 120 employees to the payroll. Mr. Michael Lynnhart, traffic engineer for The Traffic Group in Towson, testified that the modifications would improve the stacking lanes and relieve congestion. In his opinion, there would be no impairment for access to the Cannon property.

Mr. Jeff Badger, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Robert Cannon, reported that the Cannon's were opposed to the passage of Ordinance No. 1756. The Cannon's felt that the City had a moral obligation to not move North Pointe Drive without their consent and the proposed relocation would substantially devalue their property with the loss of visibility to Rt. 13 (pictures entered for the record). Mr. Badger entered for the record a copy of Mr. William G. Rayfield's letter which reflected that the Cannon property would have a loss in value of $771,600 with the relocation of North Pointe Drive and Wal-Mart's expansion.

Mr. Badger opined that this was a road closing and the opening of a new road. In addition, it was for a private purpose to accommodate Wal-Mart's expansion which was not within the authority of the City and was against the law.

City Solicitor Paul Wilber concluded from his review of the information that the Cannon's did not have the right to veto or control the location of North Pointe Drive on the Wal-Mart property. This power was vested with the City. However, Council would need to decide whether this was for a private or public purpose or a mixture of both.

Even though the expansion would create more jobs, Ms. Siggers was concerned with more traffic and more congestion. She referred to the Cypress Street closing which provided no benefit except to Perdue. Ms. Siggers viewed this as a private matter for Wal-Mart and she was not interested in approving the Ordinance without a common benefit to both parties.

Planning & Zoning Director Kris Hughes reported that the final alignment of the road was required by the Planning Commission. The Commission identified and outlined three public purposes which included: 1) improve stacking distance from Rt. 13 back onto North Pointe Drive; 2) improve through traffic on the parallel street closest to Rt. 13; and 3) realignment of the service drive between Sam's Club and Wal-Mart. In Mr. Hughes' opinion, there was no question that this was a shared public and private purpose.

After further discussion, Ordinance No. 1756 passed on first reading on a 3-1 vote (Ms. Siggers voting nay).

ORDINANCE NO. 1757 - 1ST READING - BUDGET AMENDMENT - HOTSPOT II OVERTIME INITIATIVE

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Gillis seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1757 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Police Chief Al Webster introduced Ordinance No. 1757 as a budget amendment accepting $3,125 in State grant funds awarded through the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention. The funds will be used for overtime expenses to allow increased police presence in the designated HotSpot II area.

Ms. Siggers expressed that she was not particularly interested in having more police officers in the community. In her opinion, better police officers were needed versus more police. Mr. Himelright thought it was a great idea and appreciated the department seeking State grants.

Ordinance No. 1757 for first reading passed on a 3-1 vote (Ms. Siggers voting nay).

ORDINANCE NO. 1758 - 1ST READING - BUDGET AMENDMENT - APPROPRIATING MONEY SEIZED BY POLICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Gillis seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1758 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Police Chief Al Webster presented Ordinance No. 1758 as a budget amendment providing for the expenditure of recovered money, $1,929.29, to host an open house for the citizens of Salisbury on April 29, 2000.

Assistant Treasurer Shirley Foreman requested that the 29› be dropped from the budget ordinance. Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Gillis seconded to amend Ordinance No. 1758 by deleting the 29›. The amendment passed unanimously. All voted in favor of Ordinance No. 1758, as amended, with the exception of Ms. Siggers who did not vote.

ORDINANCE NO. 1759 - 1ST READING - BUDGET AMENDMENT - APPROPRIATING MONEY FOR W. MAIN STREET WIDENING PROJECT

Pulled from agenda.

ORDINANCE NO. 1760 - PUBLIC HEARING - 1ST READING - ORDINANCE PERMIT - MILL POND VILLAGE APARTMENT COMPLEX

Pulled from agenda.

RESOLUTION NO. 695 - NAYLOR MILL ROAD/DAVIS PROPERTY ANNEXATION (PARCEL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF W. NAYLOR MILL ROAD BETWEEN SCENIC DR. AND GODDARD PARKWAY - RESCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Gillis seconded to approve Resolution No. 695 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Resolution No. 695, proposing the annexation of the Naylor Mill Road/Davis property, was introduced by City Solicitor Paul Wilber. Mr. Wilber reported that Resolution No. 695 was originally passed by Council about a month ago, but because of a communication problem between Mr. Davis and The Daily Times, the publication for the public hearing did not occur. The public hearing is now scheduled for April 24, 2000.

