The next step in the entitlement process required of us by HUD is to complete an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.  The same consultant that worked with us on the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan, Neighborhood Solutions, LLC, is working on this document with us (this was included in their original contract).  The consultant has summarized the information that was received on Fair Housing issues in the original survey that was done for the Consolidated Plan, and we have scheduled two Fair Housing meetings in October.  The first meeting will be with the Landlords, Bankers and Realtors, and the second meeting will be with local renters and members of the Mayor=s Council in Support of People with Disabilities.  The input received from these two meetings will be used to formulate a draft of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.

F)   The Director of Community Development began working on the Community Legacy B Year 4 funding application.  This year=s application will include a request for funding for streetscape improvements to Isabella Street to control the volume and speed of the traffic, and a request for some operational funds for a marketing campaign in support of the Downtown to be executed by Urban Salisbury.  This application is due at DHCD on October 6, 2004.

G) During the quarter, there was very little progress on the effort to redraft the Fire Service Agreement between the City and the County. There was only one meeting between the City and County negotiating teams on this issue during the quarter. That meeting, which was held on July 8, 2004, was inconclusive. The County presented a proposal, which was rejected by the City, and the City presented a revision of the proposal it had presented in January. The revision presented by the City dropped the City=s demand that the funding for the volunteers be given to the City and also reduced the amount the City was requesting for the haz-mat and heavy-duty rescue services provided by the City. At the of the quarter, the City was able to secure support from both the County Fire Chiefs= Association and the County Firemen=s Association for the City=s proposal. Earlier the County had stated that they would support the City=s proposal, if the City could win approval from these two groups. As of the end of the quarter, the City had not received a response from the County following the indication of support from these two groups.

H) Throughout the quarter, negotiations continued between the County and the developers of the Salisbury Mall redevelopment project.  At issue was the County=s request that a portion of this property be reserved for a parking lot and hotel to serve the Civic Center. By the end of the quarter, the County representatives indicated that agreement was imminent. Once the parties agreed on this issue, the County would be able to proceed with the creation of the tax increment financing district for this project.  

I) At their July 6 work session the Council continued its discussion on ways to increase the amount being paid by developers of the off-site costs of development. At this work session, the Council heard a presentation by the staff and representatives of the Whitman-Requardt engineering firm on a proposed new water and sewer extension policy. This proposed policy would discontinue the City=s previous policy of reimbursing developers for their costs in over-sizing water and sewer facilities and would substitute a four-tiered fee structure. The amount of the fees that any individual developer would have to pay would depend upon a number of factors. The four tiers would consist of: a capacity fee, a facilities fee; a line fee and a connection fee. Essentially, the only new fee in this proposal would be the capacity fee, which represents the cost per equivalent dwelling unit ( EDU)of the capacity in the system to serve that development. Among other things, this fee would help the City recoup a portion of the cost of the upgraded and expanded waste water treatment plant.

The City Council indicated its support of this concept and directed the staff to draft the necessary implementation ordinance. They were next scheduled to review the draft ordinance at their November work session. Throughout the development of this concept, the Public Works Department has consulted with various representatives of the development community.

J) At the September 7,2004 work session, the City Council heard a presentation from various Federal, State and private organizations proposing that the City utilize a natural channel design concept for the dredging and bank stabilization project in the City Park. In FY 03, the City borrowed funds for this project. Design work has been completed and the project was ready to go out for bid. The project had been designed utilizing standard rip-rap to accomplish the bank stabilization. The alternative design proposed at this meeting involved the use of natural materials to accomplish this task. The purported benefits of this approach would be reduction of sedimentation, lower maintenance costs and the revitalization of fish habitat. As a part of this project, they also proposed removal of the three dams in the stream. Because this approach would qualify for various grant programs, the presenters estimated that their alternate approach could be accomplished at less cost than the original approach.

At this work session, the Public Works Department also expressed its concerns over this proposal. The most serious concerns involved the proposal to remove the dams in the creek. According to research conducted by the Public Works staff, these dams played a very important role in ensuring the availability and quality of the City=s park water supply. These dams help to ensure that a certain amount of water pressure will be forced down onto the aquifer lying beneath the park thereby increasing the pressure on the City=s wells. These dams also help to keep potentially polluted ground water from a nearby industrial site from flowing into this aquifer.  Due to these concerns the administration strongly recommended that, if the natural channel design alternative was chosen, the dam removal component be deleted.

The Council indicated its interest in this proposal, but expressed a concern that this concept would radically change the appearance of the Park and that the public might not appreciate the changes. They decided to hold a public hearing at an upcoming Council meeting so that the public could be informed of this alternative and could express its opinion on the changes it would make in the Park=s appearance.

K) On July 13, 2004, the Executive Officer and the Purchasing Director met with representatives of a company that provides construction management and other services to large construction projects. This meeting was in response to a concern that had been expressed over the size of the  waste water treatment plant expansion and upgrade project and the management of this project. A follow-up meeting was held on August 6. Based on their presentation, a decision was made to seek both an external independent review (EIR)and construction management services on this project. EIR services are conducted before the project goes out for bid and involve a review of all of the construction and contractual documents. The purpose of this review, among other things, is to identify areas within the plans and specifications that may be vague or even contradictory. If these items can be clarified before a construction contract is signed, they can reduce the risk of conflicts between the construction firm, the engineer and the City during construction and can help avoid unnecessary cost overruns. They can also avoid errors during construction that may result in an inferior product. Construction management services are delivered during the construction phase. The construction manager is the City=s representative on the project and oversees the work of the general contractor.

L) On August 26, members of the staff met to review the proposal for the total compensation study, that had been funded in the budget. Although the proposal looked complete, there was a great deal of disappointment because only one proposal had been received. On September 9, representatives of both the City and the County met with Bennett Yarger, the firm that had submitted the proposal. Following this presentation, it was decided that invitations would be sent out again for proposals. Although the staff members present were impressed with the presentation, they wanted to have more firms to choose from. The County also expressed a concern that the cost proposal made by Bennett Yarger for the County portion of the project exceeded the budgeted amount. They hoped to receive another proposal that would be within their budget.