Mr. Himelright felt it was unfair for the taxpayers to pay for this twice and questioned if a fee could be passed on to the applicant. Mr. Wilber pointed out that the applicant pays for the advertisement and the City picks up the attorney fees. Ms. Siggers also questioned if the City should pay for the mistake make by the newspaper and the property owner. Mr. Wilber will discuss this issue with Mr. Davis.

After further discussion, including the length of time for the annexation process, all voted in favor of Resolution No. 695 with the exception of Ms. Siggers who did not vote.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS REPORT ON REFERENDUM PETITION (RESOLUTION NOS. 682, 683, 685 AND 686 - COUNCIL/MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT)

City Clerk Brenda Colegrove reported that the referendum petition on Resolution Nos. 682, 683, 685 and 686 was successful with a total of 1,990 valid signatures. As of February 18, 2000, there were 9,004 active registered voters. Of that amount, 1,801 signatures, representing 20%, were needed. A breakdown of the invalid signatures, totaling 224, is listed below:

                     Duplicates                      17		No date                   1
                     Inactive voters                 19		Not registered          181
                     Illegible signatures             5		No signature              1

AWARD OF BIDS

The following items were presented for approval by Director of Procurement & Parking Carol Turner:

1. Lease/Purchase for Front End Loader & Bucket Truck
(001-3205-532.86-00; 001-2250-525.86-00)
Municipal Services Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.27%
2. Shed Roof over Beltpress Structure (601-4101-533.70-15; Unbudgeted)
Dale Gravenor Roofing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,500.00
3. Professional Services (001-1701-515.33-01)
Paul D. Wilber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 18,619.91
4. Replacement of Well No. 1 Pump
(601-3701-532.70-23; Emergency Purchase)
Pump Engineering Sales & Service Co. . . . . . . . .$ 19,750.00
5. Contract No. 101-00; City Vehicle #6 (601-3705-532.70-25) Carlton Massey $ 24,380.00
6. Professional Services: Architectural/Engineering for Parking Garage Extension
(101-3220-532.30-20; $100,000)
Tim Haahs/GMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$250,000.00

After a brief discussion, the above items were unanimously approved upon a motion and a second by Mr. Himelright and Mr. Stacey, respectively.

MAYOR'S COMMENTS

Mayor Tilghman reported that Fire Chief William Higgins father passed away on Saturday.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS

Council Vice President Himelright shared a humorous story concerning Council President Cannon.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Mr. John Robinson requested that the City find out exactly what is being proposed for the Rt. 13 median strip.

Ms. Bonnie Parker, a County resident and business owner on Wilson Street, expressed concern that her vote was taken away when a previous Council eliminated non-resident voting.

Mr. James Trader inquired on the following issues: 1) status of his letter to Mayor Tilghman concerning the EPA recommendations on recycling and solid waste program; 2) stop light at Parkside High School; and 3) report from Police Department on activities.

With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION APRIL 5, 2000

TIME & PLACE: 9:13 a.m., April 5, 2000; Room 301 City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Potential acquisition of property for new fire station
VOTE TO CLOSE: 4-0 (Ms. Siggers was not present during vote to close)
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(3)
PRESENT: Mayor Barrie P. Tilghman, Council President Robert Cannon, Council Vice President Frank Himelright, Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers, Councilman Palmer Gillis, Councilman William Stacey, City Clerk Brenda Colegrove, Executive Officer John Pick, City Solicitor Paul Wilber, Fire Chief William Higgins, Deputy Fire Chief Tom Lewis, Acting Public Works Director Chip Messick

At 9:13 a.m., in Room 301 of the City/County Government Building, Mr. Himelright moved to convene in Closed Executive Session to discuss the potential acquisition of property to build a new fire station as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(3). Mr. Gillis seconded. Messrs. Gillis, Himelright, Stacey and Cannon voted in favor. Ms. Siggers was not present during the vote to close.

City Solicitor Paul Wilber gave an update on the preferred location. After discussion, Council directed Mr. Wilber to proceed with the negotiations within certain parameters.

At 9:27 a.m., upon a motion by Mr. Himelright and a second by Mr. Stacey, Council adjourned the closed session and reconvened in open session.

City Clerk